Hi again,

I know I haven't even passed 10 posts in this forum, so this next message is kind of a bold move on my side.

I just finished reading James V. West's 'The Pool' and 'The Questing Beast' games. I know, I know - it's a sin to be on this forum and not read them, so I did.

To be perfectly honest, they are two of the best RPG's I've ever seen. James, you have earned my utmost respect - *joins his hands and bows deeply*

In fact, 'The Pool' reminded me so much of my own system which I've been using for the last couple of years. So, in gratitude for exposing me to your game, I will unveil my system, called Triad.

There is nothing very special about Triad. To be more accurate, it has nothing you Forgefolk haven't seen yet. But it's a solid, troupe-style, narrative system and my group had not complained about it once in the last 2 years of our gaming together. (maybe I'm so intimidating they're afraid to talk? hmmm.... its possible....)

OK, I made a temp page for it. Here's the link:

http://www.geocities.com/gobatwing/triad_rpg.html

The only thing I ask in return is feedback.

This is not aimed particularly at James (who may decide to ignore this altogether), but to all who can spare a few moments to review the system.

Just tell me what you think.

With respect,

Joe Llama

joe_llama wrote:
I know I haven't even passed 10 posts in this forum, so this next message is kind of a bold move on my side.

Thanks Paganini for replying so quickly.

with a name like Joe Llama, how could we not be filled with awe? :)

for one thing, I don't like rolling 1d6 much. d6 are so flat that they just sort of go "thunk" on the table when you throw them. I suppose they're just as random as any of the other dice, but they don't FEEL that way. I don't like the feel a 1d6 roll brings to the game, even if it's perfectly acceptable mathematicaly. So I suggest using a d12 or a d20 (they make the best single rollers IMO, because they're rounder). All you have to do is remap your chart to the new die type

Also, this way a catastrophic failure / success is something that you can actually roll every so often, without needing special modifiers from the GM.

Just one thing... lose the white on black! ARGGGH!

I like it, particularly the writing style itself. Simple and coherent, which makes it easier for starting gamers to follow the process. There's nothing that really connects a character's important aspects to the rules of action or conflict though. Even if there's no game mechanic that directly uses aspects to modify the rules of action/conflict, there should be some advice/suggestions for the players on how to incorporate them together... encouraging them to "flavor" the manner in which they succeed or fail with their aspects and their details. With the attention that is provided for metagame concerns in Part III, it makes sense to offer something similar that specifically helps players to use their aspects and description in story-creating, plot-creating, action/conflict relating ways.
All in all, I think its a really promising little system, not all that dissimilar from what I'm personally working on.

Laurel

Sorry to disagree, but what I see here is rules lite Simulationism. Rules lite does not equal Narrativist. Your admonition not to play with player knowledge, and lack of any particularly Narrativist mechanics amongst other things make for a very typically Sim design.

I think that it may be the lightest Sim design I've ever seen, FWIW. Might be easy to drift to Narrativism from it.

I like your Player and Guide responsibilities. Lots of good common sense advice there.

Mike

I'll echo what Mike just said. After reading his post, I went back up and read your introduction and agree that I wouldn't call this a narrativist system, even though it could drift there easy enough.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1149 and Ron's post there is one of the most readable and understandable things regarding the most significant separation between sim-oriented and nar-oriented systems that I've seen.

I would say that this game, as written, relies on players imagining being in a story, or setting, or situation, as the first priority. The narrative focus on characters as a tool to further the goal of story-creation as a priority is definately missing, as are any mechanics to provide for that.

Laurel

Hey, joe!

First, thanks a heap for reading my games. I appreciate the comments.

I just found the post, and I don't have time to read your stuff tonight. I promise to give you some feedback on it tomorrow.

Wow. So many things to say, so little time:

To Laurel:

Simple and coherent, which makes it easier for starting gamers to follow the process.

Even if there's no game mechanic that directly uses aspects to modify the rules of action/conflict, there should be some advice/suggestions for the players on how to incorporate them together...

Sorry to disagree, but what I see here is rules lite Simulationism. Rules lite does not equal Narrativist. Your admonition not to play with player knowledge, and lack of any particularly Narrativist mechanics amongst other things make for a very typically Sim design.

I'll echo what Mike just said. After reading his post, I went back up and read your introduction and agree that I wouldn't call this a narrativist system, even though it could drift there easy enough.

Ron's post there is one of the most readable and understandable things regarding the most significant separation between sim-oriented and nar-oriented systems that I've seen.

Yep, you shouldn't feel bad about a Simulationist apellation for your game, per se. The question is do you really have story as a driving design goal. If so, then the system has a problem. One that might be solved by such things as Laurel's suggestion, as well as many other types of mechanics.

Anyhow, until we know your goal, it's hard to critique. What I will say is that a system this light does lean on the players and GM to drive the game. This can be good or bad itself, depending on circustances. Simple generic systems are not uncommon, however. How would you say this system impoves upon, say, FUDGE, or other similar games?

Mike

..

<Many times, it was amazing to see that failing to mention the difference between 'good' and 'bad' aspects during character creation (a common sight in many systems) actually produced very interesting characters with all kinds of benefits and hindrances. The testers never thought of 'cheating' the game or building a powerful character. By telling them the game was about telling stories, they came up with characters full of conflicts, tragedies and emotions.

You were right; I did find all of this really interesting. In fact, I put this in my "food for thought" corner of my brain :)

One big thing to comment on (and you'll see it all over the place here on the Forge) is that there's nothing wrong with Sim-oriented games, Gamist-orieinted-games, blah blah or Sim-oriented players, Narrative players, Gamist players. No group is "better" or "worse", just distinctly different even though they have varience within them and some elements incorporate easily with a different game style.

The purpose of separating gamers and systems into these three categories is to help unhappy players/GMs find systems and groups of fellow players that support the same underlying goal, because this will greatly facilitate 'fun'. Its not the "surefire 100% solution to having a super-dooper game every single time you play" but I'm convinced that it sure paves the way towards enjoying RPing again for people who are
unhappy with their existing sytem or game group.

As for the name- as a matter of fact, I started looking for Triads within it and was impressed and pleased at how deeply the archetype of a "Triad" is maintained by the system itself.

Laurel

To Mike:

The question is do you really have story as a driving design goal. If so, then the system has a problem.

What I will say is that a system this light does lean on the players and GM to drive the game. This can be good or bad itself, depending on circustances.

How would you say this system improves upon, say, FUDGE, or other similar games?

Triad doesn't have a direction, a premise, or a goal. It's not about anything. That's not bad, but it means your game is not a game yet.

If you want the Narrative touch, give the player the power to change the situation (1 karma), introduce a subplot (2 karma), introduce a major plot or goal (3 karma).

One big thing to comment on (and you'll see it all over the place here on the Forge) is that there's nothing wrong with Sim-oriented games, Gamist-orieinted-games, blah blah or Sim-oriented players, Narrative players, Gamist players. No group is "better" or "worse", just distinctly different even though they have varience within them and some elements incorporate easily with a different game style.

