The Forge Archives

Since I don't know how to split threads (being much more skilled at splitting hairs!) here at the forge, I'm just posting the reply from the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1153&start=30">Triad thread in a new post.

Quote from: Le Joueur
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.

Well, then, sorries all around if I came across as being too heated.

Quote
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.

Well... I don't want to get distracted into arguing over the technicalities of an example, but at the same time...

On a lot of systems a sysop *can't* do anything he wants. For example, a sysop can't get a user's password, and can't view the user's protected files, and so on. They each have controll over different aspects of the system. The sysop has more controll, since he's in the position of authority. This is the sort of sharing I meant. The role of the GM is similar to that of the sysop... the sysop runs the system, the GM runs the game.

Quote
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.

It's just that I don't see a conflict with the GM controlling the environment, and the players controlling their characters. Your example (the Jake is scared one) directly contradicts my assertment that in Gateway players had complete controll over their characters. If your example had taken place in the game, then the players would have indeed not been in controll. I made a defining statement about the game: "Players are in controll of their characters." To which you responded "If example X can happen, then how are the players in controll of their characters?" The obvious answer is that example X can never happen, by definition.

The power of veto doesn't give the GM the ability to make decisions about the character (like Jake can't attack, he's too scared). It gives the GM the ability to apply the system in the way that he thinks is most appropriate, so that there will be no rules arguments. It gives the GM the power to construct the setting in the way that he wants. The power the GM has is very similar to the power that the players have, just on a larger scale.

I see what you're saying about "complete," I just think you haven't realized what I'm applying it to. The player does not have complete controll of the game, nor does the GM. Such is not the nature of sharing. What the player does have is complete controll of certain elements of the game, as does the GM of other elements. Controll is not equal... the GM has controll of more elements (and so has more work to do, too!).

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

Sure there's friendly gaming... in which rules arguments occur frequently. They still require arbitration, which means stopping the game and looking up the rules, or finding a FAQ, or emailing an official rules person. You still haven't given me any examples of how this could work without contention, which is what my original point was: such a system will either require some sort of incentive, a 'carrot,' for the players, or it will have a lot of arguing. So far, your one gameplay example was quite full of contention. :)

Let me me be more clear. You made the claim that Scattershot:

A) Is non-competitive
B) Has an equal social contract that removes the need for a GM

I said that I didn't see how such could work without some sort of incentive for the players, or without a lot of arguing.

To support you statement about the social contract, you cited games that are supposedly examples of refereeless equal social contract games. Your examples fail to adress my point for these reasons:

A) They are all competitive, which was one of my original requirements for such a system to work.

B) They are not, in fact, completely refereeless. They are often played with referees to *remove* the contention that arises during play. This commonly takes place at tournaments, where there's a time limit to consider. There's no time to stop the game and deal with any disagreements that arise.

IMO, this is similar to why we need a GM in RPGs. Forgetting about the required duties of world creation, adventure preparation, and so on, we need a GM to keep the game from being bogged down by arguments over disagreements.

There's one other distinction between RPGs and traditional games that you haven't addressed. RPGs are typicaly much more complicated. If your rule-book is only half a page long, it's easy for everyone at the table to have the rules *memorized,* which will reduce disagreements. RPGs also tend to be more subjective in this respect, because they have no set boundries. In a traditional game, arguments are usually about whether or not a rule *exists,* not about how you apply the rule. In an RPG the rules neccesarily are applied to a much wider (potentially infinite) range of possibilities. The rules can't cover all possibilities... *someone* has to be in the position to make rulings.

If you've actually come up with a way to game that removes competition, contention, and the referee, that's *unbelievably* cool. However, I'll remain skeptical until I actually see how it works. :)

Quote
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).

Is there a mechanic for deciding who will be the arbiter? If you have 6 players in the game, and two of them have a disagreement, how do you decide which of the remaining 4 players will arbitrate?

Furthermore, I see a different problem relating to this. Some players will be better qualified to arbitrate than others, having read the rules more carefully, having memories better suited to storing system information, and so on. Having different people arbitrate means that the game will likely be inconsistant, as different arbiters with different levels of knowledge (and different goals) take turns. Even if you do assume that all the players are great sportsmen, I still don't think that it will be possible to divorce a player from his own personal goals, because they will affect him even subconcsiously.

If this is the case, why not let the arbitration be done by the same player every time? That way, the rulings will be more consistant, and the system better represented (assuming you pick the player who has the most system knowledge). You can remove the personal stake in the game by not giving that player a character. Voila! A GM!

Quote
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.

I don't think that arguments are unavoidable in general. *Disagreements* are unavoidable, but if you have an authority figure defined by your social contract, then arguments can be avoided. The GM is in the place to make an official ruling. Not all players may *like* the ruling, but the ruling is official, since it's made by a referee that they all agreed on before the start of the game.

