"Unconscious" accomodations for TITBB

[Jaik]

I'm interested in this:

Quote:

The GM would say that he writes the story and the players would say that they play their characters however they wish. Neither side may realize all the unconscious limitations they put on their actions so as to fit together.

I'm amazed by the idea that this would be considered 'unconscious.'

In my play this is, in fact, pretty conscious in the sense that I expect to be constrained by situation and expect that any legitimate action will be accepted even if it makes for 'a worse story' (but, you know, if I felt that doing something would ruin the GM's fun, I'd consider not doing it for obvious and conscious reasons).

In the games I've written up, I think that in an RPG context it is very fair and perhaps even correct to say that the GM is the author and the players are the protagonists.

I say this is *correct* because of the conscious working-together within different roles that produces the play. It's the Impossible Thing in action.

Okay, every time I write this I end sounding bitter about my past RP experience.

Let's try this:  We have a spectrum.  On one end is "The GM authors the story, establishing setting, events, reactions, thoughts, and feelings.  The players follow the script."  On the other is "The players have their characters do whatever the heck they want and the GM just tries to keep up."  I would tend to label both extremes dysfunctional, but that's just me.  I'd guess that 99.9% of actual play happens somewhere in the middle, with the majority of mainstream play being on the "GM in charge" half.

Ooooh, neat analogy.  Ever do that trick where you stand in a doorway and push the back of your wrists against the doorframe for a couple minutes, then step away and your arms just float up without you telling them to?  That's my energy under "The GM is in charge" paradigm.  Even if the constraint was removed, I kept doing the same thing.  Now, if the doorway kept changing size, I would have to think about how to move my arms rather than just thinking "PUSH", so I would be conscious of constraint and freedom and my own movement.


For many years, I didn't have any meaningful decisions to make, so I stopped thinking about them, and finally forgot that they were there.

Your play sounds much more center-of-spectrum, which I would characterize as more thoughtful and conscious, for lack of a better term.

Make sense?  Reaction?

[Marco]

Hi Jaik,

Make sense?  Reaction?

Makes a lot of sense--and it's a fine answer. I think I understand what you mean by your analogy and that's cool.

As a reaction, I'd like to speculate a little bit on your hypothetical 99%-1% split (which I think is validly posed). To do that I'm going to use an intentionally hyperbolic hypothetical example--and hope I make sense as well.

It's my belief that when a well-meaning player and a well-meaning GM, neither of whom are committed to powerstruggle, engage in contentious direction-of-play-control (in an open-ended traditional RPG wherein there is not a pre-existing mechanical solution for such disputes) that the solution pretty much has to be conscious cooperation.

Imagine you are running a hardboiled niorish private detective game and a player, when faced with a conflict declares that "his character will grow wings and fly to the top of a building" as the solution. He's totally serious. If you say 'no' he'll claim you are stopping him from doing things 'his way.'

(I don't think anyone ever really does this)

I'd expect you to say 'no' and, if the fact that in Private Detective fiction people don't grow wings, didn't dissuade him, I would predict that he stops participating in the game (or that it otherwise falls apart).

Now, in that situation, the GM can be said to be "running his story" since whoever came up with the conflict, the player is being denied what he feels is a rightful solution to it.

From the player's POV, the GM is over there in the 99%-GM-run dysfunctional setting.

To see how this example could be a whole hell of a lot more 'reasonable' (IMO), let's say that although this is a hardboiled game, the play is taking place in a 'dream sequence' and the GM has presented a problem that if solved will provide an interesting clue. The GM feels that the character is 'breaking genre' and the player says 'well, yeah--but it's a dream.'

In this case, if both parties respect each other and cooperate, however it works out, assuming that no one *has* to have their way but is willing to cooperate with the other party, the solution will be conscious.

For example, the GM says "Okay, it is a dream--can you give me some more detail as to how the wings symbolically relate to your character and your character's view of the solution--then I think I could buy that."

The reason I'm using this example is because I've always wondered how it was ever considered functional play when the GM acted to dictate his 99% of the story and a player--in the spirit of cooperation and respect--acted outside the GM's guideline and the GM 'reigned him in.'

Where I saw this, it always devolved instantly into dysfunction. Players who were met with disrespect or no cooperation usually, IME, know it, and this mode of play doesn't work.

(If you tell me about a great game where you let the GM make all the decisions, cool--but I bet that (a) you agreed to that standard and (b) the GM was making decisions that kept you entertained and (c) the GM respected you. With (a) and (b) there is only the illusion that the player is disempowered. Without (c) you have a player who says he was walked on by someone who didn't respect him but still enjoyed play).

