This was inspired by a post in another thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14118&start=45

Marco wrote: Let's say that a player is playing "The Teen Horror Movie Game" and it has this mechanic as a hard and fast incontravertable rule (sex=death).

A player is presented with a love/lust interest and he decides what to do (have sex and die or continue playing).

If the guy decides that his character *would* have sex--but does not want his character to die--then I think we have a decison that, under the rules, leads to dysfunction ("I wanted to 'play my character'--but I was punished for doing so")

I would agree with you. The only thing I would add is that the game text needs to be clear on how the system works, so that players don't go into the game expecting one thing and getting another. In the above example it's pretty obvious, but in many games it's subtle. For example, some games claim drama and story-telling, but instead end up being just another game about kewl characters with kewl powerz.

timfire wrote: For example, some games claim drama and story-telling, but instead end up being just another game about kewl characters with kewl powerz.

Well, actually this all shows how dubious the example was from the outset. Because the player refusing to accept the sex=death judgement is in fact purposefully violateing the structured story with which they are supposed to be engaging.

And if they do not know that that is the structure with with they are engaging, they are de facto being railroaded, as the GM has decided how play "must" come out. The whole thing is nonsense IMO, in that it is an example oif a game in which the social contract has already collapsed.

contracycle,

While your position is somwhat extreme, I think that's exactly what everyone else is saying. The players have either: A) Chosen a bad game for themselves, one where sex=death despite the fact that some players don't want this; B) Had a miscommunication in which some of the players believe that everyone has agreed that sex=death and some believe otherwise; C) Have some player violating social contract by enforcing his will that sex=death even though it isn't in the social contract.

I think B happens an awful lot, personally. Xero's point was that A is a big deal too, and I fully agree. As a player you have no one to blame but yourself with any of these problems since they are social in nature. It might be argued that C isn't really your fault, but if you aren't working to fix it you are contributing to the problem.

Thomas

Let me point out in passing that "choose a game that's right for you and your group" is the primary practical focus of the whole Big Model. The idea is to figure out what sort of Creative Agenda is embedded in a game, and how that is effected through mechanics of various sorts. From this, you figure out whether that is a game you actually want to play. And the basic implication of System Does Matter, in this context, is that you cannot know the answers to these questions---and thus whether you will like the game---without considering the system as well as the setting and the advertising rhetoric. The idea there is just that people tend to pick up games that sound cool because of the presentation and the setting; the system, however, is the dominant textual factor determining what play will be like, so you may love the setting and the presentation but hate the game.

One of the things that this also assumes is the needs of the players during the game stay static. The player, initially, might have been honestly behind the sex is death slasher movie mechanic, but as play progressed and things developed the player might have changed his view about the nature of the game.

IME, games are not very static. As they are played, the needs of the players often change in ways that a very static and close ended set of rules is not capable of dealing with.

timfire wrote: The only thing I would add is that the game text needs to be clear on how the system works, so that players don't go into the game expecting one thing and getting another.

LordSmerf wrote: The players have either: A) Chosen a bad game for themselves, one where sex=death despite the fact that some players don't want this; B) Had a miscommunication in which some of the players believe that everyone has agreed that sex=death and some believe otherwise; C) Have some player violating social contract by enforcing his will that sex=death even though it isn't in the social contract.

I think B happens an awful lot, personally. Xero's point was that A is a big deal too, and I fully agree.

clehrich wrote: The idea there is just that people tend to pick up games that sound cool because of the presentation and the setting; the system, however, is the dominant textual factor determining what play will be like, so you may love the setting and the presentation but hate the game.

CPXB wrote: One of the things that this also assumes is the needs of the players during the game stay static. The player, initially, might have been honestly behind the sex is death slasher movie mechanic, but as play progressed and things developed the player might have changed his view about the nature of the game.

IME, games are not very static. As they are played, the needs of the players often change in ways that a very static and close ended set of rules is not capable of dealing with.

Doctor Xero wrote: I also think this means that, in our game designs, we underestimate the severe importance of the introductory passages. The introduction to a game is not simply color or persuasive commentary -- the introductory section is the portion in which the game designer(s) lays out the goals, emphases, and paradigmatic parameters of the game system. Complaining about any accidental mismatches in a White Wolf game is nothing more than listless bitching unless we use these complaints to focus our own attention as designers on the skills we need for being explicit about the games we design. Personally, I would like to see more posts in the game design section which include an introductory section which clarifies for the potential players (including game masters) the reasoning behind the particular mechanics chosen.

