The Impossible Thing

[Sindyr]

Okay, again I am starting to get a little overwhelmed with replies, but I get that's the way public forums works...  although I feel a little like a guy in a room full off people, and they're all talking to me at once...

I will try not to let this devolve into noise and cross posting...

As there is a lot to reply too, I will try to <snip> out the parts of quotations that are not relevant to what I am referencing or the parts that we are not in disagreement over, but if I should happen to snip something that bears on the discussion, I apologize and ask that you reintroduce any such snippage back into the thread...

Ron Edwards said:

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

Textual examples would be great, and take as long as you need.

As far as the examples you mentioned, I do not have Call of Cthulhu.  Also, in my opinion, proof for TITBB should come from the core gamebooks of a system, and not the modules or adventure scenarios.
The reasons for this are:

[*] When one gets introduced to a system, the first exposure is through the core rulebooks.
[*] The core rulebooks are written by the actual designer(s) of the game, the modules frequently are not.
[*] Modules by their nature are mostly linear and "railroading".  Game companies cannot fail to publish modules, because they represent additional revenue, but the existence of modules should not (I think) be taken to signify that the creator of the core rulebooks of the system approves of any particular style of play other than what the game designer has stated in the actual rulebooks.
[*] The modules are usually not "canon" - usually, in a rpg system, the only things that are canon for the system are the core rulebooks, with the modules representing elective add-ons to the core system.
[/list:u]

So if we could keep the citations coming from core rulebooks, I feel that would be more appropriate.

So, since I have Shadowrun, I took a gander through it.  I should first probably admit our gaming group's name for this particular rpg, "The Table."  We tried to play it once a while ago, and none of us could stand it.  So now, when we are sitting in the living room and need a hard surface to write on, we ask for "The Table", because for us, that's its best use. ;)

Anyways, Shadowrun appear to be the game with the least exposition on the roles of GM and Player, from what I could find.  All I saw was this:

Behind the scenes is where you find the person who makes the game happen.  In other words, the gamemaster.  The gamemaster has many functions, including creating adventures, roleplaying NPC's, and mediating rules and other formalities of play...
A good gamemaster is always open to discussion about how the rules work, but when he makes his decision, it's final...
That sounds like the gamemaster has absolute power, but it really depends on how much power your players are willing to give you.  If the players don't like the way you run your game, they won't play it with you.  On the other hand, if you don't like the way they play the game, you won't run it for them...

Seems pretty straightforward.  The little I found about GM/players roles basically says what we already know - the GM has the final say, but if both sides aren't kept reasonably happy, then the game will falter and end.

There seems to be nothing contradictory about that.  And, like D&D, Shadowrun does not enumerate or describe any rights or domains of the Player.

So, like D&D, I don't think that this can be considered TITBB.

As far as my name, what's wrong with Sindyr? (grin) I made it myself.


JMendes said:
 

Ahoy, :)

Sindyr wrote:

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...
<snip>
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".

I think if you check what I wrote above, and check the citations I found from the DMG and the Players Handbook, you will find that I concluded that

it doesn't appear that D&D is claiming that the players have any ability in their rpg to do anything else than play the game as the GM (DM) defines it, so D&D apparently does NOT hold to TITBB.

So, while I wasn't claiming that D&D represents TPTA, I was noting that D&D seems to lend proof to my main thesis - that the majority of the games out there do not even hold that TITBB is true, making TITBB entirely less relevant, to me.

JMendes continued to write:

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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>

I respectfully disagree completely.  As defined above, TITBB states that:

The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists.

However, the D&D rulebooks that I examined don't even claim any specific rights or abilities for the players at all, which surprised the heck out of me.
If you read through the D&D d20 Players Handbook and Dungeonmaster's Guide by Jonathan Tweet. (c) 2000 you will find that the rulebooks reserve all the power for the GM, and delineate no domain for the players, other than what the DM chooses to give them.

While a bit shocking and draconian and unfair in my opinion, it is nonetheless consistent.  If I were to have to state what the division of domains is according to the rulebooks cited above, I would have to say that D&D holds that:

The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists according to the will of the GM

And this is manifestly NOT the same as TITBB.
And it is no contradiction.

Gordon C. Landis penned:

<snip>
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.