Hello,

Much of the following was posted in the thread from which this thread was spawned. However, none of it was acknowledged or addressed, so I'm repeating and extending the points here. In my opinion, a great deal of the perceived and actual conflict is accounted for in them.

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. However, it breaks down very fast if we are talking about resolutions.

In other words, I think that Paganini's distinction leads to a lot of necessary negotiation and debate about outcomes of actions. If people think they are experiencing otherwise, then they are inserting "compensation" mechanisms that they are not aware of. I speak here from experience after many years of playing in precisely this fashion. This is the essence of many of Fang's posts in the previous thread, and I agree with him.

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.)

The Impossible Thing refers to the creation of story via role-playing. We are not discussing the possibility of "GM provides story, players determine protagonist actions" as a simple phenomenon of "GM=world, players=characters," but the utility of the first dichotomy in producing actual stories through play. I am not saying that the dichotomy itself is impossible. I am saying that reaching the goal of story-creation-through-play with this dichotomy is impossible.

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 power 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 the role-playing is not producing story, but rather their solo authoring behind the scenes and between sessions.

Again, I think that the above material addresses the "GM/player control" issue to a very great extent. For one thing, the distinction that Paganini draws does not fly when we examine resolutions rather than announcements; for another, simply playing in that fashion does not falsify my claim regarding the Impossible Thing.

Before further debate ensues, I'd like to see some acknowledgment of these points, which as far as I can tell settle the matter decisively.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
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. However, it breaks down very fast if we are talking about resolutions.

I'd like more information on how you feel it breaks down. I agree with your points below that resolution is neither GM nor Player, but meta. In that case, however, I'm not sure how resolution even has anything to do with GM / Player power at all.

Quote
In other words, I think that Paganini's distinction leads to a lot of necessary negotiation and debate about outcomes of actions. If people think they are experiencing otherwise, then they are inserting "compensation" mechanisms that they are not aware of. I speak here from experience after many years of playing in precisely this fashion. This is the essence of many of Fang's posts in the previous thread, and I agree with him.

And, more information on what compensation systems you've experienced. Are these the sorts of things that could be quantified and use
to good effect when designing a game? For example, could you design a game using traditional GM / Player relationships, where the Players manage the characters and the GM manages the world, and intentionaly include a compensation system to avoid negotiation? (Assuming you convince me of your previous point that resolution is related to controll. :)

Quote
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.

I feel like you're being a bit vague. There's been a lot of effort put into avoiding GM / Player conflicts; into deciding exactly what the duties of each are, yes. Are you agreeing with Fang that the rules should be GM-less, then, if this effort was ill-informed?

Quote
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.

I agree with this completely, but I'm not sure how it interfaces the current discussion. I think resolution depends entirely on the stated goal of the game, regardless of how power is distributed. That's why I like a certain amount of informational encoding in a system. Pure GM fiat is too subjective, IMO. It can work, but only if the people involved are very careful to state their goals up front, and if all of their interests mesh.

Side note: I ran Gateway without a system, and the group chesion was awesome... it was a great, unique, experience. I tried to run another PBEM using the same style, and it fell flat. People just seemed to get bored; the last update or two I made had no repsponses. I finaly decided that different players were interested in exploring different things, and that audience stance (very important in a PBEM) was not being served by the different goals.

In any case, IMO, resolution is the reason a system exists. The first sentance in one of the first RPGs I ever read was along the lines of "RPGs are like Cowboys & Indians, but with rules, so that you always know who's dead."

That's a funny way to say it, but it's exact, IMO.  Players decide what their characters do, how they feel, etc., and the system is responsible for resolution. The GM is responsible for what the NPCs do, how they feel, and also for how the world behaves. Resolution will be needed in both cases.

Quote
The Impossible Thing refers to the creation of story via role-playing. We are not discussing the possibility of "GM provides story, players determine protagonist actions" as a simple phenomenon of "GM=world, players=characters," but the utility of the first dichotomy in producing actual stories through play. I am not saying that the dichotomy itself is impossible. I am saying that reaching the goal of story-creation-through-play with this dichotomy is impossible.

I don't see how this can be. No matter what your preferred style of gaming, when you get done you have some sort of story. Your intentions in gaming may not have been to create the story; the story may not be very good in a literary sense; regardless, the story *exists.* The mere act of role-playing creates a story. As I understand the GNS terminology, narrativism simply elevates the story exploration to a position of prime importance. (This is correct, isn't it?)

QuoteThat's a funny way to say it, but it's exact, IMO. Players decide what their characters do, how they feel, etc., and the system is responsible for resolution. The GM is responsible for what the NPCs do, how they feel, and also for how the world behaves. Resolution will be needed in both cases.

