Topic: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Started by: Sindyr
Started on: 4/2/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 4/2/2003 at 10:31pm, Sindyr wrote:
Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
I have a question about a phrase I have recently been exposed to. Let me repeat the phrase in context:
"All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated."
My question is simple: Is it really impossible?
Is the idea of the GM's authorship and the player's directing their character's really that fundamentally incompatible? Or have we been misusing or misunderstanding the terms in our assumption, perhaps too narrowly?
I am a GM, and have been one for around two decades. So while I am always finding new things and new ways, I am not new to gaming.
It occurs to me that the problem is one of context. When we say that a GM authors the story, we do not mean to imply that he can or should have a pre-created end in mind for the story. When we say the players make choices for their characters and determine their actions, we do not mean to imply that the players have any more control over their character's fates then we ourselves have over our own fates in real life.
This is how I see the basic contract between the GM and the players, and how I think it affects the so-called Impossible Thing:
After character creation, the GM's role as author is primarily twofold. He must keep the game world processes running, and he must initiate new processes.
Any world, game or real, can be thought of as having natural flows, patterns of action and consequence. When an event occurs, especially an event whose occurrence is not precisely in line with the established systems, interference and feedback occur, setting up new flows and patterns.
In a game world, one must imagine the vast and complex latticework of cause and effect - especially social cause and effect. For the most part, it is not necessary for the GM to pre-determine what these are.
However, the players by their actions interact and interfere with the smooth running of the world. The actions of the players, and the domains those actions occur in, determine for the GM what he now has to define, create, instantiate, and understand.
For example, a group of players moves to a new town, having been run out of the last town by the local gangs there. As the players consider their future in this new place, they decide to take over the underworld of this new city, so what happened before doesn't happen to them again.
This is an instruction to the GM. The players by their actions are saying to the GM: "We will be interacting with the underworld here in this new town. This underworld has its own ebb and flows, its own balances. Since we are now choosing to interact with it and to thereby affect it, you must now begin to create/define/understand/explore the current rhythms and potentials of the underworld, so that when we begin to affect it, you will know how the current underworld system will react to our actions. Eventually, you may need to consider other systems that link to the underworld, such as the city politicians, for as we players affect the system of the underworld here in this new city, so too will it affect systems to which it is linked.
Basically, the entire world is made up of interlinked and interwoven systems. In the absence of players’ actions, the GM must be able to figure out how these systems interact with and prod the players.
In the presence of player actions and choices, the GM must figure out how the systems react to the players, and how these systems react to each others reactions about the players, and so the ripple widens...
Ultimately, it is only the ripples that eventually come back to impact upon the players that need to be tracked.
So the game world is a vast network of natural flows and resistances. Given the players do nothing, the GM should have some idea of where the game world will go, especially in areas that affect or impinge on the players.
And when the players act, the GM must internally compute the consequences of their actions not just in the moment and in the immediate effects, but also against the backdrops of the many systems the players are connected to.
So, this to me is what I mean when I say the GM is the author of the story. The GM has created and continues to create the game world in such a way to have "hooks" and potentials for several different paths to be taken by the players and their characters. He does NOT railroad the characters to the ending of his choice. He does not manipulate the players toward some specific story goal.
However, if he has created a living and breathing world, he won’t have to. Even in a game without the supernatural, one's destiny or fate is not random, or easily altered. If I inherit my father's billion dollar corporate legacy, but I use it foolishly and without thought of the consequences, then the natural systems in place will "take care" of me. Perhaps I become an easy mark for the board members to oust, or maybe by squandering my corporate power, I allow another rival corporation to get the upper hand, and perform a hostile takeover.
Perhaps I so anger my shareholders with my despicable, wasteful, or stupid actions that they vote against me with unexpected solidarity. Or perhaps I victimize a group in such a way to anger a person capable of assassinating me.
Perhaps I am able to stave off one disaster, and then another. But if I continue to act these ways, I will be continuing to provoke the systems of the world that I interact with to dealing with the upset I am causing.
Eventually, it probably won’t go well for me.
That's a sort of Karma. There's nothing supernatural about it, it's just an understanding of consequences in a world of sophisticated interlocking systems. Social systems. Technological systems. Political systems. Cultural systems. And so on.
This web of systems and potentials, to me, is the very manifestation of the natural phenomenon called Tao.
So, back to the GM's twofold role as author: to create the world and its web of interlocking systems in such a way as to empower his plot points, and to compute the results of the interaction of the players choices/actions and this gameworld of interlocking systems.
Both create real opportunities for authorship.
For example, let’s say I decide that the Holy Grail exists in my world. I make decisions about what it is, what it can do, and where it currently fits in the vast web of the world. This means deciding not just the immediate facts about it, such as where it is, but the "one-away" facts of "Where do people think it is" and the "two-away" facts of "What does that make happen in the world, that certain people think the Grail is in certain places.", and so on.
The Plot Point of the Grail begins to extend tendrils into the vast web of systems of the world.
This can happen in two ways: either the effect of the existence of the Grail is recent or new (for example, until recently people believed it a myth, but now have just found evidence that it's not) or the effects of the Grail's existence have always been part of the game world, even though the GM never knew it. This second approach is the more interesting approach, because now the actions, events, and knowledge the GM has had of the world and its constituents must be re-examined and re-interpreted in the light of what the GM now "knows".
For example, did the players find a secret base of the third Reich in a strange place, say Brazil? Have you as a GM come up with several possible reasons for that base, but since the players never pursued those answers, you never wrote anything in stone?
Perhaps the Brazil base is a dig site, looking for the Grail, or clues thereof.
Perhaps the third Reich is pinning their hopes of world domination to finding the grail.
Or perhaps the third Reich is indulging one of its influential members in the search, but besides that member, the Reich is contemptuous of the Grail's reality.