I started looking for Triads within it and was impressed and pleased at how deeply the archetype of a "Triad" is maintained by the system itself.

Hi again,

I have updated the page - it looks much better now IMO. I also made a few correctins, mostly bad English and typos (not my mother tongue).

FYI Laurel, the new design has even more Triads hidden inside :)

In addition, I have added a section to part III called 'Being a character - The role of the Player'. It's empty now, but it will eventually contain useful info on how to play a character in the game'.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what should go into this section? I'm still researching the subject, so this would be a good time to throw a lead or two.

Oh yeah one more thing, please inform me of any mistakes or typos that you find in the page.

Thanks in advance.

With respect,

Joe Llama

joe_llama wrote:
...there are a few advantages to Triad:

(1) Learning three rules is much easier than any higher number (say four rules, for instance).

(2) It's possible to go through a session without uttering a single number (part of my repulsion from other systems is the obsessive use of numbers of any kind).

(3) By using three as a basic structure for the game, it is much easier to read and remember. In fact, after reading it just three times, you may never need to read it again :)

(4) Characters are not 'tainted' by mechanics. Let me explain why this is good: It encourages a higher level of player assimilation into the character (getting into character) and into the game - the player is forced to imagine the scene rather than letting the numbers do the 'tedious' work for him/her. In fact, players become involved in everything that's going on instead of hiding their creativity behind numbers. In the same manner, character aspects are uniform in attitude instead of being divided into advantages, disadvantages, skills, etc. There are many cases of aspects which tend to fall 'in between' predefined groups and disappear or generate excessive mechanics. This uniformity serves to increase freedom of chracter design and prevent such events.

(5) All three rules give results but they do not give descriptions. This means that both players and GM's have the opportunity to 'fill in the blanks' in their own special way.

(6) The Rule of Action is made of only one scale, and even that is subtle. .... As for being subtle, you will notice such a modifier is mentioned only once in the rules - this is based on my assumption that 'Failing to mention a problem might actually help to prevent it'.

(7) The Rule of Conflict is not only very simple, but IMO also far more dramatic than any other conflict resolution mechanics I've seen so far. Explaining why would waste time and be generally ineffective - try it and see for yourself.

(8) The Rule of Karma is simple and direct. It does not deal with numbers (like bonus or damage increase). It does not confuse a gamer with different costs for different options (e.g. 3 points for automatic success and 0.25 points for every HP reduced from damage). In addition, Karma can have multiple purposes in the same game, such as luck, destiny, and faith.

(9) Half the system is completely dedicated to 'how to make the most of role playing'. While there is nothing new about it for a veteran, it is part of the basic rules and not some optional appendix at the end of the rulebook.

Whew! I feel like a politician under interrogation defending his office. (just a general feeling Mike, nothing personal)

..

Mike,

First of all, thank you for your honest opinion, it is much appreciated. I consider any feedback to be useful, but I am especially fond of the aggressive ones. It gives me the feeling the person is replying with absolute honesty. He gives direct answers and avoids social traps on the way - he is taking a stand.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Um, sure, but then two would be better, no? Or, rather, what makes three the magic number? Perhaps you're missing one, and just don't realize it. Or one is superfluous. Maybe the game should be Diad.

I kinda got that idea from the title, but it never occurred to me as I read through it. Might help some, but I think that forcing symetry for symetry's sake can be dangerous.

How do the simple mechanics provide what complex mechanics cannot?

Again, the system allows the players to do almost anything, but not quite. They cannot mess with a result. Why not allow the players to decide success and failure as well, then? It seems to me that the minimalist argument logically concludes that systems do a bad job of creating events. If this is so, why have any system at all? If you have "good players", won't they be able to decide when to have success and failure as well? If not, how does leaving it to a random roll help?

Same problem. Why not just not mention it at all? Then you'll never have any problems. More extensive systems are meant to give Sim players the feeling of Immersion, or exploration. If you feel that your players want that, then that's an argument for more system. If they don't want a system for Immersion, then why have a Simulationist system at all?

You keep mentioning players being confused by numbers. Is this very specific to your group?

But I don't have a math aversion (in fact I like math a lot). Your examples always seem so funny to me. I can understand a Rolemaster amount of math being distracting, but subtracting three? Or even fractions?

Way more than half the text. But these are, at best, social contract agreements. They are not mechanics. Which means that they are totally up to interperetation by the players. Which further means that they are just good suggestions on play which make sense in most any game. They are not system. I would import that stuff readily to many games I played, as I said, I like it a lot. But it's not system.

The point? System Does Matter. You can admonish players to play a certain way repeatedly, but the system will either work to produce the results you want, or it will not. Your system does nothing to promote the style of play that your notes suggest, with the possible exception of staying out of the way. And that argument leads us again to the conclusion that no system would be the best way to go.

Why have any mechanics, then? Why not just Collaboratively Storytell?

I've just decided to take out my frustrations with light systems on you today. Sorry, you were just at the right place at the right time with the right target.

OK.

M. _llama:

We all remember the crazy charts in the ol' DMG - this is what happens if you're wearing armor when you change to your were-form, illumination radius for a bullseye lantern, etc etc.
All this combersome Gygaxitude was (I charitably think) a way to model for the user the decisions the designers would've made on the fly.
We all recognize now that if a rule isn't intuitive, it's probably easier to fake it and keep going.

But for my money, there has to be something. I'm a big fan of Rules Lite - I have room in my head for about 4 things at once. But I do like those 4 things to be ingenious. And there's the rub.

My ideal is for a few simple pieces that have really varied and interesting interactions.
(Like the ideal job that everyone in the country wants - challenging, fun, just a little stress, yada yada.)

In making approximations, though, different people have different preferences. Some folks like stats and points and modifiers (cf RoleMaster, GURPS). Some folks like almost nothing at all (FUDGE, The Window). After giving a quick read to Triad, it feels to me like the latter. To me (and, I'm guessing, to Mike) minimalist sim systems axiomatically end up being very similar. The merest sketch of some numbers to allow GM and Player elaboration.


I'd say (and you may well feel precisely the opposite) Triad needs a few more rules. Something to make it distinct, something to differentiate it from the next mimimalist system.

Obviously, you are going to play whatever you feel like. But I think any system can be strengthened by looking at it from an external POV - what can turn it into a rules set that somebody might stumble across and get really intrigued by.

-Matt
(due to post his own scratchy system any decade now...)

Joe (is that your real name, BTW?), I like your pressure cooker analogy. The cooker is the system, and what you throw in represents the player creativity. Where we disagree is that apparently you want a very simple cooker, and I want one with lots of gizmos. You see the gizmos as distracting from the "real cooking", what is being added to the pot, while I see the gizmos as potentially useful. And, after all, it only takes a modicum of self-control to ignore the gizmos and keep your eye on the content. You seem to think that its actually impossible to ignore them. Well, even if they are, I think that fiddling with the gizmos is fun all by itself.