Okay, how about I write a game that has the system determine what characters do and how they feel, the players define the world and NPCs and the GM provides task resolution?

'cuz I could ya know! Ya damn meddling kids!

(Believes Jared could do it and is a little scared *s*)


Ron said:
The Impossible Thing refers to the creation of story via role-playing. We are not discussing the possibility of "GM provides story, players determine protagonist actions" as a simple phenomenon of "GM=world, players=characters," but the utility of the first dichotomy in producing actual stories through play. I am not saying that the dichotomy itself is impossible. I am saying that reaching the goal of story-creation-through-play with this dichotomy is impossible.


Pagini replied:
I don't see how this can be. No matter what your preferred style of gaming, when you get done you have some sort of story. Your intentions in gaming may not have been to create the story; the story may not be very good in a literary sense; regardless, the story *exists.* The mere act of role-playing creates a story. As I understand the GNS terminology, narrativism simply elevates the story exploration to a position of prime importance. (This is correct, isn't it?)

Laurel's comments
A story might exist, but the players didn't make the story any more than actors in a movie wrote the script even if they improvised here and there.  Ron isn't saying a story wasn't created; he's saying that the GM is the primary author, not the players, in this situation.  For a player-created story, the players have to co-create the world.  This doesn't mean that a game that has a GM can't have player-created story.  It does mean that a game can't have a GM=world, players=character dichotomy *and* have a player-created story.  Players have to have more imput than simply protagonist actions in order to be co-creating the story.  Storymaking is Active;  the very first dichotomy Ron mentions has the players in Reactive mode.... and therefore being participants in the GM's story, rather than the creators of their own.

Hey,

The mere act of role-playing creates a story.

No it doesn't.

I used to dread phone calls from my brother. He'd call to tell me what he'd been doing, but he didn't understand how to make it significant to his audience. He'd tell me about a trip he'd taken, and it would be a series of "and then we did this...and then we went here...and then we did this" without any crafting of to make things relevant to the listener, and without any of the important information about his feelings and reactions and levels of excitement or frustration that most people introduce into their conversations to show the personal drama of their experiences. Without that stuff, each and every thing he'd talk about felt tedious, like too much information.

Life is like that. It's a series of things that don't mean much without human feelings and reactions and moral judgements. When a person who knows how to approach his audience tells about his experiences, he organizes what he's saying around a theme. He manipulates his story to create tension. He uses techniques to make the audience interested in the story. Our lives only have theme and meaning when we organize the events that way, and when we tell about them.

As I understand the GNS terminology, narrativism simply elevates the story exploration to a position of prime importance. (This is correct, isn't it?)

Narrativism is not about "story exploration" at all. It is about creating a story, with the characters as protagonists, during play. And it does this partly by eliminating all the "too much information" you get in games that don't prioritize story creation during play, but also through use of Authorial/Directorial techniques like player control of introducing characters to scenes and over orchestrating dramatic coincidences. The process of producing a story after play by selecting and organizing the events of the game that best tell a story about the character, and de-selecting the irrelevant and the tedious, however transparent and unconscious a process it becomes for the person doing it, is not an act of Narrativism.

Paul

Paganini,

I think some baseline points need to be clarified.

ONE
I do not consider "GM-less" play to be especially functional, in most cases (if I'm not mistaken, Fang and I agree on this point). You are inferring that "sharing" means "no GM," and that is emphatically not what is being argued.

On a larger scale, the issue of sharing and control is dealing with the very concrete problem of "How do we determine what actually happens in the imagined situation, during role-playing."

TWO
Your paraphrase of Narrativism has a serious flaw. In my essay, I distinguish very carefully between "story" in the generalized sense you're using (story = outcome of play, period) and in the specialized sense of Narrativism (story = conflict + resolution with necessary audience engagement). Since the Impossible Thing refers specifically to the second meaning, we have to stick with that meaning in discussing the issue.

Also, the term "story exploration" is not a general term, in the argot of my essay. Exploration means imaginative commitment to Character, Setting, Situation, and Color, with Premise arising as the "specific neat thing" that prompts the commitment. Story means one of the following:
- the generalized concept (if talking at the general level)
- a pre- or post-determined Situation in which play was embedded (Simulationist with Exploration of Situation; Call of Cthulhu)
- a non-deliberate, perhaps even parodic secondary outcome of other priorities in action (Gamist with Drama methods; Pantheon)
- a directly-created, prioritized outcome during play (Narrativism; Hero Wars)

[Game names are provided to indicate styles of play that are greatly facilitated by those games' designs.]

Thus "story" is not Explored except in the specialized circumstances of Simulationist, Situation-emphasized, with pre-determined plot structure.