Perhaps the third Reich has already found the Grail, and is doing experiments on it!
Until the actions of the players crystallize one of these "perhaps" into a reality, they are all possible.
The key for the GM is to maintain consistency. Any reality jiggery pokery must be consistent with the past experiences of the players.
That doesn't mean that the player's explanations of past experiences are the correct ones, but that the realities that the GM eventually invokes must ultimately be compatible and consistent with the experiences and understandings that the players have - even if the players can't see how.
So, perhaps the players infiltrate the base, make a daring raid, and steal the Grail!
But the GM says, hmmm... I need the Grail to be in the possession of Amon-Re in Egypt for the next plot point...
Unless the players have determined that the Grail that they have captured is authentic (in which case, that's that), exploring the web of possibilities yields interesting results:
That, if we as GM know they haven’t authenticated the Grail yet, and we decide that Amon-Re has the real Grail, then what was the third Reich doing?
Well, perhaps Amon-Re already stole the Grail, and replaced it with a convincing fake.
Or perhaps the leader of the base never had the Grail, but wants to continue to justify the Base's existence, as well as that of his cushy job.
If that's the case, perhaps the base leader was dreading the arrival of a team of inspectors, and he lured the players into stealing the fake Grail.
Or maybe the base leader only thinks it’s the fake Grail... the possibilities go on and on...
The only requirements on the GM are logic, continuity, and consistency that the players ultimately get to understand.
So I think I have shown that the GM gets to author a LOT in this style...
...but are the players really determining their fate, making significant choices that affect their future?
I say yes.
It's true that forces from outside of the character can leave the player with few choices. A leg breaker shows up and tells the player, "You owe Louie 20K for smashing up his joint last week. Either pay up, or we breaks your legs." A little later, it is revealed that Louie would like the player to do him a favor as an alternate to the money that the player doesn't have.
Is the player boxed in? Yes, but that's not a bad thing, for many reasons:
1) The situation that boxes the player is a natural consequence of the player's own actions (smashing up Louie's store)
2) It is realistic that we are faced with limited choices from time to time. In my real life, many times I have very little choice as to what I can do.
3) And ultimately, even when boxed in there remain choices. The characters could run for it. They could try to kill Louie. They could manipulate a gang war which would take the focus off of them. They could try to make it look like someone else smashed up the store. They could even try to come up with the money.
So a narrowed field of choices does NOT mean that the player has no control over his character's fate.
One may ask, what about the fact that the GM may very well be retroactively editing the world? Doesn't that place my character under his control?
No, it does not. As long as there are plausible and logical reasons for seeming reversals of established fact, then this does NOT remove the players’ ability to make decisions for his character. It merely means that reality is not always as we see it.
In the Grail example above, the player may feel frustrated that the Grail he stole from the base was not really the authentic Holy Grail. However, the key is that the GM is NOT preventing him from acquiring the Holy Grail permanently, or in principle, but only in that one instance.
While the GM can alter the truth of the matter, the GM is limited by continuity and consistency. Once you have authenticated the Grail, used the powers of the Grail, and so forth, then the GM cannot in all likelihood edit the reality of the Grail. I mean, the GM could stoop to saying it was all a dream or whatever, but that level of editing is not acceptable to most players and would in short order result in a lynched GM. :)
However, if they had just stolen it from the base, and if they find out that the man they hired to authenticate it was in Amon-re's employ (perhaps the same fellow who originally faked the authentication for the base), then the pieces begin to fall into place and it makes sense to the players.
The fact that keeps the players in control is that eventually they see through the immediate seemings to the ultimate truth of what is really going on.
Of course, what if the players, believing the authenticator, assumed they had the real Grail, and chucked it in the basement for storage?
As a GM, I would give them several chances to spot something fishy... maybe finding out more about the authenticator (like, he authenticated it for the third Reich, grin), maybe finding out that someone else in the world still claims to have the one and only grail, maybe having a museum ask for it, only to fail to authenticate themselves.
Or maybe, the players toss it in the basement, and continue to believe it’s real for the rest of the game.
And maybe that makes it real after all. After all, a difference that makes no difference, is no difference.
Do the players have control over their characters? Absolutely. Do they have control over their fates through their choices? Of course. Is that control total, 100%? By no means - just like in the real world.
In fact, the only time I would condone a GM overriding a player choice for their character is when that choice cannot be rationally justified.
For example, if the player (not character) secretly wants the thrill or destroying the Grail (assuming its not indestructible), but the player has chosen to play a historian with a deep respect for history and culture, then when he announces to me (the GM) that having taken possession of the real Grail, that he will now dash it against the wall, I will pause and question him:
I would ask him, given his character's background, past, and psyche as previously described by the player himself, why would the character act in seeming contradiction to all that?
If the player responds that the Grail is too powerful to remain in existence, then I would have the char roll to see whether his motivation to destroy it can overcome his motivation to preserve it.
I might also have the player roll to see if the character could guess at other consequences, such as being greatly cursed or even killed outright.
If the player truly finds a good motivation for his seemingly out of character actions, and the player succeeds in making whatever roll he needs to overcome his character's desire to NOT destroy artifacts of the past, then as GM, I say so be it, and go with it. This is a prime example of the player having control.
On the other hand, if the player cannot come up with a motivation to contradict his own previously established motivations, then the character would not be allowed to make the attempt at destruction.
After all, consistency and continuity limit not just the GM, but the players, too.
On the other hand, perhaps the player dashes the Grail against the wall, stating "the real Grail would not be so easily destroyed"
Again, the GM can react in many ways. He can have the player roll to see if the character might be able to know that the real Grail can be so easily destroyed. Or he can allow the real Grail to be destroyed.
Or the GM can announce that the Grail is indeed indestructible, and bounces of the wall.
