Triad - Just another RPG...

[Le Joueur]

On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

...[having] many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM...because he's responsible... for remembering and applying many mechanics.

Usually this probably is the case....  in games like Scattershot, detailed mechanics are not necessarily anything that the gamemaster even has to 'remember and apply,' if so desired, this could be left completely in the hands of the players.

It could just be experiential difference between you and I. I have difficulty imagining a game with many detailed rules that are still applied during the game, without the GM being responsible for remembering and applying them. The only way it would work, as far as I can tell, is if the rules are beneficial to the players, and can be applied independantly without the GM's input. Even so I forsee situations like:

Player: "My character can do ABC because of minutia rule XYZ!"
GM: "What? No way!"
Player: "See, right here, on page DEF!"

You are quite likely right.  I really 'cut my gaming teeth' with Champions/Marvel Superheroes/DC Heroes in one of the oldest gaming communities that exist (the one that spawned Gygax, as a matter of fact).  Most of the time there was a certain momentum after the extensive work necessary to create a detailed character (especially in the older versions of these games).  This momentum lead to player adjudication 'at the table' partly because of how long these detailed-rules combats could take.

I will admit, under this kind of duress, that on many of these occasions there were elements of 'player versus player' involved.  The conflict between players seemed to fuel a certain rigid adherence to the rules in the absense of gamemaster fiat.  I acquired a taste for that and incorporated it into my theories of sharing all parts of the gaming experience.  That, taken with Scattershot's stress on playing more towards Specific and primarily General play, makes having to have a gamemaster do any of the adjudicating superfluous.

The tone I am reading in your posts sounds like it comes from either the schools of 'gamemaster versus the players' or 'gamemaster as referee.'  I have always felt these styles of play stem from some kind of a lack of sharing ("It's my game and you have to play it my way.").  I'm not saying that you play that way any more, but you may have in the past enough that it colors your perceptions.  (Simple check: do you ever think about players cheating?  That kind of thought bespeaks 'ownership issues' that are contrary to my ideal of 'sharing.'  But then I like use of player knowledge.)

Fang Langsmurf...I mean...ford (Oops!)

[Paganini]

The tone I am reading in your posts sounds like it comes from either the schools of 'gamemaster versus the players' or 'gamemaster as referee.'  I have always felt these styles of play stem from some kind of a lack of sharing ("It's my game and you have to play it my way.").  I'm not saying that you play that way any more, but you may have in the past enough that it colors your perceptions.  (Simple check: do you ever think about players cheating?  That kind of thought bespeaks 'ownership issues' that are contrary to my ideal of 'sharing.'  But then I like use of player knowledge.)

It depends on the game I'm designing. In Cornerstone, the GM and the players are almost equal in terms of story exploration. I've just given the GM the power of veto so that if there is some sort of disagreement there's a rules-defined authority that can lay down the law and get on with the game. It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on. The GM also has to approve the death of a character before it can take place (in the case of PC death, both the GM and the player have to agree that the death is appropriate.)

I enjoy GM vs. player games too, though. T&T is practicaly designed for that sort of play. My brother and I have been taking turns GMing for each other this week. So far, I've survived longer than he has... but... we'll see! :)

_________________
-- Paganini

"We are so smurfed!" - Gandalf's first Balrog sighting

[James V. West]

Well, I'm late as usual. By the time I read the rules there were three pages of posts! I fear I'll have nothing new to add.

The system seems fairly solid and has at least some of all the necessary elements to tickle the gamist, sim, and narrator in me all at the same time. But it doesn't push the buck on any one of them, which, by some thinking, is a flaw.

Its simple, which is a big plus for it. There are a slew of generic games lying around the net (mine included), some good, some ok, some pretty sorry (the damn critic in me again). I think this one is good and I'll tell you why.

First, the simple presentation is appealing. Easy to read and well-written. Nothing to struggle through. The rules are laid out bare-bones and with very little flim-flam to guide you into any specific direction. Thus, the playing field is wide open. This is both advantageous and disadvantageous.

The advantage is the versatility. I can run pretty much whatever I want with it. It seems to be most suited for a fairly fast-play situation like an action movie. I was thining in terms of high fantasy, but don't I always?

The down side is the same thing. No direction. Now, this is no new news. I think Mike already addressed this one early in the thread. People will either ignore the game because nothing immediately grabs them (ooo, cool horror idea....or...kickass battle lords..or whatever), or they will measure it against their currently favorite generic system (well, GURPS has a better damage system...Rolemaster is much more detailed).

If you can live with that, then the game's just right. All I can really say is if I was looking for a generic system to attach to a setting, I would add this to my list of serious considerations. Why?

1) Simplicity. No detailed math. Fast.
2) Some metagame elements that support a bit of narrative approach (karma--which I still might tweak a bit more to my liking).

Hope I helped in some small way, though I'm pretty darn sure I just treaded over boot-stomped ground :).