When you tell me about the game that's 99% player driven, I ask if it looks like my Private Detective example because if it doesn't (if the players are still constrained by the imaginary reality of the game-world) then the GM is, IME, far from a 1% participant.

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Aaron,

How about "The GM AND the players have input"?   The extremes you are talking about involve at least one person having no input whatsoever, and that doesn't work at all.  

"Being in charge of" works only if we break it down to various subtasks and give authority to the various folks in the group.  For example, authority over the creation/introduction of conflict and control over NPCs actions and reactions, while authority over PC actions is completely different, there is no conflict.  But if two different groups are both expected to have authority over the same thing(PC decisions) and there is no means of negotiation, problems occur.

TITBB falls down because it states that the players AND the GM both have authority over the same things, at the same time.

The constraints that we're dealing with is that if everyone has input(though probably not over the same things or same degree), it is that we(as a group), through our choices in play, form the constraints for ourselves as individuals.  This is just a fact of playing in a group.

That is to say, if all the players have authority over the actions of their characters, I have to be ok with it if Bill decides his character, Qaazar the elf wants to jump off a cliff.  Bill also has to be ok if I decide to invoke the game's mechanics to try to have Matarus the ranger grab Qaazar before he falls.  And if we have these rights or authority, the GM also has to be ok with our decisions and the outcome thereof.  This is no different than the rules of Monopoly that says Player A can buy property X if he or she lands on it AND can pay for it, and everyone playing has to accept that as part of the way the game works.

The thing is- constraints are what give gameplay direction, whether we're talking about the constraints advised in the game manual from system to setting ideas, to the actual constraints created by the group as a whole during play itself.  Some folks are very good at creating direction, some folks are good at supporting the directions that others have created.

Again, the issue is that TITTB doesn't work without serious doublethink happening.  The usual two actualities are:

"The GM is in control of the story(except what the players input on and the actual outcome, um, which I guess means he's not really in control at all, but just giving input) and the players can do what they want(as long as they accept the input of each other and the GM)."

OR

"The GM is in control of the story(except the color created by the players, over which they have input) and the players can do what they want(as long as its what the GM wants, otherwise they have to figure out a way to get the GM to want what they want, or just give up, which I guess means they can't really do what they want)".

Even these two methods of play are functional, though TITBB is not.

Chris

[Jaik]

I should probably clarify my 99.9% claim.  I'm saying that .1% of games take place at either extreme total.  I mean the EXTREME, as in the DM dictating EVERY action, with the players providing dice-rolling (but not interpretation) and dialogue (but only saying what the DM tells them to say).  I mentioned script and I meant it.  The other end would be complete chaos, with every player narrating whatever they felt like, independant and simultaneous with one another.  Multiple stream-of-consciousness RP with the GM as a harried...person (words fail me)...desperately trying to keep up.

I can't see a bit of fun in either of those, thus .1% is probably way too much, but more 9's starts to look silly.

My guess that the majority of mainstream play is on the "GM controls" half is derived from standard GM lore and standard advice you'll find in the ubiquitous "How to run the game" section of the rulebook.

Now, to your points.

The reason I'm using this example is because I've always wondered how it was ever considered functional play when the GM acted to dictate his 99% of the story and a player--in the spirit of cooperation and respect--acted outside the GM's guideline and the GM 'reigned him in.'

Where I saw this, it always devolved instantly into dysfunction. Players who were met with disrespect or no cooperation usually, IME, know it, and this mode of play doesn't work.

I certainly agree that this 'reigning in' style doesn't work and is dysfunctional...at first.  However, if you think that that's what roleplaying is like, what it's SUPPOSED TO BE, then you start to conform (if you're me anyway.  I've always been wishy-washy and a little too easy-going).  You stop trying to step out of the GM's guidelines.  Now, I don't think we've reached the far far extreme end of the spectrum yet in a "standard" D&D game, where the DM runs a module and it's understood that the player's will portray a roughly heroic group attempting to defeat the evil uncovered in said module.  There is still some room for player innovation and decision-making, but it's well away from the middle of the spectrum.  And though I think a lot of people play this way, I think they're less than thrilled with it.

If you tell me about a great game where you let the GM make all the decisions, cool--but I bet that (a) you agreed to that standard and (b) the GM was making decisions that kept you entertained and (c) the GM respected you. With (a) and (b) there is only the illusion that the player is disempowered. Without (c) you have a player who says he was walked on by someone who didn't respect him but still enjoyed play

In our recent groups, yeah, we did unofficially agree to this style, more through default, tradition, and a lack of awareness than any actual decision.  It's just the way things are (we thought).

