In a flash of enlightenment, Callan quoth...

Callan wrote: ...the players want freedom AND engaging content. Essentially two mutually exclusive goals. ....

Hm.  I see a lot of holes in this correlation of desire for previously prepared engaging content vs. "freedom."

The first is freedom to do what?  The term is very vague and can mean different things in different designs.  It has been observed that many Narrativist designs restrict certain kinds of player choices enormously (character generation choices for example).  Likewise, a gamist game like Rune restricts what character's can be and do.  Meanwhile, what's called "freeform" play, often touted as "ruless" usually produces Simulationist play.

Likewise, prepreared engaging content seems unrelated to GNS.  Games like The Riddle of Steel and HeroQuest have large amounts of pre-preared engaging content.  Sorcerer depends on creating such content.  The largely gamist games of Tunnels and Trolls and D&D3e require lots of advance preparation, which must be engaging or the players will wander out of the scenario.  Meanwhile, again, "freeform" simulationst play may have no preparation at all.

Sure creative agendas require certain specific freedoms:freedom to address premise, freedom to step on up, freedom to celebrate the ideal.  But is any particular degree of other specific freedom or amount of prepreared content defnitive of a Creative Agenda?  I think w've had these discussions before and the answer has been CA is not defined by techniques.

I don't think that freedom-vs-content is a real dichotomy, even at the "module design" stage.

That doesn't, however, necessiarily make it easy to design modules with "a lot of freedom"--the key missing element is knowing what content will interest/properly engage the characters and their players and presenting enough background information to give the GM a complete data-set from which to extrapolate it. When I am preping for play with a group I know and characters I am familiar with, I think it's easy to create highly free, very engaging situations for them to interact with.

Freedom in traditional RPGs is, IME, limited by two major factors:

1. The GM's raw ability to extrapolate unexpected circumstances.
2. The GM's level of interest in quickly mutating situations (i.e. if the GM considers the characters sitting at home, doing nothing and having no force act on them to be a degenerate situation then the game may halt if the players decide that's what will happen).

Neither of these are explicitly content related, of course (and they certainly aren't CA related) but they do represent limits on how games can develop.

-Marco

What you seem to be saying, Marco, is that the idea that when one writes an adventure, one is presenting a set of information that is in any way complete is an illusion; what you're really giving the GM is a bunch of building blocks, out of which to build the content portion of the game experience.

Have I got that?

I dunno if that's what Marco is saying, but I'd concur.  Game Design is not about controlling player options but about providing opportunities for player options.  The set of options supported will never be equal or greater to the set of options available to the players, however.  If you're "lucky" your players will be uncreative dullards and you'll write more content than they'll avail themselves to, but guess how often that happens?

I wrote a couple supplements of Tribe 8, some of which were cyclebooks (campaign books tied into the metaplot) in the eighth or tenth iteration or so.  And while I still believe that Tribe 8's design principle was about as solid as you can get in regards to a published metaplot, the strains were pretty plain when we were writing.  It became very clear that as writers we could not write something that would be strictly followed at the game table -- either because we would be basing events off of precedents that the players may not have experienced back in cyclebook 3 or because, after so many adventures and so much XP, it was all but impossible to consider the range of options available to the characters (very similar to game prep for Mage, except not knowing the characters involved).  Instead, we relied on providing a 'this is how it could happen' snapshot with lots and lots of resources for the GM to use however she saw fit.  Thus we provided the "engaging content" without even addressing player "freedoms".  Let the GM handle that mess.

You (or Callan) is absolutely right in that (most) players want engaging content and freedom; but here's the thing -- as a game designer you are completely unable to affect player freedoms.  That will always be up to the players around the table and their particular social contract.  You can write all the rules you like, but they're only going to follow them if it fits what style of play they prefer.  The other side of the equation, however -- that's where it's at.  Provide them with all sorts of cool stuff to tinker with in whatever way they like.

I'd abandon trying to fix the 'mix' of content/freedom to different CAs.  My favorite mode of Simmy play has all the players creating the setting/world/genre collaboratively -- that would be content and freedom dialed up to the max, right?  But then, that's how I play most everything, really.  Alan's closer to target in identifying what kind of freedom is important to play in these instances, but even that is not much more than restating the definitions of the three flavors.

