Jim is my gaming Qui-Gon.  He got me to GM when I was 13.

But here's the thing, when I told him I didn't know the rules well enough to run a game he said, "Rules don't matter."

Uh-oh.  Forge comandment NUMERO UNO.

As such I had a hard time with Rules Matter when I read it, years ago and it wasn't until playing several Indie RPG's that I got it.

Suddenly, I could trust game book texts and run them as they were written.  This was a new idea to me. Before that, throwing rules out the window was the norm.

I just got into a long discussion/argument/debate with Jim about GMing after returning from Dexcon and lamenting on my non-indie games.

I told him that gaming outside of the Forge folks at a con was a crap shoot with incredibly bad odds.  The Forge-ites are the only reason I go to cons at all.  Otherwise, it is just not worth it.

He told me how uncomfortable he was with my GMing practices.  They made him edgy.  We've only gamed once in the past five years and I ran a shit game.

The primary practices that made him uncomfortable:

- me, the GM asking my players where they wanted to take the game in the next session.

- Handing key NPC roles to my players.

He's an old school GM and a damned good one.

What we got down to is that he doesn't trust his players and doesn't feel like they can handle it.  I do'nt feel like any group he has played with...maybe ever, has really blown his doors off when he was GMing, not like he was blowing their doors off as a Gm.

For many players, Jim is the first GM to step back and allow them to just go with the flow.  They feel like he is doing magic, like he's reading their minds.  They've never played under a GM like him. 

But I explained to Jim that among d20 gamers, I feel he is a rarity.  He is one in a million.  I am not willing to wade through the games upon games at cons upon cons to attempt to find him.  Not when I can go to any indie table and have a great time.  The Forge's convention game batting average is Hall of Fame material.

He mentioned a time in his Deadlands game when the gambler and the gunslinger wanted to play poker.  he had the other players take NPC roles.  They'd often throw the game to get the PC's money, not really playing their roles, eager to get back to their own PC's.

I suggested this was because the PC's taking the roles wasn't set up efficiently, that it takes a bunch of work to do so.

On one hand, I really feel that my gaming life has been blessed.  My player pool in Ithaca has been so deep and now that I'm connected on-line, I can't well imagne a place I could go where I wouldn't be able to track down a gamer.

On another, more pompous hand, I feel that my GMing has picked up skills that Jim has not (no worries, I'll forward him this thread) and that he is holding on to what works for him rather than trying new techniques out of distrust.

Mistrust is a very painful thing, precisely because of the way that it's self-reinforcing.

Say that for years you keep your players in a box of your controlling, never giving them choices that have any chance of utterly ruining the game.  Now you decide "Hey, these guys are so cool, I bet I could trust them with responsibility over the game."  Well, sadly, you can't.  Because you've trained them to act within that box, not to take responsibility.

I hear from GMs who say exactly what Jim says:  "The two times I gave the players the chance to screw up, they leapt to take it, and ruined everything we created together."

And then there's me, and I say "Every time I give the players the chance to utterly screw up, they instead think of something incredibly ingenius and make the game better than it ever could have been otherwise."

The difference is (I think) that I give the players that opportunity every single session, over and over.  But to the Jim-like GMs, it sounds like I'm a wilfully naive person benefitting from a player group of unparalleled skill and discretion.  It's like we're in different worlds, with no communication or agreement possible.  Which sorta sucks, but... ah well, my different world is the one of the two I'd rather live in anyway.

Tony wrote: It's like we're in different worlds, with no communication or agreement possible.  Which sorta sucks, but... ah well, my different world is the one of the two I'd rather live in anyway.

I can certainly relate to Jim’s perspective...it pretty much echoes all of my past GM’ing career.  Now that I’ve been opened up to the possibility of different ways of playing “the role of GM” by the Forge and its contents, I’m excited to explore more collaborative gaming.  Of course, one thing that might be different from Jim is that I’ve lost touch with all my old “gamer buddies” and intend to be very selective in putting together a new group.  If I was still with my old friends (the past three or four groups I’ve played with), I’d probably still be GM’ing the same way.