Or the GM can decide that the Grail was NOT the real Grail after all - if that can be plausibly explained. (Not right now, but later.)
Ultimately, if the player wants to destroy the Grail, he is more than welcome to pursue that. It might not be easy. It might not even be worth it. It might even be almost impossible. But it wont be completely impossible.
However, the player may have to do more than just figure out how to do it. He will also have to figure out why his character is so motivated to do so in the first place.
This firmly enmeshes the player in the gameworld’s web of cause and effect once more.
So, in conclusion, I again must ask why it is impossible that the GM authors the world and plot points therein, while at the same time the players choose (within boundaries of logical consistency) the paths that their characters attempt to follow.
In this way, the culmination of the story is a joint effort of the players and the GM. The GM for the setup and putting things in motion, and the players for the character impetus and choices.
How can the GM not be said to be authoring the story, even as the players determine the actions of their characters?
-Sindyr
On 4/2/2003 at 10:51pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
That's quite a post.
So, this to me is what I mean when I say the GM is the author of the story.
But that all has nothing to do with the Impossible Thing. Nobody disputes that the GM can play the way you describe. In fact you would be just the last in a long series of people to jump in and say that they've solved the problem with just this solution. Do a search for El Dorado.
Anyhow, the Imposible Thing is the Players and the GM both choosing the plot simultaneously. When Ron speaks of protagonism, he's not talking simply about the player directing the character's actions. He's talking about the player deciding what in the game is important to them the player (not to the character), and having the character pursue that. If the GM is deciding what's important, then the player is not.
Thus all your examples are Simulationism, mostly various forms of Illusionism. They are not Narrativism, because the player's are not empowered to choose what the plot will be about.
Now, you might say, so what? And you'd be right. There's nothing wrong with your style of play, and I'd probably say that it is, if not my favorite, certianly in the top three or four.
All the Impossible Thing says is that there are players who prefer Narrativism, and for whom Sim play is not satisfactory. And that there's no way to play that will provide for both sorts of players simultaneously. Note this also does not mean that you can't switch modes back and forth, in terms of player decisions (which is what GNS is all about), and in terms of GM support. Lot's of people would say that El Dorado is something like hovering back and forth around these styles of play, in such a manner as it's very much not apparent to the outside observer what's going on.
But the point it all is not to say you can't do these things. It's to say that for different players playing in different modes (Sim or Nar), what's required to support their play will, surprise, differ.
Mike
On 4/2/2003 at 11:04pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Mike, this is the second time I've seen you parse The Impossible Thing this way...I think you're completely wrong. The Impossible Thing is Impossible...period. It has nothing to do with Narrative preference over Simulationist. It has nothing to do with some people doing it and other people not being satisfied with it. It has everything to do with it not being physically possible to accomplish...by anyone. Ever.
The Impossible Thing is simply that the GM is in charge of story and the Players are in charge of their character. Not possible...can't happen any more than two physical bodies can exist in the same space at the same time.
Inevitably there will come a time when the GM's story and the Players play of their characters butt heads. At that point having both is impossible. Something has to give. And as soon as it does all of that wonder fluffy nonsense in the "how to roleplay chapter" about the GM running story and the players running the characters is revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
If the player sacrifices his play of his character for the GM's story that you have either Railroading (if the GM demands it and the players only option is to not play), Illusionism (where the player THINKS they're making the meaningful choices for their character but really its an illusion and the GM is still pulling the strings), or what you've called in the past Participationism where the players are willing to play along with the illusionism.
Or you have the GM sacrificing his control over the story to the players choices for their characters, which is where alot of other techniques come in.
But at no time is it possible to have a situation where the GM controls the story and the players control the characters...because the characters are part of the story...which by definition means there is a mutually exclusive area of overlap...that's why its impossible.
The problem with the Impossible Thing is that gaming texts will instruct you to play this way...which since it can't really happen leads to all sorts of problems, because the rules...by assuming the Impossible is possible, don't offer any guidance as to how to portion out authority over the area that overlaps.
It has nothing to do with GNS at all. If GNS never existed, it would still be Impossible.
On 4/2/2003 at 11:08pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Hmm... let me try to follow what you said.
You said:
The Imposible Thing is the Players and the GM both choosing the plot simultaneously.
In my examples above, the Gm creates the world and plot points, whereas the player chooses there character's actions.
In this way, neither alone determines the path of the story, ie, the Plot, but both do equally contribute to it. So while it is true that niether the Players nor the GM have absolute control over the eventual Plot and path of the overall Story, neither has the "edge" over the other in creating that Plot.
So, if the "Great Impossible Thing" is defined as both have absolutely control over the Plot simulataneously, than that by definition cannot be true as one negates the other.
However, the idea of the GM as author and the Players as protagonists choosing their own paths do not contradict each other, and I think that it is this second idea, that most people hold as true: That the GM creates the rich fertile ground for the story, and helps midwife, but the players also have a hand in directing the story in two extremely significant ways:
1) Since the spotlight is on the players, than what the players feel is important i the story also shares the spotlight.
2) The players choose their characters paths through the world the GM creates and maintains.
Also, my understanding was the the Impossible Thing was not related directly to GNS, but was about who was in "control", the Players or the GM?
My question, is given the conditions I described originally, why can't it be equally, both?
Do I understand this correctly?
Also, as I understand Illusionism, none of the above examples were Illusionist.
To my way of understanding, Illusionism means GMing in such a way to eliminate the player's input from actually affecting the outcome of events, usually done covertly.
While in the above examples, some of the players actions might be retroactively modified (such as stealing a false relic instead of a real one), the intent is not to prevent the player from getting the real relic in general, or forever, but only in one instance.
The general pattern remains that the players CAN affect the world by their choices, just not always in obvious or predictable ways.