Vaxalon wrote:
What you seem to be saying, Marco, is that the idea that when one writes an adventure, one is presenting a set of information that is in any way complete is an illusion; what you're really giving the GM is a bunch of building blocks, out of which to build the content portion of the game experience.

Have I got that?

Okay, so forget the CA baloney.  It was an off-the-cuff attempt anyways.

I think we're both agreed that good "adventures" aren't adventures at all, but rather detailed pieces of setting with many major built-in hooks to grab the attention of the PC's and (if all goes well) the players.

Of course, that's not what most published adventures are, but what with Sturgeon's Law that's to be expected.

So what makes an adventure BETTER?

1> All setting material provided is likely to be useful, because extraneous material makes the GM work harder to familiarize himself with it during prep.
2> Most of the setting material that's highly likely to be needed is provided, to minimize the need for extrapolation.
3> The setting materiel is well integrated, well edited, and non-self-contradictory, to enable familiarization and extrapolation.
4> There are sufficient hooks to engage many different PC motives.

I'm sure there are more.

Looking through the list, this could apply to ANY sort of supplement, not just adventures. 

Looking at this list, I can see why people want to buy adventures.  Fulfilling that list, even when you're putting together an adventure for players and PC's you're already familiar with... it's not easy.  It takes a lot of creativity to pull that all together.  It seems likely to me, that a highly creative aurhor, doing weeks of work, without knowing what kind of PC's will be encountering the material, could possibly do a better job than an uncreative GM could do with a week of prep, even though he knows what kind of PC's he's playing to.

In addition, I think that including an "introductory adventure" in a game is a highly effective tool for portraying what kind of game the designer has in mind.

Vaxalon wrote: 3> The setting materiel is well integrated, well edited, and non-self-contradictory, to enable familiarization and extrapolation.

Vaxalon wrote: In addition, I think that including an "introductory adventure" in a game is a highly effective tool for portraying what kind of game the designer has in mind.

There's a difference between self-contradiction and ambiguity.

Self-contradiction is P&-P (P and not P) and I can't think of a situation where it's useful.

Ambiguity is more like Pv-P (P or not P) and you're right, it's a highly useful tool.

If I state that a character is a manic-depressive in one part of the material, and he acts like a paranoid in the rest, then I've made the GM's job harder.

Sure, there's a difference, but they can both be used:

Ambiguity: Nobody knows what's in the Creepy Cave, but terrible howls come out of it at night!

Self-Contradiction: (Part A) I been in that Creepy Cave, along with three of my friends, but I'm the only one to live to tell the tale!  There's a swarm of screaming flesh-eating bug monsters in there; I know they're flesh-eating cause they et my right arm!
Self-Contradiction: (Part B) We used to hide out in the Creepy Cave because no one would look for us in there.  When the wind blows just right, certain passages resonate and 'howl' -- it's really quite pretty if you have a bottle of wine and pleasant company.

Or simpler, Faction A's section says Faction B are murderers and cutthroats; Faction B's section says that they're just rebels fighting the Man, AKA Faction A.

As I said, in order to use Self-Contradiction, you can't have an authoritative text -- your "stating the character is manic-depressive" sounds like you're assuming it's authoritative or fundamentally correct, and if contradicted later, it does create confusion.

Marco:

Interesting article. I've always thought it was silly to make characters based around your separate, personal fantasies and then [wrench] insert them into a published module. But I could never talk anyone into playing the pre-gens. Except once. And in that one, all the pictures contained the published characters. To me, it's an ideal choice. Of course, it does nothing to repair the potential disinterest of a particular group, but at least you get better integrity between the characters and the prepared material.

For my own preferred style of play, I support your first and third goals, but not the second. At this point in my gaming history, party unity is more dysfunctional than not.

Overall, your article is accessible and will likely enhance play for groups unfamiliar with these concepts.

