Okay, I did a search on this one and didn't come up with anything... if this has already been discussed, I apologize:

Over in Actual Play Ben Morgan made a reference to Robin Laws book "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering."

I just read this guide last week and was really stunned. I mean, really blown away. The book was published in 2002 by one of the most popularly renowned names in RPG-design; written as a standard reference on good GMing. It's supposed to be a collection of GM wisdom, both Robin's and that of many others.

And it sounds pretty damn much exactly like the kind of advice I was reading when I first got into the hobby 14 years ago.

His list of player types doesn't even include what we've defined as a narrativist here at the Forge (his Storyteller type reads as solid simulationist). Most of the book is dedicated to reconciling different styles of play within the group -- without even a nod to the idea that you might try to find people with similar styles in the first place. This leads to all sorts of complex, difficult to swallow theories, like the Structure Quotient chart where you give each player an integer rating from -3 to +3 based on their play style and then take the average to determine "how much attention you should pay to structure" when writing the scenario (writing the scenario! How many assumptions are contained in that right there?).

The implicit assumptions that underlie most of the book are staggering. In the troubleshooting section he describes how to break a "Moral Impasse" by stepping in as the GM and pushing the plot forward… which seems to miss the point terribly. And nowhere in the book is there any indication of anything but "GM narrates, players respond." I mean, hell, the man wrote Rune where the actual position of GM switches from person to person, and I'm sure he's familiar with games like Baron Munchausen where narration is shared.

What the heck is going on here? Did anybody else have a similar reaction to this? If this guy is supposed to be an innovator, heading the trends in the industry, then why does this sound like ancient history?

-Tor

Well, artists are often the worst critics of their own work.

Considering all the problems you cite Tor, is it any surprise it hasn't gotten much 'ink' here?

Like I always tell my kids..."If you can't say something nice about somebody,

...make it funny!"

Fang Langford

Hello,

Damned if I can find the fairly recent thread in which I wrote this, but I'd saved it as a file when composing it, so here it is, repeated:

To review, and with luck not to be too boring, the Whole Model goes as follows:

1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of Power. The following points may be considered ever-deeper "skins" or "boxes" into the model.
2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five parts with some causal relationships among them.
3. The agendas or "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play cannot occur without such an agenda, whether individualized or socially-shared.
4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of things like Currency, Resolution (DFK, IIEE), and Reward systems.
5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances.

Anyway, so what are player-classifications in these terms. At first glance, they are part and parcel of Social Contract, and as such, they would be expected to follow whatever personality types and social roles we see in practically any social, leisure activity. Who's "leader," who's "the flirt," who's "must disagree," who's "gets squinty-eyed about details," who's "placator/peacemaker," and so on. Tons of different social roles, tons of different adjustments and shifts among them too, as I'm sure most will agree.

However, most of the time, I see such classifications as "skewers" into the layered model. They start with a strictly social role (such as you might see just as easily among a softball team or members of a band), then apply its consequences to Exploration preferences, GNS goals/play=stuff, and even down to preferred Techniques and specific commitments to certain rules.

My problem with such a "skewer" classification of people is not that one or another does or does not exist - my problem is that one particular (e.g.) placator/peacemaker person doesn't necessarily penetrate to the core of the model along the same trajectory as another placator/peacemaker. This one might be all about hard-core Gamist play (sub-categories forthcoming in my upcoming essay) and this other one might be all about highly-internal Character-Explore Simulationist play. So the classification, if it purports to be exclusive in any kind of usable fashion, is rendered non-insightful relative to actual role-playing.

In defense of the book, keep in mind that Laws was writing for the great majority of "conventional" role players, and a decision to work within an overall framework of what is already familiar to most of them is justifiable. The loss of an opportunity to broaden players' horizons might be regretted, but on the flip side, it could be argued that a brief cursory treatment of GNS theory and practice in the book would have done more harm than good, while a more thorough treatment would have made the book unmarketable. In other words, the "lost opportunity" might not have really existed in the first place.

Another factor to consider: it's not at all unusual, even in supposedly fast-moving fields like telecommunications and medicine, for what appears to bleeding-edge R&D innovators as "ancient history" (what they were working on ten or fifteen years ago) to be the "new standards" (if not the cutting edge) in actual consumer product deployment or clinical practice.

