Marco's View of Gaming

[Mike Holmes]

Hey guys,

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

Nobody is arguing, or would argue otherwise. The Social Contract level comes first and formost in every model I've ever seen. But that's not something that the game text can control. We can encourage it, but when it comes down to it, we as designers have to assume it's true.

But this does not mean that the rules aren't important. By this logic we don't need laws. As long as everyone does what they're supposed to, then there won't be any problems? You use rules in your games precisely because they are there to determine "what happens" in game. The players agree to abide by them. All we're proposing is that a ruleset can be created that helps responsible people disagree less often, and reduce the need to "vote with one's feet", which is, after all, a failure.

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.

This assumes that two responsible people will rarely, if even disagree about what is reasonable. Which is just not true (in fact some waould argue that it's a problem of epidemic proportions in gaming). You admit problems will occur. All we'd say is that we want to reduce (not eliminate, which is imposible) problems. What's so bad about that?

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?

Not at all. SDM was written in respose to the idea that relying on Social Contract alone is not as potentially powerful as having a system to support. The better the system for the task, the better the play. If that doesn't make sense to you, then I wonder why you design?

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.

Totally disagree. GURPS, which your game JAGS derives from somewhat mechanically, is seen to obviously promote Illusionism as in the recently quoted text. I've peraonally played with jillions of players, and if there's one thing that I've found it's that there is NO common "way to play". Which is to say that many, many players who would agree with your terms play differently enough from other players who would also agree with your terms, that this is the reason for much of the dysfnctional play that exists out there. It's not, maybe, the "norm", but as long as we're speaking from personal esperiences here, I can tell you it abounds.

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.

Can't you see that what you're doing here is interpereting your own text? How many other interperetations will you have to make to make it work for the totality of the "common gamer"? In doing so, you're just moving to where we'd like you to be, anyhow.

Mike

[Valamir]

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.
-Marco

<sigh>

But you haven't said "how you play them" except in general terms.

Questions:

Is there any point in games you run where players have the ability to make an assertion that the GM cannot alter, or that the GM is expected not to alter without very good reason.  If so what sort of things fall into this category and when.  If the GM does alter or deny a players assertion in such a situation, how does this happen? Are players expected to appeal the ruling or must they accept it and wait until after the game to present their case.  If the rest of the players agree with the player and disagree with the GM, is the GM expected to bow to the collective will of the group, or can he still exercise absolute authority.

What types of things in games you run are completely within the purview of the GM.  You've mentioned the initial situation. What else in your games is the GM allowed to do or say that players are expected to accept without question.  What sorts of things (and when do they occur) are the only 2 options for the player to accept them or leave.

When describing what the characters detect with their 5 senses how much editorializing with regards to their reaction to it is the GM permitted.  Can the GM describe a scene of bloody butchery as "You come upon a gut wrenching nauseating scene of carnage?"  Or would players response to this be "just stick to the facts, I'll decide what my character finds nauseating thank you".  What about involuntary reactions?  If its cold outside is the GM permitted to describe the character as shivering?  Or is that deemed to be invading the player's space and taking control of the character away from him?  Would a roll be called upon to see if the character gets nauseated or shivers?  Would this roll be framed as a check by the players to attempt to avoid haveing the GM control his character?  Or would they be framed as check by the GM to ensure the player is portraying his character reasonably?

When its cold outside and the players decide to make camp, does the GM make everyone roll for frostbite the next morning because they forgot to add that they're making a fire, or does he assume that "making camp" includes the normal assorted actions?  If the GM does assume that they made a fire, is he then permitted to use that fire as attracting the attention of the group's enemy's?  Or would the players balk at this claiming that they never stated they were making a fire?