[joe_llama]

Hello again everyone,

This thread started as a gesture of gratitude to James for sharing with us his wonderful games. It seems appropriate that James would also be the one to seal this thread for good. Therefore, this is the last message I give on the issue of Triad.

I was planning on a large scale reply to all of your feedbacks, taking into consideration many issues discussed in Ron's articles 'System does matter' and the GNS Model. It turned into a HUGE reply with a deep examination of each and every piece of Triad, including all design considerations and comparison with other systems.

In the process, I discovered many unsolved issues concerning the GNS model and I will soon present them in a seperate thread. It is amazing how far and high you can go sometimes with RPG theory :)

I was just finishing page 16 of my reply (8 more to go) when I saw James' reply at the end of the thread. I realized then that my reply was useless. James was able to put everything that is good and bad about Triad and he also did it with great simplicity. Triad will remain as it is because I like it this way. I used to think otherwise, but I have changed my mind.  

Many of you have given me some points to think about. I didn't ignore any of you, but maybe I kept all the answers to myself.

One advice that will soon be properly implemented deals with examples. I have cut out character, rule, and game examples to emphasize simplcity and avoid restriction of thought. It is clearly evident that in the process I have also injured the clarity of the system. All examples will appear soon as part of the text.

I also plan to support Triad with various settings - if such a thing interests you, all you have to do is drop me a line :)

I'd like to thank everyone who posted feedback on this thread - you helped me better understand the needs and desires of gamers worldwide.
And thank you, James, for taking the words out of my mouth and saying them better than I could ever hope to achieve on my own!

To finish this thread I would like to quote Ron from his article 'System does matter':

I do respect your opinion, but it's fair to consider how many role-playing games you have actually, truly played.

So please, even if any of the above didn't seem to make any sense, print a copy of Triad and playtest it yourself - it is the only true way to become familiar with a Role Playing Game.    

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Le Joueur]

The tone I am reading in your posts sounds like it comes from either the schools of 'gamemaster versus the players' or 'gamemaster as referee.'  I have always felt these styles of play stem from some kind of a lack of sharing ("It's my game and you have to play it my way.").  I'm not saying that you play that way any more, but you may have in the past enough that it colors your perceptions.  (Simple check: do you ever think about players cheating?  That kind of thought bespeaks 'ownership issues' that are contrary to my ideal of 'sharing.'  But then I like use of player knowledge.)

It depends on the game I'm designing. In Cornerstone, the GM and the players are almost equal in terms of story exploration.

Are you sure?  (Of course none of the following examples has much to do with exploration of 'story,' they're all about mechanics - which I didn't check the story-active qualities of - and thus may not have any bearing on the 'story.')

I've just given the GM the power of veto so that if there is some sort of disagreement there's a rules-defined authority that can lay down the law and get on with the game.

That would clearly make it the gamemaster's game.  If it were 'shared,' then any player could resolve disagreements they were not involved in.  My hope is Scattershot's mechanics are transparent enough that this is not only possible, but likely.  (When it comes to the live-action component of the game, it is almost necessary for it to be that way.)

It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

And this makes it well and truly the property of the gamemaster as well.  It sounds very like you are giving veto power over everything to the gamemaster; this means nothing happens unless the gamemaster so wishes (or 'allows') it.  Clearly not sharing (except at gamemaster whim).  No matter what advice you give on latitude or interpretation, there will always be the feeling of a lack of impartiality.

The GM also has to approve the death of a character before it can take place (in the case of PC death, both the GM and the player have to agree that the death is appropriate.)

And that definitely makes it the gamemaster's game.  ("What do you mean I can't die?  It's my character!")  That kind of easily abused control means that it is a quick slip into the familiar 'gamemaster versus the player' tradition.

I enjoy GM vs. player games too, though. T&T is practicaly designed for that sort of play. My brother and I have been taking turns GMing for each other this week. So far, I've survived longer than he has... but... we'll see! :)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tunnels & Trolls had solitare play rules.  I find it hard to believe that you could be 'against' anyone playing solitare.  (But that's just sniping.)

So far you don't seem to have a good conception of shared gaming (especially when you say Cornerstone is shared and then obviously give its ownership to the gamemaster).  Have you had a chance to read up on the articles on the Forge about "gamemaster-full" games (maybe try a "gamemaster-full" or "gmless AND full" search)?

I take that to mean this is your basis of experience?

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

That would clearly make it the gamemaster's game.  If it were 'shared,' then any player could resolve disagreements they were not involved in.  My hope is Scattershot's mechanics are transparent enough that this is not only possible, but likely.  (When it comes to the live-action component of the game, it is almost necessary for it to be that way.)

You know, Fang, I'm really looking forward to Scattershot. I'd even pay you money for it. Will you hurry up and finish the dang thing already?!

