Something by way of a counterpoint.

[Marco]

Marco, with respect, I'm not going to argue the existence of the Impossible Thing with you, as has been done elsewhere to exhaustion. It exists. There's more to it than semantics and apologetic interpreations.

Further, I'm not interested in your specific interpretations of game texts. I think I understand your position. I've certainly read your position many times in many threads. I'm far more interested in what I can do and what I believe Joe Gamer can read plainly from texts I write.

Finally, it's not my theory, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism ("Hey, where's MY THEORY ... ?"). I believe the text is strongly indicative of illusionist play. That's fine. Such play exists functionally in many, many games. My point, as I've already stated, was that I see no evidence, and strongly doubt that illusionism is the "default" viewpoint of the creators without any significant consideration on the creator's part on 1) whether illusionism is really what the game does best and 2) even whether illusionism as a form exists or what else might exist outside of that.

No need (on the Imp thing, I don't expect closure on it). But you did bring it up when it wasn't actually there in the text ... which you might want to examine.

I do think my interpertation of game text is pretty much what Joe Gamer gets out of it, though. My impression of gamers hasn't been "I just bought this game and I can't figure out if I'm supposed to win or not."

As for the last bit: you seemed really annoyed by the text. I don't see any evidence that text like that is having a harmful effect on the industry. I suspect that if dungeons and dragons (note lower case) becomes mainstream, so will Dungeons and Dragons (baring some gating influences like the need to find a GM).

I'm all for better explanations than analogies than linking RPG's to novels, plays, TV shows, or movies--but mostly people choose those because there aren't any better alternatives people easily grasp.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I think this thread is a waste of time. I'd probably agree that the manifesto in question is to some extent ill-concieved. But what if it is? So what? It isn't new news that there's theory here that supports the idea, nor, in fact, that it's a contentios notion. People who believe that this is problematic text can respond accordingly in their designs, and those who think otherwise can do what they see fit. Unless this is to become yet another rehash of the actual question (and so far it's just been people posturing at each otther), I don't see the purpose of it.

Is there some new issue here that I'm missing? Some new angling on it?

Mike

[Bruce Baugh]

Matt, I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying, but I also don't see my efforts at clarification or expansion getting anywhere toward an agreement on my actual words, which I'd take as a prerequisite to establishing their truth or relevance. So I'm done with this. Sorry for being unable to communicate just right now. I may perhaps revisit the subject at a time when there's less on my plate.

[Matt Snyder]

Fair 'nough, Bruce. I can certainly understand the all-too-full-plate, as mine's overflowing with stuff to do, also. I'll take one last stab at it here, and let you respond if/when you like.

I've read, re-read, and re-read again your posts. I think I do indeed see more of what you're getting at.

I doubt that Guardians would ever claim to have universal truths. But they can claim that their advice stands up under repeated testing.

This seems to me to be the money quote. I understand this. I understand where you're coming from. This works for them. Sorry I misinterpreted your "works for them" slightly previously.

Still, how will we ever know whether some other approach for this type of content works better? To date, no successful RPG company (as in, sells thousands) has taken an dramatic, alternate approach to any recognizable degree when it comes to this specific type of content. The assumption is that this is The Way (because it has always been The Way?), but we have no significant data (thousands of sales, for example) on products in which instructional text like Cadriel, Valamir and myself would prefer to see appears.

I am saying that, yes, this probably sells thousands. Yet, no one has even really tried an alternate way.

Obviously, the problem is that if this "works" enough, then there's little incentive to try another means. I mean, why take a risk on sales when gamers "obviously" want something else?

My reply is that I don't think it's obvious gamers want this and only this, and secondly that this is what the Forge is all about. Doing this stuff on a small scale, acting as kindling for what might happen in the industry in the future. I believe demand for such products can only ignite more sales, and really challenge the industy's notion of what it is.

In other words, I'm saying this:

It's too bad this particular brand of gaming keeps 'happening' in games. Wouldn't it be great if some industry success stories really, critically analyzed this kind of content? Oh well, maybe they will sooner or later. I'll be doing that in the meantime. Heck, maybe my pebble will even send waves across the pond. Have a good one.

[Blake Hutchins]

It's also likely GOO assumes some segment of their market is either young or relatively inexperienced with roleplaying.  This kind of manifesto goes to that kind of customer, in my opinion.  It's the kind of de rigeur boilerplate I don't find offensive.  Nor do I hold it to any ideological standard.  We've discussed social contract issues all over The Forge, and I tend to view the so-called "Golden Rule" as a codification of the primacy of social contract issues.  Much of this manifesto is style-oriented, sure, but I think it's also geared toward profiling a social contract baseline, a kind of ur-context within which GOO suggests the rules be viewed.  That said, it's guidance and suggestions here, not rules.