THREE
Given those clarifications, I will now provide some examples of situations in which play breaks down, in terms of sharing and control.

Breakdown of announcement
- "I cast Sleep!" The GM grins and says "Sleep doesn't work on Undead." The player says, "Damn! OK, never mind that, I run behind the fighter." "Ha!" responds the GM. "You said you cast it!"

This problem - and it is a fundamental problem embedded in the nature of role-playing, not just "bad GMing" - arises because the game in question provides absolutely no mechanism for distinguishing between an announced intent and a declared execution. Many games address this problem, for better or worse, with elaborate turn/phase arrangements in order to clarify whose announcement "counts" when. Other solutions exist and have been discussed here in other threads; some of them are very powerful.

Taking the problem a bit further, when the system doesn't help much, then a much more serious violation of social contract occurs in many cases.
- "I attack him!" "No you don't, this is your lord and master, you wouldn't attack him."

Breakdown of resolution
- "All right! I got him!" [damage roll] "Fuck! ... Two points damage." The GM says, "Doink, it bounces off." This represents a breakdown of system - the "hit" is not really a hit unless two rolls come off well in sequence, reducing one's probably of actually accomplishing anything to a very small margin.

- "All right! Critical!" [roll roll] "Yeah baby! 1000 points of damage!" The GM says, "Ummm, well, yeah, but he, ah ... OK, his magic sword breaks as he parries it, but he's still alive and fighting." This is a breakdown of system and social contract, as the former produced events beyond the acceptable limits of one participant and the latter violates the initial agreement of play to abide by the system's output.

I suggest that the issue is not one of control, but of authority and "rights" of interpretation. I argue that it is a multi-pronged issue, beginning with the features of the system in question (such that certain problems are solved and certain ones are exacerbated), and continuing with whatever initial and post-hoc social methods are employed to deal with the latter problems.

I (and Fang, if I'm not mistaken) am (are) arguing that the classic dichotomy of "GM controls world, player controls characters" provides no help either in designing systems to deal with these issues, or in generating social contracts to deal with the systems.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen

QuoteThat's a funny way to say it, but it's exact, IMO. Players decide what their characters do, how they feel, etc., and the system is responsible for resolution. The GM is responsible for what the NPCs do, how they feel, and also for how the world behaves. Resolution will be needed in both cases.

Okay, how about I write a game that has the system determine what characters do and how they feel, the players define the world and NPCs and the GM provides task resolution?

'cuz I could ya know! Ya damn meddling kids!

But... but... but... THAT'S NOT ROLEPLAYING!!

(Just kidding! :)

Actually, that would be quite innovative. I don't think that would detract terribly from my point though. You're just proposing a different balance of power. Or are you saing that everything is determined by GM fiat and that there's no resolution mechanic at all?

Quote from: Laurel
A story might exist, but the players didn't make the story any more than actors in a movie wrote the script even if they improvised here and there.  Ron isn't saying a story wasn't created; he's saying that the GM is the primary author, not the players, in this situation.  

I understood that, and I agree that this is pretty common. Especially in the old D&D scenarios, where the players just hang around until they manage to trigger the next GM event. However, I'm not convinced that this is required by the traditionaly GM / Player relationship. So, maybe this is the "Not Very Common Thing," but I have yet to be convinced that it's "The Impossible Thing." :)

Quote
For a player-created story, the players have to co-create the world.

I think this might be the point where our philosophies diverge. To me, the story and the world are two separate entities. The story is what *happens* in the world. In every game I've seen, the characters are prime movers in the setting. Therefore, if the game gives players freedom to controll their characters, then the players are indeed contributing to the story. The GM is *also* contributing, by controlling how the world behaves, but I don't see the GM as having sole authorship.

Quote
This doesn't mean that a game that has a GM can't have player-created story.  It does mean that a game can't have a GM=world, players=character dichotomy *and* have a player-created story.  Players have to have more imput than simply protagonist actions in order to be co-creating the story.  Storymaking is Active;  the very first dichotomy Ron mentions has the players in Reactive mode.... and therefore being participants in the GM's story, rather than the creators of their own.

You're saying that a requirement for Active play is that players be in controll of more than just the characters. I don't agree with this. Action and reaction goes both ways. The world has to react to what the characters do, otherwise the actions of characters are meaningless. It works in reverse, with characters reacting to world situations as well.

Quote from: Paul Czege
Hey,

The mere act of role-playing creates a story.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

We can do this all day... ;)

But, really, I've had this discussion before, and it all comes down to what each person thinks a story is. To me, a story is just a recountable sequence of events or situations. It doesn't have to be engaging (a function of Premise), or even well constructed in a literary sense.