Are various PC related toggles dependent on the player's explicit decisions or on the GMs assumptions about whats reasonable for the character?  If a warrior is ambushed in a catacomb while looking for gouls but the player hasn't explicitly stated "I ready my sword", does that mean he doesn't have it ready?  Or does the GM rule that it is reasonable to expect that a trained warrior would be smart enough to pull his sword in a dangerous circumstance even if the player didn't mention it?  What if the GM declares a surprise attack from ambush that disarms the character?  Is the player able to say "but I never said I had drawn my sword, so he couldn't have disarmed me"?


Clearly I could go on like this for pages and pages.  What should be obvious is that what you've written doesn't give ANY guidance at all as to the answer.  I can't tell from what you've written what your response to any of these issues would be.  "Act reasonably and responsibly" quite frankly doesn't cut the mustard because both sides of the above questions can be the source of in group hostility even though both sides are quite reasonable and responsible.  Quite frankly its a completely useless standard without guidance as to what is considered reasonable and what isn't.

Courts of law get the benefits of decades of precedence to help decide what should and shouldn't be considered reasonable.  Are we to expect players then to have to figure out what is reasonable on their own over the course of many sessions of trial and error until such time as they have a suitable body of precedence to draw from?  Or is there perhaps a better way than this.

That's why I've repeatedly said it is incomplete and missing key information.  These are the hard questions that can cause friction and dysfunction within playgroups.  These are the questions that the current state of game text just assumes will magically work themselves out.  Yet I would argue that any one of these things is a hell of alot more important to successful gaming than knowing how much damage is incurred from a 10 foot fall.

Is it plausible to specifically address every single one of these issues within a game text...obviously no (although a PDF with prodigious use of hyperlinks at key points in the text might come close).  But many of these are related to certain basic principles of GM / player power distribution, and a discussion of those issues as they apply to a given game (as the designer would handle it in his own games) would provide alot of helpful principals to guide individual groups.  Even a discussion that did no more than raise the above issues and instruct the group to discuss them amongst themselves and decide how to handle it would be preferable to simply pretending the issues don't matter (which by ignoring them is what most rules defacto do).

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, I'm gonna try and keep this short and simple - Marco, I think you're right, something like your manifesto forms the basis of a a whole lot of gaming design, assumptions and actual play.

What I have found is that a lot of the time, it leads to everyone involved going "hey, that didn't work out as well as we thought it would.  I'm kinda dissatisfied by that."  As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), your answer as to why that happens is that there was a breakdown in being REASONABLE at some point along the line.

Nowadays, I'm attributing it (the dissatisfaction) primarily (once you get outside the purely dysfunctional realms) to the fact that an ongoing accumulation of adjudicated RESULTS/RESPONSES becomes, almost regardless of whether the GM/group wants it to or not, the same thing as adjudicating the RESOLUTION (somewhere around there is where the Impossible Thing would fit in your model/analysis, but I'm not sure exactly how it fits, so - having made note of that, I move on).

At some point, you (or at least I) start believing that "just do a better job of being REASONABLE" is not a sufficient response to the problem.   There're two avenues I see to explore - tools that actually make REASONABLE easier to acheive, and the possibility that REASONABLE isn't actually the core issue (in at least some cases).

Forge discussions, System Matters, and GNS all touch on both the "how to acheive REASONABLE" and the "what else is involved besides REASONABLE" issues, so I get kind of excited about 'em.

Let me know if my understanding of what you said is somehow off, and I hope I was able to use the language you proposed to describe MY viewpoint/issues,

Gordon

[Gordon C. Landis]

A bit of an aside:  "The integrity of the Sim" is a GREAT thing to have everyone cue off of in establishing boundries and shared understandings of what is REASONABLE, so that may be one reason why a) this manifesto works really well for Sim games, and b) Sim designs can get so fanatical about the consistency, "realism" and etc. of their imagined worlds and rule structures.  Take that away, and it gets harder to establish a shared understanding of just what is and isn't REASONABLE.

[Marco]

Hey guys,

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

Nobody is arguing, or would argue otherwise. The Social Contract level comes first and formost in every model I've ever seen.

