The Impossible Thing

[greyorm]

I know that I am a nobody here and the Ron Edwards is

Nope, you aren't nobody, which is a GOOD THING about the Forge IMO. We ignore seniority because any one of us schmoes may and often does have excellent ideas. Anyone's thoughtful input is as valuable as Ron's, mine or yours.

Besides, we pin Ron to the rack the minute he fails us! Arrr!



(PS: Sorry, Ron, I know you said to shut-up, but I thought this should be aired)

[taalyn]

As it stands, I understand the contradiction.  If the story is taken to have its common meaning, then saying that "the GM is author of the story" is to say that the outcome of events is under control of the GM - which flatly denies the players the ability to make significant choices for their characters, preventing them from being able to "direct the actions of the protagonists."

So, there is no argument about TITBB, in which case, what are we discussing?

[*]Next, Champions:

When playing a roleplaying game, one player takes the parts of the director and author.  This person, called a Game Master (GM for short) decides on the basic plot of the adventure.  The GM describes the setting to the players. Each player creates his character, including powers, abilities, and personality.  The player makes up dialogue on the spot...
<snip>

Again, I think it is apparent that there is no inherent contradiction between the roles of GM and Player as Champions defines it.  In fact, they go out of their way to help both "sides" avoid conflict in the first place.

So, again, TITBB is nowhere to be seen, and instead we have a perspective on the roles of GM and Player closer to TPTA.

As you've quoted it, I disagree that Champions is TPTA. The sentence "...one player takes the parts of the director and author. This person, called a Game Master ..." automatically assumes the GM is author, i.e. makes the decisions. The rest of the quote is description about how it's done, which is more TPTAish, but this doesn't contrdict the assumption of GM as author. Now, your citation doesn't say anything about the players having much say at all in defining game play, so it might not be TITBB, but if it does, it's Impossible. As it reads now, it's just biased to the GM, and players exist only subservient to his will ("God" as a nickname for the GM is particularly appropriate in this case).

I agree with your thoughts on instigation - unfortunately, that's not the issue of TITBB. And now I've run out of point to make. Anyone got spare pointness?

Now, I am sure that one could seek and find a few games that DO maintain TITBB, especially if one looked in the bargain bin, but taking a sample of mainstream, published rpg's seem to indicate that whether or not TITBB is a contradiction or not, its simply not relevant.

Well, while I generally agree with you, I think it is relevant to some extent. Pet-peeve-itude aside, it does draw out attention to how group dynamics operate in making a game enjoyable and coherent. This alone is valuable  in a market that values art and supplements (i.e. profit) over play.

They do say that the GM must create, guide, and instigate the events in the PC's lives; but they stop short of saying anything that would create a contradiction between the roles of GM and Player.

But create does imply decision making, specifically that the GM is in control of the world, and by extension, the people in the world. 'Instigate' and 'guide' are better choices, but that doesn't deny the implications of 'create' in many games' text.  

Alternatively, we are all only human.  Therefore, I ask all of you to make room for the possibility that it may turn out that I am corrrect in all of this.

I have no problem doing so, nor do I think anyone else does. The question I have is what "this" (as in '...I am correct in all of this.') means. Originally, it seemed y'all/we were areguing about what the Impossible Thing was, and if it was impossible or not.  You've agreed that the Impossible Thing is indeed impossible, so...what are we discussing now?

Whew!  That's a heckuva long post, considering that I had stated I was going to be putting this topic on hold while dealing with other matters of rpg theory, but what can I say, Ron seduced me.

Now that's a mental picture that won't easily go away!  <grin>

 Who wants it to go away?! ;^p

  Aidan

[Sindyr]

Mostly I want to wait for Ron's reply, but here is a quickie:

taalyn wrote:

As you've quoted it, I disagree that Champions is TPTA. The sentence "...one player takes the parts of the director and author. This person, called a Game Master ..." automatically assumes the GM is author, i.e. makes the decisions. The rest of the quote is description about how it's done, which is more TPTAish, but this doesn't contrdict the assumption of GM as author. Now, your citation doesn't say anything about the players having much say at all in defining game play, so it might not be TITBB, but if it does, it's Impossible. As it reads now, it's just biased to the GM, and players exist only subservient to his will ("God" as a nickname for the GM is particularly appropriate in this case).

the relevant part is "automatically assumes the GM is author, i.e. makes the decisions. "

I wouldn't assume that.  You know that whole thing about what assume makes out of u and me. :)

It says "director and author."  That does not imply that "director and author" = "makes the decisions".  In fact, I think it states the opposite, "the storyline or plot of the game is responsive to the playes decisions" and "the players and the GM will have to decide on its "ground rules" - what the GM expects from the players and what the players expect from the GM".