When you tell me about the game that's 99% player driven, I ask if it looks like my Private Detective example because if it doesn't (if the players are still constrained by the imaginary reality of the game-world) then the GM is, IME, far from a 1% participant.

Oh no, your example of negotiation between player and GM is certainly not 99% player-driven (and might actualy be on the GM-controlled side, if only because he holds the ultimate veto power).

In this case, if both parties respect each other and cooperate, however it works out, assuming that no one *has* to have their way but is willing to cooperate with the other party, the solution will be conscious.

Let's say that every player (and GM) has a certain comfort zone on the spectrum, each of a different location and width.  When a (eventually compatible) group gathers, at first there will be stumbling blocks, as situations arise outside of someone's comfort zone.  The game should eventually come to settle within everyone's overlapping area.  I think that the longer play continues, the less thought will be required to keep play within the safe zone.

I think your Noir Detective dream sequence is an excellent example of early negotiations, with play further down the road skipping the middle, conflict, step and going from "I grow wings" to "I can see that, go with that." directly.

Do you think that one side of the spectrum lends itself to ingraining its style of playing more quickly than another, or more solidly?

[Jaik]

Hi Aaron,

How about "The GM AND the players have input"?   The extremes you are talking about involve at least one person having no input whatsoever, and that doesn't work at all.  

I never said that either extreme would work.  I think they both sound like a perfectly horrible way to spend an afternoon.  The trick, I think is to find just the right spot inbetween where all involved can feel comfortable.

TITBB falls down because it states that the players AND the GM both have authority over the same things, at the same time.

I didn't say that it DOES work, I said that it can APPEAR to work.  Given enough time and enough stability within the group, I think that people settle into a balance.  Given the prevalence of TITBB, each "side" may come to believe that their group has indeed accomplished TITBB, but in fact, they simply limit themselves and their actions so as to peacefully cooexist.  If someone is simply incapable of this, you get horrible, horrible blow-ups as we've sometimes seen in Actual Play.

[Bankuei]

Hi Aaron,

I wasn't accusing you of saying those things, I was agreeing and putting forth some details about the hows and whys of the dysfunctional extremes along with the hows and hows and whys of the functional ground.  I apologize if I came off attacking you in any way.  I was hoping to post detail for anyone reading who might want to make that shift from unconsciously playing in(mostly likely) a functional manner while claiming TITBB, and seeing what's really going on.

The aspect of group input providing limitations and direction I think is most pertinent to your experiences.

Chris

[Marco]

Hey Aaron,

I wasn't clear about what I meant (although it wasn't a big deal): if someone claims their game is 99.9% player-driven I would expect it to look like my Private Detective Game--but where the player does grow the wings in real life in contravention of genre--that is, the player is not constrained by anything the GM says or does nor by the game world nor the character's (initially) imagined constraints.

As I said, I don't think many games look like that--but when people talk about player-driven games or protagonization I find that I usually have a very big question about what the role of pre-established situation or hidden information plays in the constraints on their actions.

I don't, for example, consider it inherently disempowering to a player for a GM to say "that didn't work" due to hidden information the GM had decided on ahead of time (and I mean this in the sense of the GM having, say a map the players don't and the player declaring "I go north and find the King!" when the king is listed in being to the south).

Do you think that one side of the spectrum lends itself to ingraining its style of playing more quickly than another, or more solidly?

It's my observation that what you think about that depends on how you feel about gaming in general. In high school we had a lot of problems--but my players didn't just sit there and go along*--they stayed around, kept on arguing, and killed the game.

When we had dysfunctional episodes it usually resulted in the death of the campaign. Because we were all friends, we didn't kick each other out. We hadda deal with each other.

Under those conditions, I think the GM-Player negoitation middle of the road is pretty much all that does work. If people are willing to put up with an experience they don't like and keep coming back and not complain (much--or just complain elsewhere) then, I don't know--I think the strongest personality leads and if that's a GM then it's towards that side and if it's a player then it's towards the other.

-Marco
* (nor did I, when I played--but since I also GM'ed I was less rabid as a player than some of the people who only played)

[Valamir]

if someone claims their game is 99.9% player-driven I would expect it to look like my Private Detective Game--but where the player does grow the wings in real life in contravention of genre--that is, the player is not constrained by anything the GM says or does nor by the game world nor the character's (initially) imagined constraints.

I don't know why you would conclude that Marco.  How do you make the leap from "play my character" to "spontaneously invent Super Powers"?