And this makes it well and truly the property of the gamemaster as well.  It sounds very like you are giving veto power over everything to the gamemaster; this means nothing happens unless the gamemaster so wishes (or 'allows') it.  Clearly not sharing (except at gamemaster whim).  No matter what advice you give on latitude or interpretation, there will always be the feeling of a lack of impartiality.
[/qutoe]

I don't know about that. The gamers in my Gateway game didn't have any problem with this attitude. They had complete controll over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc. I had controll over the world and how it reacted to the players.

In Cornerstone, I guess I could say something like "A player must convince the entire table that his use of a descriptor is appropriate," but that seems like it would often be a hangup. IMO it's better to have one person there who is accepted as being responsible for deciding such things so that the game can keep on moving. It's not just about impartiality, it's about game dynamics and the chain of responsibility. As a player, I don't really want to have to decide whether or not the actions of my colleagues' characters succeed or fail.

And that definitely makes it the gamemaster's game.  ("What do you mean I can't die?  It's my character!")  That kind of easily abused control means that it is a quick slip into the familiar 'gamemaster versus the player' tradition.

Not quite. I definately want the GM to have the decisive power in the game... the game is not meant to be a democracy, such is chaos. But I also want to make sure that there is a division of controll. I don't want the GM to just be able to kill off characters at whim. At the same time, the GM is running the game, and the players shouldn't be able to take advantage of him, any more than he should be able to take advantage of them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tunnels & Trolls had solitare play rules.  I find it hard to believe that you could be 'against' anyone playing solitare.  (But that's just sniping.)

No, it's a real game. It does have solitaire dungeons (a bit like choose your own adventure) but it's a gamist dungeon crawl in the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) tradition of D&D. It has vastly different mechanics however.

So far you don't seem to have a good conception of shared gaming (especially when you say Cornerstone is shared and then obviously give its ownership to the gamemaster).  Have you had a chance to read up on the articles on the Forge about "gamemaster-full" games (maybe try a "gamemaster-full" or "gmless AND full" search)?

Hold on here... I didn't say I wanted Cornerstone to be a shared creation. That was never one of the goals. There's a difference between all people involved being equal, and all people involved sharing an experience. Cornerstone is meant to be a traditional RPG with a GM and players, and a strict line between the responsibilities and powers of each. It is also meant to be played in a narrativist mode.

If you're referring to Ron's "Impossible Goal" idea (or whatever he called it) by the above, you should know that I respect Ron's stuff a *lot* and agree with most of it, but that particular theory is not included. :)

Controll of a game is not a binary concept, IMO. There are many aspects to any game, and different aspects can be divided up between people in different ways. For example, see my description of gateway. That was certainly shared experience... each person simply had controll over different things.

[Le Joueur]

That would clearly make it the gamemaster's game.  If it were 'shared,' then any player could resolve disagreements they were not involved in.  My hope is Scattershot's mechanics are transparent enough that this is not only possible, but likely.  (When it comes to the live-action component of the game, it is almost necessary for it to be that way.)

You know, Fang, I'm really looking forward to Scattershot. I'd even pay you money for it. Will you hurry up and finish the dang thing already?!

"I'm smurfing as fast as I can!"

And this makes it well and truly the property of the gamemaster as well.  It sounds very like you are giving veto power over everything to the gamemaster; this means nothing happens unless the gamemaster so wishes (or 'allows') it.  Clearly not sharing (except at gamemaster whim).  No matter what advice you give on latitude or interpretation, there will always be the feeling of a lack of impartiality.

I don't know about that. The gamers in my Gateway game didn't have any problem with this attitude. They had complete control over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc. I had control over the world and how it reacted to the players.

I didn't say that all gaming had to have sharing.  You said that in Cornerstone, gamemaster and player were "almost equal" and then contrasted it to 'gamemaster versus player' (implying that it was sharing according to what I had said).  I explained that:

It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

Did not sound like sharing, role-playing games don't require sharing, I just want Scattershot to.

In Cornerstone, I guess I could say something like "A player must convince the entire table that his use of a descriptor is appropriate," but that seems like it would often be a hangup. IMO it's better to have one person there who is accepted as being responsible for deciding such things so that the game can keep on moving. It's not just about impartiality, it's about game dynamics and the chain of responsibility. As a player, I don't really want to have to decide whether or not the actions of my colleagues' characters succeed or fail.

Or you could just trust the players implicitly (if you thought sharing was important), and only suggest that people register disagreement when there is a problem.  You seem to imply that 'appropriateness' of descriptors comes into question quite a bit.  Again, this reads as an expectation of adversarialism.

And that definitely makes it the gamemaster's game.  ("What do you mean I can't die?  It's my character!")  That kind of easily abused control means that it is a quick slip into the familiar 'gamemaster versus the player' tradition.

Not quite. I definately want the GM to have the decisive power in the game... the game is not meant to be a democracy, such is chaos.

Or communion; sounds like your glass is half empty.  A solid social contract would mean that participants can expect each other to 'play fair' for the collectively better game.  You imply to the readers that they should expect problems; that rings of pessimism to me.

