Is player-as-world-author needed for stories?

[John Kim]

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.  

OK, I am starting a new thread, because I want to focus on a different question.  Now, I think there are fine uses of player-as-world-author, but my experience is that the above is not true.  I have run two campaigns which aimed for the shared creation of story, but which also had a strict GM=world, player=character separation.

One was my Star Trek campaign (actually, three campaigns but closely related).  I started to describe it in a recent article here:  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=59580&highlight=#59580

The other was the "Water Uphill" game, which I discussed at some length on a thread here:  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5113

My Star Trek campaign was more traditional in format.  Each session (which constituted one episode) would have a strongly scripted first third, which presented the moral/ethical dilemma.  After that, however, it was entirely up to the players how they resolved it.  

"Water Uphill" was experimental in format: I almost never modified the world for plot purposes, and set things up so that the story emerged from the explorations of the players.  The players not only had no authorial power, but they had no out-of-character information.  The story was not tightly structured in a Hollywood sense -- it rather meandered.  However, I don't think that is a purely bad thing.  I certainly valued it as an experiment and it produced some cool stories.  (I think Josh particularly liked it, as an immersive player.)  
_________________

My view on this is that player-as-world-author is mainly needed if the PCs are lacking in either of (1) motivation to initiate action on their own, or (2) power to freely pursue those motivations.  In Star Trek, for example, the PCs were independent, strongly-motivated people with enormous power.  Thus, there was no need to add further powers to the players.

[Jason Lee]

The other thread is intentionally avoiding jargon, which means using Story like it's an actual term and stumbling all over it because it means different things to different people.  When Gordon says 'Story (specific-definition)' I'm thinking he means 'story that explores a Narrativist Premise with the questioning of a theme controlling the flow of the narrative', not story according to the dictionary or even according to my personal definition (a sequence of connected events).  I suppose I should let him clarify.

As far as player-as-world-author being necessary, you're off into personal preference territory there.  If you prefer the rollercoaster style of play having authorship rights over the setting actually impeeds game play.  That control ruins the suprises.  Some people like more structure than others, and some like to interact instead of create.  They all end up with a story.  I think you only need those rights if you want them (I need, I want, I need, I want...).

[M. J. Young]

I think John is correct. I certainly think that the Water Uphill game (that is the one the kids were playing, right? I didn't check the thread) was certainly about telling stories in an Egrian/Edwardian sense, in which premise sprang from moral and ethical conflicts. His description of the Star Wars games similarly suggest a strongly narrativist approach.

I do not at all think it necessary for players to have directorial power or even to be in author stance to create such stories. What matters is:

[*]An issue of significance, usually moral or ethical but possibly personal on another level of conflict, is raised;[*]The characters have in-game reasons to face these issues and attempt to answer them;[*]The players recognize this and have their characters act accordingly.[/list:u]
On another list earlier today, someone mentioned the book of the Prophet Jonah. It's worth noting that in that story, Jonah kept choosing "wrong". At the beginning, God told him to go to Nineveh and preach repentance to them, and he decided he didn't want to do that so he got on a ship going the other direction. After God straightened that out and got Jonah to do what he was told, Nineveh repented. Jonah had been seated outside the city, waiting to watch the destruction, and then complained when God didn't destroy it. God then runs a visual parable for him, creating a shade tree overnight and destroying it overnight, and Jonah gets upset that his shade tree died. It ends with God asking the questions--but we're never told whether Jonah "got it". The issues are there, and the character addresses them, and story results as the issues are resolved.

My feeling is that once the moral issues are put in front of the characters in a way that they can't be avoided, story happens, whether the players have control of the world or not.

There was a suggested adventure in the Star Trek game in which the player characters were sent to a planet where a local had taken control of a station because the Federation wouldn't give him more guns to counter those supplied to his enemies by the Klingons. Once they were there, what could they do? They could have decided it was all a mistake, that the Federation should never have him the original guns, and left him to fend for himself. They could have decided to give more guns. They could have decided to bring in Federation peacekeepers to quash the armed rebels and blockaded the planet against additional Klingon deliveries. There were probably many things they could do. Every one of those things required them to make decisions about the moral and ethical matters raised, whether they decided there was a simple answer or a complex one; and every one of them creates a story from which we can learn. Is the Prime Directive really a good rule, or a bad one? (Of course, as someone has said, it really existed primarily so that Kirk would have to find a way to work around it, but that's neither here nor there.) Is it better to help the right side in an escalating conflict, or let the right side fall rather than become involved in that war? (Yes, the Viet Nam story was written all over that TV episode.) Can we force our definitions of justice and fair play on others, merely because we find them workable, or do we have to step aside and let those continue whose ideas and ideologies permit them to do what we cannot? Those are all good stories, told by the choices of characters within a world over which the players have no more control than what their characters can reasonably do.

John is right. Players do not need control over the world, as long as their characters can impact it in real ways.

That's not to say that such shared control over the world can't also create great stories; just that it's not essential.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Am I alone in thinking that the word "control" is causing a great deal of trouble in a kind of stealth-way?