This can happen a lot, and I have seen it.  I would submit that it happens not because of anything written in the core rulebooks, but because of the psychology of being a GM and letting it go to one's head.
However, in that case, it is not the rpg's maintaining TITBB, but the GM's violating the limits of their domain by attempting to take control over the player's choices.
Gordon continues:

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 stifle 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.

I think I have said the same thing, phrased a little differently, above.  I agree, that as long as each "side" respects the domain of the other side, it is functional, and when the sides don’t', it becomes dysfunctional.
Gordon:

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

I think understand where you are coming from.  I few points of response I would raise are:

[*] As far as creating a story goes, in as much as core rulebooks even refer to that, I think it's fairly apparent that they may not mean story as is more specifically defined here at the forge, but rather story as in melange of experiences with plot threads. In other words, a role-playing experience.  Even the so-called Storyteller system book mages defines story in such a way to be the result of the interplay of GM and Players.
[*] I can create a statement that a created Gameworld cannot both be fantasy-based and yet have NO supernatural critters/events in it.  I can demonstrate that fantasy implies supernatural, and that once you have eliminated all things supernatural from a world, you have eliminated all the fantasy-based elements, and the world is no longer fantasy-based.
Granting that premise for the sake of argument, my central question is, with all due respect, who cares?
If we call the theory that a created Gameworld cannot both be fantasy-based and yet have NO supernatural critters/events in it, the Fantasy Always Requires The Supernatural (my god, I just realized what the acronym would be! rofl), then while we might agree that FARTS is completely true, as long as the majority of rpg's out there do not claim that it is, then what does it matter?
My basic point is, I have as yet found no sign that in actual mainstream core rpg rulebooks, TITBB is maintained as true.
Given that, what does it matter that TITBB entails a contradiction?
[*] Finally, I believe that if one employs TPTA, one will completely avoid the player/GM power struggle that this whole thread has been about.  As long as each side stays within their Domain, the conflict is avoided.  If either abridges the Domain of the other, sure, we are back where we started, but that abridgement would be the point of departure from TPTA.[/list:u]


M. J. Young writes:

<snip>
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.

I don't agree.  Oh, not with the fact that TITBB is a contradiction - proving that is easy, almost trivial.  I just think that the citations I gave clearly show that quoted game systems do NOT state TITBB at all, making the issue of whether TITBB is contradictory mostly irrelevant.

That's sort of what I mean by "straw man".  It's easy to say that "X" makes no sense, or is wrong.
It's harder to prove that the accused is actually guilty of "X".

A lot of time is spent proving what is easy, instead of proving that it matters, proving that many rpg's actually promote "X".

I don't think many do.

M. J. Young:

<snip>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.

[*] First, you keep stating that the "text" means "something that is inherently impossible. "
I would ask you to prove that with specific citations from several mainstream rpg's.
[*] Second, if you have 2 equally likely explanations for something, and the first one is impossible, wouldn't it make more sense to guess that the 2nd one is the one that was intended?  Especially when, taken in context, the 2nd is supported and the first is not?
[*] Thirdly, you say "We intuitively recognize that, and replace it with something that works for us."  This sounds dangerously close to saying that this problem exists in our blind spot.  And it is only a short jump from that to, "We can't see the problem because it's in our blind spot. And because it's in our blind spot, one cannot demonstrate it's existence.  Since I cannot demonstrate it's existance, I am justified in claiming it to be true without having the burden of proving it."

Now, I know that's an extrapolation, and that quite probably you weren't going there, *but* I want to make it clear that saying "I could prove this if you weren't blind to the proof" does NOT constitute proof in and of itself.

After all, suppose I said "Unicorn's exist, because I see them.  Unfortunately, I am the only with the gift of being able to see them.  Since you guys can't see them, you are gonna have to take my word for it."

To me it's the same thing.

I am looking closely at the text in these core rpg rulebooks.  I see no unicorns. (except maybe in the monster manual, grin)[/list:u]


M. J. Young:

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.

Well, I am a newbie here. Perhaps the apparent fact that most major rpg's do not commit TITBB doesn't mean that a lot of the game submissions you see don't.

Maybe the reason you have TITBB codified and exemplified is because you see a lot of indie rpg's submitted here committing that mistake.

