Player Responsibility

[Marco]

In any case, I'd agree that D&D 3.5 is pretty damn good for these purposes. So quit putting words in the mouths of the indie designers other than yourself, Marco.

Mike

Which words? I agree with everything you said (I think).

-Marco

[clehrich]

Just so's I can follow this discussion, does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"?  I don't recall anything resembling that in AD&D, way back in the day, though admittedly it's been a while since I really read those things through.

My sense is, following up Dr. Xero's hypothesis, that AD&D did not intend the GM to be a floating patch.  My impression is that they really wanted a complete, working system; all the GM had to do was obey in order to get a running game.  What he had to add creatively was solely in adventure design (if he didn't use modules) and descriptive handling.  Which, let's remember, is not small potatoes.  Note that this is my impression of intent: it says nothing about whether it does or did work.

As to other games, I have a much less clear impression.  It's all a matter of feel, I admit; I haven't gone hunting through the texts for the "golden rule" and its contexts.  Has anyone done this?  Has there been a thread on it I could read?

P.S. Marco, where was the RPG.net discussion of Banks?

[Vaxalon]

...does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"?

Yes, it does.  In fact, 3.0 did too.  They call it "Rule Zero"... it's actually in the Player's Handbook, an admonition to people creating characters that they should consult with the DM, because he may have house rules that should be considered.

[M. J. Young]

Why would a player roleplay in a game with a sex=death mechanic unless he or she wanted to play in a game with a sex=death mechanic?

Several reasons behind this have been posed, but I felt there were clearer ways to express this. I've two notions here.

The first is, the player reads that sex equals death (not in exactly those words, but generally that kind of thing), and he thinks to himself, yeah, right, how likely is that to happen? Never having been in a game in which the opportunity for a character to have sex arose, or never having acted on such an opportunity, the player perceives this rule as irrelevant to the game. He thinks the likelihood of it arising is so remote that the rule doesn't matter. It isn't until gameplay proceeds and the situation arises that he realizes the situation was nearly inevitable in the game is written. He would not have agreed to the game had he any idea it was going to go that way.

The second reason is like this, but requires a different kind of example.

The player reads in the text that when the Charm Person spell is successfully cast and the target fails its save, the player of the character who cast the spell has control over the character on whom the spell was cast. He thinks, wow, that's a cool spell. I can see using that on enemies to great effect. Then when play has moved along suddenly one of those enemies casts the spell on his character, and suddenly und, to him, unexpectedly he has lost all control over his character. The rule was right there in front of him all the time, and he'd even thought about it, but seeing it presented in neutral terms he had in his own mind framed it favorably to himself, and had failed to recognize the flip side of the same rule as used against him.

I frequently see this second sort of problem in Multiverser play. I get players trying to create skills that are so powerful that if I as referee introduced them in the hands of the villains they would be furious. I remind them of this: you would not want a skill that gave you no chance against it, so why do you think you should be able to create a skill that gives your adversary no chance? (Note: this is not merely that the character becomes extremely powerful. It is that the skill itself is infallible, even for a rank amateur.)

So I think people will get into these games because they don't really expect the problematic rule to play out the way it does.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

M.J, it sounds like a 'I didn't expect to leave my comfort zone' dodge. During SC, they agree but don't really expect any challenge that will take them outside of their comfort zone.

On the same level, since they don't think anything will take them out of it ("It's just a game!"), so they don't think to do anything during SC negotiation to ensure they aren't taken out of their CZ in play.

To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them. Because although I don't agree with Marco's notion that the rule leads to disfunction, I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent. Dangerous.

[Marco]

To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them. Because although I don't agree with Marco's notion that the rule leads to disfunction, I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent. Dangerous.

I don't think the rule leads to dysfunction.

I think that the combination of an absolute rule and a player who doesn't want it in the game is a dysfunctional one (i.e. something has gone wrong there on a fundamental level).

-Marco

[ffilz]

I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent.

But doesn't that lead right into dysfunction? If per the glossary, dysfunction is "not fun play", then any failure in negotiation of the SC that leads to "not fun play" is something leading to dysfunction. A rule that has non-obvious consequences is a prime candidate for creating unfun play.

Mike:

Another possible scenario is that when the game started, the player was onboard with sex=death, and it's implications, but by the time the situation comes up in play for him, his romantic life has changed such that sex=death becomes something he doesn't want to deal with.

I've personally seen another aspect of this issue. One of my college Cold Iron campaigns started out with a very high death rate. One of my best friends decided to join the campaign because he felt I finally had decided to let PCs die. However, by the time he joined, the death rate had dropped dramatically. There were several contributing factors. I probably had changed my attitude some, but far more importantly, the PCs had gained levels (Cold Iron, being similar to D&D has the same low level fragility). Also, the players had learned the system (the tactical combat system can be brutal if you don't understand the dynamics of multiple people attacking the same target, and how to prevent that). In any event, the friend became disappointed and soon left the campaign.