"Contribute" seems to describe the issue better. It also removes the potential interpretation of a conflict of interest between GM and player(s).

Given that modification, it seems to me that John's point ... well, in one sense is validated, and in another, kind of evaporates. The GM contributes after manner X, and players contribute after manner Y. If (X*Y) = "story" (by whatever definition, but let's stick with the one cruciel presents above), then cool beans.

To point out that both X and Y can be varied greatly and still accomplish the goal, is ... well, it's a good point, but I don't think it's a very shocking one.

Best,
Ron

[Bruce Baugh]

I much prefer "contribute" to "control". Not least because it then opens the way to discuss different possibilities for sharing or monopolizing influence on a part of the game - between players, between a player and the rules, and so forth and so on. Potentially fruitful stuff.

[Marco]

What matters is:

[*]An issue of significance, usually moral or ethical but possibly personal on another level of conflict, is raised;
[*]The characters have in-game reasons to face these issues and attempt to answer them;
[*]The players recognize this and have their characters act accordingly.[/list:u]--M. J. Young

This list seems to be precisely what the GM'ing advice (minus pretentious drek) that Vampire The Masqurade gave to its players. It was certainly what *I* got out of it.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

This list seems to be precisely what the GM'ing advice (minus pretentious drek) that Vampire The Masqurade gave to its players. It was certainly what *I* got out of it.

I think that's true. But then I think that the problem with Vampire is not so much that the system does not allow the GM to play Narrativist, as the system promotes the players playing in other ways. Thus, you get the Vampire game where the GM is playing "open", and the Players are playing Sim, and no "story" in the Edwardsian sense occurs. Essentially, the players don't get bullet number three, and the GM just hopes it will happen. Which leaves some players wondering why story didn't happen.

So then you get GMs adjusting to the Sim play of the players, and the whole thing becomes Sim again. Or Gamist depending on players. Or it never gets there because the players playing all three modes conflict and the game self-destructs.

It's precisely that the VtM texts promise the world, that the problem occurs. Doesn't mean that there aren't some great ideas located therin.

Mike

[Marco]

I think I disagree (and I'm rescending the pretentious dreck comment--I was more annoyed by VtM players in specfic than the rules in general).

The third bullet point is advice to the players: try to play in a way that makes a satifying story.

It's my observation that so long as the GM and the players are somewhat aligned this isn't hard to do. The last example of actual play I posted was (IMO) exemplary of this.

That's why it's the Storyteller system--it assumes a pretty Dramatist bent on the part of the participants. The GM doesn't have to be heroic, just up to the standards of the group (IMO, not an unreasonable request in an age of "bad gaming is worse than no gaming at all").

-Marco
Note: VtM does *not* actually explode on contact with live people (nor does it fall apart unless poorly bound).

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi all,

Cruciel, you're right about the specific Story definition often being important, but I think here others have already pointed out that they consider themselves to be creating real, Forge-defined Narrativist Story through play.  So while the definition is a frequent stumbling block in these kind of discussions, I don't think it is here.

Ron is also right, I think, about control vs. contribute - and my quote does not say, and was in no way meant to imply, that players need to have directorial power, Author stance, or any of that.

For me, it's just that the players thoughts, opinions and desires about the "world" (and a bunch of other stuff - probably all Ron's five Explored elements, if we want to be technical) can't be entirely irrelevant.  Which can be avoided by something as simple as telling the GM "hey, I'm tired of always meeting Undead," and having the GM respond to that.  Or making sure stuff is agreed on and understood ahead of time.

But I've seen well-intentioned GM's who'd just go kinda fuzzy-eyed if a player talked to them that way - the world is HIS, dammit, why is the player saying stuff about it?  Lay blame with the game texts, or human nature - whatever, I'm not worried right now about WHY it happens, but it can kill a game (sometimes) when it does happen.  And I've had more'n a few games blow up because a player digs in his heels and says "no, my guy will never agree to that," and since he's in charge of his guy . . . it doesn't matter if everyone else's thoughts are reasonable and help the game in general, it's HIS guy and that's the end of it.  Is there really an unresolvable creative difference, or is the player just over-reacting to an intrusion on "his" character?  As I think over it, I think a lot of the time it was the latter . . .  

I guess that's the main (though probably not only) level at which I consider the Impossible Thing to exist and cause mischief - when, as human beings (disregarding game mechanics, play style descriptions/attributes, or any of that) we say "you can not have impact in this demarcated zone HERE."  Sure, we can say there are no in-game rules about how you impact here, 'cause someone else is going to take care of that - but start believing that means the "someone else" shouldn't even LISTEN to others about that area, and/or that those others shouldn't even be THINKING about that area . . . for Story, you're talking Impossible Thing.  

If you don't care about Story, maybe you still get dysfunctional play from this - but maybe not.  It's not unrelentingly, iredeemably Impossible to get a functional play experience in this situation unless you're after Story.