-Sindyr
On 4/2/2003 at 11:13pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Hello, Snidyr. Welcome to the Forge.
The deal with the Impossible Thing is it is a ticking time bomb. Just like it's possible to have one person steer the car and another person work the petal. Sure it's possible, but eventually it winds up a flaming, twisted wreck. That's what Ron meant by:
Ron Edwards wrote: Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter.
What happens is eventually someone either feels slighted or gets sick of the power struggle and them socially the group starts to crumble.
On 4/2/2003 at 11:16pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Valamir, you wrote:
"The Impossible Thing is simply that the GM is in charge of story and the Players are in charge of their character. Not possible...can't happen any more than two physical bodies can exist in the same space at the same time. "
I think it is a mistake to try to identify who is in charge of the story. It seems intuitively obvious that the collective will of the group, GM and players, is "in charge" of the story.
What I would like to suggest is that the GM is responsible for authoring and maintaining the world and that players are responsible for authoring and maintaining their characters and their character's actions. (Although the GM may be called to overide the player's choices from time to time when the players choices for his character make no sense and cannot be justified, such as a lesbian that becomes hetero for no other reason than to hook up with a prominent NPC. If the player could not find a way to justify this, then it wont happen. Of course, there are many was to justify it - and the player choosing one sows the seeds for more story-making.)
Ultimately, I do not believe that anyone seriously thinks that the GM is the sole creator of the story, or that the players are. I think most people are smart enough to see the simple truth - the GM "plays" the world, and the players play the protagonists, and between them they *both* create the story.
-Sindyr
On 4/2/2003 at 11:21pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Jack Spencer Jr - thanks for the welcome. :)
If the GM and the players are clear about their roles, how can the train derail?
If the GM's job is to "play" the world, creating interesting Plot Points a la the above, and the players' job is to play their characters with consistency, how can this go wrong?
Besides the obvious I mean. Obviously, a GM can get burnt out, run out of creative juice, start railroading the characters, or alternatively, letting them get away with muder and monty hauls...
But *aside* from this, if each side is doing their *job* right, how can this become a power struggle?
The only problems I can see would be the people trying to do the *other* persons job, ie; a player trying to tell the GM what is in the world or how it works; or a GM trying to tell the players what they must do.
All either can request of the other is consistency and continuity.
-Sindyr
On 4/2/2003 at 11:33pm, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: It seems intuitively obvious that the collective will of the group, GM and players, is "in charge" of the story.
It may seem intuitively obvious, but what does that actually mean? I think that's at the heart of this issue. "Collective will" is something that's pretty hard to define or evaluate, even in a small group of people. Most roleplaying systems (excepting Universalis and it's offspring/relatives) don't allow consensus-building as a realistic way to create narrative, so ultimately it comes down to who has the ability to determine the outcomes of various components.
(Part of this also involves that tricky term "story" and what it means. The entire narrative? Just the sequence of events that occur?)
Your division of GM=world, players=characters is problematic whenever the two come into conflict. The GM wants a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley, but the PCs come in and slaughter them all. The players have now influenced the game world, which is supposed to be the GM's domain. Likewise, if a character falls into a trap and dies or breaks his leg, the GM has exerted control over the characters.
On 4/3/2003 at 1:36am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Jonathan Walton wrote:
Your division of GM=world, players=characters is problematic whenever the two come into conflict. The GM wants a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley, but the PCs come in and slaughter them all. The players have now influenced the game world, which is supposed to be the GM's domain. Likewise, if a character falls into a trap and dies or breaks his leg, the GM has exerted control over the characters.
The key, as I see it is that the GM doesn't want a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley per se, he wants to instigate interesting gameplay.
If the GM wants a thriving community of orcs in a specfic valley, then the GM can create such a community. The GM can even create methods by which the community protects itself.
Lets change the venue slightly. Let's say the GM wants a thriving community of evil human bandits in a specific valley.
Fine, the GM waves his hand and they are there - more so, there are there completely entrenched in the world - for they have always been there since they settled in the valley 3 years ago.
Even though the GM just made them up right now.
This is assuming that there is not established contradictory evidence, such as the PC's just walked through this valley a few days ago. If that's the case, drop them in a different valley.
Now, think about this: How is this community's systems and flows interlinked with the framework of the rest of the world? And thereby, how is the reality of the valley of bandits linked to the PC's themselves?
Could the PC's be known to be destroyers? Could the PC's be known to be in the area? Fine, perhaps the bandits not only have lookouts (which would make sense), but also have people following and watching the PC's...from a discrete distance.
Alternatively, maybe this community has a bad rap - perhaps they are NOT evil, and the PC's figure this out before the slaughter ensues?
The point is, the GM creates and maintains the world, but really doesn't care if a community of orcs he made gets destroyed - why should he? All the GM cares about is creating plot points/devices, and leaving them scattered in the player's path from place to place.
After all, if the player's *do* slaughter a community of orcs, that can be use to propel the action forward too.
As far as a character fall into a trap, breaking his legs and possibly dieing, that is not the GM exerting control over the character's choices or destiny. The GM did not simply decide that the player was going to wind up in that situation. more than likely, what happened is this:
The player is out walking...
The GM thinks to himself, what are the possible and likely complications that could ensue? Knowing that the forrest the character is walking in is home to a hostile trapper who wants to prevent people from entering what the trapper terms as *his* forrest, the GM can conjecture that the forrest is indeed trapped.
BUT the GM cannot simply declare to the character, "Hey, you been caught by an unexpected trap, your legs is broken, and you may die"
*That* would be the GM taking control of the character.
So what does the GM do?
1) Makes the player rolls to see if the character might now that the forrest has a keeper, and what the nature of the keeper might be.