Which is seems odd to me, because it seems such an obvious mistake to make.

If that is why TITBB is held as important, then I understand it's relevance.  I was thinking that TITBB was being used as a sort of bogeyman, accusing most mainstream rpg's of things that I don't see them even doing.

M. J. Young:

Sindyr has culled quotes from several games to support a contention that games actually espouse his division of credibility.

Whoa - I think it is more accurate to say that I question whether they support TITBB, NOT that I am claiming that they all support TPTA - although apparently many do.

The central point I am examining is NOT about TPTA (although that too would be a fascinating and I think illuminating discussion), but rather  that regardless of how true the fact is that TITBB makes no sense, the related fact that apparently more mainstream core rpg rulebooks do not maintain TITBB makes the entire point moot.

M. J. Young:

<snip>
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

It sure does help, it hopefully helps us get to the root of the disagreement, or perhaps to realizing that at the root there is no disagreement. :)

I have never claimed that TPTA is the only valid way to play - at least, I apologize if I have.  I *do* claim that TPTA is a functional way of separating the GM's domains from the Players' domains, but I fully agree that there are surely other ways that are equally functional.

I do maintain that, as far as most mainstream sore rpg rulebooks, that when they have text dealing with the roles of the players and the roles of the GM this text does NOT contradict itself by claiming TITBB.

Finally, I am not sure if I have the right to ask this, but again, I am being overwhelmed by having so many simultaneous conversation and mini-threads within this one.

Can I ask that one, possibly two people be "elected" to continue this discussion with me and bladamson?  Perhaps Ron Edwards?

If this is too mush to ask, or too selfish, then I understand.  Its just that all the noise and trying to keep up with so many different responses is starting to burn me out.

-Sindyr

[bladamson]

Can I ask that one, possibly two people be "elected" to continue this discussion with me and bladamson?  Perhaps Ron Edwards?

Haw.  I'm dropping out of this one for now.  I'm still reading it mind you, but I'll argue in the next one that comes up.

Because it will surely come up again. :)

[Green]

This discussion has been interesting, and I think my experience has something to add.  Take it as you will, but I will admit there is a strong bias toward accepting the Impossible Thing theory because it resonantes with many of my experiences.

Not too long ago, I'd gotten involved with a gaming troupe that played several World of Dakrness games.  Although at the time I did not have the vocabulary to express what I intuited, their roleplaying orientation was extremely Simulationist.  They wanted plot and characters to "fit" the setting as much as possible.  To them, there was a right and wrong way to play certain types of characters, which was determined by the setting.  Their roleplaying goals, it seems, was to give an accurate representation of their characters as it relates to the setting and to follow the GM's plot because of the nature of these characters.  For instance, in a Werewolf game, if the pack becomes aware of Wyrm activity and deliberates on how to best defeat it, it would be bad form for a character to question this course of action or even decide not to fight it.  If this character questioned the entire werewolf cosmology, that would be unacceptable.  After all, werewolfs were designed to fight the Wyrm.   A werewolf who does not fight the Wyrm is not a werewolf.  They got along great.  And then, a monkeywrench was thrown into the program.

I, on the other hand, had a different view.  The text was merely a springboard of ideas.  I saw everything as malleable and subject to interpretation, especially from my character's point of view.  It was the themes of the game that made it what it was.  My roleplaying goal was to explore a premise or a theme, and I used my characters as an instrument to do so.  

Needless to say, I often felt bored and uninspired because I felt the GM wasn't trying to fit my character into the game.  Part of this is my fault, of course, because I had assumed that the GM's job was to intuit and anticipate what the players would be interested in doing, or simply ask.  However, I had not expressed my need to be assisted in articulating my goals for my character (as opposed to my character's goals).  Oftentimes, I would feel myself hooked to a particular theme, and in a vain effort to try to get more theme-oriented play, made several characters related to that theme.  All that came of it was me being accused of playing "the same character" (though backgrounds and personalties were vastly different).  I became increasingly more alienated because I felt I was being criticized for interpreting the text in a different way.  I was even told, point blank by one of the players, that I was wrong for seeing the text a certain way.  

