Marco's View of Gaming

[Marco]

Valamir,

First the REASONABLE thing: you as a gamer get to make the determination. You can take hours and weigh evidence. You can make a snap decision. But it's you man--it's always you. They're your feet.

If the GM makes a call you feel is unreasonable, you argue it (hell, you think after a day or two here I'd expect ya not to?). It's all about cooperation. See--I expect (and I stated) that clever ideas oughta work--now, there may be situation the player isn't aware of that stymies the clever idea--and as Walt said that can lead to feelings of being railroaded.

If you think the GM is doin' that, then you make a decision--like it, lump it, or leave. Whatever you do, you take responsiblity for it. You don't stay there and grumble.

Personally, as the GM, if it was the character's own apartment I'd assume the player's perspective was the REASONABLE one as to whether a hairbrush exists (an Astin Martin in the tenement parkinglot is another matter). If the player walked over my decsion that a bachelor guy didn't have a hairbrush, I'd call it even.

So keep the take-responsibility-for-what-you-do thing in mind when reading REASONABLE.

As for the theme thing--that needs a lot more work before I can even discuss it well. Where I was goin' was that a character can be built with an arc in mind. You okay that arc with the GM--if he says 'no' you keep working until yer both happy. If he says 'yes,' he agreed to it and it's a deal.

How exactly that gets reflected is foggier. I've never had a problem with it. The GM is certainly free to ask. If it's sticking for ya, then you and the GM should go into detail about that.

I would expect the player to say "My character, at this stage as a violent thug, gets into a lot of bar fights--I go to a tough bar where the cycle-gangs hang out and they're always looking for trouble."

Is it REASONABLE that there should be one? For most places yeah. If the character lives on the planet "Utopia V" then as the GM I'd rule "no--no such place" and the player would have to argue it, accept it, or leave. But it'd have to be pretty extreme for me to rule there was no cycle gang and no seedy bar.

And if I did that and hadn't discussed that with the player before hand, I'd probably be in violation of the agreement (sure, you can play a violent thug who fights with other violent thugs ... except there are none on this planet ....)

As for the turning point? A moment of thematic climax? Well, it's best to work together--I've seen it work together. I've also done it internally. Just shifting the way my character played over time--or saying "my character was deeply affected by that and now does 'X'"

Man, this is long.

Anyway, it's not a science. And what I mean by exploring a theme is pretty damn unclear--so I can't really "debate" it--just clarify it. Honestly, it's never been a *big* problem for our group(s).

-Marco

[Marco]

Walt,

I expect the GM to do the work for the background. Hell, I expect the GM to do *research* for the background situation. Just as I don't expect simple gaping logic holes in books or movies, I don't expect them in gaming. If the GM's scenario *does* have a gaping hole then It's like ... a blown "GMing" roll or something.

I mean if I have a way to catch the murder that doesn't involve talking to Lecter then bang--I should get him.

Someone said a player might be real pissed about having to visit Lecter in his cell and talk to him. You know I'm talking about Silence of the Lambs, right?

I mean, of Thomas Harris (who bloody well does his reasearch) offered to run ya through a game and at the start the FBI director came to your character and said "We have no leads--he'll kill again--and we need you to talk to the world's smartest sociopath--" you think they'd walk on him? I'm not talking about petty GM abuses of power or doing things to squash players.

What's the alternative? The set up is the ultra-cool silence of the lambs and this hypothetical guy looks levelly at Harris and says ... what? "I made a great detective roll--I catch him."? I don't wanna put words in this guy's mouth--but I'm confused.

You gotta put this in *perspective.* If the GM starts your characters in jail, there better be a good reason for it. And if it starts not-being-fun you know what to do: tell the GM--and if it doesn't get fixed--walk.

I was too strong when I said the player's don't "have a bitch"--they *always* do (it's like a right). But mostly I'd want to play with players who *trusted* me before I plunked them down in a scenario that looked like a no-win.

So add to the above that if the game's more of a negative than a positive you have the right to leave--even if the GM is behaving reasonably (same as you don't have to play in *any* game the GM runs).

-Marco

[Valamir]

Marco, I want you to know that I hear what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying.

But I don't think its enough.  Basically your entire post boils down to "Can't we all just get along".  That's no better than the text we have now that purports to divy up control but in reality just leaves it up to the players to figure out.