I’m not necessarily a “blow your doors off GM,” but my past experience with gamers is (for the most part) that’s what they’re looking for.  Their creative agenda I would call “going along for the ride,” somewhere between Gamist and Simulationist but with the dial spun HEAVILY to the Sim end.  Maybe this is because I’m from Seattle and we love whatever escapisms we can find, but for many of the players I’ve encountered, its not necessarily about winning or defeating anything, its about becoming a diffrerent person in a different world and losing yourself for awhile...and there is an expectation that the GM facilitates this “trip” like a needle dispensing your heroin (game) of choice.

In other words, my players didn’t want to think much about the NPCs, the plot, or even too heavily about their character; they just wanted to Explore and expected the GM to provide the colorful Setting for them to explore.  More than half the players never even bothered to purchase/borrow the game or learn much about the rules other than character creation.  As a control-freak, enabler-type guy with a lot of cretive inspiration and a love of rules and system was all too happy to take the reins...that’s why I got to GM.

And when you’re gaming under these type of circumstances, it is understandable (not justifiable) that you may lack trust in your players’ abilities to help facilitate the story or gaming experience. HOWEVER, here’s the trick (which I only started to learn and experiment with  towards the end of my experience)...you’ve got to ask the players for their input. You’ve got to leave a space for them to step into.  You don’t force them to pick up an NPCs role or continually ask them “what do you do” but you let them know the options they have in contributing to the game world and setting and see which ones rise to the bait.  Then you encourage them and provide positive feedback (perhaps a little more specific than “rules don’t matter”) and pretty soon you may have another co-GM/creator which may encourage others in your group to follow-suit!

You know. 

Somewhere on the "About the Forge" page there should be a link to this thread.

Hi Judd,

I recently was talking to a new player of mine, and he mentioned his first experience with roleplaying was WEG's D6 Star Wars.

His group wouldn't let him play a Jedi.

Now, all of the movies are about Jedi.  Most of the videogames are about Jedi.  If you ran up on any 7 year old kid and said, "Let's play Star Wars"- you'd all be playing some Jedi.

And the "reason" his group wouldn't let ANY player play some Jedi?  "Jedi would overpower the other PCs"  "Jedi are too powerful"  "Jedi would 'ruin' the adventure/challenge/whatever" Translation:  Fear of players.  "Chicken Littling" is what I'm calling it- "If you let the players get out of control, if you let the players get too much power, then the game will explode and everyone loses."

This advice has appears in many ways, in many games, in many editions.  And it has poisoned gamer culture overall.  The GM's are afraid to let players get "too much power".  The players are afraid of what happens if they DO get too much power.  Why is it so conceptually hard to shift from GM fiat to Conflict Resolution(since that's what the rules ARE FOR)?  Because Conflict Resolution in any form means the players get the power to bring their full intents to fruition, unchecked except by the rules of resolution.

Gamers don't even trust the rules, since many games start by telling you, "Rule #1 is ignore the rules"...

Chris

The whole I-was-Jim thang bugs me.  It strikes me as condescending.

Jim does listen to his players.  That is why they think he is a miracle worker.  But what he doesn't do is ASK them.  Jim comes from a school when the DM was behind the screen, reading the air.  And we got effing good at it.

I think many indie games rock because the incorporate reading the air right into the game, into the character sheet.  Specifically, I'm talking about Sorcerer's Kickers, TRoS's Spiritual Attributes and BW's Beliefs.  These are what cut down on having to read minds and listening in on snacks breaks.  We still do read minds and we still do listen in on snack breaks but the system helps us along.

My departure from Jim's school of GMing began before I knew the Forge existed, mid-90's when I would hand NPC roles to players.  And wouldn't ya know it, the game would take turns that thrilled me, NPC's would shock me...not every once in a while but EVERY single NIGHT.