To my knowledge, the only discussion at the Forge that juxtaposes Robin's Laws and GNS is my "congruence" theory, introduced in this thread. The idea is to play in such a way as to minimize overt friction between decision-making in different GNS modes, generally at the cost of accepting some constraints on what can be explored. I and a few others have interpreted many of Robin's Laws as examples of congruence techniques.

[edit to add:] Cross-posted this with Ron, and I overlooked the aspect of player classification schemes which have, as Ron's quote shows, also been discussed in GNS terms. So much for "...the only discussion at the Forge..."; my apologies for overstating. There are probably other areas of overlap too; the book covers a wide range of issues despite its apparently limited outlook.

- Walt

The topic that Ron refers to above is Types of Players.

I remember appreciating the layered/skewered model much more than the usual boxes model.

Julie

I think Tor's post is a good reminder about how much of a schism there is between general approaches to roleplaying and what gets discussed here. Some folks may get hit in the face with that difference every day, but just chatting with other Forge folks can be insulating.

--Emily Care

I also referenced this work in my article about Scattershot's Approaches, also noting some deficiencies.

Fang Langford

I agree with Walt's comments.

I hope that Law's work and ours is reconcilable to an extent. I mean what if it's we who are wrong? More people play his games than ours. Who are we to criticize?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I hope that Law's work and ours is reconcilable to an extent. I mean what if it's we who are wrong? More people play his games than ours. Who are we to criticize?

Wow, how did my words inspire that?

Not only does The Forge inspire mechanics but entire RPGs. Which are played by lots of people. That's pretty practical.

My point was merely to point our the beginning of wisdom: assume you know nothing.

But on a rational basis, I think we do quite well in practical terms here. In fact "Actual Play" is our watchword.

Mike

First of all, hardly anyone uses Teflon for cooking anymore. Second, desktop computers are more what 'the space program' gave us (they didn't invent them, but they sure put the fuel to the fire for the development). Third, the civilian uses of radiation all came from "cutting edge physics research labs;" think of the lives saved by 'useless atomic physics.'

And what about our Teflon-coated Diana Jones Prize winner?

(Good words, Mike.)

Fang Langford

As Walt said, a lot of the book can be explained by looking at the audience. It's a conventional role-playing group, with a mish-mash of different kinds of players (nevermind that it's a kind of group that has been deemed dysfunctional in Forge parlance). But I just can't understand his treatment of "Method Actors" and "Storytellers" (character simulationists and illusionists with some bleed-in to Narrativists). They're basically swept under the rug, or at best momentarily indulged during actual play before the game can move on to "the real action" (my own words, not Robin's). And not to sound repetitive, but the book makes Robin sound totally oblivious to the idea that narrative could emerge during play.

Okay, I realize this may not be the most productive thread, and I don't want to bash on Robin Laws; I'd say he's designed some pretty fine games, so I'll stop with this final comment. What got me about this book is this: it's out there in game stores claiming to be a guide to "Good Game Mastering," written by an acclaimed designer, published by one of the biggest names in RPG publishing (Steve Jackson). If anything in the role-playing world can claim to be as such, then this is the RPG equivalent of a big story in Science magazine, or a defining story on the conflict in Iraq in the New York Times (in otherwords, it's got a lot of name recognition behind it-- a lot of authority). But it's like releasing a science story based on 15-20 year old info, or writing about Iraq in 2003 based on newscasts from Desert Storm.

In any other industry if you tried to pull a stunt like that you'd be a laughing stock. In role-playing games, you're touted as a visionary. What gives?

-Tor, exhaling deeply, ready to move on

edited to add the words "in 2003"

Le Joueur wrote: First of all, hardly anyone uses Teflon for cooking anymore. Second, desktop computers are more what 'the space program' gave us (they didn't invent them, but they sure put the fuel to the fire for the development). Third, the civilian uses of radiation all came from "cutting edge physics research labs;" think of the lives saved by 'useless atomic physics.'

That's a stilted analogy.

What if RPGs are cooking. Sure we may have some refinements to add to the concepts in the cookbook. But that doesn't mean that the recipes won't work. And nobody would care that they weren't cutting edge. In fact they'd be given more credit for being time honored.

