The Forge Archives

Marco's Gaming Manifesto
Here is my take on gaming. I'm not saying this is all it can be. I'm not saying this way or these terms are "the best" or "correct." I'm not suggesting you "do it" this way. None of that. Here's how it usually works for me.

About the only claim I make is that In My Experience(TM) most people I've met would find themselves in general agreement with this description.

DEFINITIONS
1.   Definition of REASONABLE: I use reasonable in something approximating the legal sense (as in "reasonable doubt"). If (and this is Valimir's example) a player says "I go to the bathroom and get a hairbrush" if the bathroom belongs solely to a bald man, it is REASONABLE that the GM says "there isn't one." If it belongs to a woman, it is REASONABLE that there is one. If it belongs to a male bachelor, it is REASONABLE for the GM to make a decision (rolling a dice would suffice with maybe a 50-50 split)—but neither outcome is unreasonable.

2.   SITUATION: start conditions. These include NPC's with plans in motion. There is no concept of "fair" here. If Lecter is the only reliable way to catch Buffalo Bill (another serial killer), you may have to choose between playing his twisted mind games or letting the Senator's daughter die. You don't have a bitch that you are being railroaded—it's SITUATION.*

SITUATION will necessarily evolve (in a REASONABLE fashion). That's okay.

3.   The GM provides the GAME WORLD (acting as an agent for laws of physics, the character's senses, etc.) This is not the same as the "real world." If the GAME WORLD is one of omens and specters then it is REASONABLE that the GM describe/include/adjudicate these things. The GAME WORLD is expected to be defined in SITUATION (i.e. the nature of the world is a start condition).


4.   BASIC POWER SPLIT also TRADITIONAL POWER SPLIT: this is how (IME) the vast majority of gamers would describe the split of power between GM's and players. In other words, if I came to them and said "it's like this?" They'd say "yes, it's like that." They might not always play that way—but they'd agree to it in theory.

GM: The GM sets up SITUATION
PC: The Players take ACTION
GM: The GM adjudicates RESULTS (of Actions) —also RESPONSE(same meaning).

This assumes no "isms" are in effect (illusionism, participationism, railroadism, consumerism, whatever). If they are, throw this whole thing out.

The GM does NOT "adjudicate" RESOLUTION (of scenes or problems)—that'd be, maybe, illusionism or something else. That is, the GM doesn't determine how the whole thing plays out.

RESOLUTION here means "how the problem got solved" or "how the scene played out." Nobody adjudicates it—it is simply a sequence of ACTION and RESULTS. In the case of what might be called illusionist play RESOLUTION might be pre-determined by the GM.

The GM is expected to be REASONABLE in all adjudication. This is important—if the GM is not behaving reasonably, he or she is violating these precepts. Since it's obviously a judgment call, you get to vote with your feet.

DRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING
When the GM is making a decision, so long as it is REASONABLE, he or she may or may not choose to exercise DRAMATIC TIMING or EDITING (as it can deal with things other than timing). For example, when choosing between two likely outcomes, the GM may choose the more dramatic/thematic of the two if he or she chooses. This doesn't violate the precepts here.

It is through the use of DRAMATIC EDITING the GM can introduce theme (recurring patterns in the game that reinforce an atmosphere). The GM can use FORSHADOWING (but the events foreshadowed are not necessarily destined to come to pass), etc.



CONCLUSION
I conclude that the combination of SITUATION (mostly),  RESPONSE (not so much) and DRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING (varies) are in the media of RPG's the GM's "Story."

The PC's ACTIONS can have dramatic, influential effects and change the course in ways the GM did not foresee. The players ACTIONS may be taken in such a way that the Player is addressing a theme or tackling a problem—or they may not. It's up to the player(s). The players are the main characters, (usually) the focal point of the conflict (opposite the antagonists) and therefore are the Protagonists.

"Story oriented GM's" operating under these rules will probably want to construct adventures along the lines outlined in the editorial on our site. An example of this play is posted on the board.

END.

* If, on the other hand, you DO find a clever way to catch the guy and the GM unreasonably stops you, he's violating the contract.


Essay on Fault Tolerant Scenario Design that goes with these precepts
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/viewMessage.jsp?message=178&thread=73&forum=3

Examples of  such scenarios.
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/viewMessage.jsp?message=179&thread=74&forum=3

-Marco

I assume that this is not intended to solicit feedback of any sort (just a reference thread)? Just trying to be clear, and avoid people posting where it's not suitable.

Mike

No--feedback's fine. I posted this, really, on request from Gordon Landis. In articulating my views to Ralph, some of this got put on paper (PMs, really ... bad metaphor again).