I realized that the more power I handed to the players, the better the game, the more they were invested in it.

But it took Dust Devils to cut the cord completely.

What I think is really cool is, it goes both ways. That is, sure I'm a better GM than I was since I started thinking critically about my fun. But it's also enabled me to talk about gaming with my players in ways that get them thinking critically, and it creates this awesome positive feedback loop. I posted recently on my blog about this, and here's my favorite part:

But you know what he said? This friend of mine, who I've been gaming with for about 10 years, off and on, who doesn't really game with anyone else or is into any kind of theory or anything like that? He said things like "the most interesting characters are normal people in messed up situations" and "D&D was really boring because the only time you roll dice is during fights, and thats the last 20 minutes of the session" and "the problem with fantasy games is that people don't think theres consequences for their characters actions" and "kewl powers are fun, but shouldn't be what the game is about."

You don't need to be a theory wonk to get all this stuff, you just have to be willing to talk about it and willing to think about what you find fun and what you don't.

Paka wrote: The whole I-was-Jim thang bugs me.  It strikes me as condescending.

Eric,

I hear ya.  I'm just picture Jim looking over this thread and drawing conclusions about "elitist indie gamers."

Yeah.  I have great respect for the skills of people who can (as Judd put it) "read the air."  It was never a skill that I developed to the point where I could consistently entertain people... at least not to my own satisfaction.

Honestly, a large part of the frustration that led me to look for new ways of playing was exactly that.  I would constantly be thinking "God!  I want to know what you want as players.  You want me to know what you want.  Why do I have to play some demented version of twenty questions?  What is so hard about just giving me a straight answer when I ask you?"

If I'd been more skilled, I might not feel the need for systems that make those skills unnecessary.

I think another interesting facet of this is:

I am the godfather of Jim's child.  I was the best man at his wedding.  If Jim was putting together a Gaming All-Stars Group, I'd be among his first draft picks.  Ya dig?  There's trust and love and respect between us. 

However, the way I tell him I game makes him uncomfortable.

That is effin' interesting.

So, I'm thinking about the nay-sayers, those who talk about not liking indie RPG's or talk about how some of 'em aren't even RPG's at all, the Forge hatah's and I'm thinking about Jim's discomfort.

That interests me too.

TonyLB wrote:
Yeah.  I have great respect for the skills of people who can (as Judd put it) "read the air." ...If I'd been more skilled, I might not feel the need for systems that make those skills unnecessary.

Sydney wrote:

The thing about the Indie approach -- when it works, which is, y'know, nowhere near always -- is that it's just easier.

Thanks.

And there's this thought of yours:

Paka wrote:
So, I'm thinking about the nay-sayers, those who talk about not liking indie RPG's or talk about how some of 'em aren't even RPG's at all, the Forge hatah's and I'm thinking about Jim's discomfort.....

Sydney wrote:
Possible analogy: I learned to cook from my parents, all hands-on, nothing written down. So my instinct is, "Recipes? I don't need your stinkin' recipes!" And I've got a ton of cookbooks I hardly ever use, and if I do try to use them, I tend to riff off the written recipies more than I follow them. Which is great for making the 12 things I've been making in a rotating cycle for the last five years. But boy, do my wife and I get bored with those 12 things. And if I want to branch out -- if I want to try something new -- I'm going to have to buckle down and follow the instructions in a cookbook. But, damn! I resist. Because getting new options by following someone else's instructions feels like subjecting myself to constraints, when in fact it's a path to freedom.

This is kind of "duh", but the players need to be onboard the collaboration wagon for "indie style" gaming to work.  Which is not needed for "Jim style" GMing.  (Ick, I hate those labels.)