In addition, the requirement for narrative play is not that the story be "good" but that the players enjoy creating it. In your phone calls with your brother, he was telling you stories, you just weren't engaged by them. :)

Edit: Ron has since clarified that he had a more specific meaning of "story" in mind. I'll have to try and use that definition in future posts.

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I do not consider "GM-less" play to be especially functional, in most cases (if I'm not mistaken, Fang and I agree on this point). You are inferring that "sharing" means "no GM," and that is emphatically not what is being argued.

Ah, in that case I need some more information about how you propose such a system to work. I was indeed assuming that you meant GM-less play.

Quote
Your paraphrase of Narrativism has a serious flaw. In my essay, I distinguish very carefully between "story" in the generalized sense you're using (story = outcome of play, period) and in the specialized sense of Narrativism (story = conflict + resolution with necessary audience engagement). Since the Impossible Thing refers specifically to the second meaning, we have to stick with that meaning in discussing the issue.

Fair enough. I'll try to modify my thinking / writing.

Let me see if I can restate the Impossible Thing then. You're saying that it's impossible for a group to create a story (with the specific requirements that the story have both conflict and resolution of such) if said group is using the traditional Player / GM dichotomy. Correct?

Quote
Thus "story" is not Explored except in the specialized circumstances of Simulationist, Situation-emphasized, with pre-determined plot structure.

Now, this is the part that I keep banging into. It sounds like you're saying that a predtermined plot structure is required for all forms of the typical GM / Player dichotomy. This isn't the case at all. IME, some of the most interesting games are run off the cuff.

(snip some interesting examples)

I'm just not getting this. I don't see how your examples have anything to do with player and GM contribution to a story.

As far as I can tell, if the PCs react to the world, and the world reacts to the PCs, then both the characters (controlling the PCs) and the GM (controlling the world) are contributing to the story. Even with my recently enhanced understanding of narrativism, I don't see how the GM has sole-authorship. The GM might have identified the conflict, but he can't dictate the resolution of it as long as the players have controll over their characters. I see no railroading here.

If you're talking about bad GM technique, then I agree there are ways to design that will encourage more or less abuse. But I didn't think that was the topic under discussion here.

I feel more and more confused by your reply. I think I need a summary. :)

Hey there,

I'm a little pressed for time, so if I miss a point or two, I apologize. With any luck, this post will help at least a little. (And thanks for your patience with the pack of us, by the way.)

You wrote,
"Let me see if I can restate the Impossible Thing then. You're saying that it's impossible for a group to create a story (with the specific requirements that the story have both conflict and resolution of such) if said group is using the traditional Player / GM dichotomy. Correct?"

Not quite. Let's examine that dichotomy carefully. I am speaking of the notion that "the GM creates the story and the players direct the actions of the story's protagonists." That is the Impossible Thing.

This is not quite the same as the GM controls the world and the players control the characters, but it is related. My argument here is that if you have this control-dichotomy over announcements, then agreement over outcomes (the events of play) is going to be hampered (or at least not helped). If agreement over outcomes is flawed, then any and all story-creating power among the group as such will be hampered. That, in a nutshell, is the issue at hand.

Your difficulty with my control-breakdown examples leads me to think that your own, personal Balance-of-Power during play, among the members of your group, is so familiar to you that it now looks like "normal." I am familiar with this outlook; it was my own for a long time. Those examples were intended to demonstrate that a functional social contract is always necessary, and in many cases it fell apart because the system afforded a one-sided control of resolutions.

Another point you're running into is that I am tagging two things as specifically non-Narrativist play, even though they involve "story." One of them is pre-determined plot (which in practice becomes Simulationist play with Exploration of Situation); the other is post-determined plot (which in practice becomes Simulationist play with Exploration of Character and/or Setting). Many people are used to considering both "story creation," or favoring one over the other as "real story creation." I, however, do not consider either to be story-creation as a function of role-playing, so Narrativism is something else entirely. This confuses people because they have usually only considered those two options, and thus they (1) insist I must mean one of them and then (2) experience a shock when they realize that I really am talking of something difference.

This is why so many people mistakenly think Narrativism means "make it up as you go," because they understand the not-railroading point, and then think I must mean the other one.

You wrote,
"As far as I can tell, if the PCs react to the world, and the world reacts to the PCs,
then both the characters (controlling the PCs) and the GM (controlling the world)
are contributing to the story. Even with my recently enhanced understanding of
narrativism, I don't see how the GM has sole-authorship. The GM might have
identified the conflict, but he can't dictate the resolution of it as long as the players
have controll over their characters. I see no railroading here."