That last is the same with the math. I really don't understand your friends and math, I wasn't trying to be insulting (it was you who brought up the tiny subtraction problems). If they find math to be too much of a "job" then they're going into the wrong fields, IMO. I program tools for statistical analysis all day long, and when I get home, I can't wait to try and employ these same skills in RPGs. My friends and I actually liked the math of RM. Probably why we still play occasionally; in fact they force me somtimes. I have things I don't like about RM, but math is not one (nor the complexity as a whole). Heh, my wife is getting her BA in math. Maybe I'm just math mad. :-) But even if you don't like a ton of math in your game, eliminating it as a whole on principle seems extreme to me.

If you really have a strong aversion to any math in games, might I propose that you might be over-reacting at this point? I know that RM produces extreme reactions in many players; I hope it didn't spoil you on math unnecessarily. OTOH, maybe I'm just crazy. That's always a possibility that I have to accept. :-)

Mike

Hi there,

Joe and Mike, please lay off this stuff about who likes math and who doesn't. It's irrelevant and people are turning on their math-geekier-than-thou sirens. I don't care who started it or who's said what or whatever you were about to post about it. Please stop.

Back to the substantive issues, here's my call, Joe. You see numbers and ranges and so forth as, well, meat for Gamists. A Drama-based, more free-form design appeals to you, as a means of encouraging a more Narrativist approach (far as I can tell). Correct me if this impression is incorrect.

I suggest checking out Amber and The Window as the main vanguards of this design, as well as Theatrix, perhaps the pinnacle to date.

All of these games illustrate some pitfalls in the outlook I've described. First, the strongly-Gamist role-player is most cunning. Power-plays may be wholly social, with no numbers used, and victory-loss conditions among the role-players may be inserted into, and come to define, purely scenario-outcome terms. Amber lends itself to this most thoroughly.

[Please note that none of this is derogatory toward the Gamist mode of play; in fact, now that I grasp it better, I am awed at its memetic power.]

Second, you might be interested in my posts in this thread, in which I describe why free-form systems are actually prone to, rather than immune from, much tacit control-problems in terms of what's happening in-game. My experiences with The Window and some recent, much-discussed play of Theatrix by others lead me to think that both games become the GM's chew-toy in play despite their much-trumpeted "creative power to all" accompanying text.

None of this post is directed toward Triad in any way, but rather to some of the more fundamental, principle-based issues that have cropped up in the discussion.

Best,
Ron

My bad. Remember, Ron, it's the nature of the geek to revel in his geekery. I'll try to be more restratined in the future.

Mike

Hi everyone,

First, I'd like to apologize for all the mess I caused.

I had no intention to ram you, Mike, and I hope that my reply sounded more like a debate than a battle cry. I'm always over-protective when it comes to my group, so I guess I got carried away.

Ron, I take all the blame for the math talk - it has no room on this forum. As of now, no more math discussions.

As for Triad: Well, I'm happy with it, there's no doubt about that. All the feedback I got was actually very useful - it helped me define better where I stand and what will be the fate of Triad. It helped me better understand why did I make certain design choices in the first place. It also helped me visualize new horizons which I haven't discussed at all. You see, feedback is always useful, no matter what's your position on a subject.

Triad lives on. It will remain the same (give and take a few minor changes). It was born a minimalist system and it will stay that way as long as I support it. There are many minimalists out there, but Triad works best for me. There is nothing wrong with other systems - they probably were also designed for personal use in the first place.

Right now I'm working on additional material to support Triad, but I'll discuss it in another thread.

To Mike:

Joe (is that your real name, BTW?)

You see numbers and ranges and so forth as, well, meat for Gamists. A Drama-based, more free-form design appeals to you, as a means of encouraging a more Narrativist approach (far as I can tell). Correct me if this impression is incorrect.

I suggest checking out Amber and The Window as the main vanguards of this design, as well as Theatrix, perhaps the pinnacle to date.

you might be interested in my posts in this thread, in which I describe why free-form systems are actually prone to, rather than immune from, much tacit control-problems in terms of what's happening in-game.

joe_llama wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Again, the system allows the players to do almost anything, but not quite. They cannot mess with a result. Why not allow the players to decide success and failure as well, then? It seems to me that the minimalist argument logically concludes that systems do a bad job of creating events. If this is so, why have any system at all? If you have "good players", won't they be able to decide when to have success and failure as well? If not, how does leaving it to a random roll help?

Part of the idea behind playing a Sim is the knowledge that as a player you have intentionally less control over the story. The rest of the control goes to the GM. The GM now controls a large percentage of the game, which means it also requires of him to take into consideration many variables and situations, figuring out a path to contine the game through. This can be a) exhausting, b)takes a lot of time to figure (even without numbers) and c) somewhat deterministic for the game and unsurprising for the GM.

joe_llama wrote: By allocating some control to random elements, the GM is free from choosing eventualities [Snip.] In return for the control he had given up, the GM receives more space which he can share with his players. If used, this space can serve as neutral ground where players stand as equal to the GM

joe_llama wrote: There is nothing to say except that this is what a Sim is about. You can take away Karma and even randomality, however common they may be. But the moment you give players more control, it ceases to be a Sim.

joe_llama wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Same problem. Why not just not mention it at all? Then you'll never have any problems. More extensive systems are meant to give Sim players the feeling of Immersion, or exploration. If you feel that your players want that, then that's an argument for more system. If they don't want a system for Immersion, then why have a Simulationist system at all?

Can't Immersion be done without a system? When you read a book and become immersed in it, do you need a system to connect you with the story?

joe_llama wrote: Immersion is the quality of Sim, not mechanics. Mechanics serve as communication protocol between multiple participants. If you have intelligent participants, you need less mechanics, but you will always need some kind of protocol to commuincate within a game.

joe_llama wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Way more than half the text. But these are, at best, social contract agreements. They are not mechanics. Which means that they are totally up to interperetation by the players. Which further means that they are just good suggestions on play which make sense in most any game. They are not system. I would import that stuff readily to many games I played, as I said, I like it a lot. But it's not system.

Triad wouldn't function at all if you took out these agreements. While not being 'mechanical' they are vital to its existence and therefore IMO are considered mechanics.

joe_llama wrote: Triad is about staying out of the way. It was designed specifically to do just that. I wanted a system that would let me convert an idea directly into a game, without any interference on the way. I wanted a system that would tell a story AND allow 'Immersion' at the same time.

joe-llama wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Why have any mechanics, then? Why not just Collaboratively Storytell?

Because it's still about playing a game. There should be some framework to restrict the game in a way.

joe-llama wrote: The game is like a pressure cooker: If you don't have the cooker, you cannot cook. If you seal the cooker too much, it will eventually explode. But if you provide just enough venting, then you get a whole new style of food.

Fang, I'm not going to respond to everything in your post (whew! It's huge) but I do want to address the point of accuracy vs. detail in simulationist games. There was a big discussion about this over at RPG Create last week.

My point was that accuracy is a requirement of simulationism. I said that, since precision (detail) in a system gives you more information, such a game would neccesarily be more accurate.

The response was, "No, that's not true, because you can have inaccurate information encoded in an accurate game."

Well, duh, I said, but assuming that the information encoded is good, then a precise game must be more accurate. Obviously people can use bad information, but that sort of mistake is a feature of the design process, not definitive of precise games.