Assuming a failed roll, or that the character presses on regardless,
2) Makes a roll to see if during time peroid "A" the PC comes across one of the trapper's traps.
If he does...
3) Makes a roll for the PC to see if the PC can detect the trap before it's too late.
If not,
4) Makes a roll to see what the effect of being caught by the trap is - anything from a scratch from a near miss to catastrophic injury, depending on the nature of the trap and the roll.
so no less than FOUR rolls must be all failed to avoid real nastiness.
In addition, this assumes the player hasn't done his homework. However, it is more likely that before wandering around strange woods, the player would do some investiagting before hand, thereby forewarming himself with the knowledge of what lies ahead.
This also assumes that the GM would even care to check this possibitility out. If the PC is simply entering the forrest to get some firewood, and the plot element addition of the trapper and his traps would only annoyingly put the main endeavors of the PC on hold, the GM is likely to not even worry about it.
The only reason the GM would pursue this plot element is one of two reasons:
1) The trapper and his forrest further the current gameplay in some way. Perhaps the Trapper is really the old Captain of the Gaurd of the local city?
2) the Players are bored, not currently on a mission or pursuit, and are looking for some action.
So, ultimately I fail to see how these two roles (GM and character) can genuinely come into conflict if both are fulfilling their own roles with consistency and continuity.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 1:51am, DaGreatJL wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Okay, I'm going to express my opinion in the form of a story.
A GM decides to run a session of an RPG. Let's say he decides to use D&D. It doesn't have to be D&D, I'm not making fun of D&D in the story, it could be anything, but for this story and this session, it's D&D.
So, this GM has an adventure that he prepared before the session. He could have written it himself, or bought it. Let's say he bought it. The adventure involves a wizard capturing a princess, whom the wizard intends to sacrifice to summon something-or-other. The PCs objective is to rescue the princess and defeat the wizard, and the scenario is considered complete once this happens.
Now, the players all buy into the initial plot; in other words, they don't just decide that they don't care about the princess and would rather go west down the road or something, but rather go to where the wizard is to pursue the adventure. However, somewhere along the way, the players begins making decisions that run counter to completing the adventure goal; in effect, they have come up with their own ending to the adventure, and are pursuing that. Perhaps they decide that whatever the wizard is summoning is good; perhaps they want it to be summoned so they can destroy it; perhaps they would prefer to spare both the princess and wizard's lives by convincing them to marry.
Now, the GM can certainly scrap the remainder of the adventure and follow the direction the players are interested in. However, there are many hobbyists out there who would not, and would rather make an effort to coerce the players into following the adventure to its prewritten conclusion. Indeed, there is a great deal of material out there, created by both hobbyists and in industry-published works, that informs members of the community that, when GMing, one should not let players detract from the scenario/story/adventure that the GM has decided to use; the GM is encouraged to use various means to direct play towards that direction. At the same time, the GM is discouraged from directing the choices that players make; after all, the characters belong to the players, and only they can say what their characters do and do not do.
This is how I see the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.
On 4/3/2003 at 2:11am, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
See, what you're describing is exactly the way I tend to GM. However, I think both of us are talking around each other without really hitting the mark. Let me see if I can't find the point of contention...
Here's what happened in a Nobilis game I ran at a Con last month (all of this was improvised off the top of my head, without preparation):
1. I established that the PCs were either A) family members of a demigod-like being, the embodiment of Roses, or B) members of a seperate family of demigods who were investigating Roses for suspected crimes.
Control: Me. The players had absolutely no say in this.
2. After a pleasant dinner with his investigators & family members, Roses excused himself and slipped away. One PC decided to use her miraculous powers to sense where Roses had gone. Not wanting them to uncover too many secrets early on (since I hadn't had time to come up with any secrets), I said that Roses had left the immediate area.
Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to declare that Roses was gone. However, the players had no say in this.
3. Deciding to investigate (which I didn't suspect), the characters followed Roses tracks and ended up rowing out into the ocean, where they discovered a night-black ship at anchor.
Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to invent all this stuff about the ship. However, the players STILL had no say in this. Motivating me to create things and actually having input into the story are very different things. I was adapting based on what they did, but I was still the originator of everything that happened.
4. One PC pulled out a sword that could cut through anything (dreams, worlds, truth, light) and sliced the entire ship in half. It sank to the bottom of the ocean.
Control: Players. Catch this. The PC's powers allowed the player to have direct control over what happened, but it superceded my own power. Maybe I wanted the black ship to stick around for a while. But if I came up with excuses, fudged things, and kept the player from doing what he wanted to do, this part would just read "Control: Me" and be another example of GM railroading/Illusionism.
Is that a little clearer? Maybe some others can help me if I'm just muddling the issue. But this is how I understand it.
On 4/3/2003 at 2:22am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
DaGreatJL said:
Now, the GM can certainly scrap the remainder of the adventure and follow the direction the players are interested in. However, there are many hobbyists out there who would not, and would rather make an effort to coerce the players into following the adventure to its prewritten conclusion. Indeed, there is a great deal of material out there, created by both hobbyists and in industry-published works, that informs members of the community that, when GMing, one should not let players detract from the scenario/story/adventure that the GM has decided to use; the GM is encouraged to use various means to direct play towards that direction. At the same time, the GM is discouraged from directing the choices that players make; after all, the characters belong to the players, and only they can say what their characters do and do not do.
This is how I see the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.
Okay, that makes sense. That is one great reason I will never use modules - they assume that the players will be shepherded toward one of two or three possible ends.
A GM that runs modules per se is talking the control away from the players and "allowing" them the privelege of playing the parts he, or more accurately, the module has chosen for them.
Now I am not saying that you can't use a module for great source material, you can. But it is unfair to expect the players to follow a linear progression, or *any* particular path through it at all.
Modules are only good as source material, IMHO, frankly.