** ** **

Wasted prep is a terrible pain. You can lose material because things didn't go the way you'd planned or no one's interested in it. As a writer of prepared modules for a generic group, you've basically got to make some choices. When your potential buyer reads the synopsis on the back cover, hopefully that will give him an idea if it matches his interest and that of his group's. Same thing for running a one-shot at a convention. (Insert 'Event Listing.') As a GM preparing for a group he can elicit, it's good insurance to collaborate.

Depending on the system and player facility, you can also improvise. (Here, I distinguish improvisation that determes 'what play is about' and not just 'how play happens.')

Being so free that you have to enforce your own relevance can be a burden. But engaging content that has to be done my way chafes pretty awfully. You really have to have a dialogue between partakers and prosecutors of story prep. How you stage it is a matter of format and tolerance.

Bill wrote:
Marco:

Interesting article. I've always thought it was silly to make characters based around your separate, personal fantasies and then [wrench] insert them into a published module. But I could never talk anyone into playing the pre-gens. Except once. And in that one, all the pictures contained the published characters. To me, it's an ideal choice. Of course, it does nothing to repair the potential disinterest of a particular group, but at least you get better integrity between the characters and the prepared material.

For my own preferred style of play, I support your first and third goals, but not the second. At this point in my gaming history, party unity is more dysfunctional than not.

Overall, your article is accessible and will likely enhance play for groups unfamiliar with these concepts.

Heya Vax,

I'm afraid I meant the mutual exclusivity to include play as well. I agree with Alan, that 'freedom' is incredibly ambiguous in definition. That's the problem! It's usually defined in game, when adversity is introduced.

GM "Here's some adversity!"
Players "Oh, we step on up and avoid it!"
GM "You can't...it doesn't work because of fiz bam baloo"
Players "Oh, you railroading bastard!"

Further...
Players "We want to be engaged"
GM "Here's something to engage you"
Players use the ambiguity of freedom to step on up and move out of the range of engagement, figuratively running off to the nearest hill.
Players can be heard to distantly shout from yon hill "Why aren't you engaging us!?"

This leads to the following responsiblity arguement:
Players "It's your responsiblity to engage us! You failed in your responsiblity!"
GM "You want freedom! What you do with it is your responsiblity!"
Both parties "Neener neener neener! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!1!!"

And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

I'll quote Mike from the recent Anatomy of a railroad thread, because it lays it out neatly and I'd just ramble in an example:

I haven't read the hackmaster version of this particular module, but I'm betting that it says this stuff, just much more explicitly. Now this example is specific to linear scenario railroading, but not all modules will have that. I'm not saying that they all, or even most of them, promote railroading. Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, for example is just a map, and one that can be entered from many points, in fact. So it doesn't have railroading subtext. But it has other challenge related subtext. For example, there's a long explanation for why the steading can't simply be burnt down, no matter what the PCs bring to bear. The subtext of which is, "Don't allow the players to avoid going through the dungeon crawl by using creative means. They have to go inside and kill the giants, one by one."

Joshua wrote:
That is, the setting material does not need to avoid self-contradiction.  In fact, a little self-contradiction and ambiguity can actually yield more content to be roleplayed in and around.  After all, if there's an open question, you can roleplay answering it.  Even better, your PCs can disagree about it.  Misunderstandings and alternate interpretations can create conflicts galore.  In order to employ this method, however, setting material must be from a non-authoritative source: from the point of view of an individual or individuals, using in-game myths and oral traditions, or similar.  If the source material is questionable, then the players get to question it!

Callan wrote:
And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

Callan:

Go, Ritalin. I've had this same issue pop up. Once, with a newbie player in a Sorcerer campaign, and more recently, in a space opera campaign with a new group of seasoned players. I haven't really suffered from a black curtain making freedom ambiguous, at least not in any game I've ran since 2002. But I have had issues, as recently as last month, with players arguing for greater freedom when it suits them. And then for tighter control when they're not engaged.