Sure, they said, but do you know how hard it is to make a very precise game really accurate? So they gave me some examples about how even computers don't hae enough processing power to handle things like combat with both detail and accuracy.

Then they went on to point out that the kind of rounding errors that you get to the information encoded in the game can make a detailed game with much information inaccurate. The anaolgy used was chain measuring. If you lay a foot ruler on the floor and try to measure your house by flipping it end over end, no matter how careful you are there's going to be some error, maybe only an inch or to, but still some error. If you use a single tape measure to do the job in one sweep, the margin of error is much much less. This problem grows greatly when you apply it to larger things. If you measure your house with a foot-long ruler, you may only be a few inches off. If you try to measure something a mile long, you'll be feet off. The errors add up exponetially.

An RPG analogy for this is combat... it's not (currently) computationaly possible, even for a computer, to make a combat system that can handle both small combats (duels, parties) and mass combat with the same degree of accuracy. If you apply, say, a rolemaster combat chart system to a thousand man battle, you get some really wierd results. :)

The point is that great detail may be accurate for one scale of existance, but if you try to apply it to something at a much larger scale you'll get the same sort of errors in the measuring example above. The more you try to inflate it, the more serious the errors are.

All this detail is a lot of work for the GM too. It's often easier, as well as more accurate, to have a single, not so precise, method that gives accurate results.

In Cornerstone, I don't have very much detail at all, by default. (Of course, the GM can add detail if he feels like it.) But it's still fairly accurate, because it has broad mechanics that give believable results. It doesn't take every factor in to account when reaching the results, nor does it make every factor in the event visible. It's not precise, but it can be accurate.

..

This is a really nice response, except it seems to suffer from too much dualism. Allow me to illustrate.

Paganini wrote: but I do want to address the point of accuracy vs. detail in simulationist games.

My point was that accuracy is a requirement of simulationism. I said that, since precision (detail) in a system gives you more information, such a game would neccesarily be more accurate.

Paganini wrote: The response was, "No, that's not true, because you can have inaccurate information encoded in an accurate game."

Assuming that the information encoded is good, then a precise game must be more accurate. Obviously people can use bad information, but that sort of mistake is a feature of the design process, not definitive of precise games.

Paganini wrote: "Sure," they said, "but do you know how hard it is to make a very precise game really accurate?" So they gave me some examples about how even computers don't have enough processing power to handle things like combat with both detail and accuracy.

Then they went on to point out that the kind of rounding errors that you get to the information encoded in the game can make a detailed game with much information inaccurate.[Snip.]

An RPG analogy for this is combat... it's not (currently) computationaly possible, even for a computer, to make a combat system that can handle both small combats (duels, parties) and mass combat with the same degree of accuracy. [Or for that matter, just a long battle, it has to do with compounding small errors.]

The point is that great detail may be accurate for one scale of existance, but if you try to apply it to something at a much larger scale you'll get the same sort of errors in the measuring example above. The more you try to inflate it, the more serious the errors are.

All this detail is a lot of work for the GM too. It's often easier, as well as more accurate, to have a single, not so precise, method that gives accurate results.

Paganini wrote: In Cornerstone, I don't have very much detail at all, by default. (Of course, the GM can add detail if he feels like it.) But it's still fairly accurate, because it has broad mechanics that give believable results. It doesn't take every factor in to account when reaching the results, nor does it make every factor in the event visible. It's not precise, but it can be accurate.

Le Joueur wrote:
There is a big difference between precision and detail and that difference is measured in accuracy. Detail can be anything from something as simple as 'a man in a coat' all the way up to 'a 36 year-old man, in a brand-new leather jacket and jeans, who has long, brown hair.' Precision is about having more accurate detail. But just because precision is detail, does not make just any detail into precision.

I wasn't advocating highly precise games, merely that the opposite extreme has significant problems and that the ideal espoused seemed a might reactionary as opposed to well-reasoned. (I argue for a balance between the severe lack of mechanics and incredible levels of detail, for somewhere in the middle in fact.)

Um...point of order. You have not established the responsibility of the gamemaster to generate, control, or even supply detail. As I tried to point out with Scattershot, in some games, anyone can create detail using mechanics, not just the gamemaster.

But I figure you don't mean "broad" scale, you mean something like a 'general' mechanic. I can't fathom how letting "the GM can add detail if he feels like it" won't be much more precise than skipping having a system for detail altogether. (I guess I don't see how a "broad" or 'general' system will be more likely to create any more accurate a game without additional work on whoever's part.)

It also seems like you are confusing verisimilitude (your word was believability, but I think that term may be a little too inflamatory) with accuracy when talking about Cornerstone. For sticklers, it is true that verisimilitude does not occur without accurate detail, but I am highly dubious that accuracy is at all necessary for the suspension of disbelief that exists supported by verisimilitude.

And somehow throughout you give this vague implication that either a game is either precise or it is 'light,' that there are no 'light,' precise games and no 'heavy,' undetailed games. Then you suggest that your game makes up for that by being accurate without being detailed (as if 'light' games were inherently poor because of they lack of detail, or that they need to be justified).

I understand now, that it was just a terminology misunderstanding. I have no disagreement with your point then, and I only wanted to clarify what I meant.

On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

Paganini wrote: A game that has many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM... not because he's responsible for injecting detail into the game, but for remembering and applying many mechanics. Cornerstone just has one mechanic, and is therefore easier for the GM to remember and apply. Cornerstone may still require a lot of GM work to play, but the work won't be involved with the system, it'll be involved in other factors.

Le Joueur wrote:
On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

Paganini wrote: A game that has many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM... not because he's responsible for injecting detail into the game, but for remembering and applying many mechanics. Cornerstone just has one mechanic, and is therefore easier for the GM to remember and apply. Cornerstone may still require a lot of GM work to play, but the work won't be involved with the system, it'll be involved in other factors.

Usually this probably is the case. But we are discussing gaming in general, that includes new and unusual games as well (like a game with only three rules) As I said, in games like Scattershot, detailed mechanics are not necessarily anything that the gamemaster even has to 'remember and apply,' if so desired, this could be left completely in the hands of the players. I do not see how you justify this responsibility for the gamemaster. Can you explain this?

Hey,

Quick clarifications ...

Nadav, please fill your posts with as much math as you'd like. I, and many others here, absolutely love math and probability and statistics as applied to RPG system design.

What I objected to concerned only the escalating references to who liked or was more comfortable with math, as an item of personally-directed contention between you and Mike. With that eliminated, the actual discussion of the math itself (including its utility during role-playing) is peachy-keen by me.

Fang, your post of "12 Jan 2002 03:30" is a beauty. I loved everything in it.

Best,
Ron

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

Paganini wrote: ...[having] many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM...because he's responsible... for remembering and applying many mechanics.

Usually this probably is the case.... in games like Scattershot, detailed mechanics are not necessarily anything that the gamemaster even has to 'remember and apply,' if so desired, this could be left completely in the hands of the players.