On top of that, I felt the group was criticizing me because I incorporated some of my life experiences and interests in the characters I made.  If I have spent some time in Korea, and if I have close friends who are Korean, how can I not make a Korean character?  If I am a gay Latino man, how could I not make characters whose backgrounds and attitudes are influenced by issues facing homosexuals and Latinos?  Why is it wrong make a character often seen as "the enemy"and try to deal with and understand things from their perspective?  When I make a character, I generally don't do it to explain and make statements.  I use a character to raise questions, and I (foolishly) expected the other players and the GM to understand this and incorporate it into the plot of the story.  I don't play rapists, wife beaters, racists, or serial killers for the wicked titillation of it all, or for the angsty goodness.  When I do this, I am trying to understand something about human nature, asking (and sometimes trying to answer) the issue of whether or not we have free will and in what circumstances we do or do not have the power of choice.  Pretty heavy stuff.  Hard to do when the people around you roleplay mainly to escape these ideas.

Eventually, I became frustrated with the assumption that there is only one way to view a game and one way to play.  For reasons unrelated to this, I was booted from the game, and while I was very peeved at the time (I felt I was being punished for what someone else was doing), now I'm sort of over it.

How does this relate to the Impossible Thing?  Mostly, it only comes up when two people do not interpret the text the same way.  For most players, when the text says, "Your characters make the story.  You have complete control over them," they do not see a contradiction with the line to GMs that their responsibility is to create a story.  Why?  Because for them there is an implicit add-on to the first statement.  They read it as, "Your characters make the story.  You have complete control over them within the confines of the setting and major plot elements as defined by the GM."  Some players, though, begin to see the contradiction when disagreements arise over who has ultimate control over the direction of the game.  Are the players participators in the GM's plot and setting, or is the GM a facilitator for the players' goals, who creates setting and plot around the players.  I think what is missing from most RPG texts are direct statements as to who has control and when.  Under what conditions do the GM's wishes override individual players'?  How do we make sure all the players are on the same page regarding each character's and the GM's role in the story?

I guess this means that English majors as players in a roleplaying game full of non-English majors makes for a rough ride.

[Sindyr]

It sounds like you definately came up against a problem.

What I wonder is, was it a problem with other people in the game (incl the GM), or a problem in the rpg and it's text?

I am guessing from what you said that it was the former.

But did the game system you were playing actually say TITBB?

I am guessing not - but if so, please type in the exact text of the section of rules from the game text that does, and note which game and which edition it is.  Please make sure to include any surrounding text that is needed for putting things in context. Thanks.

-Sindyr

[bladamson]

I guess this means that English majors as players in a roleplaying game full of non-English majors makes for a rough ride.

No way.  Somebody who has a handle on that stuff can really do some interesting things with the game (meaning any game in general).

I think just you had the misfortune of being in a group of what I will term (and prepare to be flamed for) "sterotypical WW gamers".  Been there.  They don't have any distinction between player and character, at least the ones around here don't.  Blah.

[Green]

It sounds like you definately came up against a problem.

What I wonder is, was it a problem with other people in the game (incl the GM), or a problem in the rpg and it's text?

I am guessing from what you said that it was the former.

But did the game system you were playing actually say TITBB?

I am guessing not - but if so, please type in the exact text of the section of rules from the game text that does, and note which game and which edition it is.  Please make sure to include any surrounding text that is needed for putting things in context. Thanks.

-Sindyr

I can concede that the major problem was an interpersonal one, but I do think that it touches on the Impossible Thing due to the interpretive nature of all literature (except maybe textbooks).

One example is from Werewolf Revised:

"You can create a character from any nation, of any age, from any cultural background, but your character has undergone the First Change only recently.  He probably knows very little about werewolf society, unless he received instruction from a mentor or Kinfolk, or he is a metis." (p. 94)

"It is very important to create a character that fits into the group.  You can't expect the other players to tolerate a character that just won't fit in or work with the pack.  If your character's behavior disrupts a story, the Storyteller or other players may ask you to modify how you play your character or create a new character who will fit in better.  Garou are pack creatures, and life is far too difficult for werewolves if they cannot cooperate with their own packmates..."(p. 95)

"As the Storyteller, you should guide your players through character creation...discuss the game's basic premise and themes (specifically those you wish to explore)." (p. 95)

"You

and your players have to be happy with the chronicle's main characters." (p. 245)[/list:u]

