Triad - Just another RPG...

[Paganini]

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

Exactly. How the character feels, how he reacts to stimuli, and so on. *NOT* whether or not the character succeeds at an action. What would be the point?

"My character is going to try and pick the lock. Okay, I decide he fails. What next?"

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.

Sure... and my goal is not to design a systemless game. Cornerstone has mechanics! I like a nice balance. The mechanics are just intended to be applied in a certain way, a way that Fang seems to be denying that they can be applied in.

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.

Well, of course it's not complete control if that can happen. Duh. :) If the player has complete control of his character, then, by definition, the GM can't veto what the character does. The GM can also never determine the emotional state of the character, or how that state effects the character. It's not the GM's character is hit? How can the GM be qualified to make such a decision. The example that Fang uses is unrelated to the rest of the discussion, which involved GM controll of mechanics. For some reason, it sounds like Fang doesn't think a player has any controll, period, unless he has equal controll of the mechancis with the GM.

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.

What sort of things did you have in mind? Would you just like to see sections on GM / Player interaction, how and when the GM should apply the rules? Or would you like to see actual mechanical changes?

[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.

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?

Okay, taken that way it’s true.  What I heard was, "I have ‘complete’ control of the trucks and you have ‘complete’ control of with the cars; if a car gets in my way you have to move it because the toys all belong to me."  It didn’t make sense to me because of the semantics.

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.

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.

And, technically, the only problem I had was with the use of the word ‘complete.’  If it’s limited sharing, why did he use that word?

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.

The problem here is I never said every game had to have sharing.  I also never said that player refereeing was for everyone.  I was trying to say that, if a player chooses Scattershot, they know they can be expected to do some refereeing.  Not that they must nor that they should.  I state this pretty explicitly in the ‘how to play’ stuff, why would a player who didn’t care for it, pick up Scattershot?  It’s not the game for everyone.

The point here is that Paganini said he couldn’t "understand how one would work."  I am at a loss to even explain your Rolemaster example to him (the one when the players don’t "refuse").

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.

Actually, I think the problem is that Paganini used the word ‘complete’ incorrectly, and I have been riding this argument on that point too hard.  Sorry.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

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.

And I want you to know that I thought you were going that way first, but am happy to 'pull back' if you weren't.

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

Ah, but the user does not have 'complete' control over their files.  A sysop can do anything they want, at any time, and without permission.  You see it's your use of the word 'complete,' that was bugging me.

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 [This is why it's not 'complete.']).  No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him.

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 control over the sequence of events has absolutely no negative impact on player control of characters at all.

No, I just have a limited view of what 'complete' means.  If you change "complete control" as in autonomous dictatorship to "full guidance" as in fatherly concern, then we would have no argument.  It's just that totalitarian dictator gamemaster ideal I have a problem with in a game that is defined as sharing.

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.

So now all gaming is so serious that it requires referees?  There is no friendly gaming?

Your argument pretty much defeats itself... the examples you give of effective equal-distribution social contracts are competitive games!

I deliberately chose competitive games, because competition is often mistakenly thought of as needing a referee.  How about chess then?  No matter how "serious," a referee is never needed.  You want non-competitive?  How about Frisbee?  Do you need a referee when you go out and toss the disk around?

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-competitive experience by your own admission), and you cited competitive games!

You never said anything about not being a competitive game.  (Or are you now saying that games of competition are never shared?)

You said "you can't have control 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 the President has power of veto?

No, I am saying that congress is not in "complete" control.  There is a 'check.'  Because of the 'balance' of the two-thirds majority vote, neither it the president in "complete" control.  According to what I read, your players don't have that option, which means they are never in "complete" control of their characters.  (It is the use of the word 'complete,' that I have a problem with.  If you had said there was a limited sharing, I never would have raised the issue.)

Are you suggesting that there's no sharing of power between the three legislative 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.

I'm sorry, but I believe you need to check your logic.  You were the one who said (effectively) congress had "complete" control over the government.  Your players cannot overturn a gamemaster veto so ultimately they are not in "complete" control of their characters.

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 weird... you can never play the game without an odd number of players, because arguments will be unavoidable.

Perhaps, but the minimum is 3 participants.  Two to conflict and a third to mediate, in any circumstance.  A fourth (or other) player would simply be the bystander and there is nothing that says a gamemaster couldn't mediate, only that it was not his responsibility, taking some of the work off his shoulders (which was the point I started with).

And I still think you are being unfair in saying that arguments are unavoidable.  I don't know your experience, but I have played in many games with no arguments at all.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

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

Exactly. How the character feels, how he reacts to stimuli, and so on. *NOT* whether or not the character succeeds at an action. What would be the point?