It could just be experiential difference between you and I. I have difficulty imagining a game with many detailed rules that are still applied during the game, without the GM being responsible for remembering and applying them. The only way it would work, as far as I can tell, is if the rules are beneficial to the players, and can be applied independantly without the GM's input. Even so I forsee situations like:

Player: "My character can do ABC because of minutia rule XYZ!"
GM: "What? No way!"
Player: "See, right here, on page DEF!"

Le Joueur wrote:
The tone I am reading in your posts sounds like it comes from either the schools of 'gamemaster versus the players' or 'gamemaster as referee.' I have always felt these styles of play stem from some kind of a lack of sharing ("It's my game and you have to play it my way."). I'm not saying that you play that way any more, but you may have in the past enough that it colors your perceptions. (Simple check: do you ever think about players cheating? That kind of thought bespeaks 'ownership issues' that are contrary to my ideal of 'sharing.' But then I like use of player knowledge.)

Well, I'm late as usual. By the time I read the rules there were three pages of posts! I fear I'll have nothing new to add.

The system seems fairly solid and has at least some of all the necessary elements to tickle the gamist, sim, and narrator in me all at the same time. But it doesn't push the buck on any one of them, which, by some thinking, is a flaw.

Its simple, which is a big plus for it. There are a slew of generic games lying around the net (mine included), some good, some ok, some pretty sorry (the damn critic in me again). I think this one is good and I'll tell you why.

First, the simple presentation is appealing. Easy to read and well-written. Nothing to struggle through. The rules are laid out bare-bones and with very little flim-flam to guide you into any specific direction. Thus, the playing field is wide open. This is both advantageous and disadvantageous.

The advantage is the versatility. I can run pretty much whatever I want with it. It seems to be most suited for a fairly fast-play situation like an action movie. I was thining in terms of high fantasy, but don't I always?

The down side is the same thing. No direction. Now, this is no new news. I think Mike already addressed this one early in the thread. People will either ignore the game because nothing immediately grabs them (ooo, cool horror idea....or...kickass battle lords..or whatever), or they will measure it against their currently favorite generic system (well, GURPS has a better damage system...Rolemaster is much more detailed).

If you can live with that, then the game's just right. All I can really say is if I was looking for a generic system to attach to a setting, I would add this to my list of serious considerations. Why?

1) Simplicity. No detailed math. Fast.
2) Some metagame elements that support a bit of narrative approach (karma--which I still might tweak a bit more to my liking).

Hope I helped in some small way, though I'm pretty darn sure I just treaded over boot-stomped ground :).

Hello again everyone,

This thread started as a gesture of gratitude to James for sharing with us his wonderful games. It seems appropriate that James would also be the one to seal this thread for good. Therefore, this is the last message I give on the issue of Triad.

I was planning on a large scale reply to all of your feedbacks, taking into consideration many issues discussed in Ron's articles 'System does matter' and the GNS Model. It turned into a HUGE reply with a deep examination of each and every piece of Triad, including all design considerations and comparison with other systems.

In the process, I discovered many unsolved issues concerning the GNS model and I will soon present them in a seperate thread. It is amazing how far and high you can go sometimes with RPG theory :)

I was just finishing page 16 of my reply (8 more to go) when I saw James' reply at the end of the thread. I realized then that my reply was useless. James was able to put everything that is good and bad about Triad and he also did it with great simplicity. Triad will remain as it is because I like it this way. I used to think otherwise, but I have changed my mind.

Many of you have given me some points to think about. I didn't ignore any of you, but maybe I kept all the answers to myself.

One advice that will soon be properly implemented deals with examples. I have cut out character, rule, and game examples to emphasize simplcity and avoid restriction of thought. It is clearly evident that in the process I have also injured the clarity of the system. All examples will appear soon as part of the text.

I also plan to support Triad with various settings - if such a thing interests you, all you have to do is drop me a line :)

I'd like to thank everyone who posted feedback on this thread - you helped me better understand the needs and desires of gamers worldwide.
And thank you, James, for taking the words out of my mouth and saying them better than I could ever hope to achieve on my own!

To finish this thread I would like to quote Ron from his article 'System does matter':

I do respect your opinion, but it's fair to consider how many role-playing games you have actually, truly played.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The tone I am reading in your posts sounds like it comes from either the schools of 'gamemaster versus the players' or 'gamemaster as referee.' I have always felt these styles of play stem from some kind of a lack of sharing ("It's my game and you have to play it my way."). I'm not saying that you play that way any more, but you may have in the past enough that it colors your perceptions. (Simple check: do you ever think about players cheating? That kind of thought bespeaks 'ownership issues' that are contrary to my ideal of 'sharing.' But then I like use of player knowledge.)

It depends on the game I'm designing. In Cornerstone, the GM and the players are almost equal in terms of story exploration.

Paganini wrote: I've just given the GM the power of veto so that if there is some sort of disagreement there's a rules-defined authority that can lay down the law and get on with the game.

Paganini wrote: It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

Paganini wrote: The GM also has to approve the death of a character before it can take place (in the case of PC death, both the GM and the player have to agree that the death is appropriate.)

Paganini wrote: I enjoy GM vs. player games too, though. T&T is practicaly designed for that sort of play. My brother and I have been taking turns GMing for each other this week. So far, I've survived longer than he has... but... we'll see! :)

Le Joueur wrote:
That would clearly make it the gamemaster's game. If it were 'shared,' then any player could resolve disagreements they were not involved in. My hope is Scattershot's mechanics are transparent enough that this is not only possible, but likely. (When it comes to the live-action component of the game, it is almost necessary for it to be that way.)

And this makes it well and truly the property of the gamemaster as well. It sounds very like you are giving veto power over everything to the gamemaster; this means nothing happens unless the gamemaster so wishes (or 'allows') it. Clearly not sharing (except at gamemaster whim). No matter what advice you give on latitude or interpretation, there will always be the feeling of a lack of impartiality.
[/qutoe]

I don't know about that. The gamers in my Gateway game didn't have any problem with this attitude. They had complete controll over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc. I had controll over the world and how it reacted to the players.

In Cornerstone, I guess I could say something like "A player must convince the entire table that his use of a descriptor is appropriate," but that seems like it would often be a hangup. IMO it's better to have one person there who is accepted as being responsible for deciding such things so that the game can keep on moving. It's not just about impartiality, it's about game dynamics and the chain of responsibility. As a player, I don't really want to have to decide whether or not the actions of my colleagues' characters succeed or fail.

And that definitely makes it the gamemaster's game. ("What do you mean I can't die? It's my character!") That kind of easily abused control means that it is a quick slip into the familiar 'gamemaster versus the player' tradition.

Not quite. I definately want the GM to have the decisive power in the game... the game is not meant to be a democracy, such is chaos. But I also want to make sure that there is a division of controll. I don't want the GM to just be able to kill off characters at whim. At the same time, the GM is running the game, and the players shouldn't be able to take advantage of him, any more than he should be able to take advantage of them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tunnels & Trolls had solitare play rules. I find it hard to believe that you could be 'against' anyone playing solitare. (But that's just sniping.)