But I also want to make sure that there is a division of control. I don't want the GM to just be able to kill off characters at whim. At the same time, the GM is running the game, and the players shouldn't be able to take advantage of him, any more than he should be able to take advantage of them.

This sounds a little like Ron's Impossible Thing.  The players can do anything they want, but the gamemaster is in control.  You cannot have it both ways.  (You'll have to read the essay, it explains it better than I can.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tunnels & Trolls had solitare play rules.  I find it hard to believe that you could be 'against' anyone playing solitare.

No, it's a real game.

I don't remember saying that solitare was not a "real game."  I meant that a solitare game has no gamemaster making 'gamemaster versus player' play impossible.

So far you don't seem to have a good conception of shared gaming (especially when you say Cornerstone is shared and then obviously give its ownership to the gamemaster).  Have you had a chance to read up on the articles on the Forge about "gamemaster-full" games (maybe try a "gamemaster-full" or "gmless AND full" search)?

Hold on here... I didn't say I wanted Cornerstone to be a shared creation. That was never one of the goals. There's a difference between all people involved being equal, and all people involved sharing an experience. Cornerstone is meant to be a traditional RPG with a GM and players, and a strict line between the responsibilities and powers of each. It is also meant to be played in a narrativist mode.

Okay, we're missing each other here.  Let me run back over it again.

The main point I was trying to make about what Triad sounded like it was designed for, was the reduction of rules because they were more work for the gamemaster, was only one way to relieve that problem.  I suggested that instead of mechanical reductionism (because of the potential for mechanical ambiguity clarification problems), sharing might be a better solution; might be.

Then we finally clarified your accuracy, detail, and precision terminology, but near the end I pointed out that your assumption that "detail is a lot of work for the GM too" ignored the possibility of shared gaming.  My point was that the "lot of work" could be the players' responsibility in a shared game.

You responded that "Cornerstone has just one mechanic" saying that it would be easier to "remember and apply" for the gamemaster.  That seemed to kind of miss my point, so I asked you to justify or explain the justification of the implication (of not ever dignifying the sharing idea) that the gamemaster must have this responsibility.

Your example of the player trying to 'pull one over' on the gamemaster, spoke loudly of adversarialism, and again ignored the concept of sharing.  (It also implied for sharing that the "only way it would work," had to have some incentive, suggesting that it actually wouldn't work by the example.)

I agreed that in the tradition, this is how it worked, but that again, it did not have to be that way.

Then you came back with Cornerstone again, saying that gamemasters and players "were almost equal."  Then, when you said you enjoyed 'gamemaster versus player' too, you implied clearly (at least to me) that you felt that Cornerstone wasn't 'gamemaster versus player.'  (Kinda like the line, "No sane person likes nuclear war, and neither does Ronald Reagan," implies that Ronald Reagan isn't sane.)

I felt that your response was clearly in contrast to that implication, and went into detail to point out how.  Now, suddenly you say Cornerstone was never meant to be a shared gaming experience.  What am I supposed to say?

You still haven't commented on my original point.  Shared games are an alternative to rules reduction for lightening a gamemaster's workload.

If you're referring to Ron's "Impossible Goal" idea (or whatever he called it) by the above, you should know that I respect Ron's stuff a *lot* and agree with most of it, but that particular theory is not included. :)

Control of a game is not a binary concept, IMO. There are many aspects to any game, and different aspects can be divided up between people in different ways. For example, see my description of gateway. That was certainly shared experience... each person simply had control over different things.

Except by your description, Gateway is not a shared game.  They have theirs, you have yours, and you must authorize everything.  That is not sharing and it also fails to be the 'Impossible Thing' of Ron's essay because not matter how much the players 'control' their character it is shown to be an illusion the instant they do something the gamemaster disagrees with.  It is not player controlled at that point and therefore not in every instance meaning it is not truly Ron's Impossible Thing, because ultimately it is only a gamemaster-controlled game (with the illusion that the players control their characters, because the veto contradicts this).

Most importantly, even though it lets the players have "control over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc.", they are not taking part in adjudicating the mechanics, which was the part I was talking about sharing in the first place.  It does not matter whether or not Gateway is or is not Ron's 'Impossible Thing;' the way it is structured, it does not make any comment on my suggestion (except to support the idea that 'not sharing' is the "only way it would work")

Is that your point?

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

I didn't say that all gaming had to have sharing.  You said that in Cornerstone, gamemaster and player were "almost equal" and then contrasted it to 'gamemaster versus player' (implying that it was sharing according to what I had said).  I explained that:

It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

Did not sound like sharing, role-playing games don't require sharing, I just want Scattershot to.

Ah, I understand now.

As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be reponsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responisibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

It may be that I'm stating things a bit too strong here... I want anyone who uses Cornerstone to be able to do whatever he wants with it. I tried to make the mechancis as non-intrusive as possible. I intend to use it a certain method of play, and it's designed to optimaly facilitate that play, but that doesn't mean that someone else can't use it for his own method. :) I actually don't have that much in the rules about how the system "must be used." There are just a couple of places where I say something like (determined by the GM) or (as long as the GM agrees), and so on.