My claim is that the situation breaks down badly if we are not discussing the outcomes of the characters' actions. If by "player control" you only mean "right to announce whatever I want," this is often a meaningless privilege - if the GM controls outcomes, he controls the story, regardless of who announces what, whenever.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I'm a little pressed for time, so if I miss a point or two, I apologize. With any luck, this post will help at least a little. (And thanks for your patience with the pack of us, by the way.)

No problem! This is what I do for fun. Always remember that, even if I start to sound overly heated like I did in the thread with Fang, I'm not mad at anyone unless I say I am. I'm just really interested in this stuff, and I ocasionaly have strong feelings about it that come out in my posts.

Quote
Not quite. Let's examine that dichotomy carefully. I am speaking of the notion that "the GM creates the story and the players direct the actions of the story's protagonists." That is the Impossible Thing.

This is not quite the same as the GM controls the world and the players control the characters, but it is related.

I get it! I get it! Wheee! If the GM is controlling the story, then the players are functionless. They have no impact on anything, because nothing they do affects the sequence of events. All they can do is experience the events. An endless existance of Audience Stance twisted at the sadistic whim of your GM... brrr. Sounds like a Stephen King novel: "Game Master."

:)

In that case, though, why was Fang disagreeing with me? I wasn't ever speaking of the GM controlling the story; in fact, I claimed from the begining that one of my goals was for there to be shared creation of the story.

Quote
Your difficulty with my control-breakdown examples leads me to think that your own, personal Balance-of-Power during play, among the members of your group, is so familiar to you that it now looks like "normal." I am familiar with this outlook; it was my own for a long time. Those examples were intended to demonstrate that a functional social contract is always necessary, and in many cases it fell apart because the system afforded a one-sided control of resolutions.

You're essentially saying that if the system gives the GM complete power to dictate events, then the social contract is in danger, because, as above, the players have no input into the game. I totally agree. This does not conflict with my goal of having the GM controll some events (world related ones) while the players controll other events (character created ones).

A thought just struck me... are you saying that the traditional dichotomy can still put the social contract in danger - even when implimented the way I describe - at the point where the characters and the world interface?

For example, a player has controll over his theif, and wants to pick the lock, but the GM has controll over the world (of which the lock is an element) and wants the lock to stay closed. Then the question of which person has precedence must be resolved or there will be conflict (maybe there'll even be conflict in the resolution of the question!)

Thinking along these lines, in many games the resolution mechanic is simply a way of deciding the question of who has precedence. Saving rolls in D&D, for example, are a mechanic for determining whether what the player wants happens (the character survives) or what the GM wants happens (the character dies).

Of course, this is a pretty simplistic view, that assumes a player vs. GM. All the same, I think I see what you're talking about now. In a narrative game, the player might have a different idea about where the story should go from the idea the GM has, and the precedence question is evident once again.

Quote
Another point you're running into is that I am tagging two things as specifically non-Narrativist play, even though they involve "story." One of them is pre-determined plot (which in practice becomes Simulationist play with Exploration of Situation); the other is post-determined plot (which in practice becomes Simulationist play with Exploration of Character and/or Setting).

No, I understood that distinction. I don't think either of them is narrativism. But I think there's a third group that you leave out, and that's the one I belong to. I gave it a separate http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11409#11409">thread in the GNS forum. I'm not sure exactly how I would be classified, now that I understand your definition. Story is still the focus of the game, but it's a DIP story. The point of the game is to see how the story unfolds. The GM doesn't know what's going to happen, his job is to create the world, populate it. The GM is responsible for background story, but not for justifying the game by retrofitting a plot to it, or by pre-planning a story for the characters to experience. The enjoyment is derived from the creation process, not from having any sort of "good" story at the end of the game.

Paganini,

I think we've got it. I think it's there.

"A thought just struck me... are you saying that the traditional dichotomy can still put the social contract in danger - even when implimented the way I describe - at the point where the characters and the world interface?
"For example, a player has controll over his theif, and wants to pick the lock, but the GM has controll over the world (of which the lock is an element) and wants the lock to stay closed. Then the question of which person has precedence must be resolved or there will be conflict(maybe there'll even be conflict in the resolution of the question!)"

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying, and that is why Fang (rightly, in my opinion) refused to let your "but it is sharing" stand. It's also why Paul isn't going to budge on the "but it is too 'story'" issue.

If I'm not mistaken, this issue is settled. I suggest a little downtime from it; I don't mean to shut the thread down, but just to give it a little time to cool. In my experience, the issue requires processing, not reactive moment-to-moment dialogue.

See you over the GNS forum for the Narrativism stuff,
Best,
Ron

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurAh, 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.

Well... I don't want to get distracted into arguing over the technicalities of an example, but at the same time...