The Impossible Thing pits Players ability to control their character against the GMs ability to control the story.  No where has "player's play their character" been suggested to mean "players can say absolutely anything they want without being questioned"  That's a false dichotomy you're putting up there.

The permissibility or unpermissibility of a player's narration violating setting or genre convention is an issue 100% completely unrelated to the Impossible Thing.  The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Jaik]

Is this perhaps the difference between "player driven" and "player controlled"?

[M. J. Young]

This is one of those threads that appeared and exploded in all directions overnight, so I'm trying to put together a somewhat cohesive response from fragments; I hope I'm not misunderstanding something.

(If you tell me about a great game where you let the GM make all the decisions, cool--but I bet that (a) you agreed to that standard and (b) the GM was making decisions that kept you entertained and (c) the GM respected you. With (a) and (b) there is only the illusion that the player is disempowered. Without (c) you have a player who says he was walked on by someone who didn't respect him but still enjoyed play).

Well, let me take those point by point:

[*](a) you agreed to that standard[/list:u]
No, I didn't. I wasn't asked, and the standard wasn't explained to me. I was manipulated the entire time I played that game. It lasted for over a year, several sessions a month, probably eight to ten hour sessions. The referee used every trick in the book--what I liked, my perception of what my character would do, my approach to game situations, the psychology of the other players in the game--to steer us where he wanted us to be. We always thought we were in control, until someone overheard him talking about what was going to happen in a substory one of the players had started.

It happened that eventually he had maneuvered me into undertaking a quest I knew 1) was probably suicide and 2) my character could not imagine declining because he was honor-bound to go. I managed to get my character a trump card--a single-use device that could save us all from an overwhelming enemy. We began the quest. As soon as we were just far enough into it that returning was out of the question, an overwhelming enemy attacked. As soon as I played that trump card, that enemy retreated. I suddenly realized that the entire reason for that encounter was to strip me of my trump card, so that the referee could make me afraid.

I never played in that game again.

[*](b) the GM was making decisions that kept you entertained[/list:u]
Oh, this is definitely so. We were all terribly entertained. The problem, though, was that we were being entertained by the impression that we were making tremendously clever and successful tactical decisions when in fact we were merely adding color to his story. He would throw things at us which ought to have decimated us (e.g., a party of ten first level characters challenged by a Skeletal Warrior), and we would scramble for some incredibly clever tactic to save our necks, and it would work--and we would congratulate ourselves, not realizing that had we decided to throw cooked spaghetti at the enemy, it would suddenly have been discovered that they had a weakness for al dente pasta. We were entertained by the impression that we were being clever. We were only being manipulated into feeling that way.

[*](c) the GM respected you.[/list:u]
I don't know. I think he enjoyed manipulating people, and used games to figure out how they thought so he could manipulate them in real life. But perhaps I do him a disservice. He never has trouble finding people who will play in his games, and usually ends up the center of a circle of friends one way or another. I don't think "respect" is the right word for his attitude toward people, though.

When you tell me about the game that's 99% player driven, I ask if it looks like my Private Detective example because if it doesn't (if the players are still constrained by the imaginary reality of the game-world) then the GM is, IME, far from a 1% participant.

I think you've made an assertion here that does not hold: that the referee alone is responsible for constraints placed on the players by the imaginary reality of the game world. If we've sat down to play a film noir detective piece and one of the players announces that he's going to grow wings and fly to the top of the building, it's entirely likely that the other character players will say, "You can't do that, quit joking around." The fact that games like Legends of Alyria can be played entirely without a referee (despite a highly complex setting) tells us that the constraints of setting may impact the players without any input from the referee whatsoever.

Chris: technically, players have credibility--that is, the statements they make are accepted or rejected as modifications to the shared imagined space based on whether or not they have the credibility to make such a statement. Authority rests in the tools that support play--rules, dice, charts, descriptions, character sheets, and other objects that can be cited by players in support of a statement. It's a nuance, but I think it's significant.

That wasn't so bad. I hope it helps.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

if someone claims their game is 99.9% player-driven I would expect it to look like my Private Detective Game--but where the player does grow the wings in real life in contravention of genre--that is, the player is not constrained by anything the GM says or does nor by the game world nor the character's (initially) imagined constraints.

I don't know why you would conclude that Marco.  How do you make the leap from "play my character" to "spontaneously invent Super Powers"?

The Impossible Thing pits Players ability to control their character against the GMs ability to control the story.  No where has "player's play their character" been suggested to mean "players can say absolutely anything they want without being questioned"  That's a false dichotomy you're putting up there.

I think your phrasing is great for looking at why I did that.