Or you could just trust the players implicitly (if you thought sharing was important), and only suggest that people register disagreement when there is a problem.  You seem to imply that 'appropriateness' of descriptors comes into question quite a bit.  Again, this reads as an expectation of adversarialism.

That's not how I meant to sound. Here's a relevant quote from the game:

"For the most part, common sense will be sufficient to determine whether or not a descriptor is applicable to a given situation. For example, a character with a descriptor of "Swordsman +2" should add +2 to all rolls made when fighting with a sword. However, the entertainment value of the game is greatly enhanced when players invent clever ways to use descriptors that are not immediately obvious. In these cases, the narration of the player should be the deciding factor in whether or not the use is allowed. If the narration is convincing, clever, humorous, or has otherwise desirable qualities, the game master should not hesitate to allow use the descriptor. The appropriateness of such a narration will ultimately depend on the style of the individual game and the preferences of the game master and players. Such a far-fetched but relevant use of a descriptor is not without disadvantage, however, as only half the descriptor's value (round up) is added to the roll."

This sounds a little like Ron's Impossible Thing.  The players can do anything they want, but the gamemaster is in control.  You cannot have it both ways.  (You'll have to read the essay, it explains it better than I can.)

I have read the essay, and I disagree with that part of it. :) As I mentioned before, there are different things to controll in an RPG. Especially in a game that focuses on character exploration, the GM can have complete controll over the sequence of events without impunging on the individual players' controll of their characters.

Your example of the player trying to 'pull one over' on the gamemaster, spoke loudly of adversarialism, and again ignored the concept of sharing.  (It also implied for sharing that the "only way it would work," had to have some incentive, suggesting that it actually wouldn't work by the example.)

Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not dis counting the idea of a shared system out of hand, I just don't understand how one could work. WRT Cornerstone, it is NOT meant to be a shared system, yet it is meant to be a shared experience, as outlined previously.

Then you came back with Cornerstone again, saying that gamemasters and players "were almost equal."  Then, when you said you enjoyed 'gamemaster versus player' too, you implied clearly (at least to me) that you felt that Cornerstone wasn't 'gamemaster versus player.'  (Kinda like the line, "No sane person likes nuclear war, and neither does Ronald Reagan," implies that Ronald Reagan isn't sane.)

LOL!

I felt that your response was clearly in contrast to that implication, and went into detail to point out how.  Now, suddenly you say Cornerstone was never meant to be a shared gaming experience.  What am I supposed to say?

I think we have a bit of a terminology conflict here. Cornerstone is meant to be a shared experience in that each person involved has some controll over the exploration of the premise. I get a lot of "bah, minimal games rely on GM fiat... that's not role-playing, that's the GM railroading the players into acting out his novel!"

That does not mean that Cornerstone is an *equal* experience. The powers of the players are different from the GMs, and the GM has the power of veto, which means he also has more responsibility. The power of veto is writen into the system, while the other is just the philosophy I had in mind when I wrote it. I didn't specificaly mention the technique the GM should use for running his game, because I didn't want it to seem like I was forcing my ideas off on anyone.

You still haven't commented on my original point.  Shared games are an alternative to rules reduction for lightening a gamemaster's workload.
[/qupte]

I made a comment that I don't see how such are possible without some sort of incentive to make it work. I need some examples from you before I can understand more.

Except by your description, Gateway is not a shared game.  They have theirs, you have yours, and you must authorize everything.  That is not sharing and it also fails to be the 'Impossible Thing' of Ron's essay because not matter how much the players 'control' their character it is shown to be an illusion the instant they do something the gamemaster disagrees with.

Not at all. The premise of this particular game was how the characters dealt with the situation they were in. The emotions and thoughts of the characters were the main focus of the game, and completely up to the characters. If Jake's player said "Jake feels scared," then Jake felt scared, period. That was his aspect of controll. OTOH, if I said "A giant alien bug attacks," then a giant alien bug attacked. The players had no controll over the events or the setting. What they had controll of was what the premise of the game focused on: how their characters felt in the setting and reacted to the events.

Most importantly, even though it lets the players have "control over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc.", they are not taking part in adjudicating the mechanics, which was the part I was talking about sharing in the first place.

Yeah, I realized that in this post. When you started talking about "shared experiences" and "the impossible thing" I sort of got sidetracked. As a matter of fact, Gateway was a PBEM that I ran without mechanics at all. It was based on the three precepts of the Window.

[Mike Holmes]

1

[Le Joueur]

As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be responsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responsibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

But ‘dividing up’ responsibility is contrary to sharing it.  (Id est; this is my responsibility and that’s your responsibility.  "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!")  In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster.  That’s an example of not sharing.

There are just a couple of places where I say something like (‘determined by the GM’ or ‘as long as the GM agrees’), and so on.