On a lot of systems a sysop *can't* do anything he wants. For example, a sysop can't get a user's password, and can't view the user's protected files, and so on. They each have control over different aspects of the system. The sysop has more control, since he's in the position of authority. This is the sort of sharing I meant. The role of the GM is similar to that of the sysop... the sysop runs the system; the GM runs the game.

I'd like you to note the disappearance of the word 'complete,' in terms of control from your description of sysop.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurNo, 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.

It's just that I don't see a conflict with the GM controlling the environment, and the players controlling their characters.

Neat.  First you say that the gamemaster "can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters," but now it's only over the environment.  If you had said "complete control over the environment" in the first place, I never would have said anything.

I like the fact that you can change your position and still act like I'm attacking it.  Touché.

Quote from: PaganiniYour example (the 'Jake is scared' one) directly contradicts my assertion that in Gateway players had complete control over their characters. If your example had taken place in the game, then the players would have indeed not been in control. I made a defining statement about the game: "Players are in control of their characters." To which you responded, "If example X can happen, then how are the players in control of their characters?" The obvious answer is that example X can never happen, by definition.

The power of veto doesn't give the GM the ability to make decisions about the character (like 'Jake can't attack, he's too scared').

Then, "by definition" the gamemaster does not have "complete control" over "the sequence of events."  Jake's attack is an event, right?  It occurs in sequence with all the other events, right?  Now you're saying that the gamemaster cannot control Jake's actions.  That means there's an event that the gamemaster cannot control, right?  Thus the gamemaster does not have complete control over "the sequence of events."  Am I right?

That's all I was saying.  The word 'complete' was used incorrectly.  But now you have changed your assertion and expect me to continue attacking?  Rubbish.

Quote from: PaganiniI see what you're saying about "complete," I just think you haven't realized what I'm applying it to. The player does not have complete control of the game, nor does the GM. Such is not the nature of sharing. What the player does have is complete control of certain elements of the game, as does the GM of other elements. Control is not equal... the GM has control of more elements (and so has more work to do, too!).

Your exact words were, "the GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters."  I hope you understand how I interpreted "sequence of events" to include player character's actions.  That's a pretty clever switch to now claim that you meant "the environment," because I'd look pretty stupid arguing with that.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurSo now all gaming is so serious that it requires referees?  There is no friendly gaming?

Sure there's friendly gaming... in which rules arguments occur frequently. They still require arbitration, which means stopping the game and looking up the rules, or finding a FAQ, or emailing an official rules person. You still haven't given me any examples of how this could work without contention, which is what my original point was: such a system will either require some sort of incentive, a 'carrot,' for the players, or it will have a lot of arguing. So far, your one gameplay example was quite full of contention.

If you are trying to put the words in my mouth that there is no contention, you're barking up the wrong tree.  My point was it seemed to me that it was unfair to assume immature behavior during natural contention.

Quote from: PaganiniLet me be more clear. You made the claim that Scattershot:

A) Is non-competitive

Actually, I never made that claim; you simply announced that I had admitted it after quoting my Monopoly comment.  Scattershot can be played competitively if the players desire, so it cannot be called strictly a non-competitive game.

Quote from: PaganiniB) Has an equal social contract that removes the need for a GM

I never claimed that either.  What I did say was that Scattershot, in its live-action guise, technically did away with them.  Elsewhere, I have described that once setting origination, site maintenance, and refereeing duties are delegated, all that was left was a small amount of facilitation (remember this is a live-action game, props and sets make up the world) to 'keep things interesting.'  No arbitration, no mediation; these are handled by the player referees.  This was not in direct reference to social contract, but an explicit extension of it.

Quote from: PaganiniI said that I didn't see how such could work without some sort of incentive for the players, or without a lot of arguing.

To support your statement about the social contract, you cited games that are supposedly examples of refereeless equal social contract games. Your examples fail to address my point for these reasons:

Where are you getting this "equal social contract" thing?  This is another of your inventions, I never wrote it.

Quote from: PaganiniA) They are all competitive, which was one of my original requirements for such a system to work.

You missed the reference to Frisbee.

Quote from: PaganiniB) They are not, in fact, completely refereeless. They are often played with referees to *remove* the contention that arises during play. This commonly takes place at tournaments, where there's a time limit to consider. There's no time to stop the game and deal with any disagreements that arise.

Um, chess?  Hello?  Is this thing on?  Why are so bent on only hearing the examples you can find fault with?  Is this a blatant attempt to twist my words?  It only takes one example to prove that something is not "complete."

Quote from: PaganiniThere's one other distinction between RPGs and traditional games that you haven't addressed. RPGs are typically much more complicated. If your rule-book is only half a page long, it's easy for everyone at the table to have the rules *memorized,* which will reduce disagreements. RPGs also tend to be more subjective in this respect, because they have no set boundaries. In a traditional game, arguments are usually about whether or not a rule *exists,* not about how you apply the rule. In an RPG the rules necessarily are applied to a much wider (potentially infinite) range of possibilities. The rules can't cover all possibilities... *someone* has to be in the position to make rulings.