On the other hand,

M.J, it sounds like a 'I didn't expect to leave my comfort zone' dodge. During SC, they agree but don't really expect any challenge that will take them outside of their comfort zone.

I agree that sometimes players just put blinders on. My most vivid memory of this sort of problem was with a starship combat board game. In trying to learn the game, I had played through several of the scenarios solo. The first scenario seemed imbalanced, and I played it a bunch of times trying to get the "losing" side to win. I gave up after a bunch of tries. One day, I got someone to play the game with me. I suggested we skip the first scenario because of the imbalance. He didn't want to skip it. I explained how bad it was. He didn't want to skip it. I suggested he play the winning side. He refused. We played. He lost. He declared that the game was stupid and walked off in a huff.

Frank

[Doctor Xero]

To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them.

I know that Champions has done that since its fourth or fifth edition with colorful 'stop sign' icons and 'magnifying glass' icons et al.

I think this is not a bad idea and one we should take into consideration in our own game design efforts.

Just so's I can follow this discussion, does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"?  I don't recall anything resembling that in AD&D, way back in the day, though admittedly it's been a while since I really read those things through.

In fact, 3.0 did too.  They call it "Rule Zero"... it's actually in the Player's Handbook, an admonition to people creating characters that they should consult with the DM, because he may have house rules that should be considered.

If memory serves, the earlier editions (i.e. the ones in the 1970s and perhaps early 1980s) did not include much more than a vague reference to dungeon master input or authority apropos house rules.  I recall reading interviews with some of the game designers in which they stated the hope of a complete system.

Over the past decade or two, however, even TSR (and then WOTC) recognized that dungeon masters not only needed to tailor the game to their particular groups but that, for many groups, the house rules and tailoring were part of the appeal of the game.

Since that time, the game books have specifically stated the importance of the dungeon master (and the group consensus as well) in tailoring the rules to the needs of the specific group.

I would not consider such recognition a patch-in, however, but instead a more sophisticated understanding of the group dynamics of the modern game-playing audience.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

I don't think the rule leads to dysfunction.

I think that the combination of an absolute rule and a player who doesn't want it in the game is a dysfunctional one (i.e. something has gone wrong there on a fundamental level).

-Marco

I agree.

When a player willingly joins a game with rules he or she mislikes (or willingly declines to ensure that he or she understands just what he or she is getting into), any dysfunction is not necessarily the fault of the game system, and it is not necessarily the fault of the game master nor the fault of the fact that the game system has the niche of game master.  It may not be a fumble by game system or game master regarding CA or such.  It may be nothing more than the thoughtlessness or foolishness of the player.

That said, I recognize that roleplaying games tend to be social activities, so it's quite possible the player joined the game merely because his or her friends were playing said game.  That brings in a plethora of social factors which might lead to dysfunction.  However, those factors are not the concern of the game designer.

The concern or duty of the game designer in such situations is limited to ensuring that the game's introductory section makes it clear what the game involves and how the game involves it so that no player has the right to cry "dysfunction" because he or she didn't bother to notice that sex=death in the game (to use our current example).

Doctor Xero

[ffilz]

I mostly agree with Xero, but I think the best rule books take pains to point out game rules that might be problematical. I really like how Ron wrote Sex and Sorcery. It really makes an effort to tell the reader that this may be a touchy subject for some, and to make damn sure the social contract is solid on what is and is not appropriate play.

I would say that a sex=death rule is of a similar nature, and deserves more than just an "adult content" label on the cover of the book or a quick paragraph or two in the introduction (especially if the introduction seems to be of the "this is what a role playing game is" into, I myself tend to skim those because they so rarely introduce anything new - don't hide your critical rules there...).

Also, if not all the players are expected to read the rules, then it IS the job of the person organizing the game to make sure everyone understands what the game is all about (in fact, to be honest, this is the responsibility of the organizer even if he does expect everyone to own and read the ruleset).

Frank

[clehrich]

I mostly agree with Xero, but I think the best rule books take pains to point out game rules that might be problematical. I really like how Ron wrote Sex and Sorcery. It really makes an effort to tell the reader that this may be a touchy subject for some, and to make damn sure the social contract is solid on what is and is not appropriate play.

Xero's example of the stop-signs and magnifying glasses in Champions is an excellent one, and easy to incorporate as a result of playtesting.  When you discover that a particular rule seems to prompt the, "Hey!  Was that really right there in the rules?  No way!" response, you put a magnifying glass next to it.  When you find a rule that the GM has to be super-wary about, because if he doesn't master it the players who do might rip the game apart, you put a stop-sign.  Easy, simple, visually effective.

Also, if not all the players are expected to read the rules, then it IS the job of the person organizing the game to make sure everyone understands what the game is all about (in fact, to be honest, this is the responsibility of the organizer even if he does expect everyone to own and read the ruleset).