Thet are not saying that the GM makes all the decisions, they are merely saying that the GM is an author (of the world) and a director (of play).  Everything else explicitly refers to Champions as being a collaboration.

Which makes it TPTA.

-Sindyr

[Ron Edwards]

Wow!

Look, everyone.

Sindyr (what's your name, anyway?) did the following:

1. Asked for clarification and tolerated a bunch of (often fascinating) wahoo until he got it.

2. Refined the concept and isolated a possible weakness, providing evidence.

3. Invented Forge jargon (well, initials anyway) to express all of the above.

I'm happy.

I'll be back in a couple days with some textual examples. Here are some to consider from your own library, if you got'em:

Shadowrun
Adventure scenarios for AD&D (you rightly note that the rulebooks are worth sweet fuck-all re: "how to play")
Call of Cthulhu
Adventure scenarios for Vampire

Kind of a busy weekend for me, so forgive the delay.

Best,
Ron

[JMendes]

Ahoy, :)

However, I think my problem is the following:  The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast as defined above is, I think, a sort of straw man.

Hmm... Interesting angle. Ok, the paragraphs you quoted may tend to lean towards TPTA more than TITBB. However...

(Caution: I am not familiar with Champions, Mage or TORG, so I'll keep my comments restricted to the various flavors of DD.)

The various DMGs out there invariably have a few excerpts about how to structure a scenario. Also, regardless of your opinion about published modules, the accurately reflect the spirit in which DD is written. Which is to say: "players, there is a story, deal with it".

Regardless of how you choose to interpret that particular paragraph, if you read the whole of the published material and objectively analyze it in a TITBB vs TPTA light, I think you'll find that the game not only acknowledges but actively encourages TITBB.

Luckily and wisely, you have decided to apply a generic TPTA filter over the material (which necessarily eschews published modules, so no surprise there), and in doing so, managed to generate functional and satisfying play.

Then again, I don't consider any of the various DD varieties to be particularly coherent designs... (Note that I have nothing against DD. In fact, a few members of my RPG circle frequently refer to me as Joao ADD, because I one claimed that we could play anything we wanted using ADD2 (at the time) as a base...)

In conclusion, like so many others, I guess what I am saying is that your dismissal of TITBB is nothing but a means of successfully resolving the issue by sidestepping it.

Good stuff. This is a thread that I'd like to force everyone in my gaming group to read and come to some sort of paradigm shift.

Cheers,

J.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm assuming that, having heard a bit more about where Sindyr is at, Ron's "hold" on the thread no longer applies.  If I'm wrong  . . . well, (to keep the mood light here) I've survived the Wrath of Ron before.  No guarantee I will again, but what is life without risk? (smile)

I'm gonna make this as quick as I can - I think the core of what  Sindyr says is:

TPTA = The Possible Thing Anytime = The GM is the author of the world and the players direct the actions of the protagonists

First, a couple technical points - "author" and "protagonist" as used here at the Forge are usually seen as Story-attributes, so in a way, this isn't really a restatement of TITBB - "The GM is exclusively in charge of Story and the Player is exclusively in charge of Story".   But taken in a less than absolute, Forge-meaning sense - maybe "The GM is the primary arbiter of the world and the players have the main responsibility to protagonize the characters"? - I think Sindyr has indeed taken a step back from the actually IMPOSSIBLE thing and created something that can happen.  But . . .

The insights from TITBB are still very, very valid.  Because that silly GM's world can get all in the way of the ability of the players to portray their characters as protagonists, and those pesky players insisting on protagonizing their characters can cause all kinds of grief for what the GM thought he was going to do with his world.