For example, in our game the current GM has himself a setting wherein an ancient continent rose up out of the sea and a great hurricane hovers over it.  Now, I have myself a character that can control the weather.  I refuse to play my character than can control the weather, so I'm playing someone else and conjuring up believable excuses for her not to be there.  I suspect it would only de-escalate whatever conflicts occur and flatten the setting (no idea if it would, but why risk it?).  Often, you have to act subtler, but this kind of behavior from the players is necessary to have escalating conflict that doesn't end up with a final battle against a giant shark with a laser on its head.

The fix to players who aren't assisting in creation is various methods of GM force like character power limits ("No Jedi!") and illusionism.  If you expect the GMs at cons to be bad, expect the players to be equally poor and GMs to try to compensate (which they have a responsibility to do).  Tony said up around post two that you need to stop programming people to resist collaboration before it'll ever happen though.

(Side note:  Jim sounds like he can run action, which is probably a big factor in him being a good GM.  People seem to have a lot of trouble running engaging action - mostly due to poor turn management and failure to escalate.  Not really related to the player empowerment discussion, but...)

I think I see where folks are going with this but, frankly, is "Jim-style" so bad? The original poster doesn't seem to think so, but other respondants poo a little on it. I actually kinda prefer Jim-style - just enough rope to hang myself, with the occassional prompting from the GM for stuff to do, and some freedom fries mixed in for good measure.

I ran into a few sessions of "non Jim-style" RPGing some time ago and felt myself at a loss for what to do with it. On the one hand, pretty nifty stuff - had some more freedom than usual, no set story. On the other hand, I spent the first three sessions trying to get a grip on who my character was, motivations, etc etc. Felt like somehwat wasted time to me - if I'd had a few solid concepts to start with, then maybe it'd be different. But I didn't, and there I was, flapping in the wind.

I'm not happy with the triumphalism either.  I have defended the auteur-GM in the past and will do so again.

Lets take the No Jedi thing to start with.  I have done this, I am not ashamed, and I would do it again.  Bankuei wrote:

Now, all of the movies are about Jedi.  Most of the videogames are about Jedi.  If you ran up on any 7 year old kid and said, "Let's play Star Wars"- you'd all be playing some Jedi.

And the "reason" his group wouldn't let ANY player play some Jedi?  "Jedi would overpower the other PCs"  "Jedi are too powerful"  "Jedi would 'ruin' the adventure/challenge/whatever" Translation:  Fear of players.  "Chicken Littling" is what I'm calling it- "If you let the players get out of control, if you let the players get too much power, then the game will explode and everyone loses."

I think what interests me in the conversation wasn't so much changing Jim nor showing him the light but the fact that two gamers who gamed together for years have grown apart.  That the way we GM in many ways reflects the way we live a little.

I am not here to change him,though I do want to game with him again, show him how I do things and confront what bothers him about it.  We can't really have a dialogue about it until he plays a game.

But the frightening part for me is that he might just not like it.  We might sit at different tables now.  That'd be odd.  I don't think that'll be the way it is but that possibility is there.

Classic advice people get early in the stay here on the Forge is "If you and Biff (or whoever) don't like gaming together, don't game together."  Everyone is eager to take that advice regarding people they've never enjoyed gaming with.  But yeah, it's hard, hard, hard to think about the fact that the advice is just as applicable to people you used to have a ball with, but now don't.  I'm right there with you on the feeling.

Hopefully this is still on topic. I've run into situations where my gaming friends think I, our resident indie-techniques guy, am the auteur. I keep telling them I'm really not, but they don't hear it.

One of my players keeps telling me what a genius I am for creating such complex plots that draw in all the characters. (Don't worry, my head isn't about to swell. I love the guy, but he's prone to hyperbole.) The thing is, and I've told him this, there is no plot. I put a lot of work into the R-Map and Bangs at the start of the campaign, but by now it's running mostly on player steam. I've told them this. But he still thinks that in order for me to have pushed everyones buttons and gotten them so involved in play, I'm a master illusionist and mind-reader. I say, "Dude, I'm running this out of the book," but it's not heard.