What if I want to create a character that challenges or at least illustrates the idea that werewolves must work together?  Or, better yet, what if the Storyteller wants to address this idea?  Who decides what fits?  Is fiting in more important than creating a dynamic, interesting story?  In what situations do the players' desires override the Storyteller's?  It seems that in creating a story, a lot of compromise is needed, but there is little advice on how and when to compromise, and which aspect of the game takes precedence when things come to a snitch.  The Impossible Thing, I believe, implies that in most RPGs, there is a tendency of most RPGs to treat character and story as distinct and separate.  However, when you actually play, you see the fallibility of the idea.  If you say that characters make the story, you cannot also say that the characters ruin the story.  Now, the story may be more or less enjoyable for the players based on what the characters do, but there is story is not an entity separate from the characters.

[Sindyr]

Green said:

What if I want to create a character that challenges or at least illustrates the idea that werewolves must work together? Or, better yet, what if the Storyteller wants to address this idea? Who decides what fits? Is fiting in more important than creating a dynamic, interesting story? In what situations do the players' desires override the Storyteller's? It seems that in creating a story, a lot of compromise is needed, but there is little advice on how and when to compromise, and which aspect of the game takes precedence when things come to a snitch. The Impossible Thing, I believe, implies that in most RPGs, there is a tendency of most RPGs to treat character and story as distinct and separate. However, when you actually play, you see the fallibility of the idea. If you say that characters make the story, you cannot also say that the characters ruin the story. Now, the story may be more or less enjoyable for the players based on what the characters do, but there is story is not an entity separate from the characters.

I contrarily believe that most rpg's do one of three things: treat character and world as distinct and seperate, use "story" to mean "world", or talk about story as the product of the interaction between characters and GM.

However, in reference to your specific quotes (and maybe I am being dumb here), I do not see any past of what you quoted contradicting any other part of what you quoted.

Could you point out which part's of your quoted text specifically contradicts itself?

Thanks.

-Sindyr

[Green]

I never argued that the text is contradictory.  I believe the contradiction comes in with people's interpretation of the text.  It's not so simple as reading on page 5 that Margaret has blue hair and then reading on that same page that Margaret has red hair.  The texts of RPGs are often more vague when it comes to describing who has authority over the story.  It is that vagueness which is the problem, not anything explicitly contradictory.  

Consider Dungeons and Dragons.  In the game, it explicitly states that the GM has final authority over the course of the game as well as the interpretation of the rules.  However, it also says that if GMs want a game that will be fun for the players, the players' wishes and concerns should be taken into account when making a decision.  "Yes, you can do that," the DM's guide implies, "but if you want to keep your players, we suggest you don't."  In games such as Vampire, there is still a question about who has the final authority in the game.  Who determines who does what and when?  Who determines the parameters of the story?  Who decides what is approrpiate for a story and what isn't?  Which takes greater precedence, theme or setting, character or plot, making a story plausible or making a story interesting?  What elements do we focus on?  I mainly see the Impossible Thing as at least two parties reading the same text and coming up with different conclusions which aren't compatible.  In this case, the question is: Whose interpretation do we use, and why?  Of course, in many games, they just go with majority rules, but what if there is an even split?  It is these sorts of questions that the Impossible Thing addresses, albeit in much more elevated language than I prefer to use.

[Sindyr]

I guess I am not really disagreeing with you, in general terms.

My only point of issue has been with the TITBB, which seems to accuse most rpg's of being contradictory.

You believe that contradiction comes in with people's interpretation of the text, and that the texts can sometimes be vague.

Well, I can't help but mostly agree with you here, too.  I would venture to guess that the majority of conflict of the roles of GM and players comes not from the rulebooks' text, but from the players and GM's..

I would go further and say that I think this issue is not rules related, but psychology related.  That many times the apparent power of a GM goes to his head, and he begins to use the player's as extras in a story he controls, usually in direct opposition to what the games' rulebooks advise.