The newbie in my Sorcerer campaign literally made a character based around getting out of dangerous situations. How do you deal with someone like this? Without thinking about it too much, I put him in one dangerous situation after another. Not surprisingly, he commanded his demon to escape them. "Calgon, take me away!" He was having a great time, and so was I. His story wasn't taking any direction along the track of figuring out who killed his parents or finding a new mommie. (He was playing a five-year old girl.) But as long as he was happy, I didn't care. Then he started noticing how the more experienced players' stories developed and exploded into action as they dove into risky situations. And he started complaining about not knowing what to do and how nothing was happening. He had become luggage for other characters. (And brother, did that character get passed around.) So he summoned a combat pawn and started looking for a fight. Unconcerned, I framed him into another variation on finding a mom: being admitted to the state adoption facility. He interrupted me five times as I introduced the setup. Finally, I had to tell him to be quiet and let me move his character where I wanted; none of this stuff is important yet. As soon as he got off the leash, his combat demon barreled into the passer janitor, who entrapped the girl, whose dimension-hopping demon whisked them all away to a room full of stars, etc.

In the space opera my new group just finished, my friend was GMing. Talk about a bitch fit over freedom and lack of engaging play. Their idea of player input was arguing over the plausibility of GM narration. We literally spent 90% of our time doing just that. Another 8% was devoted to complaints about having to hang out for hours, waiting for another player to finish arguing with the GM before they could start arguing. And probably another 1% was bathroom breaks and ordering pizza. Do I sound bitter?

Marco:

I agree. If they burn the steading and the GM is less than unflappable, they should expect to collaborate on authoring new material.

Marco wrote:

Callan wrote:
And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

I've played in fun, functional games where the PCs have avoided adversity, overcome the challenge by creative means, and so on. The reason why this works, when this works is that everyone takes responsibility for their actions (this, not surprisingly, is what is missing in most dysfunction). If the PCs overcome "the dungeon" then they know that they have to come up with something else interesting to do. When the GM provides adversity he understands that if it doesn't engage the players it isn't profitable game material.

A best-effort attempt on both sides is all that's necessary, IME, for relaible, great "do anything" gaming (in quotes because if you take responsiblity for your actions there are, of course, some actions you won't take--but this is not an illusion or a state of denial).

I think your assessment of the black curtain is based on the unwarranted assumption that there will be powerstruggle inherent at the table (perhaps that is where your hardcore gamist stance comes in).

Callan wrote:
Dude, your just talking about the same thing as the hand shake agreement to not burning the steading. Different contract, same sort of hand shake! :)

I think if two or more people think they can use something, but have not set up any way of sharing it or determining who does own it, there's a power struggle all set up, even if no one realises it yet.

What about this:

The GM has a private, non-explicit rule that the steading cannot be burned down.  If the players propose that they burn the steading down, then the GM veto's that plan, but at the same time says "Bravo, it is a good plan, but I can't allow it for continuity reasons.  Have this fistful of XP instead."

The point here is that the cunning of trying to burn the stead down is rewarded, and the players blatantly bribed to go along with restriction.  Does that seem like a viable contract?

I can't believe I'm reading this here.

Why not cut to the chase? Why not have characters with motivations and resources be the antagonists, rather than random events?

Use a Conflict Resolution system! Does running over the hill win them their stakes? No? Then they won't do it! Yes? Then everyone's happy!

The problem here is that you're trying to do something good with a system that's bad for it: a system that uses Task Resolution so the players avoid the Tasks because it's a surefire way to avoid the possibility of failure. It's dysfunctional play stemming from dysfunctional rules.

Is there something I'm missing here? Why is this still up for debate?

contracycle:

Not to me. I'd either say "No, I need you to confront them directly because that's how the module is plotted" or "Should there be a follow up confrontation between the giants whose home you've destroyed, or by 'burn down the steading' did you mean 'also burn the giants alive?' And if it's 'burn the giants,' are you wanting to entertain the possibility that they may escape your arson? And if you're cool with angry giant-based follow up, who has an idea for the reprisal?" Of course, if they answer, "No, we meant 'roast them with no possibility of escape,'" I'm cool with that; but after they finish high-fiving and touchdown dancing, I'm basically gonna be like, "Ok. Your main level bosses are now charred corpses. Anyone have anything else? 'cause most of the rest of this is no longer relevant."

glyphmonkey:

Consider it an exercise in drift. I don't think the balance between freedom of action and engaging content is righted and maintained simply by using conflict resolution.