I think that's what's happen'in when ya blame the game text and the game designer for your power struggle: not takin' responsibility.

"Can't we all just get along," while woefully inadequate for the LA Riots is (IMO) pretty good protocol at the gaming table.

If two people don't agree on what's reasonable--even generally--when both have something to gain--they probably should NOT be married, live together as roommates, or game together. When I game with people I wouldn't accept at room-mate level of company I usually don't have too good of a time. So, no, REASONABLE is a personal metric--not an excuse for power-struggle. You can still debate if you want, but once it becomes an *argument*, "The book said so," ain't gonna absolve ya.

Observe: if you, a reasonable person, are arguing with an unreasonable person (a GM who's screwing you badly), yer still responsible, man. It don't go away because you can show him a page where you're right and he's refusing to acknowledge it--your choice to be in that argument is *your* choice. The whole GNS power-struggle issue is, ultimately one of personal responsibility.

I'm pretty sure that GURPS, Hero, VtM, and all those other games are designed to adequately support my play mode. Even if a line of text written by someone 10 years ago says "be illusionist," the game runs fine as non-illusionist-sim (and it should: illusionist is a sub-set of sim, no?).

I design because I find "broken rules" ('Whirlwind' in GURPS Supers) to be more damaging to my experience than the philosophy stuff.

-Marco

[Marco]

Valamir,

That was a long post--I'll address what I can with the time I've got.

1. "Gut Wrenching:" Not a hot button issue for me, particularly. I dunno--if the party walked in on a grizly murder scene and I said "make willpower checks for gut-reaction" and the guy playing the grizzled homicide cop said "I've seen this stuff before," I'd probably go "yeah, I can see that." If the person playing the suburban housewife said "my stomach's too strong to be turned by a grizly disembowelment," I'd probably go "Really? Why?" (honest surprise). If it kept happening that the person was playin' nerds who talked like Clint Eastwood characters with no real explanation I might talk to 'em. I might, you know, deal with it--okay, that's Tom. I might not invite the guy back or drop out if he was ruining my evening.

I'd really try not to argue about it.

2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

3. I think the GM has veto power (kinda like the US President)--and, like the US President, he can be voted out.

This is all simple stuff, really. I mean, do you have a social contract that spells this all out? If so, post it--I'd love to see it (not meant scarcasticly!)

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

Marco,

You've never seen the case where everyone is being REASONABLE, but the resulting game is consistently NOT what everyone (or most everyone) wanted it to be?  That's what I meant when I talked about putting aside pure dysfunction in my other post - REASONABLE just isn't getting the job done.

Now, one response is "add more REASONABLE, you dont have enough" - but I personally am just not seeing that as a real solution.

Gordon

[Marco]

What I have found is that a lot of the time, it leads to everyone involved going "hey, that didn't work out as well as we thought it would.  I'm kinda dissatisfied by that."  As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), your answer as to why that happens is that there was a breakdown in being REASONABLE at some point along the line.

Gordon

Dissatisfaction could come from *anywhere* man. If there was an *argument* (especially a bitter ongoing one) it wasn't because of the REASONABLE clause--it was because someone decided to be in "power struggle" rather than out of it. Because everyone involved did, actually.

If I run ya a game and it turns out it's a victorian murder myster and the buttler did it you could be dissatisifed for reasons that have nothing to do with that.

If I run ya a game and you don't like Sim gaming and prefer narrativist gaming it's not because of a REASONABLE issue.

If something bad happens to your character and you concede it's REASONABLE but don't like it anyway, that's just life (and you can quit if you want to--always your choice). If you think, though, even for a second, that I was *gunning* for your character (the Liche shows up JUST AFTER you took the last slice of pizza!) then that's clearly *unreasonable.*

-Marco

[Valamir]

Valamir,

This is all simple stuff, really. I mean, do you have a social contract that spells this all out? If so, post it--I'd love to see it (not meant scarcasticly!)

