The Impossible Thing

[John Kim]

It's great the evryone loves Cthulhu!

I think it might be helpful to seperate the idea of whether a game is good or not from whether any of its text suggests The Impossible Thing.  A single, or even a few, pieces of bad advice don't make a bad game.

Well, conversely, it seems to me that come people are influenced by the logic of "I like the players to control the plot -- therefore any text which suggests that the GM controls it is illogical and contradictory".  

I really don't see that CoC suggests to the players that they should control the plot -- quite the opposite.  Heck, at the simplest level CoC does not have a separate Players' Book and GM's Book -- therefore both players and GMs will read the same text.

[Ian Charvill]

John, this may be just a difference between us in how we're interpreting the idea that players can control their character's actions.  I'd argue if the players can control their characters actions in any meaningful sense that will affect the plot.  If the players can't make choices that will affect the plot, they can't control their character's actions in a meaningful sense.

I think this not only holds true from a narrativist perspective but also from a simulationist perspective (outside of a deterministic universe).

YMMV

[Bruce Baugh]

Ian, as phrased, that suggests that you think it would be impossible to actually roleplay a character in a Marxist or Calvinist universe, where by definition they do not get to affect the greater movement of things. But since I, at least, often write things with unintended implications, I'm asking about it: do you regard player control of the character's psyche and internal life as impossible in circumstnaces where fate is determined by outside forces?

I bring this up because I've seen very interesting games where the issue is "How do we respond to this thing we cannot change?"

[John Kim]

John, this may be just a difference between us in how we're interpreting the idea that players can control their character's actions.  I'd argue if the players can control their characters actions in any meaningful sense that will affect the plot.  If the players can't make choices that will affect the plot, they can't control their character's actions in a meaningful sense.  

The players control their characters' actions, and the GM controls the world and results -- but both need to stay within limits set by the social contract.  It is entirely clear that in CoC, the GM defines the plot for the adventure: i.e. what the investigators are to do.  The players determine how they attempt to overcome the challenges presented.  By the social contract, the GM is expected to present fair and interesting challenges.  The players are expected to attempt to solve them.  If their actions are intelligent and their luck reasonable, they should succeed (though perhaps with losses).  If they make foolish choices they could fail and/or die.  In this sense, players do affect the plot.  

I have run into frustrations with this as well.  I had a PC in a CoC game whom the GM complained about because he kept doing wacky things which didn't work with the plot.  Upon reflection, however, I think it is because I did not like the contract as presented, not because I was confused as to what it was supposed to be.

[Ian Charvill]

Ian, as phrased, that suggests that you think it would be impossible to actually roleplay a character in a Marxist or Calvinist universe, where by definition they do not get to affect the greater movement of things. But since I, at least, often write things with unintended implications, I'm asking about it: do you regard player control of the character's psyche and internal life as impossible in circumstnaces where fate is determined by outside forces?

I bring this up because I've seen very interesting games where the issue is "How do we respond to this thing we cannot change?"

Tough question.  I think the answer to the question "How do we respond to this thing we cannot change?" is usually answered in reference to things we can change.  The world is going to be destroyed by a meteor in five days, so we spend the time getting to know our grandmother, or drinking ourselves into oblivion or whatever.

I don't think it would be an interesting game if the situation was "The World Is Going To Be Destroyed By A Meteor, How Do You Cope?" and the only course of action open to the PCs is to try and come up with ways of stopping the meteor, each of which is doomed to failure.

The roleplaying challenge would be playing various kinds of mounting frustration and despair?  I want to admit that theoretically, that a group could enjoy play in that mode, but I think the section of the gaming public who would enjoy that game is shrikingly small.  I guess it could offer a kind of masochistic catharsis.

Could 'A Bridge Too Far' form the basis of an enjoyable role playing session?  Isn't striving in the face of certain defeat a kind of heroism?

In a one-shot, yes absolutely.  As the final session of a campaign?  Yes, there too.  Week in, week out?  It's problematical.

YMMV

Ian

[Ian Charvill]

The players control their characters' actions, and the GM controls the world and results -- but both need to stay within limits set by the social contract.  It is entirely clear that in CoC, the GM defines the plot for the adventure: i.e. what the investigators are to do.  The players determine how they attempt to overcome the challenges presented.  By the social contract, the GM is expected to present fair and interesting challenges.  The players are expected to attempt to solve them.  If their actions are intelligent and their luck reasonable, they should succeed (though perhaps with losses).  If they make foolish choices they could fail and/or die.  In this sense, players do affect the plot.

Absolutely, social contract.  The players need to know what their area of effect is.  I raised the Call of Cthulhu text elsewhere, because I'm not sure it let's players in on the social contract - they're signing up to something they haven't read.  I think that's where the problem comes from - people sitting down at the table with conflicting expectations of what's going on.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Could 'A Bridge Too Far' form the basis of an enjoyable role playing session?  Isn't striving in the face of certain defeat a kind of heroism?

My most recent, personal confrontation with this issue: Charnel Gods.

I'm still not sure how much of this I can personally enjoy, but "some" is fun/rewarding.  An exact, or even closely-approximate value for "some" is not yet defined.

Gordon

[Jack Spencer Jr]

[quote="John KimWell, conversely, it seems to me that come people are influenced by the logic of "I like the players to control the plot -- therefore any text which suggests that the GM controls it is illogical and contradictory".[/quote]
I should hope that no one is suggesting that the concept of the GM controling the plot. That makes sense and the term Illusionism had been coined for a particular version of this. For both the GM and the players controling the plot, separately yet at the same time is.