Bill wrote:
contracycle:

Not to me. I'd either say "No, I need you to confront them directly because that's how the module is plotted" or "Should there be a follow up confrontation between the giants whose home you've destroyed, or by 'burn down the steading' did you mean 'also burn the giants alive?' And if it's 'burn the giants,' are you wanting to entertain the possibility that they may escape your arson? And if you're cool with angry giant-based follow up, who has an idea for the reprisal?" Of course, if they answer, "No, we meant 'roast them with no possibility of escape,'" I'm cool with that; but after they finish high-fiving and touchdown dancing, I'm basically gonna be like, "Ok. Your main level bosses are now charred corpses. Anyone have anything else? 'cause most of the rest of this is no longer relevant."

Consider it an exercise in drift. I don't think the balance between freedom of action and engaging content is righted and maintained simply by using conflict resolution.

I'm cool. I play lots of different systems with a number of different groups. I get a variety of play experiences. I was participating in a more general sense.

BTW, I don't disavow conflict resolution. I just think that even with it, even using a system like DitV, there will still be a push and pull of "free me!" and engage me!"

Bill wrote:
I'm cool. I play lots of different systems with a number of different groups. I get a variety of play experiences. I was participating in a more general sense.

BTW, I don't disavow conflict resolution. I just think that even with it, even using a system like DitV, there will still be a push and pull of "free me!" and engage me!"

I mostly agree with you Joshua, but, then, I would. That is I think there are valid ways to play with certain of these sorts of restrictions. I don't even have a problem with the rule about burning the stead.

On all of this, I do think it's an CA issue, but Fred is approaching it sorta backwards. Basically, Callan identified it correctly, this is the railroading issue. That is, it's not "freedom" that players want, it's an opportunity to express some CA. The thing is that many prep methods don't support a CA. They may aim at one, but they don't provide opportunities for interaction.

This is the old stuff about general premise (not nar premise) and "protagonism" (which I think is a terrible term). Basically the player has to be allowed to participate in the game somehow on a level that's engaging to them. That seems unbelievably obvious, but it's amazing how many modules don't seem to allow for any participation on the CA level.

The Steading is not one of these. The old D&D mode is just fine at producing solid gamism. The "no burning the steading" rule is actually a good one, intended to define the parameters of the contest. If we were playing Monopoly, and somebody said, "I want to invest in the stock market - what, that's what I'd do in real life?" would you let them invest? No. The parameters of the competition are well defined.

The problem with the "no burning the Steading rule" is not in what it sets out to do, but in how it does it. That is, unlike the rules for Monopoly, which are very clear about how to go about the challenge, and what is allowed and what is not, the Steading assumes that since its an RPG, players are allowed to have their characters do "anything." Well, here's the mistake. That is, either they should simply decide to limit the game to less than "everything" in a metagame way, or they need to allow "everything" and ensure in another way that the burning option is not a cheap way to win the competition.

Gareth has it right, if you simply go the metagame rout, it works fine. But some players won't like that. Because they assume "everything" is available. The thing is that in D&D, "everything" is explicitly not available. For example, there are no rules for running for office, ousting the current king, and then simply taking an army up to the steading. The text, in fact, says, "Start" and puts the characters at the door, the King having put them there. So there's obviously some metagame agreement about what's going on here.

The rules of the RPG in question limit the scope of what the game play is about. Playing outside of the rules is metagaming to win, which was discussed in another thread recently. That can work for some people, but is largely considered to be dysfunctional for most.

Basically there are better and worse ways to set the limits of what play is about, and to give opportunities for participation. Using the metagame as an arena for competiton on this as opposed to the table for agreement on the limits of what play is about is highly problematic to say the least (though I won't call it automatically dysfunctional). Using the metagame to agree on things like what the arena of conflict is, or what stakes exist, etc is where I see good game designs happening lately.

Mike

Heya again, Marco,

The reason I don't think it's the same is that an agreement not to burn the steading is an absolute agreement. The idea that I can burn/not-burn depending on how I am willing to address the situation is a dynamic one (IMO). I can, in fact, take "any action" so long as I am willing to put up other actions or accept certain consequences.