I would like to see a greater emphasis on developing that aspect of game design in the Forge in addition to what we already focus on.

I am also concerned that we may be using terms such as "railroading" and "deprotagonization" a little too freely, almost as default tar for any game which could upset a player. ...
I have seen a number of posts in various gaming groups in which players angrily assert that they feel the equivalent of deprotagonized whenever a rule they had known about all along (or never bothered to learn about) suddenly inconveniences them. My thought is that it is a waste of time for us to care about such players -- let them feel deprotagonized or railroaded or such all they want, because in such cases it's their own damn fault.

clehrich wrote: So my conclusion is that the introductory piece needs to:

• Describe the process of play
• Be scrupulously accurate
• Be composed in elegant, clear prose
• Precisely fit the genre and style expectations and desires of the intended audience
• Exactly and rapidly formulate the feel and style of play, both process and product

1 and 2 we can all do, and should, though we don't always. 3 we can all do with a hell of a lot of work. 4 and 5 are a nightmare. Getting all five together in a clean, concise way is as difficult as writing a truly great short story, academic article, or any other form of masterful short prose. As I say, I don't ever expect to see it happen in RPGs, but it should certainly be the ideal toward which we strive.

clehrich wrote: Such games announce in big letters that the players are free to do whatever they like and the rules are just there to help out on the tricky bits; the rules actually do something else, however, requiring more traditional GM dominance and so on.

Doctor Xero wrote: Seriously, take a look at some of the free RPGs of Sorenson and Arnst. I can't find my copy right now, but I recall one of Sorenson's free RPGs had an introduction which seemed to perfectly capture the interrelationship between the setting/genre and the mechanics he'd devised.

Hmmm, I wonder if it could be said that a number of Big Company games utilize the game master as their free-floating patch-in so that they don't have to worry about making the product virtually bug-free? The skillful game master is there to fix it for them while the unskilled game master takes the blame for them?

Or would that be another thread?

I've seen people play Jared's games "incorrectly". No matter that his instuctions are short and very clear.

Two points, one short, and one real long.

1. If they aren't going to read and try to do what you wrote, there's nothing you can do about that as a designer. So we won't worry it.

2. In the case given, however, the player who rejects the particular rule in question may in fact be doing something akin to 'conscientiously objecting" or "civil disobedience." Remember that people playing an RPG are under no particular pressure to play by the rules as written - in point of fact, I'd say they usually don't do so. Or at the very least they have some very creative interpretations of the rules.

The point being that the rule that's in the text, and the rule that's used are two different things. In fact the set of rules used in play really only becomes cemented once they're actually used. Between those two points there's often a lot of negotiation, alteration, and all sorts of things going on that result in the end agreement on rules.

When you have a rule like the example, particularly, a rule that comes up only rarely in play, often the decision to adopt the rule from the text is really a tacit one. We haven't said we wouldn't use it, so we must be using it, given that we've generally agreed to use the rules as we understand them from the text.

So in this case, it's like a supreme court challenge to the rule. It's not automatically dysfunctional. In many cases, at this point, the other players will simply see the reasoning behind the players tactit attempt to change the rules, and agree to it tacitly, too. It may never even get discussed. Or maybe it does, "Hey, that's not fair, the ruels say he's supposed to die!"

It's only dysfunctional when there's no final agreement on this, tacit or explicit. This is one of the many ways that drift occurs.

Take an example, the old "Death in Chargen" rule from Traveler first edition (pre-book 5 release). I've actually seen players ignore this rule. They actually roll the survival roll, until they fail, and then say, "That's a stupid rule," the Referee agrees, and play proceeds with the rules altered.

Players have a responsibility, but that's not just to accept the rules as written out of the book. The responsibility is to play by the rules as agreed to by all of the participants. For some groups that might be iron-clad adherence to the strictures of the text. For others it might change minute to minute with the wind. Even the allowable rate of change is actually part of the social contract with regards to this. I'm an inveterate tinkerer with rules, but I limit myself to only suggesting changes between sessions, and only making major changes to my suggested ruleset between entire games. But, again, that's my personal conditions, and others probably work as well.