If you have a group that really good at "getting along"...they don't even NEED rules.  That's where all of the stories about "my GM is so good he can run anything...the rules don't matter" comes from.

If your group is like that, fantastic.  I envy you.  But you need to realize that you are then a member of an exceptional group...not a typical one, and IMO, this outline is insufficient.

[Bruce Baugh]

Marco, I like this a lot.

And I like it partly because you are not trying to produce a system or set of guideliness that would guarantee good results. (Where "good" is the basic sensible thing of "satisfies the participants", with anything else as desirable fringe benefits.) I disbelieve in such things, and I take their absence as a good sign as to the writer's experience and judgment.

The last time I wrote character creation rules (For Dark Ages: Vampire) I put in a declaration about how it's very easy to build a character that is mechanically correct and totally in tune with the overall themes of the game, andyet wildly unsuitable for a particular series, like an obsessive stay-at-home in a game intended to include pilgrimage or crusade, ra devout Zoroastrian in a game about clerical politics in Rome. "Don't be a putz about this," I wrote, and developer Phil Boulle left it in, rather to my surprise and delight. I think that applies to everything in gaming. Everything has to get filtered through judgment. One reason to keep the terminology as simple and clear as possible is precisley to increase hte chances that more gamers will use it so as to figure out what they like or dislike and how to make those fit together for a mutually satisfying game.

[Ian Charvill]

I'd like to chime in alongside Marco's and Bruce's posts here.  For the vast majority of people I've gamed with, Marco's text would describe an enjoyable play.

I don't think it's sufficient to be a "How to Roleplay" guide, but I'm not sure Marco ever intended it that way.

I'm not sure you can ever give advice sufficient to avoid dysfunction is all cases.  Some people just don't play well with others.

For me, the useful and interesting discussions have been about dealing with certain dogmatic assumptions about roleplaying, which tend to promote bad role playing.

[Marco]

Ralph,

This wasn't supposed to be sold as Marco's recipie for *success;* it was 'the social contract Marco assumes is in effect as a standard form.' It has the added supposition that the players and GM will try to cooperate and that people will mo-o-less be mature about it (and that holds true for moderate amounts of less--I'm not always at the top of my game either).

It's been my observation that at least some of this behavior is *infectious.* I mean, show up for games you like, check out the group to see if you trust the GM. Talk about what you want ... and if you *don't* like what the GM is doin' and the way the GM is doin' it, at very least don't show up and then complain like hell all night.

Our editor in chief (in NYC) walked into a brand new group--one that had a fair amount 'a infighting going on, was handed a new game (Mutants and Masterminds), handled *one* serious player-player conflict (and it was a good one! He's-a-Munchkin-out-of-character-bad-for-the-plot vs. 'I'm a story oriented guy and he's hurting my experience and *attacking* my character' other player) and it's been week after week of great gaming. I'm *envious*--and it's not even a system I like much (nor he, especially).

So I don't see how it can be a certain magical group: *I* just started with a new group, with a GM who's a real novice and a few players who are new--and whose play *totally* differs from what I'm used to, playing D&D 3-frikking-e,  a system that doesn't excite me ... .

It's doesn't look like the group. It doesn't look like the game. What's left?

-Marco

[Marco]

I'd like to chime in alongside Marco's and Bruce's posts here.  For the vast majority of people I've gamed with, Marco's text would describe an enjoyable play.

I don't think it's sufficient to be a "How to Roleplay" guide, but I'm not sure Marco ever intended it that way.

Right on, man (and to Bruce too!). Who here has a *different* expected social contract--Mike? Val? What do *you* assume the power split is/should be when ya get to the table? I'm talking about moderately 'simulationist' gaming--I know that for other GNS values it can be *way* different.

Do you assume, for instance, that the GM will behave in an illusionist style and/or handle what I called RESOLUTION? And I don't mean "I know Joe plays Illusionist so that's what I exepect from him"--I mean that as 'thats what these games are all about' or 'thats what *everyone* does.'

-Marco

[Matt Machell]

Damn, had a nice reply that got eaten by  an invalid session error.

Anyhow, Marco I think your summary is useful, it tells people exactly what you expect and what you enjoy. A very useful tool if you should ever try and bring new people into your group. Much more useful than many gamer's "I like fantasy games", which only tells us setting colour, and nothing about play style.