Hi Joshua,

The problem here is that you're trying to do something good with a system that's bad for it: a system that uses Task Resolution so the players avoid the Tasks because it's a surefire way to avoid the possibility of failure. It's dysfunctional play stemming from dysfunctional rules.

It seems like this opposition only arises in a very specific case: When preparation prevents the preparer from knowing what content will engage the players, and what they will disengage from.

The solution to this should be obvious.

Callan wrote:
Heya again, Marco,

The reason I don't think it's the same is that an agreement not to burn the steading is an absolute agreement. The idea that I can burn/not-burn depending on how I am willing to address the situation is a dynamic one (IMO). I can, in fact, take "any action" so long as I am willing to put up other actions or accept certain consequences.

Yes, but their entirely meta game consequences, aren't they? It's not like the dungeon module that states "if a character tries to teleport past the challenge, his brain fries and he looses INT points". It's "If a character tries to teleport, tell him it's now his job to bust out the graph paper and make up a new challenge himself!". Rather than the agreement being 'absolute', what matters is whether it explicitly refers to metagame consequences.

Shreyas wrote:
It seems like this opposition only arises in a very specific case: When preparation prevents the preparer from knowing what content will engage the players, and what they will disengage from.

The solution to this should be obvious.

I think he's just saying that the GM should conference with the players prior to or during prep. I had to search through some threads (since the glossary failed me on this occasion) to get a bead on No Myth. That's an interesting concept. I've made applications of that approach for sub-plot management. I think I first read about it in Story Engine. There's a line in the book somewhere that says "wherever the PC is, that's where the story should be happening." Something like that.

I think what Mike said is starting to sink in. Going out of bounds flouts the contest. It's not even taking a different path to victory. I"m really feeling the weight the text must bear in spelling out the kind of play it supports. In a game I played this weekend, my character was walking through one level of a complex of random encounters. They were intended to harry and pester. Instead of keeping my nose clean, I went off on a lark trying to befriend a monster. And just like a comic works details he gleans from a crowd into his jokes, play later referenced that creature significantly. Very Sim. Very not the point of the scenario.

In another case, my characters came across a gorgeous, fiery orange flower bloom and a tempting cluster of golden berries in the center of a palmy bush. Well, obviously, these were threats in waiting, but rather than keeping safe, I acted as though I couldn't resist inhaling what must be a heavenly scent or tasting what was surely most succulent fruit. To me, the scenario would have been much better if the text just said one of our guys smells the flower and is poisoned, only to be revived by the juice of golden berries. And only he can execute the sequence to open the portal leading out of the atrium. Then we'd have to face the saw frond-waving plant monster. Of course, without edits, avoiding anything enticing would do as well. It would just be rather boring.

Bill wrote:
I think what Mike said is starting to sink in. Going out of bounds flouts the contest. It's not even taking a different path to victory.

Mike wrote: Set expectations in a clearly metagame fashion by having agreement amongst the participants.

Or, erm, what Shreyas didn't say.

Mike

First of all, I'd like to correct a factual issue.  My copy of The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief includes pretty clear instructions about fire, including functional instructions if the PCs burn it down.  The steading is located in a very damp region where it rains or drizzles most days -- so there is only a small chance of being able to successfully light it on fire.  However, if they succeed in burning it then the module instructs that the giants will all have retreated to the first rooms of the dungeon level.  Given the setup, this all seems quite reasonable.  It is not a very good option for the PCs (nor does it seem to be), but it is allowed for and doesn't break the module if players do it. 

Mike wrote:
So Shreyas is right, the way to fix this is to talk about it in the open. The in-game relation of the limitations on play is, as Gareth points out, problematic. Beause what it can say to the player is that, in fact, it is a challenge for the player to try and find a way to fistfight out of the basketball game. By saying that they can't do it because of circumstances, says that there might be another way to take out the steading that written circumstances do not address. For instance, perhaps the player asks, "Is there snow on the mountain above the vale in which the stead exists? Well, if it won't burn, then how about we cause an avalanche?" The text doesn't say that they can't do that. Again, the subtext of the "can't burn it down" is that we want them to go inside and treat the steading like a dungeon. But if that's not made clear in metagame terms, players may miss the fact.