-Marco

See, now we're back to talking in circles again...the specifics of the questions weren't important, of course they were simple...they were examples.  Did you not get the point.

And no I don't have something that spells this out.  No one does (that I know of) we've all just been muddling through since this hobby began.  Game text doesn't help.  It doesn't even acknowledge that we need to muddle through it, it just assumes that understanding of what to do in these situations is somehow innate to all roleplayers.

This is the whole POINT.  At best your response amounts to "muddling through has got us all by so far...why bother changing how its done"  

Why bother indeed.

Maybe you've never had the misfortune to be in a group where even the above simple situations resulted in collosal dysfunctional play.  But I have.  If you haven't then perhaps you truely can't see why "can't we all just get along" just doesn't cut the mustard.

My point is that discussing these issues, talking about possible solutions, talking about the way the game designer thought about the issues when designing the game, and talking about the issues specifically relate to the particular design in question and how different approaches will result in different play experiences is exactly what the "how to roleplay" sections of RPGs SHOULD be talking about and don't.

Being a game designer and thinking about these issues, how they interrelate, what they say about intragroup dynamics, and how to incorporate them directly into the design is IMO a good thing.  

IMO any designer who does not take these issues into account when designing a game today (either through explicit divisions of power, actual mechanics for sharing and resolving issues, or at the minimum putting some forethought into how these issues will impact and be impacted by the game rules) is missing a huge opportunity to advance the hobby beyond where it is.

[Marco]

Val,

I didn't miss the point--but I didn't illustrate mine well. My thought was that all of those issues have been non-issues for me. I thought about why. If you want my "rules for success", here they are:

1. Take responsibility--if you're arguing, yer responsible--not the game rules, not the how-to-text, not nothing else. The other guy's responsible to himself too--but regardless of how obnoxious, thickheaded, or whatever *he's* being, you're responsible for yourself--for being in the argument at all (within the argument space I include the Impossibe Thing power-struggle).

2. If you're adjudicating, strive to be REASONABLE. only you know if you're being reasonable. That's enough for my precept.

3. Cooperate as much as you can while still having fun. Compromise and Consensus (reaching a consensus) are just two of the tools you got to work with--use 'em (this is the more complex form of can't we all get along). Trust is good too--try to play with people you trust. If you finally run out of road on all of this, it's probably time to go home.

My answers above stem from these.

-Marco

[Jason Lee]

When its cold outside and the players decide to make camp, does the GM make everyone roll for frostbite the next morning because they forgot to add that they're making a fire, or does he assume that "making camp" includes the normal assorted actions?  If the GM does assume that they made a fire, is he then permitted to use that fire as attracting the attention of the group's enemy's?  Or would the players balk at this claiming that they never stated they were making a fire?

I found this a superb situation to locate Marco's PoV with.  What I think is so great about it is that, as GM, you're screwed no matter what you do - forcing you to draw the line somewhere and make a concession.

2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Yeah, maybe the frostbite thing is silly, but as I see it the point is to solve the situation presented.  To me, the frostbite bit is implied as a system mechanic.

So, Marco, you choose to ask them.  Seems like the best solution.  But now, simply by asking, you've given away to any mildly intelligent person that something is going to see the fire.  The players either say 'Yes' and the suprising event ain't so suprising, or they say 'No' because they don't want to be found.  If they don't build a fire, you're right back at the beginning rolling for frostbite.

It's a circle of doom, Doom, DOOM...your play style will determine when you stop running around on the little wheel and sacrifice game rules, a dramatic event, Immersion, player power or GM power.

(My personal method would be to state the most reasonable option mixed in with normal seeming description 'So, you're setting up camp, you build a fire, ...', insert properly timed pause for objections to surface "...and as you're setting in for the night...'  Though, that still isn't a perfect solution to the riddle.)