"My character is going to try and pick the lock. Okay, I decide he fails. What next?"

Hey, that kind of thing has happened in Narrativist games that I have heard of.

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 designed appropriately. And given that they convey other advantages, they shouldn't just be thrown out on principle. IMO.

Sure... and my goal is not to design a systemless game. Cornerstone has mechanics! I like a nice balance. The mechanics are just intended to be applied in a certain way, a way that Fang seems to be denying that they can be applied in.

First of all, I am not talking about potential applications; I am talking about how you describe the purposeful application.

Secondly, you are applying a dualistic principal if either a game has mechanics or is systemless.  What Mike and I are talking about is how much system a game has.  You could have too much, you could have too little, but you happen to have "a nice balance."  Your "nice balance" happens to be ‘lighter’ than what I like and heavier than Triad sounds.

And third, my only disagreement was that the players can have "complete" control over their characters and the gamemaster can have "complete" control over the game at the same time.  If it shifts back and forth, if it is partial, if anything else, it’s works fine by me; it’s the use of the word ‘complete’ that I disagree with.  It’s semantic.

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, Fang’s 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.

Well, of course it's not complete control if that can happen.

Then you weren’t saying what I thought I was reading and we have no conflict, end of discussion.

The example that Fang uses is unrelated to the rest of the discussion, which involved GM control of mechanics. For some reason, it sounds like Fang doesn't think a player has any control, period, unless he has equal control of the mechanics with the GM.

That’s because we are arguing past each other.  I wasn’t talking about mechanics in the above example, because I assumed that character emotions were not a mechanical construct.  (Possibly incorrect on my part.)

In Scattershot (perhaps alone), no one has control over the mechanics.  If you read the section on General, Specific, and Mechanical play, you’ll see that in General play, mechanics are not applied, whatever the speaker says is what happens.  In Specific play, mechanics are used to generate detail or settle disagreements; neither of these requires the gamemaster (Do you need a referee for a coin toss, okay make that a ‘friendly’ coin toss?).  In Mechanical play, no one has the right to invoke or ignore any mechanic; no one has that control.  Everyone has to ‘play by the rules,’ whether player or gamemaster.  That’s just how Scattershot does it; this is neither better nor worse than any other game, purely an example of a game where "equal control of the mechanics" goes to everyone.

Ultimately, I flew off the handle.  Anytime someone uses a ‘universal’ (I lift that term from philosophy; it means things like ‘complete,’ ‘total,’ ‘always,’ ‘unstoppable,’ ‘immortal,’ and others.  You simply can’t kill an immortal, because if you could then they’re not immortal.) in contradictory fashion, I get a little riled.  This has not been a good week for me, so I let this get the better of me.  For that I am sorry.

We are not arguing about the same things, so let’s drop the word ‘complete’ as well as the rest of the argument.

Fang Langford

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

"My character is going to try and pick the lock. Okay, I decide he fails. What next?"

Hey, that kind of thing has happened in Narrativist games that I have heard of.

I don't want to derail the sharing vs. control discussion on this thread. I just want to say that although http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1167">I've played games where players create and resolve their character's conflicts, I've not seen it work well at all, which makes me reluctant to see it given this much tacit acknowledgment as a feature of Narrativist games.

Otherwise, great discussion on sharing and control.

Paul

[Paganini]

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.

:) Yeah. If this was a mailing list, I would have just changed the subject line a long time ago. But I don't know how to do that sort of thing here on the Forge... do you just post a new thread and hope it takes, or is there some way to split the thread off? Looking around the posting page, I don't see any buttons for that sort of thing.

[Le Joueur]

But I don't know how to do that sort of thing here on the Forge... do you just post a new thread and hope it takes, or is there some way to split the thread off? Looking around the posting page, I don't see any buttons for that sort of thing.

The new version of the Forge allows threads to be split off by the moderator(s).  For example, the newly minted "Scattershot and naming games" was actually a part of another thread until recently.

How about it moderator?  Can you split this one off?

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

This has not been a good week for me, so I let this get the better of me.  For that I am sorry.

We are not arguing about the same things, so let's drop the word 'complete' as well as the rest of the argument.

OK, Fang. In that case, you can just ignore the new thread I posted. I'm sorry to hear about your week!

Of course, you don't have ignore it if you don't want to. I was enjoying the discussion, semantics and all. Especially, there were some points about Scattershot with multiple people that I'd like to see you answer, both explaining how the rules work, and how you propose to deal with potential problems.