You certainly can't expect me to defend bad designs.  That would be an interesting straw man.  You know, this is excellent obfuscation over the fact that all I had a problem with was your use of the word 'complete' in "the GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters" and my request for you to explain why you are so convinced that only the gamemaster can handle the adjudication of the rules responsibly.

I can't see how my defending years of poor and traditional game design will have any bearing on why you believe that players can't be arbitrators instead of the gamemaster.

Quote from: PaganiniIf you've actually come up with a way to game that removes competition, contention, and the referee, that's *unbelievably* cool. However, I'll remain skeptical until I actually see how it works.

I am impressed how well you have turned this argument inside out.  You have put words in my mouth (saying that Scattershot is either non-competitive or does not need a referee).  I like how you switch back and forth between calling the arbiter of a game the referee or the gamemaster just to suit confusion.  (I said when Scattershot did not need a gamemaster, I pointed out it had player-referees.)  It was kind of neat the way you pass over examples that seem to satisfy your criteria (frisbee and chess) only to harp about bad game design as if it were a good examples of what gaming can be, or my fault.

If I were going to defend any point it would be that since some players can be mature and not argue, it is pessimistic to assume all will argue.  Further, because of the existence of mature gamers, I think that player referees are possible, meaning that the gamemaster isn't necessarily the only one who can be responsible for arbitration in games.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurPerhaps, 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).

Is there a mechanic for deciding who will be the arbiter? If you have 6 players in the game, and two of them have a disagreement, how do you decide which of the remaining 4 players will arbitrate?

Yeah, an easy one, whoever is free to (gamemaster or otherwise).  I maintain that the role of arbiter does not need to be centralized.  In fact, in most outside-of-gaming incidences, because of conflict of interest issues, the arbiter must be someone who is not in contention.  You must admit; if the players are not above arguing, then they are not above arguing with the gamemaster.  Having the gamemaster make the arbitration in that case shows clear conflict of interest.  That is why I think 'shifting' or 'spreading' the responsibility has some wisdom to it.

Quote from: PaganiniFurthermore, I see a different problem relating to this. Some players will be better qualified to arbitrate than others, having read the rules more carefully, having memories better suited to storing system information, and so on. Having different people arbitrate means that the game will likely be inconsistent, as different arbiters with different levels of knowledge (and different goals) take turns. Even if you do assume that all the players are great sportsmen, I still don't think that it will be possible to divorce a player from his own personal goals, because they will affect him even subconsciously.

Then you do see the point of conflict of interest.  Surely you don't believe gamemasters are somehow 'above' this conflict.  Why can you not get out of this either 'it is one person, totally' or 'it is all people, equally,' mentality.  I tell you, have only the players who feel so equipped do it.  And have them only arbitrate others who agree to abide by the arbitration.

It's a bad assumption to decide that the gamemaster has the best knowledge of the rules and best memory (or even that they are peerlessly consistent).

Quote from: PaganiniIf this is the case, why not let the arbitration be done by the same player every time? That way, the rulings will be more consistent, and the system better represented (assuming you pick the player who has the most system knowledge). You can remove the personal stake in the game by not giving that player a character. Voila! A GM!

Ha!  It's funny you say that the gamemaster has no personal stake in the game.  Considering you give them "complete control" over the environment.  The environment, and all it entails, is their stake.  Gamemasters are also human; they make mistakes, sometimes for the best reasons, sometimes for the worst.  Unless you assume they are perfect, they will 'get caught' in their mistakes.  This is when they will have a "personal stake" in an argument.  You cannot expect me to believe that all gamemasters are so perfect that their objectivity is without question.

The only person who has no personal stake in a game is the stranger who has never played any.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurAnd 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.

I don't think that arguments are unavoidable in general. *Disagreements* are unavoidable, but if you have an authority figure defined by your social contract, then arguments can be avoided. The GM is in the place to make an official ruling. Not all players may *like* the ruling, but the ruling is official, since it's made by a referee that they all agreed on before the start of the game.

So the gamemaster is right just because you said so?  Why am I not surprised?  I'm sure you are right for the exact same reason.  Even when you say that you are right.

Personally, I have more faith in all participants in my games and I start out respecting them and expecting them to behave maturely.  I hardly think the presence alone of "an authority figure" will avoid all arguments (it never stopped MacEnroe [sp]).

Where's Ron?  He's an authority figure; why are you arguing?

Fang Langford

(Who is looking forward to how his words will be twisted, again.)