No, it's a real game. It does have solitaire dungeons (a bit like choose your own adventure) but it's a gamist dungeon crawl in the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) tradition of D&D. It has vastly different mechanics however.

So far you don't seem to have a good conception of shared gaming (especially when you say Cornerstone is shared and then obviously give its ownership to the gamemaster). Have you had a chance to read up on the articles on the Forge about "gamemaster-full" games (maybe try a "gamemaster-full" or "gmless AND full" search)?

Hold on here... I didn't say I wanted Cornerstone to be a shared creation. That was never one of the goals. There's a difference between all people involved being equal, and all people involved sharing an experience. Cornerstone is meant to be a traditional RPG with a GM and players, and a strict line between the responsibilities and powers of each. It is also meant to be played in a narrativist mode.

If you're referring to Ron's "Impossible Goal" idea (or whatever he called it) by the above, you should know that I respect Ron's stuff a *lot* and agree with most of it, but that particular theory is not included. :)

Controll of a game is not a binary concept, IMO. There are many aspects to any game, and different aspects can be divided up between people in different ways. For example, see my description of gateway. That was certainly shared experience... each person simply had controll over different things.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That would clearly make it the gamemaster's game. If it were 'shared,' then any player could resolve disagreements they were not involved in. My hope is Scattershot's mechanics are transparent enough that this is not only possible, but likely. (When it comes to the live-action component of the game, it is almost necessary for it to be that way.)

You know, Fang, I'm really looking forward to Scattershot. I'd even pay you money for it. Will you hurry up and finish the dang thing already?!

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: And this makes it well and truly the property of the gamemaster as well. It sounds very like you are giving veto power over everything to the gamemaster; this means nothing happens unless the gamemaster so wishes (or 'allows') it. Clearly not sharing (except at gamemaster whim). No matter what advice you give on latitude or interpretation, there will always be the feeling of a lack of impartiality.

I don't know about that. The gamers in my Gateway game didn't have any problem with this attitude. They had complete control over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc. I had control over the world and how it reacted to the players.

It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

Paganini wrote: In Cornerstone, I guess I could say something like "A player must convince the entire table that his use of a descriptor is appropriate," but that seems like it would often be a hangup. IMO it's better to have one person there who is accepted as being responsible for deciding such things so that the game can keep on moving. It's not just about impartiality, it's about game dynamics and the chain of responsibility. As a player, I don't really want to have to decide whether or not the actions of my colleagues' characters succeed or fail.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: And that definitely makes it the gamemaster's game. ("What do you mean I can't die? It's my character!") That kind of easily abused control means that it is a quick slip into the familiar 'gamemaster versus the player' tradition.

Not quite. I definately want the GM to have the decisive power in the game... the game is not meant to be a democracy, such is chaos.

Paganini wrote: But I also want to make sure that there is a division of control. I don't want the GM to just be able to kill off characters at whim. At the same time, the GM is running the game, and the players shouldn't be able to take advantage of him, any more than he should be able to take advantage of them.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but Tunnels & Trolls had solitare play rules. I find it hard to believe that you could be 'against' anyone playing solitare.

No, it's a real game.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: So far you don't seem to have a good conception of shared gaming (especially when you say Cornerstone is shared and then obviously give its ownership to the gamemaster). Have you had a chance to read up on the articles on the Forge about "gamemaster-full" games (maybe try a "gamemaster-full" or "gmless AND full" search)?

Hold on here... I didn't say I wanted Cornerstone to be a shared creation. That was never one of the goals. There's a difference between all people involved being equal, and all people involved sharing an experience. Cornerstone is meant to be a traditional RPG with a GM and players, and a strict line between the responsibilities and powers of each. It is also meant to be played in a narrativist mode.

Paganini wrote: If you're referring to Ron's "Impossible Goal" idea (or whatever he called it) by the above, you should know that I respect Ron's stuff a *lot* and agree with most of it, but that particular theory is not included. :)

Control of a game is not a binary concept, IMO. There are many aspects to any game, and different aspects can be divided up between people in different ways. For example, see my description of gateway. That was certainly shared experience... each person simply had control over different things.

Le Joueur wrote:
I didn't say that all gaming had to have sharing. You said that in Cornerstone, gamemaster and player were "almost equal" and then contrasted it to 'gamemaster versus player' (implying that it was sharing according to what I had said). I explained that:

It does have a lot of GM as referee elements... that is, the GM decides whether or not a use of a descriptor is appropriate, and so on.

Did not sound like sharing, role-playing games don't require sharing, I just want Scattershot to.

Or you could just trust the players implicitly (if you thought sharing was important), and only suggest that people register disagreement when there is a problem. You seem to imply that 'appropriateness' of descriptors comes into question quite a bit. Again, this reads as an expectation of adversarialism.

This sounds a little like Ron's Impossible Thing. The players can do anything they want, but the gamemaster is in control. You cannot have it both ways. (You'll have to read the essay, it explains it better than I can.)

Your example of the player trying to 'pull one over' on the gamemaster, spoke loudly of adversarialism, and again ignored the concept of sharing. (It also implied for sharing that the "only way it would work," had to have some incentive, suggesting that it actually wouldn't work by the example.)

Then you came back with Cornerstone again, saying that gamemasters and players "were almost equal." Then, when you said you enjoyed 'gamemaster versus player' too, you implied clearly (at least to me) that you felt that Cornerstone wasn't 'gamemaster versus player.' (Kinda like the line, "No sane person likes nuclear war, and neither does Ronald Reagan," implies that Ronald Reagan isn't sane.)

I felt that your response was clearly in contrast to that implication, and went into detail to point out how. Now, suddenly you say Cornerstone was never meant to be a shared gaming experience. What am I supposed to say?

You still haven't commented on my original point. Shared games are an alternative to rules reduction for lightening a gamemaster's workload.
[/qupte]

I made a comment that I don't see how such are possible without some sort of incentive to make it work. I need some examples from you before I can understand more.

Except by your description, Gateway is not a shared game. They have theirs, you have yours, and you must authorize everything. That is not sharing and it also fails to be the 'Impossible Thing' of Ron's essay because not matter how much the players 'control' their character it is shown to be an illusion the instant they do something the gamemaster disagrees with.

Not at all. The premise of this particular game was how the characters dealt with the situation they were in. The emotions and thoughts of the characters were the main focus of the game, and completely up to the characters. If Jake's player said "Jake feels scared," then Jake felt scared, period. That was his aspect of controll. OTOH, if I said "A giant alien bug attacks," then a giant alien bug attacked. The players had no controll over the events or the setting. What they had controll of was what the premise of the game focused on: how their characters felt in the setting and reacted to the events.

Most importantly, even though it lets the players have "control over their own characters, how they acted, felt, what they did, etc.", they are not taking part in adjudicating the mechanics, which was the part I was talking about sharing in the first place.

Yeah, I realized that in this post. When you started talking about "shared experiences" and "the impossible thing" I sort of got sidetracked. As a matter of fact, Gateway was a PBEM that I ran without mechanics at all. It was based on the three precepts of the Window.