Still, since this definition (by my understanding and rephrasing) leaves the all-important question of who's in charge of the Story still out there (and free to answered as "EVERYONE is in charge of the Story"), it's not Impossible.  But it's still quite tricky to pull off.  If the GM gets too stuck on being THE Author of the world, not allowing the players to substantially and significantly impact even those assumptions the GM thought were fundamental to "his" world, that's going stiffle the player-creation of Story and we're back to Impossible.  Or if the player goes into "my guy" mode ("I decided this is what my guy would do and you can't do anything to get me to say different!") whenever the GM tries to throw plot and etc. at their character, the GM now can't participate in creating Story and we are, again, finding it Impossible to create Story as a group.

So . . .  everything we learn from identifying TITBB still applies, Sindyr's TPTA just provides an opening where it is just-barely, literally POSSIBLE for everyone to be involved in creating a Story.

But if you actually want to make it LIKELY that the group can create a Story together, you might want to make that GM hold on the World even looser, and find some ways for players to really actively protagonize their characters.  Though tastes will vary as to when this can be taken TOO far . . .

Or alternatively, you can just stop worrying about creating a Story (what's so great about it anyhow?), and then it hardly matters if it's Impossible.

Sindyr, I hope that's clear - as in, I hope I explained myself clearly.  No doubt someone will come along and write a better summary, but - while I think you're right, what you're describing is NOT an Impossible thing, neither does it avoid (just in itself) all the issues that TITBB raises.

Gordon

[Jason Lee]

I hope I don't complicate the issue, but...

The GM creates the story and players control the characters.  We accept this is impossible.

The players control the characters, which creates the story.  This is also impossible in the same fashion - it says the players create the story.  As no two people (players) can create the story, this is also impossible.

The group creates the story.  Still impossible, the GM is technically just another player, so this is exactly the same as the players creating the story.

So, who creates the damn story?  Maybe the story is a collaborative effort based upon the decisions of all the players/GM.  Ok fine, but now I've got to decide who is in control of what pieces, explain this to a new gamer, and not use jargon.  So, for lack of a better word 'story' (including setting, NPC, and plot hooks) is the part the GM is in charge of, and the characters are the part the players are in charge of.  Oh but wait, if someone decides that 'story' means the whole sequence of events including the character's decisions then that's impossible.  But, what else have I got?

Anyway, I think I'm siding with Mr. Holmes on the Impossible Thing being a Nar/Sim issue because it all hinges on the definition of 'story'.


What does the impossible thing tell us, what do we gain from understanding it?  That no two people can have full control of an individual game element, and if the game text doesn't clearly state how that control is apportioned a power struggle over authorship rights is likely to occur between the actual people at the gaming table.  (wow, that was a run on).  Shorter please, and with jargon this time:  If Director stance rights are not clearly defined, dysfunction may arise.

So, I see Sindyr's point about it appearing to be a straw man, because The Impossible Thing is basically just a symantecs arguement.  Seems like you could just state the issue clearly without latching it onto the traditional GM/Player relationship and having to agree on a definition of 'story' to support the arguement.  Maybe The Impossible Thing isn't a straw man, but maybe the point is unnecessarily obfuscated.

Ron, I'm rather interested in how you see this.  Sorcerer is on my reading list, but not yet read.  My understanding is that narration rights are intentionally ambiguous in it - which could create the exact same problem that The Impossible Thing is warning us of.

[John Kim]

Regardless of how you choose to interpret that particular paragraph, if you read the whole of the published material and objectively analyze it in a TITBB vs TPTA light, I think you'll find that the game not only acknowledges but actively encourages TITBB.  

Really?  Funny, I think of it completely the opposite.  In my mind, the innovative feature of the original D&D was the dungeon adventure, which made for a non-linear, player-directed game.  The DM creates the dungeon and keys the rooms, but the players can explore it in whatever order, whatever pacing they like, using various methods.  Now, the stories here aren't very interesting, but they are player-directed.  The GM creates the elements, but the players direct the story.  

I think emphasis on GM planning and control of the plot comes from later games, going with an effort towards more structured stories like the three-act model.  For example, in contrast to D&D, Torg modules generally follow the standard of being a linear set of acts and scenes.  On the other hand, to offset this Torg has the Drama Deck which gives players more options to control the pacing, subplots, and other elements.