For me the execrise would be problematic, because I don't have a prefered play style, it changes based on the game, who I'm playing with, my mood, and so on.


-Matt

[Valamir]

Ok, first let me say that I'm not in any way against what Marco has written or opposed to the ideas it espouses in any way shape or form.

As a text that highlights Marco's solution (his game plan, his social contract summary) for getting around the issue of the Impossible Thing, I think its a great start.  For a group that already has a tendency to play the same way and prioritize the same thing is is likely completely sufficient.

BUT, here's what I don't like about it.

1) If you have a group who already tends to play the same way and prioritize the same thing...you don't need a write up like this at all.  The players would take it, read it, say "yup, whatever, isn't this how we've always done it" and never give it another thought.  I mean really the vast majority of groups out there have been able to muddle their way to an agreeable solution since groups started playing together.

2) But, for players who aren't already of the same mindset.  Its missing key pieces, a couple of which I elucidated above.


Which leaves me with the following.  
I happen to be a fan of exploring the ideas of explicitly stated social contract...one of the reasons why I included it in Universalis.  Have I done alot of this in the past...not really...I muddled through it to some mutally acceptable (often mutually tolerable) place just like everyone else.

Call it the benefit of setting everyones expectations properly up front, so they know exactly what they're getting into...rather than assuming that this group will play the same way as their last group and then being disappointed.

So.  As a text which helps all of us to get a better glimpse of how Marco plays, this text is pretty good.  I'm glad he shared it because its good to know where fellow posters are coming from.  But beyond that, its would just be a testimonial...can't really critique a testimonial, so if that's what this is, there isn't much more to say about it.

As a text which a perspective new member of Marco's group might use to decide if he'd enjoy playing in one of Marco's games...its missing significant pieces.  One can critique its effectiveness at performing this function.  I'd give it high marks for attempting to lay out in writing something that most groups in fact just muddle their way through without much thought, an idea I applaud.  But I'd deduct points for areas where I think its lacking (noted above in my post).  If this were a text to be used in this way, I'd like to see  much more clearly defined guidelines for what (if anything) and when (if ever) the player gets to make assertions that the GM is prohibited from interferring with.  And what / when the GM gets to make assertions that the player is required to accept as fact without questioning.  I submitt there is a HUGE range of possibilities here and since this is one of the biggest sources of in game friction it should be addressed.

How does this apply to game design.  Because I think that the game designer should be upfront about the expectations he designed the game with.  There is no "one true way" to roleplay.  But there very likely is the "way I envisioned when I designed this game" from the designer.  RPGs are usually completely devoid of clear explicit text describing the gaming assumptions the designer was operating under when they wrote the game.  As we've discussed ad naseum in a few recent threads...this is where the Impossible Thing text falls far short.

This is one reason why Ron and I really like ArrowFlight as a game design.  The designer makes it pretty clear how he plays.  While the text dips too much into ranting and mocking it least makes it obvious what set of assumptions the designer was starting with when he wrote a particular rule the way he did and how he'd expect to use those rules himself.

Not only does such text make it easier to evaluate how good a job the designer did at creating a game that fulfills that style of play (even if its not a style we like), but it also is useful to prospective players to understand what they'd be getting into and how much they might have to drift the rules into something they'd like better.  

So as text found at the beginning of an RPG book where the designer is explaining how he and his group play the game I think what Marco has above is about 100 times better than the usual schlock that passes for a "how to roleplay" section.  But its still missing pieces.  Rather than filling in those pieces absolutely (as above) for THIS use those pieces would need to be raised, with some of the different possible approaches touched up, rather than delivering "my way is the right way" (unless the point of the design was to be very specific in this regard.

[Mike Holmes]

No surprise, I agree with Ralph in toto.

I'd add some points, however. It isn't so much that the rules are there to resolve conflict between players ideas of how stuff sohould work. Ralph probably overstates the idea that your group must be ideal for this to work. But the point is that with a more tightly written framework, you can make it work better.

No, Bruce, we're never going to have the perfect game where one dilineated method will both serve all players as they'd like, and create a gaming experience free from conflicts of interest. And further, there's nothing wrong with refering players to the Social Contract level when the rules fail to provide further guidance. But (there's always a but, isn't there) that doesn't mean that we can't try to do better in creating rules and text that clarify how the game might best be played.