So I don't think there's any particular imperative, except to work with the other players to make sure that all of this is making everyone happy. Fortnately it's pretty easy stuff.

Mike

Doctor Xero wrote: I have seen a number of posts in various gaming groups in which players angrily assert that they feel the equivalent of deprotagonized whenever a rule they had known about all along (or never bothered to learn about) suddenly inconveniences them. My thought is that it is a waste of time for us to care about such players -- let them feel deprotagonized or railroaded or such all they want, because in such cases it's their own damn fault.

That said, I agree with you that player needs often change. It can be a difficult balancing act between keeping a game open to player growth or change and yet avoiding a coddling indulgence of capricious players or players who eschew an attention span.

Personally, I prefer those games which are clear in their restrictions because then I know what I'm in for and I can more easily gauge when it is time to switch to a different system. (I played in one three year campaign which went through four different game systems as player needs and interests changed -- fortunately, our game master was wonderfully adept at translating the essence of a character from one system to another.)

Hmmm, I wonder if it could be said that a number of Big Company games utilize the game master as their free-floating patch-in so that they don't have to worry about making the product virtually bug-free? The skillful game master is there to fix it for them while the unskilled game master takes the blame for them?

Oh, I dunno, Marco. I think that the "Golden Rule" is precisely the designers saying, "We can't make it work for everyone, so just fix it when it doesn't work right for you."

I'm not being judgemental about that, either. I mean it works as a marketing tactic. And we have no data about how often the rule is actually used - maybe the games that have it, have included it unneccessarily because they play very well as written.

To some extent, the quality of play is on the GM no matter what. That's undeniable. So to what extent is it a GM "Filling in" and to what extent is it neccessary GM fiat required to make a game go? I think we could debate that until we're blue in the face.

In any case, I'd agree that D&D 3.5 is pretty damn good for these purposes. So quit putting words in the mouths of the indie designers other than yourself, Marco.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
In any case, I'd agree that D&D 3.5 is pretty damn good for these purposes. So quit putting words in the mouths of the indie designers other than yourself, Marco.

Mike

Just so's I can follow this discussion, does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"? I don't recall anything resembling that in AD&D, way back in the day, though admittedly it's been a while since I really read those things through.

My sense is, following up Dr. Xero's hypothesis, that AD&D did not intend the GM to be a floating patch. My impression is that they really wanted a complete, working system; all the GM had to do was obey in order to get a running game. What he had to add creatively was solely in adventure design (if he didn't use modules) and descriptive handling. Which, let's remember, is not small potatoes. Note that this is my impression of intent: it says nothing about whether it does or did work.

As to other games, I have a much less clear impression. It's all a matter of feel, I admit; I haven't gone hunting through the texts for the "golden rule" and its contexts. Has anyone done this? Has there been a thread on it I could read?

P.S. Marco, where was the RPG.net discussion of Banks?

clehrich wrote: ...does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"?

Doctor Xero wrote: Why would a player roleplay in a game with a sex=death mechanic unless he or she wanted to play in a game with a sex=death mechanic?

M.J, it sounds like a 'I didn't expect to leave my comfort zone' dodge. During SC, they agree but don't really expect any challenge that will take them outside of their comfort zone.

On the same level, since they don't think anything will take them out of it ("It's just a game!"), so they don't think to do anything during SC negotiation to ensure they aren't taken out of their CZ in play.

To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them. Because although I don't agree with Marco's notion that the rule leads to disfunction, I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent. Dangerous.

Noon wrote:
To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them. Because although I don't agree with Marco's notion that the rule leads to disfunction, I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent. Dangerous.

I think it can sneak stuff into play without adequate consent.

M.J, it sounds like a 'I didn't expect to leave my comfort zone' dodge. During SC, they agree but don't really expect any challenge that will take them outside of their comfort zone.

Noon wrote: To paraphrase blade runner, perhaps sex=death type rules need some sort of "Wake up, time to SC!" mark next to them.

clehrich wrote: Just so's I can follow this discussion, does D&D 3.5 include the directive, "Ignore rules that don't work for your group"? I don't recall anything resembling that in AD&D, way back in the day, though admittedly it's been a while since I really read those things through.

Vaxalon wrote: In fact, 3.0 did too. They call it "Rule Zero"... it's actually in the Player's Handbook, an admonition to people creating characters that they should consult with the DM, because he may have house rules that should be considered.