I've got another player who runs a traditional D&D game on the weekends. The way he plays with us on Wednesdays is drastically different from how he GMs on Sundays, and he enjoys both. That's awesome, I'm not trying to convert anybody. And then I hear about how his girlfriend came into town and played a one-shot D&D game with his group, and she didn't enjoy it. I've seen this girl's web site. In five minutes I could see she's a big freeformer who prioritizes character development over everything else. And when I ask him why she didn't have fun, he points to particular issues with the mechanics. I'm thinking, "Dude, she has a big neon sign over her head that says "Exploration of character is my thing" and you guys put her in a dungeon crawl with pregenerated characters?" But I don't say anything, because I don't want to be nosy.

I guess what I'm saying with all this verbiage is that my game's fun because I talk to the players before, during, and after about what they're enjoying. Then I give them more of that. I don't read subtle cues and adjust upcoming plot points to suit -- I give them what they say they like. And they've got this mindset that game stuff is game stuff, and outside stuff isn't, and when they meet it's a happy coincidence. Paka's mentor seems to be saying he knows that, but he thinks mixing them takes away from the experience. That's an understandable point of view. My buddies are hung up at a place where they don't see you can do it.

Andrew wrote: Hopefully this is still on topic. I've run into situations where my gaming friends think I, our resident indie-techniques guy, am the auteur. I keep telling them I'm really not, but they don't hear it.

Raven, I'd love to hear more about that conversation when the light bulbs went off. Please post about it -- likely in a new thread --  if you're able!

Paka wrote: I am not here to change him,though I do want to game with him again, show him how I do things and confront what bothers him about it.  We can't really have a dialogue about it until he plays a game.

Noon wrote:
Why do you want to confront what bothers him about your style?

And in doing so, wouldn't you be also confronting what bothers you about his style?

This is a really interesting point where two RPG cultures who had previously diverged, come back into contact. Why are they? What is happening at this point?

Andrew wrote:
The thing is, and I've told him this, there is no plot. I put a lot of work into the R-Map and Bangs at the start of the campaign, but by now it's running mostly on player steam. I've told them this. But he still thinks that in order for me to have pushed everyones buttons and gotten them so involved in play, I'm a master illusionist and mind-reader. I say, "Dude, I'm running this out of the book," but it's not heard.

Marco wrote:
I call that prep-work "plot."

I consider any NPC action taken as a result of starting situation (i.e. NPC plans that they act on) to be part of the plot. Any complex response to PC actions that the GM is constructing in a fashion so as to be dramatic, interesting, and/or engaging is "plotting." Just because, around here, plot means "railroaded adventure" (to some degree) doesn't mean everyone does.

Matt: I'll work on writing that post tomorrow. I want to dig out some of the e-mails that were exchanged to refresh myself regarding the points of the discussion that led to the lightbulbs.

Marco wrote: I call that prep-work "plot." I consider any NPC action taken as a result of starting situation (i.e. NPC plans that they act on) to be part of the plot.

Alan wrote:
Okay, as a fiction author, I can't let this blantant misuse of the word "plot" to pass.  "Plot" specifically refers to a set sequence of events that unfolds in a story.  R-maps and other preparation are not that.  Rather than mis-use a word, and so invite continual misunderstanding, why don't we find something more accurate?  Like "starting situation" or "initiate state"?

Marco wrote:
This is important: Jim's assessment of his players may well be dead on. I certainly wouldn't use every technique I know with every player I've ever played with. If Jim is saying "well, that stuff sounds kinda radical and I'm not sure it'd work out so well" (my paraphrase from what I've understood) it's because he's got a dead-on reason to think so: no technique is a guaranteed success with every group--no matter how well designed the game.

If he's sayin' that certain techniques can't work *with any* group--or are just plain doomed to failure, then I can't agree with that--but that isn't what I got.

