Marco's View of Gaming

[Jason Lee]

Fang,

Good answer, but the situation still got you.

You've chosen to give up a little Immersion to preserve as much GM and Player power as you can.  The concensual/player decision about how the Complication should effect the characters requires a shift from Actor Stance to perfom.  Buying into the 'myth of reality' can be part of the fun ("I'm really there and that fire really has been there the whole time.").

Marco's chosen to preserve the players' rights to Immersion, but taken away a little of their authorship rights.

There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

You both chose to accept the loss of the dramatic event (whatever was coming to get the campers) to preserve player power.  Meaning, you wouldn't take the Illusionism approach and do it no matter what.

You also both chose to sacrifice the game rules to preserve GM/player power (you'd let the frostbite roll go if no one liked it).

Though my GMing preference is more similar to Marco's, I'd play in either game - both are functional and I think would be fun for me.  The differences between approaches, as they would play out in game, seem pretty minor even though the fundamental philosophy behind either approach is radically different.

[Mike Holmes]

There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

He's talking specifically of that certain brand of Sim Immersion that's circularly defined as "that form of Immersion that is reduced by authorship".

Just to head off the whole Immersion debate.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Thanks for stopping that train with your man-o-steel physique Mike.  You're right.

[Mike Holmes]

Not a problem, Jason (though my physique is more marshmallowey, especially in the midsection).

But you have to realize that there are those who either don't believe in SpecSimImm (Special Simulationist Immersion), or just don't care. This will of course be problematic, because I'm sure that Marco would claim the typical gamer wants SSI, Paul will claim that it doesn't exist, Fang will claim that his game does cater to both, and others will want to say it's a non-issue.

Thanks for bringing it up. :-(

The question for purposes of this thread cannot be wether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Paul will claim that it doesn't exist

I'll claim that Authorial power doesn't reduce Immersion? When Immersion means as little concern with the metagame level of play as possible? No I won't...because it certainly does. What I will claim is that Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

Paul

[Jason Lee]

The question for purposes of this thread cannot be wether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Fang will correct me if I'm wrong.  My understanding was that Scattershot was an attempt at a universal game, designed to appeal to a whole-lot-a gamers.  Rollercoasterism (man that's fun to say out loud) and SpecSimImm may be an issue. (I fear the can of worms I've opened.)

As far as whether Fang's approach improves on older models...yes, what Ralph said.

Thanks for bringing it up. :-(

Heh, I live to serve.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jason,

Good answer, but the situation still got you.

You've chosen to give up a little Immersion to preserve as much GM and Player power as you can.  The consensual/player decision about how the Complication should affect the characters requires a shift from Actor Stance to perform.  Buying into the 'myth of reality' can be part of the fun ("I'm really there and that fire really has been there the whole time.").

How so?  The players are under no requirement to abandon "Immersion" (however you want to use this loaded term).  Like choosing which game to play, the 'buy in' on the 'player power' issue can be entirely front-loaded ("We get to do that?  Cool, now let's play.") and then forgotten by the "Immersive" player.  In fact, I'd hazard the point that knowing this in advance affords them more trust that their gamemaster won't vindictively hose them over; fewer out-of-character worries should translate into more 'room to play,' I think.  (Does death-by-system always support Immersion or do you just want 'the feel' of lethality?)

In terms of 'who the campsite belongs to' I can only see it as pro-"Immersion;" they set up the campsite, even if they don't describe it in excruciating detail, it's only the gamemaster who must retcons his understanding of their campsite when they add to the description later.

And about the 'players get to choose what happens,' this wasn't meant to say that the gamemaster asks, "Do you want to have a fire and get attacked or do you want the dark and frostbite?"  What it means is whatever the players choose (it's their campsite) forces the hand of the gamemaster in terms of the details.  The players simply trust (because of the front-loaded 'power issue') that the gamemaster won't indiscriminately kill them off because they didn't communicate their campsite well enough.  (Remember, often players, even "Immersive" ones, will play characters who've more knowledge and experience than they; it seems wrong to penalize them for not having at least the same familiarities as the gamemaster.)

As far as the 'myth of reality' stuff, that's primarily aimed at the gamemaster because you can't run a game and be "Immersed" yourself; there are too many out-of-game issues to deal with.  Voiding the 'myth of reality' is supposed to free up the gamemaster from being forced to do things contrary to the players expectations of fun, engagement, and genre for the sake of the 'myth.'  I'd say that being freed from 'remembering the whole world' (something theoretically necessary to be a reality emulator or following the treachery of the 'myth of reality'), should afford a gamemaster more time to 'run around spackling the nuts and bolts of the game system to aid in "Immersion."

Basically?  The players needn't concern themselves a bit about the Complications because they can trust that the gamemaster won't let supporting the 'myth of reality' get in the way of fun.  Especially when the player want to 'put all their eggs in the "Immersion" basket.'

Marco's chosen to preserve the players' rights to Immersion, but taken away a little of their authorship rights.

There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

You both chose to accept the loss of the dramatic event (whatever was coming to get the campers) to preserve player power.  Meaning, you wouldn't take the Illusionism approach and do it no matter what.