How many people are aware that they're Narrativists. You can get away with ignoring Narrativist players as such because they've traditionally been forced to either play under the table or to adopt other modes. As such, you don't have to cater to them. It's acceptable to ignore them. So why should a product for the masses who don't even understand their own preferences well.

And again, maybe the GNS model isn't better. I'll play devils advocate. If Mr. Laws were here, what would you say to him if he said that GNS is hooey? Or just didn't apply to a book on good GMing?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Okay, it was a stilted (but heartfelt!) analogy. The cooking one is better, and, I think, probably more or less how Robin Laws sees the issue himself. Basically that there are time honored principles that have been refined across the history of role-playing, but that remain essentially unchanged. No matter how we bake it, it's still bread: maybe we can figure out how to make a tasty loaf, but that's about the extent of it.

Now, on the one hand, there's nothing wrong with this (it's a tasty loaf, dammit!) but what if we were to compare role-playing to film. In that case, Robin is writing from the point-of-view of someone who's been watching Hollywood movies his whole life. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of damn good Hollywood movies out there. Within that grand Hollywood tradition of the Western alone, you can find about 100 years of refinements, improvements, new twists, different takes, whatever. And maybe Robin is writing from the very peak of that tradition, taking the best tips and ideas from its entire history.

But... what about the French New Wave? What about Fellini? What about the independent film studios? Their effects were profound and can now be felt across the board in cinema. In the 50's Hollywood thought it knew all there was to know about making movies. We now know that's just a joke. "Robin's Laws" reads like he didn't get it, though.

I know that you know all of this, Mike, so let me try to rephrase my point: the book reads as disappointingly ignorant, especially in light of so much publically accessible information available that undercuts and refutes its key assumptions.

I get the feeling though that we're agreeing at this point, so if you don't have something else to say, I'm happy to move on.

-Tor

It seems to me that, like a lot of other things in this world, YMMV. I found it useful for my purposes (the section on improvising more than anything else). Others won't.

I know I haven't been gaming for as long as some (1st edition AD&D books were nothing more than ads in comic books to me for the longest time), and sometimes when you're stuck on a particular thing -- my thing at the time being pre-game prep -- something comes along and, though it may have been haphazardly put together and accomplishes it by accident, manages to smack you upside the head and tell you "duh, you can fix it by looking at this over here", whatever it and this happen to be.

I know there's a hell of a lot in the book that is not new to us here by any stretch of the imagination (and not much at all that is, if any). But occasionally the most profound revelations are things that were staring you in the face all the time.

-- Ben

Wulf wrote: I believe the most widely used significant thing to come out of the space race was the teflon-coated frying pan. We need a teflon-coated RPG mechanic to prove the Forge's worth...

Wulf

before the thread veers completely off topic, let me add some comments about Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.

first: yes, some of the points made aren't original, but the way Robin Laws expresses them throws a new light on the ideas. I found it an interesting read no matter what.

second: I think it's pointless to complain that the book doesn't cover GNS properly. it's not a GNS book and was never mentioned in that context. as Ron has mentioned, the "types of player" model in the book neither affirms nor denies GNS; instead, it looks at play from a different perspective. assume for the sake of argument that there is no GNS conflicts (maybe all the players in Robin's example group prefer Sim.) in such a case, a group with a Sim Storyteller, a Sim Specialist, and a Sim Tactician is not necessarily a dysfunctional group, assuming the GM balances the players' various needs and desires. and this, of course, is exactly what the point of the book is.

third: some of the player types do seem to tend towards either Sim or Gamism, but that doesn't mean that Narrativist is left out. either the Storyteller or the Method Actor could be either a Sim version or a Narrativist version. also, the Specialist is really a catch-all category; the book uses examples like "players who always play ninjas", but "players who always like to address a premise" is a kind of Specialist as well.

what I thought was the most important part of the book -- and what no one seems to mention -- is the point about settings. Robin Laws divides RPG settings into two types: published and homebrew. nothing original there... BUT he makes a point about setting familiarity that seems to be ignored; players need to know as much about the setting as possible in order to play in it. he suggested that players should be allowed to read as much about a published setting as possible, even modules that are supposedly only for GM's eyes only. maybe this isn't a new observation, either, but judging by the huge volume of "GM only" material, it seems to be an ignored observation.

so all in all, I can't join in the Robin Laws bashing that seems to be popular in other places besides the Forge. I found the book useful. my only complaint is that it was too short, too skimpy. I would have liked to have seen more.