And in those places you clear up any question about whether the game is shared.  It isn’t.  What do I have to say to convince you that, as described, Cornerstone is not sharing!

Here's a relevant quote from the game:

"...the gamemaster should not hesitate to allow use the descriptor."

That is what makes it only the gamemaster’s game.  All descriptor use is at his allowance.  No matter how nice (or lax) the gamemaster is, the players now know it is not up to them to decide what is appropriate.

This sounds a little like Ron's Impossible Thing.  The players can do anything they want, but the gamemaster is in control.  You cannot have it both ways.  (You'll have to read the essay; it explains it better than I can.)

I have read the essay, and I disagree with that part of it. :) As I mentioned before, there are different things to control in an RPG. Especially in a game that focuses on character exploration, the GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

Let me quote that last part again for emphasis:

The GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

That is utter nonsense.  Don’t you realize that the sequence of events is determined by the characters’ actions?  To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters’ actions.  This impugns on the players’ control of their characters’ actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens).  No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him.  This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character’s actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

You can’t tell the players they have complete control over their characters and then start making exceptions (when the gamemaster has to "completely control" the sequence of events by changing, or limiting, what a character does).  Exceptions mean it’s not "complete."  (And so long as the gamemaster is given "complete control over the sequence of events," the game will have nothing more than the illusion of sharing.)

The reason the unstoppable force cannot meet the immovable object is because, by definition one of them does not exist.  Either a force exists that no object can stop or an object exists the no force can move; each excludes the existence of the other.

Cornerstone is meant to be a shared experience in that each person involved has some control over the exploration of the premise. I get a lot of "bah, minimal games rely on GM fiat... that's not role-playing, that's the GM railroading the players into acting out his novel!"

And the only point I have trying to make is that many times a minimalist system creates more work because it is gamemaster fiat.  (Sharing was a separate issue I need to work out with you.)

That does not mean that Cornerstone is an *equal* experience. The powers of the players are different from the GMs, and the GM has the power of veto, which means he also has more responsibility. The power of veto is written into the system,

And that is the point at which player control is written out.

You do not have control if someone can veto your choices.

Except by your description, Gateway is not a shared game.  They have theirs, you have yours, and you must authorize everything.  That is not sharing and it also fails to be the Impossible Thing of Ron's essay because no matter how much the players 'control' their character it is shown to be an illusion the instant they do something the gamemaster disagrees with.

Not at all. The premise of this particular game was how the characters dealt with the situation they were in. The emotions and thoughts of the characters were the main focus of the game, and completely up to the characters. If Jake's player said "Jake feels scared," then Jake felt scared, period. That was his aspect of control. OTOH, if I said "A giant alien bug attacks," then a giant alien bug attacked. The players had no control over the events or the setting. What they had control of was what the premise of the game focused on: how their characters felt in the setting and reacted to the events.

And what if the player says, "Jake runs into battle with the giant bug," and the gamemaster vetoes it ‘because Jake is scared.’  Who has control over Jake?  The gamemaster.

If the players have so little control over their characters’ actions (which should be the primary motivator of the sequence of events in the game and the source of characters’ emotional interactions with the game), they are little more than bystanders who add a little emotional color to their roles.  When a gamemaster practices ways of ‘covering up’ this fact and making the players believe they are fully in control of their characters’ actions, it is called Illusionism in Ron’s essay (and again, the essay describes this better than I can, please reread it at your convenience)

The following has been taken out of sequence for proper treatment:

Your example of the player trying to 'pull one over' on the gamemaster, spoke loudly of adversarialism, and again ignored the concept of sharing.  (It also implied for sharing that the "only way it would work," had to have some incentive, suggesting that it actually wouldn't work by the example.)

Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not discounting the idea of a shared system out of hand; I just don't understand how one could work.

Example:

Two characters in battle, both operated by players.

Player A, "Albert jumps to the top of the bar, kicking drinks out of his way!  ‘Aha! I have you now, Baron!’  Albert adds a plus two for height advantage in fencing."

Player B, "Wait, there isn’t a plus two for that amount of height, in fact, I think that since your blade would only, at best, reach the Baron’s head, I think I should have the advantage of being out of range."

Player C, "Hold on, first of all, Scattershot only allows a plus one for any kind of combat advantage, and if you want the cover bonus Baron, your going to have to do something for it.  You can either burn an action or find a free action, you don’t get Combat Advantage for nothing!"  He turns again to his opponent, "Have at thee, gamemaster!"

You see here, it operates as a part of the social contract.  If Player C had not intervened, there would have been an argument.  An argument is counter-productive to the game and there is all the incentive I think one needs.

Scattershot’s live-action mechanics take this a step farther, technically eliminating the gamemaster entirely.  Whenever there is conflict between players another player (a referee, 20% of all players are required to be trained and authorized as referees) who is not involved in the scene is called upon to mitigate.