Ron said he thought my view of protagonization might be faulty even within my framework. This is my framework.

If you have comments, fire away, I'd be interested to hear 'em.

-Marco

Well, I'm not sure what would be appropriate. I mean this is a statement of how you play, and/or think is a good way for people to play. And it seems to me that it's entirely functional and all. What is there to say?

Mike

Dunno. Gordon asked for it. I wrote it. If you think it seems functional then cool.

I do have one suggestion: we might do some observation and see if my terms are as widely accepted outside indie RPG's as my experience indicates.  If you, for example, see this as the traditional role-playing mode, say so. If you think, for example, that strong illusionism is more the norm, say so.

Whatever the case, a base-line of terms that are general enough to describe traditional roleplaying would be very helpful in analyzing future jargon.

(I have little problem with Jargon: so long as it's in the glossary, at least moderately intuitive, and used consistently and (mostly) correctly.)

-Marco

I hope I'm not derailing where you're looking to go with this, but I thought that I'd offer some of my commentary that derived from our PM exchange with these items.

BTW:  Valamir...with an "a" ;-)

Quote from: Marco
DEFINITIONS
1.   Definition of REASONABLE: I use reasonable in something approximating the legal sense (as in "reasonable doubt"). If (and this is Valimir's example) a player says "I go to the bathroom and get a hairbrush" if the bathroom belongs solely to a bald man, it is REASONABLE that the GM says "there isn't one." If it belongs to a woman, it is REASONABLE that there is one. If it belongs to a male bachelor, it is REASONABLE for the GM to make a decision (rolling a dice would suffice with maybe a 50-50 split)—but neither outcome is unreasonable.

My difficulty with this is as stated is that it is as follows:

Reasonable is a pretty vague and subjective thing.  It takes a judge, 12 jurors, a team of attorneys, and several hours to come to a conclusion on what is or isn't reasonable in a legal sense...how does one expect to go about this determination on the fly in a game setting among peers?  Note that isn't rhetorical sarcasm...that's the key...how do you as a play group actually expect to arrive at this determination in the game?  What is the mechanism by which this gets decided...not in theory, but in actual instances of play...when the rubber hits the road...who defines "reasonable".  

This really, for me, is the key sticking point we went around...because how what is "reasonable" gets determined in the game circles right back to the control issues (authority / contributary / whatever) we've been discussing.

In this example you are cedeing 100% of the control for making the determination of what is and isn't reasonable to the GM and relying on the group having a developed enough social contract to handle this.  In my experience, I've found that the social contract (or the "shared genre expectations", etc.) is often not strong enough to support this sort of power structure without friction.

Let me see if I can frame this example in an illustrative way.  The above division of power is consistant with the standard gaming text of the GM setting up the world/anything external to the characters.  What if the apartment is mine (as in my PCs) and I say I go into the bathroom to get a hairbrush.  We've never taken an inventory of my apartment and I've never identified whether my character uses a brush or a comb (or even what style hair my PC has).  Is it still the GM's perogative to determine whether my request for a hairbrush is reasonable or not?  Now I don't mean that the GM will probably say "sure its your place, you can have a hairbrush if you want"...no...I mean does the GM even have the right to make this determination at all...or is the player given this right by way of the hairbrush relating to his character.  

Is it still the GM's call, but the player has sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is in fact reasonable; and the player is hoping and expecting that the GM will take this into account and agree with him (and what happens if the GM doesn't).

Or has the issue now crossed the line into the player's realm; that being that the issue is one of the player playing the role and controling his character.  As the text gives this right to the player is it now up to him to decide if it is reasonable or not and the opinion of the GM on the matter is completely irrelevant and able to be ignored.  

The fact that there is no explicit mechanism in most texts for identifying how to determine where 1 person's ability to decide what is reasonable ends and another persons ability to decide what is reasonable begins, is central IMO to the overall paradox.  And this text, as worded, doesn't really address this issue at all.

Quote2.   SITUATION: start conditions. These include NPC's with plans in motion. There is no concept of "fair" here. If Lecter is the only reliable way to catch Buffalo Bill (another serial killer), you may have to choose between playing his twisted mind games or letting the Senator's daughter die. You don't have a bitch that you are being railroaded—it’s SITUATION.*

SITUATION will necessarily evolve (in a REASONABLE fashion). That's okay.

This is very strongly a sim assumption...and here I don't mean GNS sim, but rather the more broadly accepted sense of "Conflict Simulation".  Players agreeing to accept certain preconditions as a starting point is VERY VERY much rooted in the wargaming history of the hobby.  "Fair" is not nearly as important a consideration as "Is it an interesting/educational place to start from to see what happens"  Wargaming the battle of Kursk for example comes with the willingness to accept a very lopsided starting situation.