I still don't see the irritation factor.  Doesn't mean you don't; it just ain't there for me.

Best,

Blake

[greyorm]

The fact that they're successful with that boiler plate might say something very profound about System Does Matter.

Or it might not say anything remotely relevant -- crap sells, after all. Oftentimes, heaping, stinking piles of crap sell well for reasons beyond product quality or utility.

I'm not saying Tri-stat is crap, I have no idea, actually -- just pointing out the flaw in your logic from a marketing perspective.

In the realm of belief, people believe the impossible, improbable, and downright false with fanatic regularity -- if we were to follow your statement above, then with certain of such beliefs being so widespread, repeated, and clung to, alternatives (either true or false) must be wrong.

For example, in recent polls, 85% of Americans believed there were Iraqis among the 9-11 terrorists -- however, it is a verifiable fact that there were NO Iraqis among the terrorists.

Thus, the only "profound" thing the boilerplate and any success GoO has because or despite it is saying about "System Does Matter" is that people believe whatever they believe, regardless of whether they're right.

If you want to attack the ideas behind SDM, then do so -- with supportable logic and tested fact, not with unsupportable conjecture and untested possibility.

[Marco]

10pt penalty for Politicking the Gaming Discussion.

Yeah. It might not say anything at all. I agree. And yah, people believe all kinds of crap. No doubt.

But I do question the idea (or my perception of the idea)  that the RPG experience is one predominantly characterized by dysfunction.

And I question that people really mean what you think they mean when they say System Doesn't Matter.

-Marco

[Cadriel]

Hmm...I go hang out for a bit and my bit of angriness pops out into a bunch more angriness.

Anyway...I don't care that this philosophy works for GoO in some commercial way.  I don't care that a lot of people would agree 100% with the assessment offered in the manifesto.  Because, frankly, I think it perpetuates the kind of gaming that has caused everything I ran in college - except for a short Call of Cthulhu game and a joyously Gamist D&D campaign - to trickle down to nothing.  They put the entire style of gaming that proliferates in the non-D&D segment of commercial RPGs (not exactly big moneymakers) into one handy little set of bullet points.  And I think it's this kind of attitude that isn't helping the hobby one bit.

And it doesn't say anything about System Does Matter.  At all.  I've seen Tri-Stat.  It's cobbled together from every known assumption about what an RPG needs and recycled as a "rules light" package.  The game is playable for the same reason that all the other games designed exactly like it are playable:  large portions of the actual system are in the form of unstated assumptions about play.

-Wayne

[Thomas Tamblyn]

When I saw this manifesto, I hat a kneejerk reaction of "Hey that's wrong."  But something crytalised in my head when I saw

large portions of the actual system are in the form of unstated assumptions about play.

That manifesto looks suspiciously like those "unstated asuumptions about play" being stated up front.

Like Bruce Baugh says, the style of play encouraged by that manifesto is tried, tested and proven to work.  GOO aren't trying to adhere to system does matter.  They're making the best conventional rpg they can.  it is laden with the conventional assumptions, but a manifesto of that kind combined with the game rules does create functional play.  Maybe not the best possible play, but tried and true play.  The manifesto fits their purpose perfectly, designed to explain some of the traditional assumptions in rpgs whilst having more direction than White Wolf's golden rule.

Edited to note that, though I quote you Cadriel, I'm not directly attacking your points, instead trying to make my own that happen to be in opposition.

[greyorm]

10pt penalty for Politicking the Gaming Discussion.

Marco, dude, "The Impossible Thing is created by those who believe in it as a boogeyman...It isn't 'everyone else' who believes in the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's you." If you want to talk about politicking a discussion...

But I'm not up for dick-waving or he-said/she-said. I said my piece about the logic of your statement and that's that. I left it to you to refute or not.

Yeah. It might not say anything at all. I agree. And yah, people believe all kinds of crap. No doubt. But I do question the idea (or my perception of the idea) that the RPG experience is one predominantly characterized by dysfunction. And I question that people really mean what you think they mean when they say System Doesn't Matter.

Precisely. And my point remains, either present a criticism of it along those lines based on fact and logic, or quit blowing the horn. There's nothing to respond to otherwise, because "Oh, look, another snipe at {place target here}" isn't discussable.

[greyorm]

but a manifesto of that kind combined with the game rules does create functional play. Maybe not the best possible play, but tried and true play.

Tom,

I have to wonder about this though -- is it really tried and true play? When we're talking about groups that have large differences in play style because of the rules contracts change between them based on the philosophy, we aren't talking about tried-and-true methods of play.

A philosophy of play, yes, but not a system or method...and I don't think the philosophy has much ground for adherents to stand together on from a gaming-together standpoint.

[Marco]

Greyorm,

The Impossible Thing: Yeah, okay--well, I didn't bring it up in this thread (and the offending words *weren't* mentioned in the manifesto). And once you get into 9/11 the discussion gets all out of context/loaded.