What you guys, Bruce and Marco, are saying is dagerously close to "System Doesn't Matter". That when all is said and done that it all hinges on come common understanding of players that underlies "common" play. Well, I think system matters critically, and that it's the reliance on such traditions that is the most common problem encountered in gaming groups.

Further, as Ralph points out, if you have a group that does have a common and functional way to play, and it doesn't happen to match the game in question (which I can only assume is the fear here), then we're all aware that it's a simple matter to drift the game to that mode in most cases. Or, in fact, if that's too hard, then, yes, play another game. As were all aware, no game is for everyone, and attempting to create such a game is fraught with potential problems that come, at their root, from trying to allow an open-ness to all modes when we know that many conflict.

So, no, Marco, nobody is advocating tying players down. Your exaggeration does your argument no good. There is a spectrum here from no statement or rules on the subject of Control in games to saying something like, "The GM tells the whole story, the players sit and listen." Nobody is advocating either extreme end of this spectrum. What they're advocating is slightly more information on how power is split between the participants of RPGs, and, perhaps, doing so in creative ways intended not to alienate anyone, but instead to bring them to a better understanding of different sorts of functional play.

Ironically, one of your biggest allies here is Ron. While he supports looking into games that have unique and rigid control structures, he's also said that he likes "vanilla" games a lot, and would like to see more of those. Included in this statement is the idea of designing games that are more like what you describe than some of the more extreme examples here (Universalis almost being the poster child for a non-vanilla game).

In any case, nobody is saying that the level that you've posted is non-functional. It's just less that what some of us here would like to see in a game. To the extent that it is traditional, though, it is a framework that I think we can improve upon over time. Even if only incrememntally for those who want to keep their games suitable for the (possible apocryphal) traditional gamer.

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Marco,

My reaction here is similar to Valamir's. There's nothing wrong with the way you've described play. In fact, the same framework describes much of my own play as well, though I believe my style is different from yours in key aspects of execution. (More on that later.)

I guess I thought from the context of this discussion was that you were trying to exhibit a style of play that (1) fulfills a reasonable gamer-on-the-street interpretation of The Impossible Thing" as it is actually typically stated in game text, and (2) avoids the consequences that Ron's essay goes on to describe as resulting from The Impossible Thing (the three most likely possibilities being drift to full-blown Narrativism, illusionism, or an ongoing power-struggle between "my guy" players and "my story" GMs.)

In other words, I guess I was looking for a recipe for "success." But the power struggle is still there, in full bore: the arguing about what's reasonable, the voting with your feet (or, the unspoken corollary to that, the threat of doing so used as a club in the struggle), the confused disbelief that "this hypothetical guy" (that is, a player's character) might do something so rude as to mess up a respected GM's "ultra-cool" set-up, juxtaposed with the insistence that players' clever unforeseen solutions must be respected.

That doesn't mean that your play isn't functional, it means that what makes it functional has almost nothing to do with your principles of the Basic Power Split, Reasonable Resolution, Dramatic Timing and so forth. It has far more to do with the processes of group selection, negotiation, and social etiquette for resolving differences that you describe in your subsequent posts, as well as on a lot of GM judgment calls to be made based on style, instinct, and player preferences.

Let me point out that I am far from an acolyte of Impossible Thing. In fact, though I chose not to participate in the most recent flurry of discussion, I've been one of the most outspoken skeptics of the Impossible Thing, because I too have a play style that (IMHO) is functional and yet is arguably accurately described by the game texts that state the Impossible Thing. In terms of your common framework, I avoid as much as possible using Dramatic Editing (I'm a Simulationist!), but instead take a reality-in-flux approach in order to use my privileges over Situation to maneuver the players into progagonizing situations and confront them with moral and ethical issues in order to create a good story. (I'm a Narrativist!) This essentially requires that I follow the players' lead, picking up their cues for how they want the story to develop and what sorts of challenges they want to confront. Others find this style of play creatively unrewarding for the GM, but I enjoy the challenge of it. (I'm a Gamist!).

Here's the same pattern again. My play is functional. But what makes it functional has almost nothing to do with the framework of the Basic Power Split, or with anything else that's written in the game texts.