I understand you very clearly stated that this is how it works for you --and indeed, works for me much of the time also...despite having co-created Universalis, most of my gaming history likely resembles your own (or at least what I percieve as being your own).

However, you go on to say that most people would agree with the description; and while you did caveat that with being people you've met, I think the statement is somewhat misleading.  There are a host of gamers who would not accept that the GM gets sole purview over setting up this starting situation in such a manner and would balk strongly at the "play Lector's game or the girl dies" choice that established as being part of that situation.

I'd venture to say that Kickers in Sorcerer represent very clearly a style of play that INSISTS that the key components of the starting situation are established not by the GM but by the players (or at least a collaboration).

I would also contend that the statement that "most gamers would agree with this:" is pretty unhelpful as a measuring stick.  IMO most gamers have never thought critically about why they play the way they do and so are ill equipped to address the issue spontaneously.  What you're really saying is that "most people would recognize and be able to regurgitate that this sounds alot like the text at the beginning of the games they've read"



One final comment:

This entire section (snipped for space):

QuoteDRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING
When the GM is making a decision, so long as it is REASONABLE, he or she may or may not choose to exercise DRAMATIC TIMING or EDITING
It is through the use of DRAMATIC EDITING the GM can introduce theme...

seems to me entirely at odds with:

Quote
The PC's ACTIONS can have dramatic, influential effects and change the course in ways the GM did not foresee.

If the powers of Dramatic Editing reside with the GM (You were pretty clear that this applies when the GM has a decision to make) how are the PC's actions dramatic and influential?  Before you answer consider this next quote...

QuoteThe players ACTIONS may be taken in such a way that the Player is addressing a theme or tackling a problem—or they may not. It's up to the player(s).

How is this being left up to the players?  It seems to me that Dramatic Editing as you've described gives the GM the ability to decide

Quotewhen choosing between two likely outcomes, the GM may choose the more dramatic/thematic of the two if he or she chooses

what actions a player takes are addressing a theme or not.

Note: these last points should be taken as only 1 part "challenge" and 2 parts "request for further explanation".


Edited to clarify a run on sentence or two.

Hmm. Well, I'd agree with you that most people would use the particular terms that you do. But they'd all mean 100 different things by it. What you describe could even cover Gamism, as long as the GM interpereted "dramatic" as "challenging to the players". Which many do.

So, your description seems to cover two thirds of gaming to me. Well, maybe only half, as you dis-include potentially half or so of Sim by declaring Illusionism to "not be it".

None of us have any facts, really that can tell us how many people play what way. Even worse, I suspect that there are a lot of people out there playing in fasions that are not really what they prefer because they've not seen anything else. So, while this might be common or not, that doesn't say anything about player preference, really. Especially not in terms of Narrativism.

But that's exactly why we have all the Forge Jargon. Because it does indicate the exact differences that commonly used terms do not. It's precisely this manifold interperetation of terms that leads to TITBB. I will go out on a limb and say that you overestimate how many people would agree with your precise definitions of your own terms.

Mike

Hi there,

Marco wrote,

QuoteRon said he thought my view of protagonization might be faulty even within my framework

I did?

If I'm thinking of the same thread/post you are, then I believe that I said that the Impossible Thing was impossible for anyone, regardless of GNS orientation. I did not provide support for this statement, but expressed hope that I could manage to articulate why I think so in a later essay.

All of this was in support of the ideas that (a) Marco's play style produces stories and (b) the player-characters in his games are protagonists. Neither (a) nor (b) refutes my claim regarding the Impossible Thing.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: MarcoDunno. Gordon asked for it. I wrote it. If you think it seems functional then cool.

And I really appreciate that you did.  I'd suggest that comments in THIS thread would best be about things that people don't understand about what you wrote, as opposed to what they disagree with in what you wrote - but the two can be hard to tell apart sometimes.

I'll be reading to make sure I understand ASAP . . .

Gordon

Ralph,

I'll get back to all that later (got stuff to do)--but I'll rescind the whole players-making a theme thing. It's not clear. I think it's possible for a player to make a character with intent to play out a redemption story and then do so in the game. The GM can *prevent* this (sure)--but it's terrible form.

So I'm gonna have to address my thoughts on that in a separate section.

I also didn't put in some suggetions about cooperation that I think are pretty imparative to functional play.

Ron: Sorry man. I guess I misread you. Maybe it was the texts/text thing. I've been replying to a lotta threads.