As fas as the rulesbooks being too vague, I think a certain amount of vagueness is unavoidable on two accounts.  First, most of these games write the "What is roleplaying" section for total newbies, because someone who wasn't a total newbie would tend to skip that part.  Therefore, that section tends to be dumbed-down and presented in the gaming equivalence of "baby-talk"
Secondly, many games try to present their material artistically, with flair.  These stylistic ways of presenting rules can actually sometimes obfuscate what they are trying to get across.  However, most of these games come from a stand point that if you write a gamebook that is as dry and flavorless as a technical manual, few will buy it.

Nevertheless, it seems that the more "dumbed-down" and "artsy" the text becomes, the more context is given to correctly interpret the text.

From the texts that I have seen so far, while there may be a little vagueness, anyone looking for the main points can find them without having to be an english major. :)

Ultimately, a group will have to achieve consensus about how to play.  Ultimately, the GM has the power to make quite a few decisions, but a GM that abuses that power winds up with no players.

Regardless of the above truths, it does not seems to me that the rpg rulebooks are advocating contradictory things, or even things that can easily be taken as contradictory, if you take things in the context in which they are presented.

You are, of course, welcome to present specific examples to the contrary.

-Sindyr

[Gordon C. Landis]

Really trying to keep it short this time - Sindyr, I understand your request to keep the communicators to a minimum, so it's fine by me if you just read this bit and wait for Ron (or whoever) before you reply.   But Ron warned us he's busy this weekend, and that last big message of yours is really very clear and provides a great opening for (to me) two important comments:

First of all, it seems to me like one of your main points is that TITBB isn't claimed by all that many game books.  I'm not going to argue that point - I haven't done the analysis - but I will say that when it came up as a topic of conversation here (or even back at GO, I forget when Ron et al first started discussing it), I *immediately* recognized something that virtually every gaming group I'd ever been in believed.  I'm not trying to "defeat" your argument by an appeal to personal experience, just explain why I feel TITBB is a real thing, not a straw man.

Second, let me grab a quote:

Finally, I believe that if one employs TPTA, one will completely avoid the player/GM power struggle that this whole thread has been about. As long as each side stays within their Domain, the conflict is avoided. If either abridges the Domain of the other, sure, we are back where we started, but that abridgement would be the point of departure from TPTA.

For me, the key insight of TITBB is that if you are interested in Story (specific-definition), this is NOT true.  It is NOT possible for everyone to be participating in the creation of Story unless they have some power in ALL domains.  Sometimes, the player needs to be able to influence the world, and the GM the character.  The degree to which this is required and/or acceptable will vary widely according to individual group tastes, but creating two absolutely exclusive domains dooms the shared creation of Story.

TITBB matters (TITBB isn't a "so what?" like FARTS might be) because, to some people, Story and the shared creation thereof matters.  A LOT.

Longer than I'd wanted, but . . . hope that helps.

Gordon

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I contrarily believe that most rpg's do one of three things: ..., use "story" to mean "world", ...

I confess this confuses me. I consider the world to be the setting. For instance. Star Wars is set long ago in a galaxy far, far away. That's where and when the story takes place, but it is not the story itself. Can you give example of game texts that state this?

Edited to add: What Gordon said. Word for word.

[greyorm]

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.

It's simple logic, John. If the GM plans something -- regardless of whether or not it can be changed later (as the rest of the text encourages) -- the players have no control because it has been planned; and if the players have control, if the GM alters his developed story according to player desire, he has no longer developed it as the text encourages.

This is the Impossible Thing. Seriously, I don't see what is so difficult to grasp here. Text says "Do A and B" when "A and B" are mutually exclusive.

Now as I state later, no one plays this way for a very good reason...it's impossible. So everyone fixes the problem and says "Ah, see, the Impossible Thing isn't impossible!"

Now, even if we aren't talking game texts specifically, think about the way most gamers describe RPGs as working: it is oft repeated that "Oh, the GM makes a story and you play it" and "You play this character like in a play, but it doesn't have a plot or a script." Do a web search on introducing others to RPGs or "What is an RPG?" Go to Cons, talk to gamers. These two things are some of the most concurrently repeated statements in gaming...and the thing is that no one actually means them, because no one actually plays this way...yet everyone says and thinks this is how they work.

But obviously either the first statement is true, or the second; and thus they are mutually incompatible. And the subconscious thought process goes: Impossible Thing. How does this work? It must work like this...{Fill in any of the 'how this group games' statements made thus far}

Thus far in these threads, I see a lot of people using examples of the way their group or a group functions as reasons why the Impossible Thing must not or could not exist, and completely failing to realize that the way the referenced group is doing things is a response to -- a fix of -- the Impossible Thing, not a show of how it fails to exist.