I've always been opposed to this sort of thing, the "secret rules in the back for GMs only" stuff.  But if you do it, then you'd better be damn sure that there aren't any of those "this rule kills players" bits in there and not elsewhere, yes.

[Marco]

I've always been opposed to this sort of thing, the "secret rules in the back for GMs only" stuff.  But if you do it, then you'd better be damn sure that there aren't any of those "this rule kills players" bits in there and not elsewhere, yes.

Although I agree (heartily) in practice--in theory I have a problem: if I as a player know there is a secret back of the book section and that a GM, as writ, has authority to invoke stuff there and I agree to play I am, IMO, signing up for the wild-ride of whatever that section says sight unseen.

While this is a somewhat degenerate case (as presented here) I think a more general case is where the GM has a scenario and doesn't disclose all the features of it to the players. The players still show up, ready to go down in the dungeon--and they don't know all the specifics of situation--but they are trusting the GM to facilitate their good time.

Consider this: in Monopoly there is no unforseen input (you read the rules, you look at all the cards, and you know the space the game can encompass). When you are going down into the GM's personal dungeon there could be made up monsters, made up treasure, NPC's, etc.

All of this is, IMO, sort of like those rules in the back of the book the players aren't supposed to see. But I'm willing to play in those games anyway and the division of responsibility isn't always crystal clear (but sometimes it could be: can a Hackmaster GM make up a monster? I'm not sure--but given the rest of the game's focus, I'd expect not).

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, with regards to D&D and the Golden Rule, I think that it's primarily in response to the rhetoric of Gygax in first edition that the golden rule started appearing. That is, in first edition AD&D, Gygax said in no uncertain terms that if you altered the rules that were presented, that you were no longer playing AD&D. This was important at the time because of the whole convention tournament. For those who may not have ever played in one, these were very gamist events where the players who did best in purely gamist terms won prizes. It was very important at that time that there be "official" rules of how to play, or you couldn't compare sessions fairly.

Well, as everyone knows, AD&D is not without its flaws as a system, and everyone ignored the prohibition against changing the rules. "So I'm not playing AD&D according to Gygax, so what?" In fact there were some rather flamey folks who took outright outrage at the idea that they couldn't alter the rules, and who vehemently rejected the idea. Most importantly, anyone who wanted to make their own RPG - read version of D&D - was almost certainly revolting against the idea that Gygax had things right.

Soon the notion became that not only was it wrong for a designer to say that you had to play by his rules, but it became a "feature" of most games that they would say somewhere in the text that they expected you to alter the game. And most took it to a further extreme saying that "no system is perfect, if something doesn't work, play the story not the rules."

Note the slight difference there. One says that it's OK to alter the rules (which I find merely unneccessary). The second tells the players that it makes sense merely to drop the rules whenever the GM thinks that they should drop the rules (all of these games also say that the GM is final arbiter, so obviously only he has the authority to OK any such change - though a player might propose one.

By the '90s, it became obligatory to have some text like this. Wordings vary, depending on how "Story" driven the game is. The more story-oriented the system was, the more they tended to suggest ignoring the rules.

This is precisely the "System Doesn't Matter" approach talking. Only a good GM can know how to keep a game on an even keel, and the rules shall not hamper him. Because the idea of rules that actually support story was absent. Indeed they mostly did just interfere with what all of the narrativism folks out there wanted. So it was thought that less rules, or ignoring rules, or freeform was the only way out of this trap.

So, it's largely this ideology to which The Forge is a reaction. A little history for those who may have been unaware.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

This is precisely the "System Doesn't Matter" approach talking. Only a good GM can know how to keep a game on an even keel, and the rules shall not hamper him.

Although I agree with you overall, Mike, consider this :

The "System Doesn't Matter" approach is one which places tremendous responsibility on the player who has the role/duties of game master.

Every time we attempt to design a game system which handles some of this for the players (including game master), we reduce somewhat the player responsibility for keeping the game on an even keel and for producing narrativist or simulationist story if such is desired.

I imagine the ultimate game design in which players have maximum responsibility would be a blank page?

I imagine the ultimate game design in which system matters and players have no responsibility duties/roles would require no players at all?

To focus my comments more directly on thread topic, then, I suspect this points out to us that the best game designs will be clear to players (including game master) about both game mechanics and about the limitations to the system -- in other words, the best game designs also make clear for the players involved those points in which system does not or can not matter, e.g. social contracts.

Doctor Xero

[xiombarg]

The "System Doesn't Matter" approach is one which places tremendous responsibility on the player who has the role/duties of game master.

Yes, yes it does, and is it's big problem. I've referred to a Changeling game I tried to run a while back that went real dysfunctional real fast, and this was a big part of it: A lot of the veteran White Wolf players adamantly believed it was my job, as GM, to entertain them, not everyone's job to entertain everyone.

I really need to do an Actual Play report on that game...