Marco wrote: I don't think the rule leads to dysfunction.

I think that the combination of an absolute rule and a player who doesn't want it in the game is a dysfunctional one (i.e. something has gone wrong there on a fundamental level).

-Marco

I mostly agree with Xero, but I think the best rule books take pains to point out game rules that might be problematical. I really like how Ron wrote Sex and Sorcery. It really makes an effort to tell the reader that this may be a touchy subject for some, and to make damn sure the social contract is solid on what is and is not appropriate play.

I would say that a sex=death rule is of a similar nature, and deserves more than just an "adult content" label on the cover of the book or a quick paragraph or two in the introduction (especially if the introduction seems to be of the "this is what a role playing game is" into, I myself tend to skim those because they so rarely introduce anything new - don't hide your critical rules there...).

Also, if not all the players are expected to read the rules, then it IS the job of the person organizing the game to make sure everyone understands what the game is all about (in fact, to be honest, this is the responsibility of the organizer even if he does expect everyone to own and read the ruleset).

Frank

ffilz wrote: I mostly agree with Xero, but I think the best rule books take pains to point out game rules that might be problematical. I really like how Ron wrote Sex and Sorcery. It really makes an effort to tell the reader that this may be a touchy subject for some, and to make damn sure the social contract is solid on what is and is not appropriate play.

Also, if not all the players are expected to read the rules, then it IS the job of the person organizing the game to make sure everyone understands what the game is all about (in fact, to be honest, this is the responsibility of the organizer even if he does expect everyone to own and read the ruleset).

clehrich wrote: I've always been opposed to this sort of thing, the "secret rules in the back for GMs only" stuff. But if you do it, then you'd better be damn sure that there aren't any of those "this rule kills players" bits in there and not elsewhere, yes.

Chris, with regards to D&D and the Golden Rule, I think that it's primarily in response to the rhetoric of Gygax in first edition that the golden rule started appearing. That is, in first edition AD&D, Gygax said in no uncertain terms that if you altered the rules that were presented, that you were no longer playing AD&D. This was important at the time because of the whole convention tournament. For those who may not have ever played in one, these were very gamist events where the players who did best in purely gamist terms won prizes. It was very important at that time that there be "official" rules of how to play, or you couldn't compare sessions fairly.

Well, as everyone knows, AD&D is not without its flaws as a system, and everyone ignored the prohibition against changing the rules. "So I'm not playing AD&D according to Gygax, so what?" In fact there were some rather flamey folks who took outright outrage at the idea that they couldn't alter the rules, and who vehemently rejected the idea. Most importantly, anyone who wanted to make their own RPG - read version of D&D - was almost certainly revolting against the idea that Gygax had things right.

Soon the notion became that not only was it wrong for a designer to say that you had to play by his rules, but it became a "feature" of most games that they would say somewhere in the text that they expected you to alter the game. And most took it to a further extreme saying that "no system is perfect, if something doesn't work, play the story not the rules."

Note the slight difference there. One says that it's OK to alter the rules (which I find merely unneccessary). The second tells the players that it makes sense merely to drop the rules whenever the GM thinks that they should drop the rules (all of these games also say that the GM is final arbiter, so obviously only he has the authority to OK any such change - though a player might propose one.

By the '90s, it became obligatory to have some text like this. Wordings vary, depending on how "Story" driven the game is. The more story-oriented the system was, the more they tended to suggest ignoring the rules.

This is precisely the "System Doesn't Matter" approach talking. Only a good GM can know how to keep a game on an even keel, and the rules shall not hamper him. Because the idea of rules that actually support story was absent. Indeed they mostly did just interfere with what all of the narrativism folks out there wanted. So it was thought that less rules, or ignoring rules, or freeform was the only way out of this trap.

So, it's largely this ideology to which The Forge is a reaction. A little history for those who may have been unaware.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: This is precisely the "System Doesn't Matter" approach talking. Only a good GM can know how to keep a game on an even keel, and the rules shall not hamper him.

Doctor Xero wrote: The "System Doesn't Matter" approach is one which places tremendous responsibility on the player who has the role/duties of game master.

xiombarg wrote: I've referred to a Changeling game I tried to run a while back that went real dysfunctional real fast, and this was a big part of it: A lot of the veteran White Wolf players adamantly believed it was my job, as GM, to entertain them, not everyone's job to entertain everyone.