Firstly I'd say that a person's mistaken belifief about who was on the planes for 9/11 has nothing to do with their own personal assessment of whether they themselves are having fun roleplaying. So it's apples and oranges. RPG's aren't movies that get good word of mouth and then fizzle out over a week.

Games like VtM get players coming back again and again (and on RPGnet a buncha people recently suggested VtM as a great game for beginners). No one on the thread suggested the game was a smouldering pile of crap (a bit angsty, yes). If the game were as irrevocably broken as you seem to think--or required as much work for functional play as I think you imply, I doubt that'd be the case.

Secondly: the belief that RPGing is characterized by GNS dysfunction to any special degree and that game-text/systems play a part in that has to overcome two major obstacles:

a. The fact that there seem to be many persistent "traditional" role-players who choose it as a leasure-time-activity. Yes, most people have a horror story. Every college student has a college horror story. Everyone who dates has a date horror story, etc. That's not evidence of systemic dysfunction. People have Everquest horror stories and ebay horror stories. They have Internet and USENET horror stories. The people who have a "bad experience" doing something and then continue to do it are getting something out of it. If they're not being forced, they're not being honest. The activity/relationship/whatever *is* working for them (and I believe, *pretty much exactly the way they want it to*).

The fact that the field is expanding with completely traditional games is an Occam-Razor indication that the games (yes, with text like the above) work. And I don't think everyone involved is interested in dysfunction either. Certainly not my experience.

b. A lack of clarity that explains how a person holds a clearly paradoxical belief or misconception and then makes decisions at all. A person who believes the GM must provide a complete, immutable story and that then their character will be able to effect the outcome should be unable to reconcile those beliefs, no? They're *impossible.*

Show me a gamer who belives, really and clearly, in TIT as interperted (as stated it's clearly possible, right?). Have them explain to me how that's supposed to work. I don't believe in them. I don't believe people actually believe in the interpertation you describe. Despite what you say, I don't think the offending passage in many RPGs has to be read that way. And I don't think people do.

I think it's refering to a somewhat fuzzy conception held by some GM's (mostly, right?*) that during play the PC's should be predictable and easy to motivate (so they'll act on what the GM gives them and do what the GM expects them to).

Thus the GM expects that the players, once turned loose will predictably play out the action so that it fits "his story." Possibly even extending to the idea that the players will be so interested in his version of what-happens-next that they will make decisions to drive that.

This springs, I think, from the general and persistent belief that people see everything the same way you do (i.e. the players assessment of situation and reaction to it will be as the GM intended). The common collary to that is that no one could see things any other way.

Game rules and manifestos don't cause that. I see no evidence they can cure it either.

-Marco
* Another weakness of TIT is that for *players* the read is pretty much correct, no? If a player says "My actions should have signifcant impact on the course of events, whether it be killing the arch fiend ... or deciding to join him ..." very few GM's would disagree with that, I think.

[Thomas Tamblyn]

Tom,

I'm a Thomas, not a Tom by the way.

A philosophy of play, yes, but not a system or method...and I don't think the philosophy has much ground for adherents to stand together on from a gaming-together standpoint.

I'm embarassed to say that you sort of lost me here, so my reply might not be entirely relevant - but if you're saying what I think you're saying:

Yes, its a philosophy of play rather than a method to play, but its a philosophy of play that combines with a conventional system to create the tried and true play.  

We know that if we have system of type X and we tell the Gm Y then functional play will usually result.  The Gm doesn't necessarily follow advice Y closely, but that doesn't matter from the point of view of the designer so long as it creates the desired effect.

Gms don't actually follow the Golden Rules, instead knowing the Golden Rules seem to steer us in a direction that results in good play.  Traditionaly it has been assumed (fairly enough) that its because the GMs follow those rules that the play has been good, but things like System Does Matter point out that following the traditional Golden Rules of RPGS (as set down by GoO in a standard form here) shouldn't result in the play that we are having.  There is some change occuring in the Gms head that turns (what a lot of people here argue are) contradictory guidelines into a functional philosophy of play.

Tjis means that I do agree that what the guidelines say is not what they mean, and that there is a better way somewhere.  But what there is does work - not the way you'd suppose it was supposed to (sic) and it can lead to dysfunctional play when followed to the letter but even if it is objectively wrong, its not a bad thing to have in a game since the overall effect is one for good.[/quote]

[Jason Lee]

What I find interesting about the manifesto is not what I agree or disagree with about it so much as the fact that I disagree with pieces of it I used to agree with.  I'm having a little bit more fun with my current view, but I was having fun before too...

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.