Which is why instead of buying modules, I am much more interested in buying sourcebooks decribing towns, countries, secret organizations, anything I can use as fodder for the imagination and meat to wrap my plot point/devices around.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 2:53am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Jonathon Walton said:
See, what you're describing is exactly the way I tend to GM. However, I think both of us are talking around each other without really hitting the mark. Let me see if I can't find the point of contention...
Here's what happened in a Nobilis game I ran at a Con last month (all of this was improvised off the top of my head, without preparation):
1. I established that the PCs were either A) family members of a demigod-like being, the embodiment of Roses, or B) members of a seperate family of demigods who were investigating Roses for suspected crimes.
Control: Me. The players had absolutely no say in this.
Okay, I generally do not like to take control of a player's creation. You probably had to for a con, but a con IMHO is not an ideal venue for role-playing.
Were I to start up a game, I would sit down with the players and spend one entire session helping them create their characters. And I would endeavor to allow them the broadest possible choices for character creation - as broad as the system will allow, and frequently more so.
For example, I play TORG, a game that allows for multiple universes of multiple genres, so a party could conceivably contain a wizard, a superhero, a gumshoe, a cyber soldier, etc...
But whatever system I use, I do not place restrictions on the players beside one:
Morality. Specifically, I do not want to GM a game for villains, in the games I run, the players must be the "good" guys. They must be the kind of characters that usually try to do the right things, in as far as the PC's can figure out what that is.
This is a point that I am clear and vocal about. My players know that I do not want to spend time involved in a story featuring the exploits of what are basically "bad" guys. So if they wish to play a villain based game, they do so at someone else's game.
Apart from that, and the limits of the rules/setting/genre/logical consistency, I really dont impose any limits on character creation - nor do I want to.
What I will do however, is take what they have created for their characters, emotions, histories, and such, and use those for ideas to spur plot points/devices.
For example, if a character was a slave at one point in his life, then perhaps in the first adventure, the character runs across his former enslaver. What does he do?
2. After a pleasant dinner with his investigators & family members, Roses excused himself and slipped away. One PC decided to use her miraculous powers to sense where Roses had gone. Not wanting them to uncover too many secrets early on (since I hadn't had time to come up with any secrets), I said that Roses had left the immediate area.
Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to declare that Roses was gone. However, the players had no say in this.
I do not see how *you* had the control. If you were committing to Roses being somewhere that the player truly couldn't sense, then the player had some control as well by making you establish this fact, if you see what I mean. You didn't have *control* over the story as a whole, merely over an element of the story - and as GM, it is your job to be responsible for all the elements of the world that are not under direct player control. Again, you were forced by the player to make an indeterminate thing determinate - at that moment, you were forced to figure out what the answer to her question was, and what the player would get from that. Hopefully, I am not being unclear, but I have a sense that my brain is fuzzy right now, so bear with me...
3. Deciding to investigate (which I didn't suspect), the characters followed Roses tracks and ended up rowing out into the ocean, where they discovered a night-black ship at anchor.
Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to invent all this stuff about the ship. However, the players STILL had no say in this. Motivating me to create things and actually having input into the story are very different things. I was adapting based on what they did, but I was still the originator of everything that happened.
I must disagree. You did not originate two things.
A) You did not originate where the line of the story was going, that is, what the focus of the current thread was. By going after Roses, the player actively shifted the story.
B) You did not control what the players did with what they found, how they interpreted it, what their reactions were, or what the effect of their reactions were.
4. One PC pulled out a sword that could cut through anything (dreams, worlds, truth, light) and sliced the entire ship in half. It sank to the bottom of the ocean.
Control: Players. Catch this. The PC's powers allowed the player to have direct control over what happened, but it superceded my own power. Maybe I wanted the black ship to stick around for a while. But if I came up with excuses, fudged things, and kept the player from doing what he wanted to do, this part would just read "Control: Me" and be another example of GM railroading/Illusionism.
Sure, this is the result of players having control over what they do. Simple. BUT, if the ship is important to other plot devices you have hanging, then you as a GM have to make some decisions.
1) Hang the leftover plot devices on another thread. Perhaps this encounter leads the players to a crystaline tower in a Dreamland, that can contain the leftover plot devices...
2) Leave the plot devices where they are. The PC's destroyed a myserous ship. Was there more ships than the one? What if there were, what does that mean? And what could still be waiting on the other ship(s)?
3) Let the chips fall where they may. The plot devices connected to the ship are lost - but what are the repercussions of the PC's actions in the destruction of that ship? What reactions do the systems of that game world have happening?
Fascinating fodder for future fun!
(Okay, wayyyy too much aliteration. :) )
Is that a little clearer? Maybe some others can help me if I'm just muddling the issue. But this is how I understand it.
_________________
Jonathan Walton
1001 Designs
Sorry, I can't say that it is. I mean, I agree that you *can* try to run a game railroading the players, and the players *can* try to walk all over the GM.
But fundamentally the roles of GM and the Player are not in conflict as far as I can see.
However, it *is* advisable to avoid the pitfalls of losing one's way.
For example, a GM that uses prewritten modules is liable to start encroaching on a player's choices.
Alternatively, a game system like Nobilis where everything is undefined and the players have super godlike power can lead to players telling the GM what the world is all about - which can lead to the backlash of GM's saying no, the world is mine..and then you are back in a tug of war.
I am not saying that certain game systems don't make it easy to lose sight of our respective resposibilities, as GM or as player.
I am merely saying that the base roles of GM and Player are not fundamentally in conflict as long as each does not try to usurp the rights and abilities of the other.
And as they continue to respect each other's domains, they both toegther and equally create the story - the GM as world author and overseer, and the players as protagonists.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 3:11am, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: I do not see how *you* had the control. If you were committing to Roses being somewhere that the player truly couldn't sense, then the player had some control as well by making you establish this fact, if you see what I mean.