Thesis: I submit that in the traditional open-model the GM does most of the work on Situation* which includes running the world. If the player can "control their character" in any way they want, but are still constrained by situation, which the GM, IMO, is responsible for controling in anything resembling open-ended traditional roleplaying, then saying that the player has as much or the same kind of input over the game as the GM is IMO, wrong.

(That is, the "players are the main-characters" reading of the second half of the TITBB can't, under a traditional game, mean the same thing as "the GM is the author of the story" since traditional players, for example, don't run NPC's, do prep-work, invoke laws of physics, etc. At a theoritically high level one can say that all the text is talking about is direction of play but the rest of the game-book proves clearly that isn't so: there's no section on statting out your GM. The two roles clearly have significantly different responsibilities under any contextual reading of the text.)

Therefore: If I tell you that you can play your character however you want and early on I have my NPC's ambush you and (using all the rules and from a reasonable series of events) knock you out and stick you on a freighter bound for Bangcock, are you going to tell me that your ability to "play your character" has given you control over the direction of the game?

No--I would think not.

But clearly, I can allow you to do whatever situation, setting, and character allows, right? I mean, you can decide to pitch yourself overboard. You can try to take over the boat. In the fight you could choose to run or fight dirty or whatever--but unless you are controling situation you can't say something like: "The lead bad-guy is about to taser me in the back when suddenly he realizes I'm his long lost brother! Make your silly situation go away, GM, and give me one where I win."**

There's a point somewhere where even most player-driven gamers would agree the player is over-the-line (my example), but since we don't know where that is, we're going to have to constantly negoitiate it.

It's endemic to the Player-GM model. The exaggerated scenario points out that if the players don't act as the GM then there is still going to be these problems. And it has nothing to do with expectations--the players don't expect to be doing prep-work like the GM. They don't expect to be running NPC's. They don't expect to have all the hidden knowledge of situation or be able to evaporate complications whenever they want.

This is why TITBB can, will, and does happen in Sorcerer, a game that doesn't contain the text and is run by someone aware of the problem.

-Marco
* And there are some specifcs about what I mean by this--but the GM determining what sort of malfeasance is behind the player's Kicker counts, for example.

An important part of the GM controling Situation means the running of important NPC's--especially agenda-driven NPC's where they exist. As John pointed out in another thread, a GM running a strict dungeon or (especially) a linear module doesn't count for this and, I think, is fundamentally different wrt TITBB.

** In some traditional games you can do this mechanicaly (usually with some limits)--and there could be a stat or power in a traditional game that lets you "win without fighting." If the power-division is so prevelant that you can, with regularity, simply wave away any form or conflict or situation then I'm calling the game non-traditional.

Just because a player in Hero could, say, call for a Luck roll in which three dice of luck could escape the ambush doesn't invalidate what I'm trying to say here--I consider that very similar to beating them up because you have two shotguns and a katana.

The question is how much of the world the GM runs and how mutable situations are in general from a player (meta-game) perspective. If the player input because of mechanics is very high then I don't consider the game traditional. I'm certain there are gray areas I'm not thinking of and I'm sure we can split hairs over this though.

[Marco]

This is one of those threads that appeared and exploded in all directions overnight, so I'm trying to put together a somewhat cohesive response from fragments; I hope I'm not misunderstanding something.

Hi, MJ,
I'm aware of your game. Con-Artistry is outside the scope of that statement. I meant to be refering to people who tell me "I had a great game where the GM nullified my input and we all ran his plot but, man, it rocked." I've heard that. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

Your example is telling: the nature of the game changed for you entirely when the cards were on the table. I'd quit too.

When you tell me about the game that's 99% player driven, I ask if it looks like my Private Detective example because if it doesn't (if the players are still constrained by the imaginary reality of the game-world) then the GM is, IME, far from a 1% participant.

I think you've made an assertion here that does not hold: that the referee alone is responsible for constraints placed on the players by the imaginary reality of the game world. If we've sat down to play a film noir detective piece and one of the players announces that he's going to grow wings and fly to the top of the building, it's entirely likely that the other character players will say, "You can't do that, quit joking around." The fact that games like Legends of Alyria can be played entirely without a referee (despite a highly complex setting) tells us that the constraints of setting may impact the players without any input from the referee whatsoever.

Well, what if it's a one-player, one-GM group? I mean, the GM could phone a friend ("Tell Joe here what hard-boiled means!") but ultimately if the player doesn't agree then the game will be in trouble (or the player will sit quietly and stew about what a jerk the GM is or something but assuming that people stick to their guns play will stop).

