Topic: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Started by: Paka
Started on: 7/5/2005
Board: RPG Theory
On 7/5/2005 at 5:04am, Paka wrote:
Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.
Could someone explain where and why this breaks down in play?
I'd just like to see this explained a little clearer with AP examples whenever possible.
On 7/5/2005 at 5:26am, timfire wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Did you read MJ's [article] on the subject?
If one person has full control of the main characters in the story, how can another person control the story? The story is presumably about what the main characters did. If the character players have full control over what the characters do, then the referee cannot have control of the story; conversely, if the referee has full control of the story, then the players don't really have any control over what the characters do.
Is that still unsatisfactory for you? To me the logic is pretty simple. If the story is about the what the protangonists did, then logically whoever controls the characters also control the story, or vice versa, whoever controls the story also controls the characters.
Control of the story and control of the protagonists cannot be split. It can be shared but not split. Is there something about that logic that doesn't sit well with you?
On 7/5/2005 at 5:29am, Paka wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
timfire wrote: Is there something about that logic that doesn't sit well with you?
I have not read the article you suggested but will do so shortly.
So, the RPG convential wisdom should read in a standard RPG book, "The GM arbitrates the setting and NPC's while putting the PC's in conflicts. The solving of these conflicts creates story. The players decide how to deal with the conflict."
Yes?
No, the logic makes sense. I guess I am just wrapping my head around some of these terms and just wanted to have an example.
Oh, and thanks.
On 7/5/2005 at 8:15am, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Paka wrote: So, the RPG convential wisdom should read in a standard RPG book, "The GM arbitrates the setting and NPC's while putting the PC's in conflicts. The solving of these conflicts creates story. The players decide how to deal with the conflict."
That's one way the statement can be read, which is the problem. M.J. describes four ways it can be read in his article. They are:
"The GM has complete control over the story, while allowing the players to believe they are in control of their protagonists." (Illusionism)
"The GM has complete control over the story. The players know it, and it's what they want to do." (Participationism)
"The GM sets up the background story and scenario, and gives out clues for the players to follow. The players can do whatever they want, but have agreed to follow the clues." (Trailblazing)
"The GM sets up the background and the starting situation, but the rest of the major choices are the players'. " (Bass playing)
TITBB is a problem when there's a clash in assumptions (e.g. between two players, or between a player and the rulebook they're using) about what the phrase actually means.
On 7/5/2005 at 12:03pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Here's the wiki link: http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/ImpossibleThingBeforeBreakfast
-Marco
On 7/5/2005 at 12:31pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Selene Tan wrote:
TITBB is a problem when there's a clash in assumptions (e.g. between two players, or between a player and the rulebook they're using) about what the phrase actually means.
My reading is slightly different. the metaphor in TITB suggests that the mode of play proposed is itself impossible or self-contradictory; that you have to believe impossible and contradictory things to even begin play in that supposed mode. As a result, all existing game texts that assert the TITB are effectively giving bad advice.
TITB play can be stated semantically but cannot actually happen. Valamir sums it up in the link under the Wiki article discussing whether the impossible thing is really impossible:
The Impossible Thing is simply that the GM is in charge of story and the Players are in charge of their character. Not possible...can't happen any more than two physical bodies can exist in the same space at the same time.
Inevitably there will come a time when the GM's story and the Players play of their characters butt heads. At that point having both is impossible. Something has to give. And as soon as it does all of that wonder fluffy nonsense in the "how to roleplay chapter" about the GM running story and the players running the characters is revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
thus, Participationsim, Illusionism, Trailblazing and Bass Playing are alternative models of how a game is actually played, none of which contain the logical impossibility of TITBB. The argument is that TITBB is a useless concept which can only lead to a clash of assumptions because it contains a logical error.
In response to the request for an example, I believe one case discussed was that of a fairly classic scenario: the GM has a villain, and a story that requires the villain confront the PC's, but escape. Ths is a classic story element and often used. However, if the GM is going to plan that the villain MUST escape, then the GM must also prevent the players from being able to derail that plan - hence, the players cannot in fact really be "in charge of the character" if the GM really is in charge of the story, as the GM needs to control some character actions in order to execute their story. Or, the story must be ditched in favour of total freedom.
Either way, the initial statement is clearly impossible.
On 7/6/2005 at 1:06pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
The other classic example is when the GM has Cool Villain and Sinister Plot all ready and the players say, "Screw that. We want to hijack a ship and become pirates!" or some other action is an opposite direction. At this point, either the GM exerts Force (overtly or covertly) get his story despite the player's desire to do something else or the GM ditches his story and lets the players pursue their own. Either of those options contradicts TITBB.
On 7/7/2005 at 9:30pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
Paka: Did you manage to read the aforementioned Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, and if so did it help?
(Incredibly good timing on this question, by the way--the article just posted a week ago. If you hold off on your questions about Creative Agenda, you might find your answers in the third installment of the series when they get that posted.)
I'd be glad to attempt to clarify anything you don't understand, but it makes the most sense for you to read what I already wrote before we proceed.
--M. J. Young
On 7/7/2005 at 9:57pm, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
contracycle wrote: My reading is slightly different. the metaphor in TITB suggests that the mode of play proposed is itself impossible or self-contradictory; that you have to believe impossible and contradictory things to even begin play in that supposed mode. As a result, all existing game texts that assert the TITB are effectively giving bad advice.
...
Either way, the initial statement is clearly impossible.
Yes, it is, and the contradiction needs to be resolved in order for people to play the game. If everyone playing resolves it the same way, then there's no problem, but if they don't...
On 7/8/2005 at 12:48am, Paka wrote:
RE: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast Question
M. J. Young wrote: Paka: Did you manage to read the aforementioned Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, and if so did it help?
Yes, I did and it was crystal clear.
Thanks.