I do see what you mean. The player did motivate me to make a decision, but the decision I made was completely in my hands. You keep emphasizing the vast array of choices that GMs have, and that goes for here to. I could have allowed the player to sense where Roses was. I could have changed my plans for what Roses was doing. I could have done any number of things. My point is that, whatever happened, I was the one who decided it. NOT the players.
Now, if I'd been more on top of things, I could have asked the PLAYER what they sensed. They might describe Roses safely at home in his chambers. That would be player determinism. Then I could run with that. Many games that have been created here on the Forge work that way, but that was NOT what happened in this case.
A) You did not originate where the line of the story was going, that is, what the focus of the current thread was. By going after Roses, the player actively shifted the story.
Right, that's player determinism. However, I could also have twarted them. Used my GM powers to set up unsurmountable forces bwteen them and Roses, or just made it unappealing to go after him (set up other more important things that needed doing, for example). If I did that, it would be GM determinism. Both of these can't happen at once, though. That's the Impossible Thing.
B) You did not control what the players did with what they found, how they interpreted it, what their reactions were, or what the effect of their reactions were.
I agree with all of this except "the affect of their reactions." That, I'd argue is almost entirely in the hands of the GM. The player decided to cut the boat in half, but maybe, since the boat wasn't a real thing of this world, even the sword that could cut through anything couldn't destroy it. That's my call, as a GM.
Player thoughts, emotions, expressions, verbal reactions, and the like are all determined by them, but they also don't really affect the story in any way. If all the players did was go around and react to stuff, that's about as railroaded as you can get.
Nobody's arguing (at least, I don't think so) that control can't alternate between the players and the GM. That's what happens in Donjon, Sorceror, and the like, just using the normal rules. In other games, some GMs allow players to have real input in the story. Some don't. If you do, that's great.
On 4/3/2003 at 3:29am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr,
Hey, I'm wondering if you've read the material writen by Ron wherin he defines The Impossible Thing. I get the feeling from your posts (although I admit to not having read every single word . . . I mean, they're freakin' huge! ;) that your view is that there is an ideal way to role-play and that all actual play either attains or falls short of the mark. This isn't really the case. The big message of GNS is that different gamers have different goals, and that different goals require different approaches.
So talking about how players and GMs should relate to each other is a bit meaningless. They should relate to each other as appropriate to gaming goals of a particular group.
The Impossible Thing is a simple observation that an often-described type of GM / player interface does not work in practice. Ron's description of the Impossible Thing is sort of like saying "the sky is blue" in a world where no one ever looked at the sky before. The sky's obviously blue, and always has been, we just never noticed. In a way, it's a circular statement. "Two people may not simultaneously control something that may only be controled by one person at a time."
Here's a simple explanation of the Impossible Thing. Most historical role-playing games have, at some point in their text, the statement that "the GM controls the world, the players control the characters." This looks fine at first glance. The problem is that the two spheres overlap. The characters live in the world. Unless there is some method for determining precedence, it is inevitable that toes will be stepped on.
On 4/3/2003 at 6:35am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr--Preliminaries:
• Welcome to the Forge.• Did you read the articles, particularly System Does Matter and GNS and Other Matters of Role Playing Theory? A lot of confusion arises on these forums from people using terms and ideas in ways that are not consistent with the common usage here. Getting through those articles will help significantly, in most cases.• Although like Ralph I disagree with some of Mike's parsing of The Impossible Thing, he is absolutely correct that you have presented an approach to simulationist role playing that is quite workable, but doesn't really have anything to do with The Impossible Thing. In essence, you've created (probably by social contract) very specific lines as to the authority of the referee versus that of the players. These lines are mainly functional, and should avoid most conflicts--but they are not the lines recommended in most role playing game systems.• Ralph is right about The Impossible Thing: you cannot have both the referee and the players determine the outcome of the adventure, but that is what most texts suggest. The referee creates the adventure and guides his players into it; they then play their characters in such a way that they tell his story? And if they don't, he uses the tools at his disposal to push them back on script? Yet they still have full autonomy? It is not possible for the referee to decide what the characters are going to do in this upcoming adventure and for the players to decide moment by moment what they actually do without some sort of illusionism or participationism.• It's no good deriding modules because they don't present your play style. Modules in fact are the quintessential representations of how game designers expect their games to be played. If your play style does not match the modules, then you're not playing as the game designers intended. Modules clearly show The Impossible Thing in action. In competition modules, I would wager that a large part of "play" involves players trying to intuit what it is that they are "supposed" to do next. It's like playing a CRPG: the player has to do A, B, C, and D, probably in the right order, to finish the game. The "referee" has established that. If the players aren't interested in A, B, C, and D, or if they want to approach the problem in a different way, or if they want to ignore the problem altogether, the power struggle ensues. Who controls the story? Does the referee, or the players? Modules insist that the players have complete control over their characters but referees control the story. That means that somehow the referee can always force the players to do A, B, C, and D, when they don't wish to do that, without overriding their autonomy. That is The Impossible Thing in sharp relief.
Gee, I wrote more in preliminaries than I anticipated. But hopefully I still have something to add.
I write a lot of scenarios for Multiverser (I suppose that's the spiritual descendant of TORG; E. R. Jones was familiar with TORG, but I am not). We use a lot of different techniques in our worlds. Many worlds--particularly gather worlds--play much as you describe: the referee is given a place with a lot of details, but the adventures are entirely player-driven. If the players want to build and fortify a camp and stay in a place they've correctly identified as safe (or at least, that they've provided defenses against all reasonable dangers in that location), there's nothing really that the referee can do about it--or should, for that matter, as the players have the right to use the time to practice, learn new skills, and get to know each other. If they want to leave their safe area and explore, there will always be things that can happen. If there are intelligent or dangerous creatures in this world, these might come to the characters, might interact with them uninvited, but overall, this is a player-driven scenario.