I agree that a setting or situation can sort of be said to 'self impose' limits on players--but on The Forge there's a rousing chorus that'll tell me that anything in the game must happen because of people!

I don't know Legends--but if it can be played without a GM then it's immune to the problem, just like Universalis is.

-Marco

[John Kim]

Thesis: I submit that in the traditional open-model the GM does most of the work on Situation* which includes running the world. If the player can "control their character" in any way they want, but are still constrained by situation, which the GM, IMO, is responsible for controling in anything resembling open-ended traditional roleplaying, then saying that the player has as much or the same kind of input over the game as the GM is IMO, wrong.

Well, this depends on the definition of "open-ended traditional roleplaying".  I haven't seen a concrete definition of it, so I have to guess a bit.  From earlier discussion, you seem to agree this doesn't include, for example, D&D module play.  It also doesn't seem include most of the rgfa Simulationist play which I'm used to (cf. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6178">Plotless but Background-based Games and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8812">Open Play for the Soul).  So what exactly is it?  

I would tend to say that "traditional roleplaying" means that the players control their PCs, while the GM controls the rest of the background and world.  Given this setup, it seems to me that the control of direction is straightforward.  The more that the PCs are pawns of their environment, the more dominant the GM is likely to be.  Conversely, if the PCs are powerful, well-informed, and free relative to their environment, then the players are more likely to be dominant.  

As Aaron said in his first post, it seems that there is a smooth spectrum between these.  At one extreme, you could have a near-LARP-like scenario -- i.e. there are no NPCs, and thus most of the action is interaction between the players/PCs.  The GM is mostly watching.  At the other extreme would be, say, scenarios where the PCs are brainwashed agents who get their mission orders from some NPC authority, and the players are just trying to fulfill their orders as best they can.  

What I don't get is what part of this spectrum is covered by your category of "traditional open-ended roleplaying".  

Therefore: If I tell you that you can play your character however you want and early on I have my NPC's ambush you and (using all the rules and from a reasonable series of events) knock you out and stick you on a freighter bound for Bangcock, are you going to tell me that your ability to "play your character" has given you control over the direction of the game?

Well, first of all, yes.  I do have considerable power over the direction of the *story*.  Depending on how you define "game", maybe that is in the GM's hands (i.e. the GM can "beat" the PCs, no contest).  But the story does not consist of what the location is, or even whether the good guys wins.  By playing my character, I can make this situation range from Monty-Python-esque comedy (trading quips against the GM's straight men) to dramatic psychological revelation (a lot of dialogue or monologue about how this feels).  

This isn't hypothetical on my part.  I've been in a number of games which involved considerable surprise and/or hair-pulling on the part of the GM, as he watched the story turn into a complete reversal or parody of what he intended despite fairly blatant railroading.  It's something of a bad reputation of mine, actually (ask Chris Lehrich).  For example, at a convention game at ConQuest 2004, I was in a scenario ("Men in Black") where the players came up with a vastly different take on the PCs than the GM did.  He had prepared a mystery scenario, but we decided that our goal was to cover up what was happening, not discover it.  He threw clues at us such that we eventually undercovered what was happening (shortly before we blew it up).  However, there is a huge difference between his intent of "Secret agents investigate and uncover small-town horrors" and "Cleaners attempt to raze things and accidentally have clues fall in their laps".  

Moreover, this assumes that the GM is actively attempting to railroad the game.  While that's one valid case, it's not descriptive of all games.  i.e. Even if the GM potentially has the power to control direction, that doesn't necessarily mean that she does so in practice.  I would use the analogy to the referee in, say, a basketball game.  The referee has the potential power to decide which side wins.  However, under normal circumstances we would say that it is the players who decide which side wins.  

Even if he isn't literally holding a published module in his hand, the GM may decide not to arbitrarily invent things to capture the PCs and drag them to where he wants them.  The GM may instead portray a reactive environment, while the players/PCs are proactive in setting up situations and conflicts.

[Marco]

Hi John,

Before getting into this specifically, I wanted to be clear about what I'm thinking (your post did lead me to consider and re-consider my position in responding to it).

Firstly: I'd have thought that what an open-ended game meant was pretty intuitive and obviously that's not so (and since I don't personally run modules very often, I think that's why I hadn't thought much about that). So in a sense this is an eye-opener for me. I'll give you a good deal more description about what I meant.

Secondly: If we are talking about "who controls the game" from the standpoint of traditional Player-GM play in reference to The Impossible Thing then I think there are two fundamental takes on what "control of the game means."