This is a bit of a non-post, but I just wanted to point out how interesting that was to me.

[Valamir]

Thanks Jason, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.  Allowing the GM to take control over certain seemingly mundane character actions has its pros and cons.  Forbidding the GM to ever even suggest what the characters are and aren't doing has its pros and cons.  

Very different play experience.  Very easy to wind up fighting over.  And there's no help from the game rules except to say "they're both right".

[Marco]

I found this a superb situation to locate Marco's PoV with.  What I think is so great about it is that, as GM, you're screwed no matter what you do - forcing you to draw the line somewhere and make a concession.

2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Yeah, maybe the frostbite thing is silly, but as I see it the point is to solve the situation presented.  To me, the frostbite bit is implied as a system mechanic.

So, Marco, you choose to ask them.  Seems like the best solution.  

Yah, I hear ya. As the GM I'd say "It's cold, there's a north wind blowing and the sky is getting gray. You move off the path--what's your protocol for camp? (watches, guards? trip-wires? camouflage their gear?Whatever)." If they mention no fire, I *might* ask. I *might* not. If that sets off the PC's, then I think they're being paranoid enough to avoid the armed company.

Here's the thing: if they're army rangers in disputed or enemy territory, I *know* how they sleep: find the most *disgusting* terrain to hide in, no light, no noise, every reflective surface covered with black tape, etc. If they're a bunch of campers, I'd ask 'em if they want toasted marshmallows with their dinner. A lot of what's REASONABLE is *based* on the specifics.

Where I'm goin is that while yeah, GMing can be sticky--but even if they cued off of my questions and avoided the army that shouldn't ruin the session for me. If it does, that's *my* fault.

My essay was about my percieved generic social contract--not Marco's GMing tips. My formula for success was kinda a more concrete layout  of "be reasonable, be good to each other, and take responsibilty for ya actions."

Those two linked essays are the finest I've seen for construcing sim-campaigns that tend to play a certain way. The three posted games I have done in Actual Play follow those guidelines.

That's all so far--I agree there's no right or wrong, just what works for *you*--and I don't think a game can tell you that reliably (no doubt, Sorceror hits some home runs for a lotta people--and I'd it for that--but Sorceror's also a pretty inventive example of game design--and I wouldn't approach it with the same expectations of Social Contract I outlined. Those are just how I'd approach, like, a GURPS session (and the GM told me she was illusionist, I'd change my expectations then too).

Hey, all, I was pretty happy with how this went. I'd like to see someone else go into what base-line expectations other people bring to a game.

-Marco

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jason, Ralph,

See, I've been sitting back and watching this thread once I noticed that Marco pretty much stated the impossible thing up front.  I've been following it really carefully since Ralph posted his list of 'tough questions.'  The problem I've had is one unspoken assumption and some really easy (well, I thought so; I put it into Scattershot, too) solutions.

When its cold outside and the players decide to make camp, does the GM make everyone roll for frostbite the next morning because they forgot to add that they're making a fire, or does he assume that "making camp" includes the normal assorted actions?  If the GM does assume that they made a fire, is he then permitted to use that fire as attracting the attention of the group's enemy's?  Or would the players balk at this claiming that they never stated they were making a fire?

I found this a superb situation to locate Marco's PoV with.  What I think is so great about it is that, as GM, you're screwed no matter what you do - forcing you to draw the line somewhere and make a concession.

2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Yeah, maybe the frostbite thing is silly, but as I see it the point is to solve the situation presented.  To me, the frostbite bit is implied as a system mechanic.

So, Marco, you choose to ask them.  Seems like the best solution.  But now, simply by asking, you've given away to any mildly intelligent person that something is going to see the fire.  The players either say 'Yes' and the surprising event ain't so surprising, or they say 'No' because they don't want to be found.  If they don't build a fire, you're right back at the beginning rolling for frostbite.