-Marco

While what Marco states is true, it may also be that a person doing so is simply afraid to try it for whatever reason (outside their comfort zone, paradigmatically opposed to what they believe, etc.), and thus dimissing it out of hand or constructing arguments to support that feeling. Unfortunately, if that is the case, even trying such things will not improve the situation, because...well, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. Basically, they'll simply prove themself right because they don't want or desire to be proven wrong for whatever reason.

As Tony noted: mistrust is self-reinforcing, either because we don't want to and we aren't open to new things (which may or may not be a bad thing), or because we're really afraid of them and what accepting them as valid might do to everything we believe about the way the world works.

So, there's really two things going on here:
1) LIKING something new and different. (ie: I prefer peas and ice cream, and have never had a hamburger.)
2) ACCEPTING something new and different. (ie: People don't believe that Jesus Christ is the savior!?)

Absolutely no-one has to do #1: "Ok, I can see why you like Sim games. I don't, though."
The problem is with #2: "Sim games are the devil! No one could possibly play and enjoy them!"

Hrm, let's use religion, then, to describe this: for example, I am pagan, to my relatives' dismay. They don't have to convert to Wicca themselves (#1), but they sure do have to accept my personal religious choice as valid (#2). My father had serious trouble with this, and my aunt and grandmother cannot accept it at all (the former continues to proclaim that it is devil-worship and other weird claims, despite education to the contrary from numerous Christian and non-Christian individuals; the latter simply ignores it and acts as though the situation doesn't exist, I still get cards that say "God Bless You" on them), because it entails reevaluation of their own choices (not necessarily making new choices, though a posssibility, but finding new supports for their original choice) and thinking about some issues they may not want to confront. #2 is bad because not being able to deal with reality when reality disagrees with you is always a bad thing.

I don't really know where Jim stands, and I don't care to guess, but it is something to keep in mind when talking with the Jims of the world (ie: everybody): you have to figure out what the situation really is. Is it dealing with a #1 situation? Fine, if they try it and they don't like it, or don't need it, they can just go on their merry way. Or is it a #2 situation? It isn't that they don't like it, it's that the idea of it scares the hell out of them and they don't want to even get to the point of seeing if they like it or not.

It might seem like they're just gradations of the same thing, but they are, in reality, worlds apart, and completely different situations both internally and externally. The same behaviors that work to resolve and deal with a #1 situation, whether or not the individual ends up liking the thing in question, will not resolve or deal with a #2 situation, because it really isn't about the thing in question at all.

Paka wrote: We were never out of touch but we've lived in different states for almost ten years now.  Still, we have weekly phone conversations at least, often to discuss our gaming.  However, our feedback to one another seems to be more and more distant.  We still help each other out but it ins't like it used to be.  Our styles have diverged.

Therein lies the issue, I think - and why I don't think Jim is wrong or lesser for his views - that not all of us agree that RPing in a "freeform" or "plotless" way is the best way. Because playing in a certain style at the table does take a certain view, it can be downright difficult to discuss something when the whole worldview on it is different. I'll give a somewhat recent example.

In a group I used to play with until very recently (I'm leaving the country, after all), one of our members was really into DitV and Sorceror. Said player was especially keen on the Bang-starting aspects of Sorceror and the definite "escalating" die-mechanics going on in DitV (I imagine he'd read some stuff on the Forge as well since he'd mentioned the whole GNS model bit before). Now, these are all well and good. However, my problem game (and what ultimately bummed me out as a GM) was Ars Magica - we were all new to it. We had a chargen session that was hard for all of us to get (or rather, I got CG but did not explain it well to the group, despite having copied many pages from the book to help it).

During the character session, they hashed out so ideas for the game and what they wanted their characters to do and what sort of game we wanted. Somewhat non-traditional scenario for Ars, but what the heck, I thought? We came up with some background stuff and why we wanted what we wanted (and eveyone participated, including me). Things we set, or so I thought.