Mike: By having a clearer interpertation of how people will react to certain terms the Jargon can probably improved. Maybe not. I dunno for sure.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoMike: By having a clearer interpertation of how people will react to certain terms the Jargon can probably improved. Maybe not. I dunno for sure.

Certainly, but then we're back to the debate about whether it's better for understanding to stick to old, less intuitive terms, or to change them and risk people becoming disaffected because they have to learn new terms all over again.

"What are we calling TITBB today? Narrativist Paradox? Wouldn't it be better to call it the Conflicting Interperetation of the Classically Defined Power Split (CICDPS)? No, that was last week, now it's the Nar/Sim Differentiation Principle (NSDP)."

It's a slippery slope.

Mike

Another consideration: it appears to me that railroading can be thoroughly accomplished without ever violating these principles of play. As a GM can always come up with a reasonable justification for ruling in such a way that any player action whose results I deem harmful to my railroaded plot will always fail.

It's the "sovereignty of Situation" principle that ultimately gives me this power, because I can, whenever necessary, represent my railroady rulings as (hitherto unrevealed) aspects of Situation. I can do this in many different ways: by writing a huge amount of situation details in advance, or by instantiating general facts that are part of the situation, or by refining the situation on the fly.

An example of each: one of the characters trying to rescue the Sentator's daughter decides to use a psychic clairvoyant power to try to discover the girl's location.

-- Pre-written: Knowing that this character would be in the game, I wrote down somewhere in the Situation text that Buffalo Bill knows of the danger of psychic detection and has placed psychic shielding around his location. (Or perhaps, I decided this in advance but didn't actually write it down; does that make a difference?)

-- Instantiation of a generality: I didn't write down anything about psychic shielding, but I did write down that "no other way exists to catch Buffalo Bill." From that established situational "fact," I can reasonably conclude that psychic powers, being an "other way," cannot work, and therefore Bill must have placed psychic shielding around his location.

-- Refining on the fly: I didn't write down anything, but when the player tries to use the psychic power, I decide on the spot that Buffalo Bill's location is psychically shielded. Note, this is not the same as "Buffalo Bill detects the psychic effort and responds by putting up shielding against it," which would be evolution of situation, whether reasonable or not. It's I, the GM, alter the situation in play... but does Marco's manifesto permit me to do this?

The interesting question is is there any real difference between these three cases? In other words, does Marco's manifesto permit the first (and perhaps the second) while ruling out the third (and perhaps the second)? The first might seem more "fair" than the latter two, but the resulting play in the first case is no better (certainly no more protagonizing for the player-character) than the others. It's arguably more "fair" at the cost of being more adversarial, implying that it's OK for the GM to railroad as long as he makes the effort to do it the hard way, and that the players, if they wish to break the GMs plan, must earn the right to do so by being clever enough to think up something the GM didn't think to write down in advance.

I can also point out that altering or augmenting the situation during play is not at all unusual and is done for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances, most of which are considered reasonable GM conduct by most players. For instance, recently Fang used the example of the German submarine that intercepts Indiana Jones' ship in Raiders of the Lost Ark as something he might introduce in play on the fly. The discussion was about how the play of subsequent events might be made railroady or not railroady... but no one questioned the appropriateness of the GM introducing the submarine in the first place.

I'm not saying that the principles Marco enumerates necessarily lead to railroading or even encourage it; only that they don't rule it out either.

- Walt

Walt--

No, I don't think they "rule out" railroading. That's where the REASONABLE clause comes in. If the GM lets in claravoiance and then determines the guy is shielded, he's (I'd say) railroading. If the game is full of cat-and-mouse claravoinat crooks and cops then it's pretty REASONABLE to suspect a killer might wear the tin-foil hat (or whatever).

That's why you vote with yer feet.

And yes, I expect to have to deal with tricky situations concocted by the GM. For me that *is* part of the game. I also expect creative solutions to work.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoThat's why you vote with yer feet.

I see a lot of potential voting going on if these things aren't set out a bit better in advance.

Mike

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: MarcoThat's why you vote with yer feet.

I see a lot of potential voting going on if these things aren't set out a bit better in advance.

Mike

What's the alternative? Ya game with people tied to their chairs?

See, there's the implication of trust and quality that I didn't write about. I'm lookin' for quality in a GM--Dan Simmons (one of my favorite authors) doesn't hit a home run with every book he publishes, but I keep coming back 'cause I like him. Same with my gaming.

It isn't always gonna be perfect but explicit contracts are only *necessary* when there's no trust. If there's no trust and they aren't happy with what I'm doin' as a GM I would expect people to leave: I don't have enough rope to tie down my gaming group.

-Marco