Though my GMing preference is more similar to Marco's, I'd play in either game - both are functional and I think would be fun for me.  The differences between approaches, as they would play out in game, seem pretty minor even though the fundamental philosophy behind either approach is radically different.

Like I tried to explore way back in the thread about Symbolic-Language Gamemastering, I don't see this as a necessary trade-off.  You can set up and operate the whole game 'Symbolically' and let the players "author" (another loaded term) all the details.  You choose the 'playtime' for a Complication (using whatever method), they give you the 'gametime,' place, and enough details to forego your choosing what the Complication specifically is (nighttime, at the camp site, and fire/no fire).

Now, I realize people thought that this was Narrativism back then and probably still do now.  But I don't.  If I need to support the idea that the land is rife with bandits or orcish patrols, this is exactly the time to reinforce the idea; I'm gamemastering the sensation of verisimilitude by not subscribing to it myself.  That sounds like I'm providing a reasonable game for the players to explore Character, Setting, Situation, System, or Color in, doesn't it?  (I especially like the way this helps provide Color opportunities and helps 'keep it interesting' throughout.)  And if you don't feel that 'stakes,' 'payoff,' 'arena,' and any other Gamist widget are included here, do I need to remind you that "I need to run a Complication" is equivalent to "I rolled for a wandering monster."  I'm pretty sure that Symbolic-Language Gamemastering and voiding the 'myth of reality' are completely outside of GNS issues.

Often "Immersion" is supported by things like Illusionism; here is another way, the players "author" the details while the gamemaster supports the 'style of play' collectively chosen way back at the beginning.  That fundamentally supports the players' rights to 'go wherever they want' without the consequences of that devastating the consistency of the 'style' preferred.  The primary component is the gamemaster no subscribing to the 'myth of reality.'

I don't see Marco's and my playing styles looking at all different from the player perspective during play.  The set up is different, but once it gets going, I can't imagine any stripe of "Immersionist" noticing the difference.  (Well, maybe when the social contract is challenged, but not otherwise.)

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

The question for purposes of this thread cannot be whether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Fang will correct me if I'm wrong.  My understanding was that Scattershot was an attempt at a universal game, designed to appeal to a whole-lot-a gamers.  Rollercoasterism (man that's fun to say out loud) and SpecSimImm may be an issue. (I fear the can of worms I've opened.)

To quote the Mad Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight, "I can't because yer not!"

However, there has always been something of a bit of confusion about Scattershot as a Universal game.  It isn't.  What it is, is a Universal game design kit which the owners can design most types of gaming experiences with.  Not all.

The reason it isn't simply a Universal game is because I do not expect anyone (short of another game designer) to 'turn the knobs' and 'pull the levers' that Transition Scattershot into just anything.  Consumers will be able to make a few informed adjustments (like Drift, except facilitated by system), by not 'whole transformations.'  Those are possible, but it turns out you've really gotta know the game to do that.  This affords me the ability to sell supplements.

...Fang will claim that his game does cater to both...

Nope.  I consider catering to both another Impossible Thing to be Believed Before Breakfast.

Fang will claim that his game will cater to either, depending on how it is set up.

The question for purposes of this thread cannot be whether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

No, the question to the thread is (if anything), in comparison to Fang's game, will Marco's manifesto appeal to the "common gamer" or anyone and if its method of apportioning credibility is either functional or "common."  Let's not derail the thread, it's about Marco, not Scattershot; Scattershot is just a comfortable comparison that I feel is more explicit in functional credibility apportionment (is that a word?).

When Immersion means as little concern with the metagame level of play as possible?

...What I will claim is that Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

Paul?

I have a question: is 'choosing where to go' not authoring or are you talking narrowly about Author Stance?  (I said "authoring" was a loaded term.)

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, the above post was meant to stop these sorts of responses, not elicit them. I'll be smart enough to tleave the names off next time. :-)

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

The thread wanders  - into very cool and interesting places, but  . . .

One last thing I'm hoping to get clear about with Marco - if disatisfaction can come from anywhere (most notably including, I submit, from the fact that a series of adjudicated RESULTS can easily - and almost unintentionally - become the same as adjudicating the RESOLUTION), why is REASONABLEness the only answer?  

I mean, sure, if there's a power struggle and arguing happening, REASONABLE is where you have to start.  Neccesary, but not (always)sufficient.  But I'm mostly talking about disatisfaction that isn't about power struggle.  I'm concerned with disatisfaction that is at worst about a disconnect in communication and mutual understanding, and at best is about a simple failure to acheive a well-understood and shared goal.

ASIDE:  I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on "power struggle" as a key part of GNS and/or the Impossible Thing.  While a "power struggle" is a . . . frequent? occasional? who knows for sure . . . outcome of the issues, the issues themselves aren't tied up with a power struggle, unless I completely misunderstand things.

So - maybe I'm asking Marco this: while your framework makes total sense and I can easily imagine enjoying a game that started from that place, can you see why I think it just isn't sufficient for the task sometimes?  I mean, we can disagree about exactly what should be added, but - I look at your framework and say "you left out a whole bunch of important stuff - not just useful GM tips and the like, but fundamental aspects of the shared creative endeavor that RPGs can be."  Is that, like, a totally alien thought, one that you just don't understand why I'd have, or . . . what?