This is why the Impossible Thing is important, even if it's not exactly always impossible except in the most rigorous technical sense. The game text says to do the Impossible Thing, but it doesn't give you the tools you need to do the hardest parts -- whether you're doing them your way, my way, or some other way. The system doesn't help you negotiate what's reasonable or to work out whether your version of what's reasonable is compatible with somebody else's version of what's reasonable when forming a group. It doesn't tell players when to respect the ultra-cool set-up and when to try clever alternative solutions. It doesn't help GMs get the most out of dramatic timing, or tell them how much dramatic editing is too much. It doesn't help GMs to prevent players from by-passing three quarters of a module without stepping on their autonomy, or help them judge when to let those three quarters of a module go. It doesn't mention that gamers generally recognize and agree that modules are usually a less satisfactory way to play. It doesn't cover the reality-in-flux techniques I use, or tell you how to prepare a session using flexible repurposable plot elements instead of a rigid world-description. It doesn't help GMs improvise after unplanned turns of events (except perhaps by providing random event or encounter tables hopelessly inadequate for that purpose) thus making unplanned turns of events something to be feared and avoided.

Instead, the system covers easy stuff, like how to estimate how much damage a guy takes from falling different distances.

You know those blister packed tool kits in drug stores? The ones with two screwdrivers, a small adjustable wrench, a four-ounce steel hammer, a can opener, and a paper clip? They're always called something like "Mechanic's DELUXE Tool Set" and have a picture that shows some guy overhauling a race car or building a house. I have the same "get real" reaction when I read a game text that says I should do the Impossible Thing using the rules the game provides.

- Walt

[Harlequin]

Okay.  Since it looks like I'm getting few or no responses to this thread, I want to thank Marco for posting one possible reply to it - his Social Contract "template".  It's pretty close to how I usually game, although my GMing sometimes flirts with illusionism (and my players are used to, and like, the style), but more importantly it flags the issues of control and so on in a way that (modified to turn it into more open "decide how your group feels about this" text) would work in a game book.  Ordinary language is so important.

So my challenge, on behalf of my poor unresponded topic (grin), is to the others reading here.  Rather than talking about where Marco's text might be making assumptions and so on, try and put down your own version of his text.  I'm sure the exercise of writing it was somewhat clarifying to him, and might be for the rest of us, too.  I'll certainly try, though I may not expose the result to the light of day.  I recommend doing so without direct reference to Marco's version, so that it's maximally in your own words.  Feel free to use the linked thread above to hold it, I'll consider any and all examples to be germane to the exercise of constructing "how to build a Social Contract" and therefore on-topic, or else (as Marco did) start it at the head of its own thread so that we can do similar discussion of points it hits or fails to hit on.

I'm sure these will always be true.  As I said in the linked thread, the Nobilis section failed to thrill me because it's obvious that Bergstrom and I have different sections of the social contract which benefit from some attention; her text just didn't talk about the right issues, for me.  For some of you, Marco's assumptions about the reasonableness of his playgroup are obviously a possible sticking point; he doesn't consider it an issue.  Same basic disconnect.

Any takers?

[Valamir]

Any takers?

Difficult task.  I imagine that half the reason why the current text is so lacking is that every one whose given it serious thought (rather than just copying what someone else said) decided to punt.

I hope to address this in my next game.  No doubt that as a first attempt it will be lacking, but that's where I'll be putting my energies to write it.

[Paul Czege]

This is why the Impossible Thing is important, even if it's not exactly always impossible except in the most rigorous technical sense. The game text says to do the Impossible Thing, but it doesn't give you the tools you need to do the hardest parts...

Nicely put.

Paul

[Marco]

Hey guys,

1. The recipie for success is the same as everywhere else: take responsibility for what you do.

If what you want to do is power-struggle, well, there you go. Voting with your feet isn't power-struggle. Sure, you can be real *dramatic* about that--but if you're not, it's just treatin' yourself good.

2. If I'm coming close to saying System Doesn't Matter, that's cool with me. Maybe the above description takes a lotta SDM out of the equation?

3. Ralph, I think a lotta games *are* designed to be played the way I play them--the vast majority, actually. I think it's inherent in the basic 'simulationist' RPG design.

4. Walt, don't get hung up on the Dramatic Editing business. It's not *germain* to the document (no more than a player 'exploring a theme')--what I was sayin' was that if a GM has a submarine show up and it's REASONABLE that it might be there, even if it's also DRAMATIC, I wouldn't complain. Dramatic coincidences that I find REASONABLE (maybe I mean "don't deprotagonize me?") don't bother me.

-Marco