1

Paganini wrote: As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be responsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responsibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

Paganini wrote: There are just a couple of places where I say something like (‘determined by the GM’ or ‘as long as the GM agrees’), and so on.

Paganini wrote: Here's a relevant quote from the game:

"...the gamemaster should not hesitate to allow use the descriptor."

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: This sounds a little like Ron's Impossible Thing. The players can do anything they want, but the gamemaster is in control. You cannot have it both ways. (You'll have to read the essay; it explains it better than I can.)

I have read the essay, and I disagree with that part of it. :) As I mentioned before, there are different things to control in an RPG. Especially in a game that focuses on character exploration, the GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

Paganini wrote: The GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

Paganini wrote: Cornerstone is meant to be a shared experience in that each person involved has some control over the exploration of the premise. I get a lot of "bah, minimal games rely on GM fiat... that's not role-playing, that's the GM railroading the players into acting out his novel!"

Paganini wrote: That does not mean that Cornerstone is an *equal* experience. The powers of the players are different from the GMs, and the GM has the power of veto, which means he also has more responsibility. The power of veto is written into the system,

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Except by your description, Gateway is not a shared game. They have theirs, you have yours, and you must authorize everything. That is not sharing and it also fails to be the Impossible Thing of Ron's essay because no matter how much the players 'control' their character it is shown to be an illusion the instant they do something the gamemaster disagrees with.

Not at all. The premise of this particular game was how the characters dealt with the situation they were in. The emotions and thoughts of the characters were the main focus of the game, and completely up to the characters. If Jake's player said "Jake feels scared," then Jake felt scared, period. That was his aspect of control. OTOH, if I said "A giant alien bug attacks," then a giant alien bug attacked. The players had no control over the events or the setting. What they had control of was what the premise of the game focused on: how their characters felt in the setting and reacted to the events.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Your example of the player trying to 'pull one over' on the gamemaster, spoke loudly of adversarialism, and again ignored the concept of sharing. (It also implied for sharing that the "only way it would work," had to have some incentive, suggesting that it actually wouldn't work by the example.)

Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not discounting the idea of a shared system out of hand; I just don't understand how one could work.

Hello,

In the interest of Fang/Paganini harmony, let me offer the following points.

FIRST POINT
There is a big difference between announcing an action and resolving an action. The distinction that Paganini describes (GM controls world, players control actions) is conceivable if we are talking about announcements. It breaks down very fast if we are talking about resolutions. An immense amount of effort has been devoted in RPG design to try to minimize that breakdown, but I think much of it has been ill-informed.

Simply put, the resolution of a character's action is neither "world" nor "character," and separating those two things into "GM" and "player" does nothing to clarify, smooth, or facilitate the creation/determination of outcomes.

SECOND POINT
I am coming to realize that people are having a hard time understanding my Impossible Thing. (Evidenced in the recent El Dorado posts in particular.)

I think that a lot of folks are used to the players bombing around doin' X and Y and Z with "player free will," and the GM retrofitting all this activity to his background material, and making it into "story stuff" prior to the next session. Thus the players can do whatever they want and then they can say, later, "Gee, so that's how it was really a 'story' all along! Cool!"

(In theory, of course. In practice, the players who are bored by that 'story' stuff just don't bother to listen, and the players who are inspired by the 'story' stuff eventually want to contribute, and suddenly discover that they have no powe to do so.)

Anyway, GMs who do this are quite protective of their status as "story-creator" and resent the notion that they are not as Narrativist as anyone else. However, they are overlooking the fact that role-playing is not producing story, but rather their solo authoring behind the scenes and between sessions.

Best,
Ron

Le Joueur wrote:

Paganini wrote: As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be responsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responsibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

But ‘dividing up’ responsibility is contrary to sharing it. (Id est; this is my responsibility and that’s your responsibility. "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!") In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster. That’s an example of not sharing.

Paganini wrote: Here's a relevant quote from the game:

"...the gamemaster should not hesitate to allow use the descriptor."

That is what makes it only the gamemaster’s game. All descriptor use is at his allowance. No matter how nice (or lax) the gamemaster is, the players now know it is not up to them to decide what is appropriate.

Let me quote that last part again for emphasis:

Paganini wrote: The GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

That is utter nonsense. Don’t you realize that the sequence of events is determined by the characters’ actions? To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters’ actions. This impugns on the players’ control of their characters’ actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens). No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him. This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character’s actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

And the only point I have trying to make is that many times a minimalist system creates more work because it is gamemaster fiat. (Sharing was a separate issue I need to work out with you.)

And what if the player says, "Jake runs into battle with the giant bug," and the gamemaster vetoes it ‘because Jake is scared.’ Who has control over Jake? The gamemaster.

If the players have so little control over their characters’ actions (which should be the primary motivator of the sequence of events in the game and the source of characters’ emotional interactions with the game), they are little more than bystanders who add a little emotional color to their roles.

Paganini wrote: Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not discounting the idea of a shared system out of hand; I just don't understand how one could work.

Fang, I want to let you know that from my perspective the tone of your post is starting to edge away from friendly debate to flames. I don't know if you intended it or not, but I'd rather just drop this, than have it turn into an argument.

However, I will go ahead and answer your points here with the assumption that the tone of the post was unintentional.

(Rearanging throughout)

But ‘dividing up’ responsibility is contrary to sharing it. (Id est; this is my responsibility and that’s your responsibility. "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!") In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster. That’s an example of not sharing.

And in those places you clear up any question about whether the game is shared. It isn’t. What do I have to say to convince you that, as described, Cornerstone is not sharing!

That is utter nonsense. Don’t you realize that the sequence of events is determined by the characters’ actions? To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters’ actions. This impugns on the players’ control of their characters’ actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens). No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him. This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character’s actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

I mean, is there a referee needed in Bridge? Or Monopoly? Or the odd friendly game of touch football? What about good gamesmanship, fair play, and the sense of social contract towards a good game? Are these foreign concepts in role-playing games.

You see here, it operates as a part of the social contract. If Player C had not intervened, there would have been an argument. An argument is counter-productive to the game and there is all the incentive I think one needs.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Simply put, the resolution of a character's action is neither "world" nor "character," and separating those two things into "GM" and "player" does nothing to clarify, smooth, or facilitate the creation/determination of outcomes.

Gentlemen,

At the very least, I think it is apparent that we are no longer discussing Triad and its design per se.

Several other issues have cropped up, and all of them deserve their own threads. Please exercise some judgment about this and take those issues up separately.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
I don't think that's what Paganini means. By control of character, he means the right to choose what the character does, primarily. To totally not have that power would mean that the GM made all the decisions. What

And the only point I have trying to make is that many times a minimalist system creates more work because it is gamemaster fiat. (Sharing was a separate issue I need to work out with you.)

FWIW, I agree with Fang's point here. Mechanics can be freeing if they are desingned appropriately. And given that they convey other advantages, they shouldn't just be thrown out on principle. IMO.

And what if the player says, "Jake runs into battle with the giant bug," and the gamemaster vetoes it ‘because Jake is scared.’ Who has control over Jake? The gamemaster.

