Robin's Laws?

[Tor Erickson]

Okay, I did a search on this one and didn't come up with anything... if this has already been discussed, I apologize:

Over in Actual Play Ben Morgan made a reference to Robin Laws book "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering."

I just read this guide last week and was really stunned.   I mean, really blown away.  The book was published in 2002 by one of the most popularly renowned names in RPG-design; written as a standard reference on good GMing.    It's supposed to be a collection of GM wisdom, both Robin's and that of many others.  

And it sounds pretty damn much exactly like the kind of advice I was reading when I first got into the hobby 14 years ago.  

His list of player types doesn't even include what we've defined as a narrativist here at the Forge (his Storyteller type reads as solid simulationist).  Most of the book is dedicated to reconciling different styles of play within the group -- without even a nod to the idea that you might try to find people with similar styles in the first place.  This leads to all sorts of complex, difficult to swallow theories, like the Structure Quotient chart where you give each player an integer rating from -3 to +3 based on their play style and then take the average to determine "how much attention you should pay to structure" when writing the scenario (writing the scenario!  How many assumptions are contained in that right there?).

The implicit assumptions that underlie most of the book are staggering.  In the troubleshooting section he describes how to break a "Moral Impasse" by stepping in as the GM and pushing the plot forward... which seems to miss the point terribly.  And nowhere in the book is there any indication of anything but "GM narrates, players respond."    I mean, hell, the man wrote Rune where the actual position of GM switches from person to person, and I'm sure he's familiar with games like Baron Munchausen where narration is shared.

What the heck is going on here?  Did anybody else have a similar reaction to this?  If this guy is supposed to be an innovator, heading the trends in the industry, then why does this sound like ancient history?

-Tor

[Johannes]

Well, artists are often the worst critics of their own work.

[Le Joueur]

Considering all the problems you cite Tor, is it any surprise it hasn't gotten much 'ink' here?

Like I always tell my kids..."If you can't say something nice about somebody,

...make it funny!"[/list:u]Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Damned if I can find the fairly recent thread in which I wrote this, but I'd saved it as a file when composing it, so here it is, repeated:

To review, and with luck not to be too boring, the Whole Model goes as follows:

1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of Power. The following points may be considered ever-deeper "skins" or "boxes" into the model.
2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five parts with some causal relationships among them.
3. The agendas or "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play cannot occur without such an agenda, whether individualized or socially-shared.
4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of things like Currency, Resolution (DFK, IIEE), and Reward systems.
5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances.

Anyway, so what are player-classifications in these terms. At first glance, they are part and parcel of Social Contract, and as such, they would be expected to follow whatever personality types and social roles we see in practically any social, leisure activity. Who's "leader," who's "the flirt," who's "must disagree," who's "gets squinty-eyed about details," who's "placator/peacemaker," and so on. Tons of different social roles, tons of different adjustments and shifts among them too, as I'm sure most will agree.

However, most of the time, I see such classifications as "skewers" into the layered model. They start with a strictly social role (such as you might see just as easily among a softball team or members of a band), then apply its consequences to Exploration preferences, GNS goals/play=stuff, and even down to preferred Techniques and specific commitments to certain rules.

My problem with such a "skewer" classification of people is not that one or another does or does not exist - my problem is that one particular (e.g.) placator/peacemaker person doesn't necessarily penetrate to the core of the model along the same trajectory as another placator/peacemaker. This one might be all about hard-core Gamist play (sub-categories forthcoming in my upcoming essay) and this other one might be all about highly-internal Character-Explore Simulationist play. So the classification, if it purports to be exclusive in any kind of usable fashion, is rendered non-insightful relative to actual role-playing.

I'd written all that in a discussion with Jack, so Jack, do you remember the thread? I don't want to leave your voice out of the reference.

Anyway, Tor, this is pretty much my take on all of the player-classification schemes out there. I think most of them are derived versions of the list provided in an old Champions supplement called Strike Force, which is a classic of 80s gaming techniques and outlooks, treated as a "how to" manual by many of the people devoted to that game (me included).

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

In defense of the book, keep in mind that Laws was writing for the great majority of "conventional" role players, and a decision to work within an overall framework of what is already familiar to most of them is justifiable. The loss of an opportunity to broaden players' horizons might be regretted, but on the flip side, it could be argued that a brief cursory treatment of GNS theory and practice in the book would have done more harm than good, while a more thorough treatment would have made the book unmarketable. In other words, the "lost opportunity" might not have really existed in the first place.

Another factor to consider: it's not at all unusual, even in supposedly fast-moving fields like telecommunications and medicine, for what appears to bleeding-edge R&D innovators as "ancient history" (what they were working on ten or fifteen years ago) to be the "new standards" (if not the cutting edge) in actual consumer product deployment or clinical practice.

To my knowledge, the only discussion at the Forge that juxtaposes Robin's Laws and GNS is my "congruence" theory, introduced in this thread. The idea is to play in such a way as to minimize overt friction between decision-making in different GNS modes, generally at the cost of accepting some constraints on what can be explored. I and a few others have interpreted many of Robin's Laws as examples of congruence techniques.