In regular tabletop play, Scattershot only has the gamemaster as referee as a facilitator, only group decision can ‘take over’ this kind of control of another player’s character’s actions.  The gamemaster as referee is only empowered to reiterate the mechanics (largely because they spend relatively little time ‘in character’ and mechanics referencing can disrupt immersive play – only if that is the goal).

I am surprised that you can’t imagine players wanting their games to go smoothly (implied by "I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive") without any further provocation.  You really must have little experience with cooperative play.

I mean, is there a referee needed in Bridge?  Or Monopoly?  Or the odd friendly game of touch football?  What about good gamesmanship, fair play, and the sense of social contract towards a good game?  Are these foreign concepts in role-playing games.

These examples function on the union of social contract and explicitly easily interpreted rules.  I think its far past time for role-playing games to have excessive esoteric rules.  A simple (and not necessarily minimalist) mechanic would lend itself to play in this fashion.  So too would expunging the idea that players are inherently trying to ‘cheat’ and cannot be expected to act simply in the game’s interest.  I mean that is primarily why I wanted Scattershot to be shared; there is no cheating when there is no ownership (unless you can cheat yourself).

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In the interest of Fang/Paganini harmony, let me offer the following points.

FIRST POINT
There is a big difference between announcing an action and resolving an action. The distinction that Paganini describes (GM controls world, players control actions) is conceivable if we are talking about announcements. It breaks down very fast if we are talking about resolutions. An immense amount of effort has been devoted in RPG design to try to minimize that breakdown, but I think much of it has been ill-informed.

Simply put, the resolution of a character's action is neither "world" nor "character," and separating those two things into "GM" and "player" does nothing to clarify, smooth, or facilitate the creation/determination of outcomes.

SECOND POINT
I am coming to realize that people are having a hard time understanding my Impossible Thing. (Evidenced in the recent El Dorado posts in particular.)

I think that a lot of folks are used to the players bombing around doin' X and Y and Z with "player free will," and the GM retrofitting all this activity to his background material, and making it into "story stuff" prior to the next session. Thus the players can do whatever they want and then they can say, later, "Gee, so that's how it was really a 'story' all along! Cool!"

(In theory, of course. In practice, the players who are bored by that 'story' stuff just don't bother to listen, and the players who are inspired by the 'story' stuff eventually want to contribute, and suddenly discover that they have no powe to do so.)

Anyway, GMs who do this are quite protective of their status as "story-creator" and resent the notion that they are not as Narrativist as anyone else. However, they are overlooking the fact that role-playing is not producing story, but rather their solo authoring behind the scenes and between sessions.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be responsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responsibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

But 'dividing up' responsibility is contrary to sharing it.  (Id est; this is my responsibility and that's your responsibility.  "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!")  In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster.  That's an example of not sharing.

C'mon you two. This is a very semantic thing here. Fang, If I have a toy car and I give it to you to use, and then you give it back, can't that be sharing. Even if the car is mine? Paganini means sharing in a limited sense, and you mean unlimited, or less limied sharing. Who cares? As it happens it's not salient to any point here.

Here's a relevant quote from the game:

"...the gamemaster should not hesitate to allow use the descriptor."

That is what makes it only the gamemaster's game.  All descriptor use is at his allowance.  No matter how nice (or lax) the gamemaster is, the players now know it is not up to them to decide what is appropriate.

Participants aren't owners? Even the audience might own a performance in a fashion. Again, you each have different definitions here, and we know what each of you mean.

Let me quote that last part again for emphasis:

The GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

That is utter nonsense.  Don't you realize that the sequence of events is determined by the characters' actions?  To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters' actions.  This impugns on the players' control of their characters' actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens).  No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him. This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character's actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

I don't think that's what Paganini means. By control of character, he means the right to choose what the character does, primarily. To totally not have that power would mean that the GM made all the decisions. What Paganini is suggesting is, as he's admitted, merely the normal level of "control" that a player has in most RPGs. The ability to state what actions the character takes under most circumstances. Not new, but you make it seem like he's claiming something that he's not Fang. Perhaps complete is too strong a term. But what-ever.

And the only point I have trying to make is that many times a minimalist system creates more work because it is gamemaster fiat.  (Sharing was a separate issue I need to work out with you.)

FWIW, I agree with Fang's point here. Mechanics can be freeing if they are desingned appropriately. And given that they convey other advantages, they shouldn't just be thrown out on principle. IMO.

And what if the player says, "Jake runs into battle with the giant bug," and the gamemaster vetoes it 'because Jake is scared.'  Who has control over Jake?  The gamemaster.

OK, Fangs got ya here. Not quite complete control here (unless, in fact the GM cannot veto here). Still, calling it control does not seem too far out. Again, who cares.

If the players have so little control over their characters' actions (which should be the primary motivator of the sequence of events in the game and the source of characters' emotional interactions with the game), they are little more than bystanders who add a little emotional color to their roles.