Just to pick on one statement, I used to think this was correct.  Now I can't stomach the attitude at all...which oddly enough means I can't have fun doing things the way I used to.  Have I traded better, specialized fun for the ability to enjoy a broader range of fun?  I think so.

Now, as written the statement bugs me...but I think it's most likely the wording and implications that are the problem - not what is actually meant by the statement.  If it said:

"At some point a decision will have to be made where two players want different things and no mechanics are described to resolve the dispute, or  those mechanics are ill defined and must be interpretted by the group to function.  Choose a consistent and fair arbitor and stick with it.  This arrangement may lead to everybody not always getting what they want, but that is impossible.  It's more fun to play than debate endlessly about whether the helicopter should fall on the mailbox or not.  The group has already chosen to put the GM in a position of authority and knowledge, logically, he is the best choice for an arbiter."

I would agree, and I bet that's really all they meant...it just doesn't come off that way at all to me.

*****

I think I agree that the manifesto tends toward illusionism as an approach.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.  
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

These three statements I think are why.  The first states that the game is a theme prioritizing game.  The second, as worded, gives total authority to the GM.  The third states that the players goals are of paramount importance.

Given that the players thematic goals are prioritized, but that the GM has total authority, anyone actually wishing to play must somehow reconcile the contradition between statements two and three (I would call this the impossible thing), conciously or otherwise.  The most common solution seems to be illusionism.

As I've grown a distaste for illusionism, this wouldn't fit my play style, but to each his own.

*****

Marco,

As far as the impossible thing,  I'm sure, really sure, that everyone in this discussion has seen the dysfunctional behavior where the GM and a player fight over control of something that the both think belongs to them.  "My world!" "My guy!" "My story!" "My backgroud!"  Whether or not the impossible thing definition needs clarity, or that game books intended things to come off that way to some people, is a discussion I'd side with you on...but I certainly think the impossible thing behavior is real.

I think this manifesto is the first clear example I can think of of a game actually stating the impossible thing.  People have a tendency to only really pay attention to what applies to them.  If the GM only really reads statement two (above), and the player only really reads statement three, they are going to have different viewpoints.

The manifesto is just worded unclearly, badly, impossibly even.

[jdagna]

I'm going to hop right back up to the beginning since I'm first arriving here, and offer my take.  Iappears to me that many of the people attacking the Manifesto are reading in social contract things that aren't necessarily there.  Here's my take on it, section by section:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Sounds to me like a boiler-plate indictment against rules lawyers, as well as an affirmation of the group's power over their own game.  No problems here, though I'd state some of these a little differently, since the seemed aimed a rules lawyers to begin with.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.

This one I do disagree with.  If I were going to rephrase it, I'd say "When dice conflict with the story, you're too committed to a story."

I'd also add "Dice are unpredictable, but not random.  Trust them."

I would certainly not jump to Cadriel's conclusion that there must be a system problem when story and dice have conflicts.

Of course, I recognize my own Sim and Fortune preferences in my two statements, so I'd leave all versions out of the Manifesto.  What a GM does with dice/story conflicts is his own business (with the group's input), but this affirmation of GM power is already in the Manifesto.

Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.

Not so sure I agree with this one either.  It's like saying alcohol isn't responsible for alcoholism because some people are genetically predisposed to addiction.  Yes, there's a problem with the player; but many systems encourage the problem.

However, despite my disagreement, I think newbie role-players will benefit from this statement and so I'd leave it in.  It takes many players a long time to recognize that munchkins are a problem in and of themselves, not just symptoms of a flawed system.

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

Where does everyone get Illusionism and the Impossible Thing here?

What I'm reading is a statement that says the buck stops with the GM, but he works on behalf of the players' interests.  Thus, it's only encouraging Illusionism if that's what the players want.  There's nothing here that limits player input or control anywhere short of saying they can't overrule the GM.  And (in any game that has a GM), it's important that players accept his authority without constant conflict.

A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
This book contains the answer to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

All of this section sounds good to me, though it appears to have a little contradiction for the sake of humor more than anything else.

Cadriel, you wanted to dicker over the game/chore distinction.  I think they're perhaps over stating their point, but is it really different from your own admonishment?  The point is to do something different if you're not having fun and we can all agree on that.

I can understand how a Manifesto like that might bring back bad memories.  Dysfunctional GMs often say things like "I'm the GM so my word goes."  But functional GMs should say the same thing - the difference between them is when they say and what has lead to them saying it.  Likewise with many of the other statements.  However, taken as a whole, I believe it discourages dysfuntional play (even if it fails to necessarily encourage functional play).  

I firmly believe that this is good advice for an amateur player or GM picking up their first game book.  Perhaps they'd want a different manifesto after a decade of play - but you can bet that your first grade English teacher gave you different advice than your Lit 101 professor.  It would be absolutely innappropriate to haul GNS out in front of a brand new player or expect them to understand the finer points.