It's a circle of doom, Doom, DOOM...your play style will determine when you stop running around on the little wheel and sacrifice game rules, a dramatic event, Immersion, player power or GM power.

The "unspoken assumption" is what I've been calling the 'myth of reality.'  That's the idea that the game world, this "imaginary space" being shared, the Context of the game, is somehow a contiguous, independent entity.  It isn't; it never was and won't ever be.

Think about it.  Remember those "enemies?"  Did you stat them up when the game started?  Do you have their histories, families, relationships, and what they might reveal if questioned or tortured?  Probably not.  Does this mean you'll take special pains to prevent any of that coming up?  Again, probably not; you'll improvise.

You make nothing into something.  Do it right and it looks like it was there the whole time.  Forget that it wasn't there before or you'll start to fall into the 'myth of reality.'

How does that apply here?  Well, first of all, one has to ask 'why now?'  Why are you choosing to harass the characters on this particular evening?  (The specific reason doesn't matter in this forum, but means everything to how you solve the above dilemma when it happens; I'll speak broadly about what to do without going into the specifics.)  See, the point is you have a reason.  Okay, that works and you know what it is; fine.

Now, what about the fire?  Well, Scattershot explicitly says, 'whosoever creates it, owns it.'  They 'set up camp;' the details of the camp are theirs to decide.  None of this coercing them into creating a fire or depriving them of it by omission; it's really up to them and they don't need to specify it 'up front.'  Why?  Because there is no 'reality' to it.  The fire is irrelevant when they 'set up camp;' it only becomes relevant because you 'have a reason' to harass the characters that night.

When you make that call, to harass the characters for whatever reason, then the fire becomes relevant, but not really.  Y'see, it's a little like Schroëdinger's box; if the cat makes a fire the enemy spots them, otherwise it freezes.  I mean, in the example, I don't remember the bad guys having to make a perception roll to 'spot the fire.'  The fire is just an excuse, either way.

I'd say it's clear that the gamemaster needs to bring home the point that where they are 'is dangerous.'  One mistake I've seen time and again is when a gamemaster makes exactly this decision, for whatever reasons, it 'gets out of control' and lays waste to the party and the game.  All because he wanted to make a point and fell prey to the 'myth of reality.'  Granted this is the point being made, the game's rules (the engine of play) kicks in; but does it have to actually be lethal?  I'd say, since only a point is being made, the system ought to simply 'create information,' not 'decide what happens.'

So the time comes for the Complication to be introduced.  The gamemaster doesn't really need to pick one; he only has a certain point to make.  (That doesn't mean that the scenario will not limit his choices; I like to think the scenario is focusing them.)  Without falling for the 'myth of reality,' the gamemaster simply asks about the presence of fire.  Heck, he could even discuss the pros and cons of it with the players (this goes a long way towards 'making his point' even without resorting to Complications).  It is their choice that decides what the Complication is; fire means enemies, darkness means exposure (the players 'lose' either way).

Now, here is where it becomes difficult.  If the players chose fire and got 'the enemy,' the gamemaster must be careful not to slaughter the characters.  Is that fair?  No, but neither was choosing to Complicate the game at that point; I don't see why you can't be arbitrary both times.  If the players chose darkness and got 'frostbite,' the gamemaster must just as well, be careful not to do the same.  This is where I mean the rules create information instead of lethality.  Frostbite is rolled for, this gives 'how bad' it is; if the rolls are terrible the gamemaster can do an 'oh yeah' and say that he forgot the temperatures were milder (adjust the rolls).  If the enemies turn out to be too tough, the gamemaster can invent just as many reasons for the enemies to 'run off' as he did to have them 'attack.'  Only when you subscribe to the 'myth of reality' do you decide events inflexibly up front and leave it to the dice to save or destroy the game.