[M. J. Young]

As in Sindyr's post, a GM isn't really an author, but a coordinator and orchestrator of world events as effected by the players, protagonists/ characters.. Other than that they don't do anything else other than present opportunities for the Players to make decisions for or against. Now granted there are bad GMs out there guilty of railroading because they felt a player made the wrong decision and messed up their idea, but I think it's because they never truly considered their Responsibilities as a GM and what it is they are supposed to be keeping track of and doing.

A 'good' GM transmorphs the characters' decisions to fit the story. This maintains suspension of disbelief for the players who do not want to spoil the adventure.

John Kim has given a wonderful example of one sort of division of credibility. Sylus Thane has given another. J. S. Diamond has presented a third. Over in the other thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5820">Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible? I identify several others in a very long post (bottom of the third page).

The problem isn't that these things are wrong, or wrong ways to play. The problem is that each is a different interpretation of a text that doesn't say any of those things specifically, but actually specifically states something which (as Ralph has repeatedly pointed out) is inherently contradictory: that the referee is to maintain complete control over what happens in the adventure, and the players are to determine the destiny of their own characters. Those are inherently incompatible. The referee cannot have absolute control of how the game is going to end while ceding absolute control over what the protagonists are going to do to someone else.

There are probably hundreds of ways this can be resolved. Illusionism/Participationism works by giving complete control to the referee, who then uses his control to create the illusion that the decisions of the players matter (which sounds very like what J. S. Diamond is suggesting). Do whatever you like; in the end, the princess will be rescued and the dragon slain, and it will seem as if your choices brought about this wonderful outcome, so you'll all be heroes, even if you just sit in the bar all day and talk about how to do it so that someone else does the actual work. The sort of module play John referenced on the other thread works by creating an initial agreement that, much like a video game, the players are committed to figuring out what they are supposed to do and doing that. The bass-player technique Ron espouses works by letting the players control what happens within the framework established by the referee (I think what Sindyr espouses) as the referee drops into a responsive background position once the setup is established. These are all ways to respond to the text. They share this in common:

"The text is stating something impossible, so it doesn't mean that, and it must mean something else; I think this is what it means."

The text doesn't mean any one of those things. It means something that is inherently impossible. We intuitively recognize that, and replace it with something that works for us.

The reason we even discuss The Impossible Thing is so that, as game designers, we can remember not to say that in our games; even better, so that we can explain in our games what the division of credibility is supposed to be, whether it's supposed to be participationism or module style or band analogy or something else entirely.

When we talk about The Impossible Thing, what we're saying is, if you are writing rules for a game, don't tell people that the players control everything the main characters do and the referee controls everything that happens in the world and where the story goes. If the referee controls where the story goes, the power of the players is rendered meaningless.

Sindyr has culled quotes from several games to support a contention that games actually espouse his division of credibility. I played OAD&D for years, and probably several times bumped my head against the fact that I was supposed to be in control of where the story went but my players didn't always cooperate. My solution was very like Ron's and Sindyr's: let the players control where the story goes. I've played with referees whose solutions were entirely different, and I've realized (as I think Sindyr did) that D&D modules were not, in the main, designed for that sort of play. I'm actually very fascinated by the realization John Kim pointed me toward, that module play "solves" TITBB by a social contract agreement that the players are going to try to figure out what they are supposed to do and do that. This is certainly as valid a solution to the problem as doing the set-up and then ceding control of the story to the players. It seems to be the model of most CRPGs that I've seen (although IIRC Bard's Tale allowed characters to roam around and do whatever they wanted, that is rather an exception). It also is a model that has gotten precious little attention here.

There seems to be a growing consensus regarding TPTA that this is what is intended in most game texts and the way most games are played. That may be representative of many games, but I think it's neither the only common interpretation of the texts nor the only valid way to play.

However, I'll await Ron's comments; I know he has citations for The Impossible Thing, and it would be better to wait for them.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Well said, MJ. I just deleted a post that said much the same thing that I had posted because I hadn't seen yours there.

I'd note that the main problem with Impossible Thing text is that the players may not agree with the GMs solution. If the GM decides to force, then the players are left powerless in terms of plot. If the GM decides to go "open" and the players are playing Sim, then play tends to be less dramatic, and less like a story, which some participants may not like. Remember many of these texts promise story as a result, and don't tell you what that means.