Wulf, this has gone way off topic, and your last post has gone into some pretty spurrious logic. If you still think your correct, please PM me, and/or Fang, and we can discuss it there. That said, I think we're unlikey to agree on this one.

Mike

Tor Erickson wrote: the book reads as disappointingly ignorant, especially in light of so much publically accessible information available that undercuts and refutes its key assumptions.

Hi John,

Good points: I also think I'd missed the point of Ron's post about player types until you rephrased it.

What do you think about the implied division of power between GMs and Players in the book? Does it ever break from the "GM drives, Players ride" model? (though I'll admit there is a lot of room for shouted suggestions from the backseat)

And don't misread me: I'm not about Robin Laws bashing. I've already said that he's designed some fine games, and I don't suppose to know how much he's keyed into GNS; I can't read his mind. I've tried to limit the discussion to the book itself, and if I've strayed into personality critique, then I apologize.

(By the way, how's it going down in Sac town, neighbor?)
-Tor

Here are three recent remarks that all point in the same direction; I'd like to weave them together a bit.

Tor wrote: In any other industry if you tried to pull a stunt like that you'd be a laughing stock. In role-playing games, you're touted as a visionary. What gives?

Wulf wrote: I am well aware of the use and purpose of research, but I am also aware that most of it serves no purpose than to inspire more research.

Mike wrote: Just my take on it. I'd love the standard of the industry to be raised to something more like the journalistic or academic standard. But that's still off in the future if it happens at all.

Not having read Robin Laws' book, and knowing little enough about him but that he is highly respected for creating some games of good repute, I was just going to read this thread. Then as it was perhaps coming to a close,

Chris Lehrich wrote: That said, I think the criticism being leveled is that the book could address that same audience and simultaneously raise the general level of discourse, drawing on (for example) GNS theory.

But why should he?

in which Tor Erickson wrote: The book was published in 2002 by one of the most popularly renowned names in RPG-design; written as a standard reference on good GMing. It's supposed to be a collection of GM wisdom, both Robin's and that of many others.

And it sounds pretty damn much exactly like the kind of advice I was reading when I first got into the hobby 14 years ago.

Actually your point makes ours MJ. There were Narrativists from day one. Would a game book written in 1978, have had stuff about Narrativists in it? Should it have? 1988? 1998? 2003?

There is nothing that's changed about mainline gaming in all 25 years. The book is, I would guess, meant to appeal to mainline gamers. As such, this means describing play as it ever was, which means standard division of power, no overt director stance, and Narrativist play as a covert subset of Simulationist play. Or as "role" playing as opposed to "roll" playing.

Is there now a theory that may better describe a certain subset of player? Yes. Does it have to be addressed in all books on advice to GMs? No.

Mike

Hi MJ,

I think we're pretty much on the same page regarding the book. That said, there are a number of points in "Good Gamemastering" that I don't find in the ADnd 2nd ed. "Campaign Sourcebook" (1990). I think John touched on the most important of them, namely that Robin encourages the GM to provide lots of info about the setting and scenario to the players, even when that info goes beyond what the characters know.

-Tor

Howdy Mike,

So you really don't think that mainstream play could benefit from a deeper understanding of player's goals, specifically when those goals are narrativist in nature?

-Tor

Tor Erickson wrote: Howdy Mike,

So you really don't think that mainstream play could benefit from a deeper understanding of player's goals, specifically when those goals are narrativist in nature?

-Tor

hi, Tor... things are going fine down here in Sac; how are things up in the foothills?

Tor Erickson wrote: What do you think about the implied division of power between GMs and Players in the book? Does it ever break from the "GM drives, Players ride" model? (though I'll admit there is a lot of room for shouted suggestions from the backseat)

So, do you (a generic 'you') think that a "Forge's Laws of Good Gamemastering" would be very different or do you think that the exercise is pointless in itself ?

(I found Robin Laws book interesting - stimulating, even, sometimes)

I'd love to see a "Forge's Laws". I'm not sure it would sell. But I'd still like to see it.

Mike