Some people will tell you that if 'things happen to their characters' they aren't in control of the game. You say that just by controling how your character acts you have a lot of power over the story. I had suggested that once and been told that if I was doing that, I was 'just adding color to the GM's story' (the general turn of phrase for a player who has control of his reactions but doesn't, in some larger sense, direct the plot).
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=7447&highlight=pulp+fiction#7447

Others, as you've said, point out that depending on what one means by control, a character's reaction to events can be the meaninful measure.

The question will come down to what your standard is for "having control" or "having input" (if you meet my tragic situation with Buffy-esque quips, on can say you have taken the gravitas out of it--but if the characters the tragic situation was aimed at still all die then one can say that I, as the GM, have controlled the story).

So that seems to be a matter of opinion. Certainly most people would say the GM runs the world and the PC's run their characters isn't impossible but people regularly come here and say "I tried it and, of course, it failed--it's impossible."

Clearly the measure being in control of the game varries a lot from person to person.

Well, this depends on the definition of "open-ended traditional roleplaying".  I haven't seen a concrete definition of it, so I have to guess a bit.  From earlier discussion, you seem to agree this doesn't include, for example, D&D module play.  It also doesn't seem include most of the rgfa Simulationist play which I'm used to (cf. Plotless but Background-based Games and Open Play for the Soul).  So what exactly is it?  

Having thought about this, I don't think my distinction is as valid as I'd thought. It's harder to be as concrete about this as I had thought it would be.

The most concrete case for a closed game is one where the mechanics let you do nothing else. I think that a game of MLWM, where the players wanted to continue the lives of their characters after defeat of the master would be an example of how mechanics could close off some avenues of play.

But I think I'll drop the term. Here's what I was getting at.

If the GM is running a module "by the book" then he's at least sharing authorship with the module's writer. I don't think that in most logical senses, the GM would be said to be the "author of a game" if he's just reading the text boxes and rolling the monster's to-hit dice.

If the situation is very, very constrained and calls for almost nothing by way of judgment calls (such as how much enemies might know or what plans an NPC might have for interacting with the PC's) outside of very hard and fast rules (120' down the corridor there is a pit-trap) then, again,  I think the power assumed by the TITBB text is not accurate to the GM or the situation.

The GM is more like (and as is often called) a referee.

Additionally, the players, if they realize there is a module in play and show up for the game, may be seen (to an extent) as entering an agreement to play the module. If the GM buys the World's Largest Dungeon and you go to the house to play and then refuse to go down in, I think the GM may have a legitimate complaint.

I'd thought it'd be possible to judge the game with some respect to "scope" of the game. If the "scope" of the game was limited to the game books and the text of the module then it seemed logical to me to say it was narrower than if it was limited to a general situation and was pretty much guaranteed to mutate dramatically when the PC's act on it (a Sorcerer relationship map). I'm guessing you don't see that as especially meaningful though, and I'll have to keep thinking on that.

For the games where the GM is more like a referee and the players are aware they are there to take on a module, I think the problems associated with TITBB would be significantly different and, I'd think, a lot less prevalent.

I would tend to say that "traditional roleplaying" means that the players control their PCs, while the GM controls the rest of the background and world.  Given this setup, it seems to me that the control of direction is straightforward.  The more that the PCs are pawns of their environment, the more dominant the GM is likely to be.  Conversely, if the PCs are powerful, well-informed, and free relative to their environment, then the players are more likely to be dominant.  

As Aaron said in his first post, it seems that there is a smooth spectrum between these.  At one extreme, you could have a near-LARP-like scenario -- i.e. there are no NPCs, and thus most of the action is interaction between the players/PCs.  The GM is mostly watching.  At the other extreme would be, say, scenarios where the PCs are brainwashed agents who get their mission orders from some NPC authority, and the players are just trying to fulfill their orders as best they can.  

No argument in the terms as I think you mean them. If no forces/situation are acting on the PC's and they are the only relevant things in the game that are moving then from a sense of looking at what happens the game will be highly player-directed in the begining.

However as situation develops the GM will almost certainly have to run more and more of the world's reaction to the PC's to the point where I think usually stuff will "happen to them" (their enemies arrange some pay-back, for example).

At that point, by some definitions, the game will no longer be player directed.

Furthermore, when even free, powerful, and informed PC's try something the GM thinks won't work, the GM will veto their input.

My point is that if the players and GM get out of synch (as happened in the Sorcerer game) then even if the GM is well intentioned there will be problems since the GM must still make the world react in some way. Player direction alone doesn't run the world.