[edit to add:] Cross-posted this with Ron, and I overlooked the aspect of player classification schemes which have, as Ron's quote shows, also been discussed in GNS terms. So much for "...the only discussion at the Forge..."; my apologies for overstating. There are probably other areas of overlap too; the book covers a wide range of issues despite its apparently limited outlook.

- Walt

[jrs]

The topic that Ron refers to above is http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5214">Types of Players.

I remember appreciating the layered/skewered model much more than the usual boxes model.

Julie

[Emily Care]

I think Tor's post is a good reminder about how much of a schism there is between general approaches to roleplaying and what gets discussed here.  Some folks may get hit in the face with that difference every day, but just chatting with other Forge folks can be insulating.

--Emily Care

[Le Joueur]

I also referenced this work in my article about Scattershot's Approaches, also noting some deficiencies.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with Walt's comments.

I hope that Law's work and ours is reconcilable to an extent. I mean what if it's we who are wrong? More people play his games than ours. Who are we to criticize?

Mike

[Wulf]

I hope that Law's work and ours is reconcilable to an extent. I mean what if it's we who are wrong? More people play his games than ours. Who are we to criticize?

Without being too insulting, The Forge reminds me of cutting edge physics research labs. Fascinating, but utterly useless to our day to day lives ;-)

I believe the most widely used significant thing to come out of the space race was the teflon-coated frying pan. We need a teflon-coated RPG mechanic to prove the Forge's worth...

Wulf

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, how did my words inspire that?

Not only does The Forge inspire mechanics but entire RPGs. Which are played by lots of people. That's pretty practical.

My point was merely to point our the beginning of wisdom: assume you know nothing.

But on a rational basis, I think we do quite well in practical terms here. In fact "Actual Play" is our watchword.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

First of all, hardly anyone uses Teflon for cooking anymore.  Second, desktop computers are more what 'the space program' gave us (they didn't invent them, but they sure put the fuel to the fire for the development).  Third, the civilian uses of radiation all came from "cutting edge physics research labs;" think of the lives saved by 'useless atomic physics.'

And what about our Teflon-coated Diana Jones Prize winner?

(Good words, Mike.)

Fang Langford

[Tor Erickson]

As Walt said, a lot of the book can be explained by looking at the audience.  It's a conventional role-playing group, with a mish-mash of different kinds of players (nevermind that it's a kind of group that has been deemed dysfunctional in Forge parlance).  But I just can't understand his treatment of "Method Actors" and "Storytellers"  (character simulationists and illusionists with some bleed-in to Narrativists).  They're basically swept under the rug, or at best momentarily indulged during actual play before the game can move on to "the real action" (my own words, not Robin's).  And not to sound repetitive, but the book makes Robin sound totally oblivious to the idea that narrative could emerge during play.

Okay, I realize this may not be the most productive thread, and I don't want to bash on Robin Laws; I'd say he's designed some pretty fine games, so I'll stop with this final comment.  What got me about this book is this: it's out there in game stores claiming to be a guide to "Good Game Mastering," written by an acclaimed designer, published by one of the biggest names in RPG publishing (Steve Jackson).  If anything in the role-playing world can claim to be as such, then this is the RPG equivalent of a big story in Science magazine, or a defining story on the conflict in Iraq in the New York Times (in otherwords, it's got a lot of name recognition behind it-- a lot of authority).  But it's like releasing a science story based on 15-20 year old info, or writing about Iraq in 2003 based on newscasts from Desert Storm.  

In any other industry if you tried to pull a stunt like that you'd be a laughing stock.  In role-playing games, you're touted as a visionary.  What gives?

-Tor, exhaling deeply, ready to move on

edited to add the words "in 2003"

[Wulf]

First of all, hardly anyone uses Teflon for cooking anymore.  Second, desktop computers are more what 'the space program' gave us (they didn't invent them, but they sure put the fuel to the fire for the development).  Third, the civilian uses of radiation all came from "cutting edge physics research labs;" think of the lives saved by 'useless atomic physics.'

Evidently my comments were taken as more serious criticism than they were intended... particularly, I don't know why you put the words 'useless atomic physics' in quotes, since no-one else has said it. And as for teflon, well, hardly anyone uses bakelite anymore, doesn't make it less significant a development.

I am well aware of the use and purpose of research, but I am also aware that most of it serves no purpose than to inspire more research. It is interesting that there is more criticism of my metaphor than evidence of the effect of these forums and games. I would have started with that, I would have liked to have heard people's thought on it. Instead I get defensiveness...

Wulf

[Mike Holmes]

That's a stilted analogy.

What if RPGs are cooking. Sure we may have some refinements to add to the concepts in the cookbook. But that doesn't mean that the recipes won't work. And nobody would care that they weren't cutting edge. In fact they'd be given more credit for being time honored.

How many people are aware that they're Narrativists. You can get away with ignoring Narrativist players as such because they've traditionally been forced to either play under the table or to adopt other modes. As such, you don't have to cater to them. It's acceptable to ignore them. So why should a product for the masses who don't even understand their own preferences well.

And again, maybe the GNS model isn't better. I'll play devils advocate. If Mr. Laws were here, what would you say to him if he said that GNS is hooey? Or just didn't apply to a book on good GMing?

Mike