Even if the GM is only supposed to use the veto sparingly? I have always said that there is nothing wrong with systems that give power over PC action to the GM or game (assuming they are well considered). I have no problems with the OtE-esque GM must approve descriptor use rule. Hey, but that's just me.

Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not discounting the idea of a shared system out of hand; I just don't understand how one could work.

I see his point, Fang. Some players do not want to have any part of refereeing. Not that they don't want the game to go well, but they don't want to have to know the rules. This happens a lot in my Rolemaster games in which I try to engage the players for help. Some just refuse (and I'll bet many here would sympathize). OTOH, maybe Scattershot has rules that players will love to employ. Who knows?

I think that you both just have opinions as to how much control and sharing players and GMs have in these different sorts of systems, and are using the same terms to state different things.

FWIW, Paganini, your system could go a lot further towards having mechanics that do what you talk about wanting. I agree with Fang there. And, you wouldn't have to get away from lite to do it either, just shift control of some things. That's what I think Fang is saying.

Mike

[Paganini]

Fang, I want to let you know that from my perspective the tone of your post is starting to edge away from friendly debate to flames. I don't know if you intended it or not, but I'd rather just drop this, than have it turn into an argument.

However, I will go ahead and answer your points here with the assumption that the tone of the post was unintentional.

(Rearanging throughout)

But 'dividing up' responsibility is contrary to sharing it.  (Id est; this is my responsibility and that's your responsibility.  "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!")  In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster.  That's an example of not sharing.

I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at yet. You're approaching this as though the game is a single, indivisible entity, like the game is an indescructable diamond... you can't cut it, all you can do is pass it back and forth.

I don't agree with this assesment. There are many different components of a game. If the players controll some parts and the GM controlls other parts, how are they not sharing the game? They might not have equal controll of all parts, but IMO equal controll of all parts is not a requirement for sharing.

Just think about file sharing on a computer server... do you grant access to your entire filesystem to any anonymous user who comes along? No, you divide up access, so that some users have controll over their own parts of the file system. All users are sharing the same file system, but not all users have the same controll over all aspects.

And in those places you clear up any question about whether the game is shared.  It isn't.  What do I have to say to convince you that, as described, Cornerstone is not sharing!

Well, you're not ever going to convince me, because it is sharing! :) It's a shared game by definition, because that's what I designed it to be.  You may *prefer* a kind of sharing where all participants have equal controll over all components, but that isn't the only kind of sharing that there is.

That is utter nonsense.  Don't you realize that the sequence of events is determined by the characters' actions?  To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters' actions.  This impugns on the players' control of their characters' actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens).  No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him.  This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character's actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

I think that you must have a very limited view of GM technique if this is what you believe. IME it's very easy to draw a line between GM control and player control, without any conflict at all. IME, the giving the GM complete controll over the sequence of events has absolutely no negative impact on player controll of characters at all.

I mean, is there a referee needed in Bridge?  Or Monopoly?  Or the odd friendly game of touch football?  What about good gamesmanship, fair play, and the sense of social contract towards a good game?  Are these foreign concepts in role-playing games.

Actually, yes, there are referees, in both games you mentioned, for serious play, as there are at, for example, Mage Knight tournaments, where someone has to be on hand to settle arguments between players. Your argument pretty much defeats itself... the examples you give of effective equal-distribution social contracts are competitive games! That's exactly the point I made before. I challenged you to show how such a contract could work in an RPG (a shared, non-competetive experience by your own admission), and you cited competitive games! I don't think so, Fang.

Furthermore, I disagree that such a sharing method is even very valuable in an RPG. This is all IMO, so obviously I don't expect you to agree. :)

In an RPG there are many different kinds of tasks to be done. It does not seem terribly efficient to me if the players are trying to handle all the aspects without a GM. It's a logical split to give some duties to the GM and others to the players.

Fang, you said "you can't have controll if someone can veto your choices." I can't believe you actually said it. Are you implying that the US government is a dictatorship since since the President has power of veto? Are you suggesting that there's no sharing of power between the three legistlative bodies? You just threw logic completely out the window with that statement. The power of veto helps distribute control; it doesn't grant totalitarian power.

You see here, it operates as a part of the social contract.  If Player C had not intervened, there would have been an argument.  An argument is counter-productive to the game and there is all the incentive I think one needs.

This is interesting. It's also a bit wierd... you can never play the game without an odd number of players, because arguments will be unaviodable.

[Paganini]

Simply put, the resolution of a character's action is neither "world" nor "character," and separating those two things into "GM" and "player" does nothing to clarify, smooth, or facilitate the creation/determination of outcomes.

Yup, I agree. Especially at the mechanical level, resolution is very much meta-game.

[Ron Edwards]

Gentlemen,

At the very least, I think it is apparent that we are no longer discussing Triad and its design per se.

Several other issues have cropped up, and all of them deserve their own threads. Please exercise some judgment about this and take those issues up separately.

Best,
Ron