Well, first of all, yes.  I do have considerable power over the direction of the *story*.  Depending on how you define "game", maybe that is in the GM's hands (i.e. the GM can "beat" the PCs, no contest).  But the story does not consist of what the location is, or even whether the good guys wins.  By playing my character, I can make this situation range from Monty-Python-esque comedy (trading quips against the GM's straight men) to dramatic psychological revelation (a lot of dialogue or monologue about how this feels).  

Yeah, well, as I said, there seem to be some different opinions about how true that is.

Consider that the other problem with TITBB (the first being "I tried it, it's impossible") is said to be that, while possible, two people don't agree on which version of MJ's solutions to use.

If you are right then in order for a GM to be taking away your control of the game the Participationist GM would have to do things like control your dialog and are getting close to running your character like an NPC.

Even in your MIB game that wasn't the case. It wasn't the case in MJ's Illusionist game. It certainly wasn't the case in the Sorceror game.

Although GM's do sometimes run PC's "like NPC's"--controling the aspects that you bring up--usually it is done with reference to disadvantages (like TRoS's Flaws) and not applied to play in general.

So I don't think that it's fair to say that GM's who are trying to 'author the story' are necessiarily infringing on your dramatic psychological revelation. That was kinda my point about the text being misapplied.

Even if he isn't literally holding a published module in his hand, the GM may decide not to arbitrarily invent things to capture the PCs and drag them to where he wants them.  The GM may instead portray a reactive environment, while the players/PCs are proactive in setting up situations and conflicts.

Right--and if the players are pro-active then the game is more "player driven" than if they are reactive or if the GM sends goons to get them all the time.

As I said, though, when the world responds (and if the game continues) keeps responding, this condition is going to be far from 99% Player, 1% GM in terms of who inputs what into the game.

In my V:tM game the players decided to take over local (human) organized crime--as the GM, I would say they set up that conflict and took proactive action (it was a surprise to me)--but once that happened the input was a lot closer to 50-50 than 99-1. Certainly than 99.9-.1.

Crime hit back. Even when the PC's were on the offense, I had to determine what I thought was reasonable for them to encounter and who various bosses were and how they'd react and so on.

I recognize that this mode of play is different from "The PC's are kiddnapped and thrown in the adventure" but I think that if a player had said "I don't like games where 'things happen to my character'" then I'd have a hard time running even a 'reactive' game since, certainly, stuff *did* happen to the characters once they took on a powerful adversary.

-Marco

[John Kim]

As Aaron said in his first post, it seems that there is a smooth spectrum between these.  At one extreme, you could have a near-LARP-like scenario -- i.e. there are no NPCs, and thus most of the action is interaction between the players/PCs.  The GM is mostly watching.  At the other extreme would be, say, scenarios where the PCs are brainwashed agents who get their mission orders from some NPC authority, and the players are just trying to fulfill their orders as best they can.

Even if he isn't literally holding a published module in his hand, the GM may decide not to arbitrarily invent things to capture the PCs and drag them to where he wants them.  The GM may instead portray a reactive environment, while the players/PCs are proactive in setting up situations and conflicts.

Right--and if the players are pro-active then the game is more "player driven" than if they are reactive or if the GM sends goons to get them all the time.

As I said, though, when the world responds (and if the game continues) keeps responding, this condition is going to be far from 99% Player, 1% GM in terms of who inputs what into the game.

In my V:tM game the players decided to take over local (human) organized crime--as the GM, I would say they set up that conflict and took proactive action (it was a surprise to me)--but once that happened the input was a lot closer to 50-50 than 99-1. Certainly than 99.9-.1.

Crime hit back. Even when the PC's were on the offense, I had to determine what I thought was reasonable for them to encounter and who various bosses were and how they'd react and so on.

OK, it sounds like in your game, the PCs were a relatively unified force, and the primary external conflict was the PCs vs your NPCs.  (It's pretty darn common.)  Given that as a basic assumption, then yes, the split of control is going to tend towards 50-50.  

I suspect you're treating that as being inherent, though, rather than as a very common practice.  As I said, I expect the 99.9% player-directed extreme would be LARP-like.  i.e. There aren't NPC opponents, but rather PC-vs-PC conflicts.  Imagine if in your game, some of the players were controlling organized crime and some of them were controlling the vampires.  

Given that organized crime were NPCs, though, there is still a spectrum of possible divisions of control.  Within the vampires-vs-crime conflict, how well-informed were the PCs?  My experience is that in such conflict scenarios, control is based heavily on information -- moreso than ability to win.  i.e. Even if the vampires are hugely outnumbered, they can at least control the direction of the game if they know where their opponents are and what they are attempting.