So, we get to the character session and, bang, so the player tells us: "I have a cool idea from Sorceror. Let's use the bang-starting points. Everyone has to come up with bangs to start off the scenario." Now, this might have been cool otherwise, but it left me, the GM, with no obvious idea on how to go with things. Based on what the players had told me the two weeks before, I'd come up with the "Start" in the manner they had basically procribed (with a very sketchy plot laid out, and everything from there decided by the PCs). We sort of did it, and again, I'm sure it was supposed to be cool and amazing, but it just left me feeling left out and pointless - why go through all of this scenario hashing to have it blownup in the first 2 minutes of the session? Again, for the players, maybe this was cool, but it was not for me, killing my enjoyment as a GM.

The rest of the session went from there, with me floundering about and not sure what to do based on the character's bang beginnings. I had no idea, at that point, what they wanted, despite the few hours we'd spent in the last session discussing exactly that! I really was left feeling cold about the whole thing. This was my group, a very good group, with whom any amount of trust to do things well could be placed. We'd played numerous games together over the last five years, but this stuff threw me off in a bad way.

Now, maybe I'm too old (only 30!) but while I like some of the stuff I see here, I am feeling more like Jim and less like the rest of you. I enjoy theory and such, but only where it intersects with reality - and telling me that as a GM my only job is to react to what the players do, with no imput to the game from the GM, is just boring and wrong. The GM is a player too, not a sounding board or a reaction robot. I realize I won't be popular but this is what I feel. I like to try new things (witness my love of Burning Wheel) but not if it's just all-or-nothing-love. Do the Forgite way or no way. Not my style, this is.

To the original poster - Don't worry about it. I think you and your mentor can still game, and talk - just be ready to have fun different than usual. Maybe after some exposure he'll like some of what you do - and you may rediscover you loike of the other way you used to play.

Mencelus wrote:
Now, maybe I'm too old (only 30!) but while I like some of the stuff I see here, I am feeling more like Jim and less like the rest of you. I enjoy theory and such, but only where it intersects with reality - and telling me that as a GM my only job is to react to what the players do, with no imput to the game from the GM, is just boring and wrong. The GM is a player too, not a sounding board or a reaction robot. I realize I won't be popular but this is what I feel. I like to try new things (witness my love of Burning Wheel) but not if it's just all-or-nothing-love. Do the Forgite way or no way. Not my style, this is.

I have to agree with Jim, though I'm not sure our reasons for using more structure are the same. Basically, I like to play or run something where something is guaranteed to happen and it flows together logically. It's baffling to me that anyone wants to play something so free form that no one knows what's happening or where it's going. I am an absolute hard-core "gamist" and I wouldn't want to play any other way, it would be a waste of my time. If I tried it, it would be for a novelty or to compare the experience with what I usually do, and try to get something of it. I have played these types of games before, and am thankful they usually fizzled early and we could get back to something more exciting. Fortunately, the people I play with agree.

I think the best thing to do is recognize you and Jim differ in how you like to play, and instead focus on what you each contribute, rather than focussing on your differences. I think people with different views can create the most wonderful dialogues and discover exciting new things by discussing their POV and why they think that way. Capitalize on your differences, and if Jim comes by, each of you should run each other. Instead of focussing on why you're different, look at the pros and cons of each style of play. The rule should be you don't have to win about what's better, you just have to have fun playing and discussing play.

Judd,

I've been thinking a lot about this thread and spent a bit of time reading it and re-reading it.  Partially out of a twang of guilt for accidentally pointing it down the "Jim's Way vs. Forge Way" path.  Serious case of Foot-in-Mouth disease over here.