You can't do the Impossible Thing...it's impossible! But it seems a lot of the discussion is involved in trying to disprove it via example of it not occurring. Marco appears to make this mistake in his post:

even if it does, it's so obviously un-true to *the very, very, very vast majority of roleplaying* as to be easily discounted.

But of course it doesn't occur: it can't!

Ultimately, it comes down to this:  there are GMs of both types, who read the same text but decided to do things differently.

Exactly!! Exactly!! The Impossible Thing doesn't dictate the behavior that will occur in a group, it sets up the situation where GMs do things differently because the text doesn't clearly provide the answer, thus leaving the answer open to the GM's wishes and according to his/her personality. Hence the variety of solutions to the problem and the various clashing styles of play for any given game between groups.

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.

I utterly and completely disagree. Yes, personality has something to do with it, but if the text wasn't so unclear on this point, then these personality differences would have a lot less to do with the way games engaging in the Impossible Thing are run.

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.

Please do so! It will not upset my point one bit, and may even help contribute to it!

Why?

Players having the ability to change the plot or not isn't the issue...as showcased in my anecdote, the GM being told he's in charge and the players being told they're in charge was the issue that caused problems. It easily could have gone the other way, with a frustrated GM whose players refused to engage in any of his story whatsoever.

My statement was not "evidence for" the Impossible Thing...it is evidence for how it affected our game specifically (and thus why I believe in it). So any anecdotes you provide about players being able to change the plot do not disprove the Impossible Thing and are not a two-edged sword. Hell, I'll even give an example of player-control for you:

I believe in the Impossible Thing because as a GM a number of years ago, I was trying to tell this really great story: I had stated to the players that the current scenario was set a generation before the scenario we had just finished the first part of, and this game would set up and highlight the future situations the previous characters had just gone through. But my players were uncooperative with the idea, they had their characters do whatever they wanted because they thought that was their right...making it so that what they did was not the precursor to the first game's events, even though they were supposed to be.

Other issues of dysfunction aside, the problem arose because I told the players, "We need to do this for this to happen" which contradicted their expectation and desire to do "as they pleased." This was yet another situation wherein the Impossible Thing caused problems by having initially set up player expectation that they were in charge of what happened by virtue of their actions in-game: because that's the way things are done. Everyone says so.

It is why rail-roading is frowned upon and hated by most gamers: "Hey, I want my character's actions to have meaning! Don't jerk me around!"
Yes, some groups don't care, they don't mind playing in someone's story, but they aren't in the majority, and they've solved the Impossible Thing by not caring that their actions are ultimately meaningless to the outcome.

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.

I don't own Champions, so I can't say. I was challenging you to present the text for the players, since you presented only half the argument by presenting the text for the GM.

[Jason Lee]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

The point of contention isn't whether or not The Impossible Thing is impossible (everyone agrees it is), or even whether game texts should state authorship rights more clearly (which they should), but that games don't actually say The Impossible Thing as it is defined.

Or to put it another way, the definition of The Impossible Thing is committing (I can't believe I'm going to use this word) synecdoche - mistaking the game designer's use of the word story/plot/author for something more inclusive than was intended.

For example,

"Oh, the GM makes a story and you play it"

Replace 'a story' with something like 'plot hooks, setting, and supporting characters that create the framework for the creation of a story' and you've got TPTA.  'Story/author/plot' is shorthand, like 'I'm a Simulationist'.

Is that indeed the arguement? Or have I taken the boat to nowheresville?

[bladamson]

I think just you had the misfortune of being in a group of what I will term (and prepare to be flamed for) "sterotypical WW gamers".  Been there.  They don't have any distinction between player and character, at least the ones around here don't.  Blah.

Just wanted to clarify this statement in case I pissed anyone off.

I meant to say "stereotypical WW gamer in this area".  My experience with the Storyteller System groups has been localized to this geographical area, and is probably just a local thing.

So sorry if I got your hackles up. :)

[Bruce Baugh]

Man, you should hear what developers say about our stereotypical customers. :)