OK, Fangs got ya here. Not quite complete control here (unless, in fact the GM cannot veto here). Still, calling it control does not seem too far out. Again, who cares.

FWIW, Paganini, your system could go a lot further towards having mechanics that do what you talk about wanting. I agree with Fang there. And, you wouldn't have to get away from lite to do it either, just shift control of some things. That's what I think Fang is saying.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Paganini wrote: As a matter of fact, I want Cornerstone to have sharing also, but not equality. I want the players to be responsible for some things, and the GM responsible for others. In places, the responsibility overlaps, like the character death rules.

But ‘dividing up’ responsibility is contrary to sharing it. (Id est; this is my responsibility and that’s your responsibility. "Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!") In the places where responsibility overlaps, you give it to the gamemaster. That’s an example of not sharing.

C'mon you two. This is a very semantic thing here. Fang, If I have a toy car and I give it to you to use, and then you give it back, can't that be sharing. Even if the car is mine?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:
Let me quote that last part again for emphasis:

Paganini wrote: The GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters.

The sequence of events is determined by the characters’ actions? To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters’ actions. This impugns on the players’ control of their characters’ actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens). No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him. This kind of control (over what appears to be the potential for disruptive play) over a character’s actions is at the heart of what makes the Impossible Thing impossible.

I don't think that's what Paganini means. By control of character, he means the right to choose what the character does, primarily. To totally not have that power would mean that the GM made all the decisions. What Paganini is suggesting is, as he's admitted, merely the normal level of "control" that a player has in most RPGs. The ability to state what actions the character takes under most circumstances. Not new, but you make it seem like he's claiming something that he's not, Fang. Perhaps complete is too strong a term.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Paganini wrote: Exactly. I said I didn't see how it could work unless there was some incentive. As the originator of the idea, the burden of providing examples is on you. :) I'm not discounting the idea of a shared system out of hand; I just don't understand how one could work.

I see his point, Fang. Some players do not want to have any part of refereeing. Not that they don't want the game to go well, but they don't want to have to know the rules. This happens a lot in my Rolemaster games in which I try to engage the players for help. Some just refuse (and I'll bet many here would sympathize). OTOH, maybe Scattershot has rules that players will love to employ.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that you both just have opinions as to how much control and sharing players and GMs have in these different sorts of systems, and are using the same terms to state different things.

Paganini wrote: I want to let you know that from my perspective the tone of your post is starting to edge away from friendly debate to flames. I don't know if you intended it or not, but I'd rather just drop this, than have it turn into an argument.

Paganini wrote: Just think about file sharing on a computer server... do you grant access to your entire file system to any anonymous user who comes along? No, you divide up access, so that some users have control over their own parts of the file system. All users are sharing the same file system, but not all users have the same control over all aspects.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The sequence of events is determined by the characters' actions? To exercise "complete control" of this sequence is to take control of those characters' actions. This impugns on the players' control of their characters' actions in the most obvious way possible, by taking it away (it does not matter how briefly, it happens [This is why it's not 'complete.']). No matter how permissive you instruct the gamemaster to be, ultimately you are giving all control to him.

I think that you must have a very limited view of GM technique if this is what you believe. IME it's very easy to draw a line between GM control and player control, without any conflict at all. IME, the giving the GM complete control over the sequence of events has absolutely no negative impact on player control of characters at all.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I mean, is there a referee needed in Bridge? Or Monopoly? Or the odd friendly game of touch football? What about good gamesmanship, fair play, and the sense of social contract towards a good game? Are these foreign concepts in role-playing games.

Actually, yes, there are referees, in both games you mentioned, for serious play, as there are at, for example, Mage Knight tournaments, where someone has to be on hand to settle arguments between players.

Paganini wrote: Your argument pretty much defeats itself... the examples you give of effective equal-distribution social contracts are competitive games!

Paganini wrote: That's exactly the point I made before. I challenged you to show how such a contract could work in an RPG (a shared, non-competitive experience by your own admission), and you cited competitive games!

Paganini wrote: You said "you can't have control if someone can veto your choices." I can't believe you actually said it. Are you implying that the US government is a dictatorship since the President has power of veto?

Paganini wrote: Are you suggesting that there's no sharing of power between the three legislative bodies? You just threw logic completely out the window with that statement. The power of veto helps distribute control; it doesn't grant totalitarian power.

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: You see here, it operates as a part of the social contract. If Player C had not intervened, there would have been an argument. An argument is counter-productive to the game and there is all the incentive I think one needs.

This is interesting. It's also a bit weird... you can never play the game without an odd number of players, because arguments will be unavoidable.

Paganini wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: I don't think that's what Paganini means. By control of character, he means the right to choose what the character does, primarily. To totally not have that power would mean that the GM made all the decisions. What

Exactly. How the character feels, how he reacts to stimuli, and so on. *NOT* whether or not the character succeeds at an action. What would be the point?

"My character is going to try and pick the lock. Okay, I decide he fails. What next?"

Paganini wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: And the only point I have trying to make is that many times a minimalist system creates more work because it is gamemaster fiat. (Sharing was a separate issue I need to work out with you.)

FWIW, I agree with Fang's point here. Mechanics can be freeing if they are designed appropriately. And given that they convey other advantages, they shouldn't just be thrown out on principle. IMO.

Sure... and my goal is not to design a systemless game. Cornerstone has mechanics! I like a nice balance. The mechanics are just intended to be applied in a certain way, a way that Fang seems to be denying that they can be applied in.

Paganini wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: And what if the player says, "Jake runs into battle with the giant bug," and the gamemaster vetoes it ‘because Jake is scared.’ Who has control over Jake? The gamemaster.

OK, Fang’s got ya here. Not quite complete control here (unless, in fact the GM cannot veto here). Still, calling it control does not seem too far out.

Well, of course it's not complete control if that can happen.

Paganini wrote: The example that Fang uses is unrelated to the rest of the discussion, which involved GM control of mechanics. For some reason, it sounds like Fang doesn't think a player has any control, period, unless he has equal control of the mechanics with the GM.

Hey,

"My character is going to try and pick the lock. Okay, I decide he fails. What next?"

Hey, that kind of thing has happened in Narrativist games that I have heard of.

I don't want to derail the sharing vs. control discussion on this thread. I just want to say that although I've played games where players create and resolve their character's conflicts, I've not seen it work well at all, which makes me reluctant to see it given this much tacit acknowledgment as a feature of Narrativist games.

Otherwise, great discussion on sharing and control.

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote:
At the very least, I think it is apparent that we are no longer discussing Triad and its design per se.

Several other issues have cropped up, and all of them deserve their own threads. Please exercise some judgment about this and take those issues up separately.

Paganini wrote: But I don't know how to do that sort of thing here on the Forge... do you just post a new thread and hope it takes, or is there some way to split the thread off? Looking around the posting page, I don't see any buttons for that sort of thing.

Le Joueur wrote:
This has not been a good week for me, so I let this get the better of me. For that I am sorry.

We are not arguing about the same things, so let’s drop the word ‘complete’ as well as the rest of the argument.