On the module thing, that's been pointed out quite a bit recently. I'd even add that the purchase cost of a published module goes a long way toward forcing players into a social contract that says that they'll subsume their own power desires so that the module will get played. This is the only way that I can see the monsterous, "At the Mountains of Madness" (400 pages, $40) ever gettin played as written.

Mike

[John Kim]

The problem isn't that these things are wrong, or wrong ways to play. The problem is that each is a different interpretation of a text that doesn't say any of those things specifically, but actually specifically states something which (as Ralph has repeatedly pointed out) is inherently contradictory: that the referee is to maintain complete control over what happens in the adventure, and the players are to determine the destiny of their own characters.  

I have yet to see the game which says this, though.  For example, "Champions" and "Vampire" have both been cited here: but they both have strong advice to the GM that she does not and should not have complete control.  Frankly, if you aren't actually trying to find the author's intent and just apply arbitrary definitions to their use of words like "author" and "story" -- then sure, what you get doesn't make much sense.  However, for the most part I think that the author's are genuinely trying to convey their real preference for the non-impossible divide that they use in their own games.  

From the start of the Vampire Storytelling chapter:

Storytelling sounds like a lot to manage all at once, and it is at first.  Fortunately, the Storyteller doesn't have to do it all at once.  The secret to successful storytelling is, ironically, the work of the players.  Fulfilling the expectations and interests of a chronicle's players is the first trick to creating the game's setting.  Then -- if the chronicle and its overall story have been carefully developed -- the actions of the characters, both good and bad, will have consequences that in turn spawn further stories.  Never forget: The more the players are involved with what happens in a chronicle, the less work you, the Storyteller, must take upon yourself.  You aren't supposed to do it all alone.  The Storyteller should have as much fun with the game as the players, and this chapter details how.

From the Hero System Gamemastering chapter:

As a GM, you'll find it all too easy to get caught up in your story, the great story you've got planned out, and to make sure you tell that story -- no matter how many improbable plot twists you have to throw in or player actions you have to ignore to make sure that your story takes place.  But the player characters are the focus of your story, and therefore they and their players are the most important elements in your story.  You should slant the story to suit them, not the other way around.  Learning how to do this, and do it well, is one of the hardest things about good GMing.

The first and most important thing to do is to plan stories which your players and PCs will want to participate in without having to drag them along by ring through their noses. ...

Second, learn to adapt your stories to the players' cool and interesting ideas.  Many a GM rejects ideas that the players come up with in the middle of a story, simply because the players' idea is different from what he has in mind.  It doesn't matter if the players' solution to the mystery or combat situation is as good as, or better than, his own; he's determined to follow through with his story, and damn the consequences.  This is wrong.  ...

Now, neither of these sections are masterpieces of writing, but I think that if you take them as a whole, in context, they do convey a non-impossible style.

[greyorm]

if the chronicle and its overall story have been carefully developed

This just screams "Impossible Thing" to me, John. After all, if the chronicle and its overall story (which apriori must be a series of events (leaving out for the moment whether those events are preplanned or unplanned)) have been carefully developed, the players really do have no control over the actual results, no matter what their decisions are.

Why? Because you as GM cannot carefully plan a series of unplanned events. You can only carefully plan a series of planned events.

That a story is a series of events seems obvious -- and it avoids the contention over whether a story must be about making decisions. I don't think it is possible to disagree that a story (book, literature, film, oration), at its most basic level, is simply a series of events.

I'm sorry, I believe strongly in the Impossible Thing, mainly because I've seen it at work for many years in a game I was a part of. The GM believed he was creating a story for us to work through, and we all believed that we were free to do as we wanted and explore his world.

But we weren't. We were roped into scene after scene showcasing the unfolding plotline of his story -- and at some points our lack of ability to influence the end result no matter what we did was really blatant.

We had control of minutia: "my character says" and "my character does," which I take some people believe to mean that the Impossible Thing doesn't exist because of.

John, what is missing from the above quotes you've given are the statements made to the players:
You are free to explore the world.
You are free to go where you wish and do as you wish.