So that's how it works.  The gamemaster 'has a reason' for Complicating the characters lives; he must not lose sight of that through the entire Scene.  (Trust me, this works no matter what your group's GNS orientation.)  The players (however indirectly) choose the character of that Complication, firstly because it is their campsite and secondly because it puts them into the driver's seat.  As long as the gamemaster doesn't lose sight of why he introduced the Complication, he 'stays in control' of how tough it is.  (Aren't the real reasons this is a conundrum because it 1) takes 'control' away from the players and 2) could potentially destroy the game?)

This kind of methodology alleviates most of the "circle of doom" by eliminating the 'myth of reality.'  Because you aren't trying to protect the 'wholeness' of the 'reality,' you can spend more time making it seem 'more real.'  No sacrifice to game rules, dramatic events, verisimilitude, or player and gamemaster power.  Identify the purpose of the Complication, stick to it, and invent details that both answer that and rise to the expected level of [immersion/realism/verisimilitude] that you require; this is not so hard at all.

Thanks Jason, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.  Allowing the GM to take control over certain seemingly mundane character actions has its pros and cons.  Forbidding the GM to ever even suggest what the characters are and aren't doing has its pros and cons.

Very different play experience.  Very easy to wind up fighting over.  And there's no help from the game rules except to say "they're both right".

Ralph, aren't you being a bit extremist here?  How about the middle ground, where the characters belong to the players, but certain assumptions can be made short of ratification/veto?  That's what I'm getting at with Proprietorship in Scattershot; I can just assume things about a game (based on its Genre Expectations) or someone's character (based upon their Sine Qua Non), if the Proprietor disagrees, it is their call in the end.  I've even developed a Technique for settling disagreements with a rewards-based Auction.  Yes the game requires a certain acceptance of minor retcon, but most social contracts support that simply as a feature of communication ("That's not what I meant!" "Oh, okay, then this.").

So there is at least one game that doesn't say, "They're both right," yet answers these questions.  I don't want to derail the thread, but I looked over your list of conundrums and saw that every one had an explicit solution in Scattershot.  I maintain that a game designer can (and did) create a game that can handle these issues without creating all kinds of special situation rules.

Fang Langford

[edited to correct my negative contractions]

[Valamir]

So there is at least one game that doesn't say, "They're both right," yet answers these questions.  I don't want to derail the thread, but I looked over your list of conundrums and saw that every one had an explicit solution in Scattershot.  I maintain that a game designer can (and did) create a game that can handle these issues without creating all kinds of special situation rules.

Fang Langford

Fantastic stuff Fang, I'm really looking forward to seeing scattershot because this is EXACTLY my point.

The questions were not presented as being unanswerABLE, but rather unanswerED.

The text Marco provided did not offer any guidance as to how players should expect to see these issues dealt with in the game.  That was my problem with it.

Your text gives some really good specifics.

it's really up to them and they don't need to specify it 'up front.' Why? Because there is no 'reality' to it.

Here you are clearly saying that "The camp is entirely owned by the player, they can have or not have a fire as they choose, and that doesn't need to be determined in advance, it can be retconed in later"

Thats FABULOUS stuff.

Note:  I don't mean Fabulous as in "that's the right answer".  I mean Fabulous as in "that's an explicit answer".

If instead it read "It's up to the players to decide if they're going to set a fire, but they must make this announcement in advance of any action regarding the presence or absence of fire by the GM.  If the players do not specify whether they do or don't have a fire, the GM is free to interpret what he feels is the most reasonable based on the nature and capabilities of the parties characters"

That would be equally Fabulous from my perspective, because it is equally clear and forthcoming with where this division of power lies.


To bring this full circle, the above is always answered somehow.  Every group must always come up with a solution for how to deal with these types of situations at some point (often not until they've come up).  It is impossible to play an RPG without issues like this coming up and requiring a way to resolve them.  

This is why, for me, the "Impossible Thing" is impossible.  Because it pretends that the answers to these questions aren't necessary and that the "traditional split" is sufficient.