I guess I'll just add - I'm also very happy with how this went, and find a LOT of useful stuff in even just Marco's initial post.  And I've got those essay's bookmarked.

Gordon

[Paul Czege]

Hey Fang,

I have a question: is 'choosing where to go' not authoring or are you talking narrowly about Author Stance?

I tend to use "power" when others might say "stance." For me, the latter term has too passive/reactive a connotation for what's actually going on. Do you disagree with either of the following?

Being in Author Stance doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

The use of Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.[/list:u]If not, why are we quibbling over my choice of stance/power?

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

I would say that the use of Author stance places me in distinct relation to the character. This is bad when I want to feel like I am the character. As opposed to just identifying withy the character. When I write a book, or author in an RPG, I think, "gee, he's a lot like me in the way he's intelligently dodging that dragon". When I play in actor stance, I think, "Gee, I'd better get out of the way of that dragon."

Perhaps a new thread?

Mike

[Marco]

Heya Gordon,

REASONABLness isn't an answer--it's my base-line expectation. A lotta confusion has come from thinking my post was the best or only way I thought there was to play--it's not. It's what I walk into a traditional game expecting until I see or am told otherwise. It's how I run things (and I've been successful at it).

You asked if I though the shared power thing was alien--not at all--I just don't think it's standard. And I think it's different rather than *better.* It's kinda like asking "You talk about books all day--but hey, man, what about movies"

I like movies too. I just don't think they're the same.

I'm gonna start a thread about the power-struggle thing since I think Valamir assumes I still don't "get it"--but remember: the document I posted is NOT supposed to resolve power-split arguments. It's not what you're going to look at and say "hey, you screwed my character and it says you can't do this here."

My tools to resolve Ralph's fire example were posted later (the three precepts). I'm guessing Ralph found 'em insufficient for him--but that's a different discussion.

-Marco

[Paul Czege]

Perhaps a new thread?

If Fang wants one, sure, Ron can split this stuff off. Though I don't appreciate you punishing me like this just for having denied I'd say what you said I'd say.

Paul

[Jason Lee]

How so?  The players are under no requirement to abandon "Immersion" (however you want to use this loaded term).  Like choosing which game to play, the 'buy in' on the 'player power' issue can be entirely front-loaded ("We get to do that?  Cool, now let's play.") and then forgotten by the "Immersive" player.  In fact, I'd hazard the point that knowing this in advance affords them more trust that their gamemaster won't vindictively hose them over; fewer out-of-character worries should translate into more 'room to play,' I think.  (Does death-by-system always support Immersion or do you just want 'the feel' of lethality?)

Front loading really isn't the situation as presented.  If you front load the camp/fire, then you've got something else similar that might spring up in game.  You cannot front load everything, because that'd be, well...um, playing.  You're probably using lethality just as an example, and I'll stick with that, but it doesn't have to be about lethality.  Lethality is often an area where people will sacrifice Immersion and game rules for GM and/or player power - I would.  The camp/fire situation isn't predefined lethal either.  You get frostbite and now you've got a new Complication - get to the doctor.  You win the fight and you get a different one - who attacked us.  Or whatever.  Attackers being drawn by the fire is also just an option, you could certainly think of others in this situation or skip it entirely.  The point is to decide what'd you do in the situation, not change it.  You might say 'I'd never get in this situation', but I'd bet something similar could occur.  I suppose I'm getting off track.

And about the 'players get to choose what happens,' this wasn't meant to say that the gamemaster asks, "Do you want to have a fire and get attacked or do you want the dark and frostbite?"  What it means is whatever the players choose (it's their campsite) forces the hand of the gamemaster in terms of the details.  The players simply trust (because of the front-loaded 'power issue') that the gamemaster won't indiscriminately kill them off because they didn't communicate their campsite well enough.  (Remember, often players, even "Immersive" ones, will play characters who've more knowledge and experience than they; it seems wrong to penalize them for not having at least the same familiarities as the gamemaster.)

That's how I took it in your first post - a pretty standard Director stance approach when the situation gets iffy.  All this does is change the position from sacrificing Immersion for player and GM power (in the form of Director stance or social contract to negotiate events) to something else.  What that something is I'm unclear on because when the time comes to decide if a fire exists or not because you've got to roll for frostbite, does the GM ask or just go with only what the player has already said?  If the former, you're giving up suprise for player power by taking that little bit out of rollercoaster play (which would be related to certain approaches to Immersion, IMO) .  If the latter, you're giving up player power and giving it to the GM (because now he has authority to decide what the characters would do).  I predict you would choose the former, making your approach basically identical to Marcos.

I don't see Marco's and my playing styles looking at all different from the player perspective during play.  The set up is different, but once it gets going, I can't imagine any stripe of "Immersionist" noticing the difference.  (Well, maybe when the social contract is challenged, but not otherwise.)

Me neither, that bit about the social contract being challenged pretty much sums up where I think you'll sacrifice Immersion and Marco may not.