But, in reading it all again today, something occurred to me.  You haven't really had a chance to introduce Jim to any of the Forge games yet have you?  You've just talked to him about them, right?  I really can't wait to hear how it goes when you do get to play DitV or PtA with him.  I wonder if the two of you will end up on the same page again.  I wonder if he'll come to the point where he feels like he totally understands where you're coming from, no matter what his final opinion on the games happen to be.

I'd be interested to hear Jim's reaction to GMing DitV.  The instructions to the GM in that game were like gold to me.  But I was looking for that gold.  And I'd love to hear about how it works for someone who sounds a lot like how I used to GM (a lot!) but isn't looking for that particular pot of gold.

-Eric

Wow, I'm just seeing so many off-the-wall assumptions regarding what non-traditional play is/must be like from the "I'm with Jim" folks in this thread that it's making my head spin. Frex, Ria says "something so free form that no one knows what's happening or where it's going" and it just doesn't make any sense at all to me, because I end up scratching my head and asking, "What is this person talking about?" I mean, I KNOW that isn't what Paka is talking about, and I know that "Forge games" don't work/play like that, so...eh?

In fact, the description "something where something is guaranteed to happen and it flows together logically" sounds closer to the game play I've gotten from so-called "Forge philosophy gaming" than any of my traditional gaming experiences with old style D&D and White Wolf groups. In the latter, I've always complained that the problem was that things were never guaranteed to happen, or rather, we were lucky when things did happen, and we never got to see how it all fit together because most of that stuff was "GM's eyes only". Along for the ride and hoping for the best.

Chiming in to back up Raven here. It may just be a terminology matter, but to me (and I think many others on this board) 'freeform' suggests play without rules in which anything anyone playing says goes into the shared imagined space unless someone else playing disagrees. Freeform is the type of play Vincent and co. have described in discussions about their Ars Magica game, in which they ditched the rules.

This does not characterize most games that are discussed at The Forge, as far as I can tell. Many games developed by Forge participants are in fact very highly structured. For instance, Dogs in the Vineyard is a very highly structured game that is very far from freeform.

Yet, at the same time, a GM running dogs would be hard pressed to 'guarantee' that something happens in the game, unless he opens the game with that thing having just happened.

Hiya,

I'll go one step farther. Most of this conversation is bordering on stupid, or at the least, hot-button reactions.

Judd, see if you can find a nugget in here for starting another thread. It's likely that you are finished saying what you're saying, but in part, perhaps you can see that you did not provide any framework or question for people to evaluate their responses. Maybe take a day or so to try again.

I'm closing this thread now.

Best,
Ron

Really? I'm sorry that you think so sir, but I found the conversation rather interesting and have been checking it regularly since it started. With people still answering and such, I think that a lot of other people don't find it boring either.

It seems that no one is being evil or nasty or vindictive - see my own posts for the closest one comes to this. I had imagined (and perhaps I was wrong) that this was an open forum for the purpose of discussing various gaming related matters, and in this specific case, as it relates to RPG theory and the theory that sits under the games we play.

I'm a little offended that you find stupid something that I think was an interesting conversation. My understanding is that a moderator of a board's job is to "moderate" the board, not mandate what is stupid or not, and to allow discussion of such topics until the thread dies naturally of itself. If we were being nasty and rude and being racist nutcases, I could understand, but otherwise?

On a side note, I hope that no one here is taking things personally. If my own comments caused any discomfort, I am sorry. I do note, however, that two "heavyweights" have come on the thread to make sure and tell us that we're wrong, which I also find a bit offensive. If a mistake was made in terminalogy, then it should be, as Thor has done, corrected, and at least their interpretation given.

I hope that I am simply misreading what you wrote Mr. Edwards. In that case, I apologize, but your own post seems just as reactionary as the rest of the posts here.

Thread's closed = no more posting to it. If you don't like a moderation event, then contact me privately.

People also need to recognize that their preconceptions of what moderating is, and how forums work, simply need to be left at the door when you come here. This is a different place.

To repeat: no more posting to this thread.

Best,
Ron