John wrote: I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.

Shreyas wrote:

John wrote: I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.

I think a more useful interpretation of these statements is that you cannot use in-game cause to guarantee that players behave in one way or another; you need explicit player agreement for that.

Discarding game cause and effect entirely seems to be a sort of radical and unproductive reading of Mike's statements.

I don't have a strong opinion about whether that technique works or not; I do not enjoy it, so I only use it accidentally.

Hi John,

Just need to ask something to figure out relative positons, and quoting you for context.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.  So, for example, rather than designing so that the characters have a good reason to go on the adventure -- it's better to instead ask the players to negotiate metagame that they go on the adventure.  If that's really what you're saying, then I have to disagree.  In fact, that sounds like a design approach that I hate.

Shreyas wrote:
The others are "stop preparing; create all content at need" and "prepare collaboratively", which is to say, "the traditional GM role's preparation responsibilities are ill-concieved and inefficient for engaging the players' interest."

Callan wrote:
I read this web comic once where a player was declaring they were going to beat the other player in a video game, without using the kick button. And after that, they were going to beat them without using the punch button!

Now, the game didn't restrict them from using the kick button, or the punch button. But would you hate it if someone else actually challenged you not to use the kick button, to beat a bad guy in the game?

I'll be a bit presumptuous. Is something like the kick button or steading burning, part of the exploration for you? Their removal actually removes the point of play for you?

I'm really not getting through here. My point that I made at length is that it's about player expectation about how they're allowed to negotiate. If, in fact, everybody agrees that "the character can do anything" and that all "negotiation" will be in-game as you prefer, John, then that's fine. It's just that this is often not the case.

So what I'm saying must be agreed on is the "meta-meta-game," possibly. The "how do we agree on what the characters can do?" (other than Lumpley). Do we agree by using metagame methods? Or do we agree by using in-game methods? This is what has to be established in the metagame, because the characters certainly aren't going to get it. Rather, using subtle in-game techniques to force a certain method of arena negotiation is only valid if everyone has agreed that it's a valid way to go. And further, whether or not players are allowed to "play back" this way.

Put another way, agreements between players should be made in the metagame, not by using in-game devices to imply things to the players. It's actually far more complicated than this, because, of course, every maneuver you make with a character is actually negotiated to some extent. There is no "in-game" just a set of agreed to constructs called system that allow us to avoid most overt negotiation.

As to the specific example of the Steading, that came up in another thread, and I was doing it from memory. The specific text is not important, however, so much as my personal reading of it and what I did with it. That is, this thread is about how negotiations occur. Whether or not I did a good reading of the module in question (sounds like I didn't) is immaterial here. What's important is that I made the mistake of trying to limit the players options using an in-game ruling, which informed them that they could do the same thing. When what I wanted was for them to just "play the module." I'm sure I could have accomplished what I wanted, had I had an agreement with the players created on the metagame level to just "play along."

Or you would have done it right, because you would have already had an agreement created somehow with your players that they were, in fact, allowed to do things like burn down the steading, or anything else that their characters could reasonably do.

Mike

I think the issues slipped from meta game agreement to agenda clash, here. In the same way an explicit metagame agreement that 'we'll roll the dice, but you will automatically win all the battles anyway' would remove gamist content, an explicit 'no burning of the steading, okay' agreement removes sim content. The metagame agreement isn't the issue at all.

John, hope this doesn't just look like labeling. But not being able to use the kick button is supposed to be irritating for a gamist agenda...that's what makes it great when you overcome the obstacle, the fact that you beat this annoying thing! When a player doesn't strive for that day they overcome the problem and instead is just rubbed the wrong way by it, I'd say it's something else other than gamism.

Now if we were to talk about sim and player freedom - well, the sim guys are a bunch of lucky bastards! I think it's really hard for them to undermine their own agenda with freedom. Perhaps only by traveling in a straight line at high speed could they do it, by leaving behind all the richest prepared content. And certainly an agreement to not burn down the steading is just rubbish for a sim agenda.