This contradicts the above quoted passage about creating a story...how can you (the GM) plan out conflicts and points of decision, let alone events, if you do not know where the players are going and what they're doing -- because they're free to go where they want and do as they wish?
You can't. Period.

(At which point someone brings up Illusionism and Door A becoming Door B as needed: which is a FIX to the Impossible Thing, but does not mean it does not exist...and round and round we go).

Simply, it is the use of such words as "plan" and "develop" that are problematic, because they carry with them connotations about the GM's activity prior to a game, activity which is at odds with what the players are told about their ability to do as they wish.

I agree, both texts attempt to solve the problem by clearly stating that the GM needs to create flexible stories that take the characters and the players into account...but the GM is still creating a story.

You cannot plan and develop and still grant player freedom, even with statements such as "be flexible with your plan!" Because you are still planning something.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm sorry, I believe strongly in the Impossible Thing, mainly because I've seen it at work for many years in a game I was a part of.

I will say ditto to this and back it up with some examples.

Once, a player in his first session decided his character would have nothing to do with the party and nearly walked right out of the campaign. Literally.

More recently, a player was going off by himself because that is what his character would do, or so he reason in "my guy" mode. The GM penalized him with no screen time during the game so the player got to sit and watch because of this.

So in both cases the players got to have complete control over their characters..unless..and it's the unless that seems to be the point we're talking about IIUC.

[John Kim]

if the chronicle and its overall story have been carefully developed

This just screams "Impossible Thing" to me, John. After all, if the chronicle and its overall story (which apriori must be a series of events (leaving out for the moment whether those events are preplanned or unplanned)) have been carefully developed, the players really do have no control over the actual results, no matter what their decisions are.

Why? Because you as GM cannot carefully plan a series of unplanned events. You can only carefully plan a series of planned events.

I think you're stretching here.  You just concluded that "have been carefully developed" (passive voice; verb "developed") means "has been pre-planned by the GM alone without any allowance for deviation from that plan".  This despite the fact that all of the sentences around it say the opposite.  

Sorry, I don't buy this.  Now, Vampire does suggest a strong role for the GM -- moreso than its semi-predecessor Ars Magica, which encourages shared authority resulting from troupe play and player authorial power via Whimsy Cards.  Vampire does suggest that plots originate from the GM, and that the GM should plan an ending scene: but should be prepared to change his plans based on what the players do.  

I'm sorry, I believe strongly in the Impossible Thing, mainly because I've seen it at work for many years in a game I was a part of. The GM believed he was creating a story for us to work through, and we all believed that we were free to do as we wanted and explore his world.

But we weren't. We were roped into scene after scene showcasing the unfolding plotline of his story -- and at some points our lack of ability to influence the end result no matter what we did was really blatant.

Well, this is a two-edged sword.  If you can cite this as evidence, then I can cite all of my anecdotal evidence of GMs who did give the players the ability to change the plot.  Ultimately, it comes down to this:  there are GMs of both types, who read the same text but decided to do things differently.  We can delve through minutiae about how the GM advice text is phrased, but really I think that the difference comes more from the personality of the GMs and their own ideas.  They ran things that way primarily because they wanted to, not because it was written in some essay.  

John, what is missing from the above quotes you've given are the statements made to the players:
You are free to explore the world.
You are free to go where you wish and do as you wish.

I can't find any such quote for either Vampire or Champions.  If you could cite it, please do so.  As far as I see, what is told to Vampire players is the same as what is told to the Storytellers -- that the Storyteller invents the dramatic arc, while the players direct and influence the action within that framework.

[Marco]

The problem isn't that these things are wrong, or wrong ways to play. The problem is that each is a different interpretation of a text that doesn't say any of those things specifically, but actually specifically states something which (as Ralph has repeatedly pointed out) is inherently contradictory: that the referee is to maintain complete control over what happens in the adventure, and the players are to determine the destiny of their own characters.
--M. J. Young

I've never seen a game that states this. Where does it say that the GM maintains *complete* control over what happens in the adventure? If so, then, yeah, I agree that's contradictory--but taken to a logical extreme the reader would then say "but Joe, you can't open your mouth--the GM must speak for your character."

Since nobody does say this, I still don't believe it. And even if it does, it's so obviously un-true to *the very, very, very vast majority of roleplaying* as to be easily discounted.

-Marco