Perhaps that's another angle at reducing the controversy over the Impossible Thing; its' main point is simply that a particular kind of sometimes (not always) dysfunctional play dynamic - when particular human participants have exclusive imaginitive and creative "rights" (that transcend any specific game rules or play methods) to certain areas of the shared, imagined playscape - can not exist if what you care about is Story.

Now, the Impossible Thing also points out that if what you care about is Story, maybe you shouldn't be so worried about actual, in-game rules or practices that promote (e.g.) Directorial power - but it sure ain't saying you HAVE to have that.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

You really ought to argue against something, rather than setting up arguments that don't exist just so you can knock them down.

The third bullet point is advice to the players: try to play in a way that makes a satifying story.

Yes. But that's just advice. System Does Matter, remember? It's the system (as I pointed out in the last post) that can cause the problematic play that doesn't follow the advice.

It's my observation that so long as the GM and the players are somewhat aligned this isn't hard to do. The last example of actual play I posted was (IMO) exemplary of this.

And once again, you assume that because you can pull it off, that everybody does as well. Nobody ever said it was impossible. You note the use of words like "can" (as opposed to "must"), and "promotes" (not "forces", or "automatically causes"). We've all said repeatedly that good play of these games occurs all the time.

My point was, and continues to be that the text of VtM can cause problems due to the way it's written not matching up well with the rules.

Note: VtM does *not* actually explode on contact with live people (nor does it fall apart unless poorly bound).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. But still, it's not much of a joke to characterize our viewpoint as something that it's entirely not.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Oh for golly gosh sake ...

Mike and Marco, be nice, if y'please.

Marco, good call on your point. You know, as this thread proceeded earlier, I was just thinking, "I ought to specify that 'story' as framework rather than thematic challenge is possible too, with examples from Marco's play." In other words, if "story" is being considered or prioritized as outcome, with the GM essentially being responsible for its existence, then that is an entirely different topic and all the points addressed here aren't relevant.

Gordon's nailed it, as far as I'm concerned.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hi Mike,

It struck me that I wasn't being clear about how I see VtM's text: It's an (albeit perhaps primitive) attempt--and a VERY strong and directed one--to set Social Contract.*

Looking back over the threads: John said he was aiming for shared creation of story with a GM=world/player=character split (which, I figured was pretty intertwined with The Impossible Thing--but hey, that's an aside).

MJ gave his three bullet points for the creation of story.

I pointed out that VtM, when played non-dysfunctionally, with their stated social contract will be in the GDS Dramatist mode--and nothing about it precludes the kind of play that J. Kim was setting up (GM sets up philosophical delima, players address it in-character).

If you agree VtM, played (as I played it) as a standard GM/Player power-split in a Simulationist (GNS) mode allows players to "The players recognize this and have their characters act accordingly." Whether or not it's a good vehicle for this sort of play is unimportant--and as you pointed out, it's not impossible.

Then there's no disagreement: The three bullet points allow for standard-split "creation of story." VtM was certainly *intended* to be played that way. The rules may not be all there (hey, I didn't like the combat system too much, myself).

-Marco
* SDM? There are several threads on RPG.net that discuss the importance of in-game artwork to RPG's in general and to Exalted in specific. There is a key question central to many people's enjoyment of the game--and in constructing scenarios: is it anime?. The analysis of the artwork is key to that.

I don't say this to be pedantic. The amount of social-contract/meta-game interaction stuff in VtM 1st vs. earlier RPG's is comparatively huge. The whole concept of the Impossible Thing is (to my read) that people get the wrong idea about how to play from such text. If it can be so damaging in the impossible thing, why can't it be facilitating in VtM's case.

[Mike Holmes]

I don't say this to be pedantic. The amount of social-contract/meta-game interaction stuff in VtM 1st vs. earlier RPG's is comparatively huge. The whole concept of the Impossible Thing is (to my read) that people get the wrong idea about how to play from such text. If it can be so damaging in the impossible thing, why can't it be facilitating in VtM's case.

This is abosolutely true. This is why I say that it's no surprise that in the movement from no power split (GM controls all "plot") prior to VtM, to it's new take on power splits was not accomplished all that well. They were in some ways pioneers, and we can't fault them for not knowing what the pitfalls were when writing their rules and text to support this idea.

I've said, time and again, that they are to be congratulated for trying, and for succeeding as well as they did. We're just pointing out the imperfections in the process; the learning curve, if you will.

Note that Ron would point out that games like Prince Valiant solved some of these problems even before VtM came out. And he'd be right. But that game didn't reach the masses like WW games did, and thus wasn't very important in shaping the gaming landscape and tradition. In fact if we looked closer, we could probably find other games earlier touting "story" and supporting it more or less effectively as VtM would later. VtM gets all the flak because it was so important in terms of volume of play, and so vocal in it's approach.

We own Vampire a debt to be the first to go into this pitfall laden territory and make everyone aware of the opportunities previously unseen by most.

But that doesn't mean we can't improve on old models.

Mike