We also do worlds that are very much story-driven, and that means referee-driven. I'll take Prisoner of Zenda for an example. When the character arrives, he's already on the train headed for Zenda. If he gets off, because he looks like the king (the crown prince, actually) of Zenda, local authorities in neighboring countries will insist on escorting him safely to his own border. No matter what the player chooses to do, he's going to wind up in Ruritania, and he's going to be spotted by the king's top people. After that, as the story unfolds, these people are going to pressure him into the storyline--the king has been drugged, we can only be saved if you undertake this masquerade. Refuse, and Sapt will immediately arrest you on clear suspicion of your involvement in the plot. The world description is filled with contingencies for how to keep the player character on story, or what to do if he goes off story. It's not entirely railroading. It does provide story divergencies, such as if the character takes Hentzau's offer to try to pull a coup and get rid of everyone who knows he's not the king. Yet in the main, it's about telling "the referee's story", with many coercive elements to put the players where they "belong".
I don't think even then it really attempts The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. Although the referee can make the world highly coercive, he ultimately cannot control the player choices. He can have the character executed; in Multiverser, that's just another way to continue the story--let's try another world. Because death is always an option for a verser (in fact, in a game I'm playing on our forum, not too many days ago, I told an enemy that she could kill me, but I would not permit her to put a slave collar on me) it's not really possible for the referee to take away every alternative from the player in that game. However, most players would think that if the character alternatives are "do what the referee wants or die", that's not a choice. If the only viable option is "do what the referee wants", there's no character autonomy.
You don't play that way. That's good. You've answered The Impossible Thing in essence by saying The Referee Does Not Control The Story. This is contrary to most roleplaying game texts, but it is the way many games are run in practice. It is also not the only solution. Illusionism and Participationism are viable solutions: the referee does control the story; the players are made to feel as if their actions have meaning when they actually do not. A good example of this is one of the start points I use for quite a few Multiverser worlds: I will ask the player which way he is going, but he has so little information his choice is entirely uninformed. He can tell me he is going left or right, or cutting through the cornfield, or moving into the forest, and it doesn't matter--he will wind up where I want him anyway, because really that's where the game starts, and this is all just exposition made to feel like play. Left or Right always appears to be a choice, but in my Game Ideas Unlimited article on that (at Gaming Outpost) I show that it can be an entirely meaningless choice without the players ever having any idea that it didn't matter.
Personally, like you, I never really try to do The Impossible Thing. I let the players decide what they're going to do, within the confines of the situation. It's still the idea people have. Even you seem to have it--you think you've actually made The Impossible Thing possible, when all you've really done is avoided it effectively. Most role playing games define the relationship between referee and players such that they are both in control of the same things at the same time, and fail not only to define who has authority in the conflict but even to recognize that the conflict exists.
If all you're doing is playing, it seems you've got a good way to determine that division of power (or credibility--whose decision defines what). If you're planning to write a game, make sure you clearly state that division of credibility in your text, so everyone will understand how you intend it to work. That will put you a step above most of the major successful published games.
--M. J. Young
Forge Reference Links:
On 4/3/2003 at 1:23pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
DaGreatJL wrote: However, somewhere along the way, the players begins making decisions that run counter to completing the adventure goal; in effect, they have come up with their own ending to the adventure, and are pursuing that. Perhaps they decide that whatever the wizard is summoning is good; perhaps they want it to be summoned so they can destroy it; perhaps they would prefer to spare both the princess and wizard's lives by convincing them to marry.
I played in a Call of Cthulhu game with a similar situation once. one of the other players resolved the situation in a fairly imaginative way. When we burst in on the ritual to summon Nyarlathotep, he decalred 'I shoot the girl in the head'. He had initiative on everyone else, and rolled 02%.
Well, at least it stopped them summoning Nyarlathotep (the propper sacrificial ritual required killing her with a particular magic blade).
Frankly though, the fact that the stated description of the roles and responsibilities of the GM and players leads to impossibilities, clearly shows that it is untennable. GMs are responsible for situation, not story. Story is the outcome of events that are determined in play.
It's true that players also input into situation, but their contribution is limited. The way in which the world responds and adapts to their input is still in the hands of the GM. Roleplaying is an inherently collaborative activity, and any definition or description of it must take this into account.
I consider myself to be very story-oriented. I want the results of the game to make a good story, but I can't force it to do so. All I can do is hope that my collaborator's aims are compatible with mine.
Simon Hibbs
On 4/3/2003 at 2:20pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Hi there,
I don't have much to add - M.J. nailed it for me.
This phrase in particular:
you think you've actually made The Impossible Thing possible, when all you've really done is avoided it effectively.
... does the job.
Best,
Ron
On 4/3/2003 at 3:58pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
I don't really disagree with Ralph or MJ, except in the use of terms particularly. See, the problem with Sindyr's understanding is that he would say that what Ron refers to as the "series of related actions" is a story, whereas the "story" that Ron refers to goes by the Narrativist definition. I would agree with Sindyr that one can create something that could be called a story by some defintions by using his techniques, in which the players and GM both have some say. What he cannot do is create a "Story" in the Narrativist sense, becuse to do that requires player control of the elements that would create plot.
This is why the Impossible Thing is in the GNS essay. It refutes the Dramatism = Narrativism + Simulationism simultaneously argument.
And I would ask Ron would clarify so that I can know if I'm wrong or not, and so that Sindyr can see once and for all just what they author was saying, as opposed to informing him of what the author was not saying.
Mike
On 4/3/2003 at 4:08pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
So much to read and reply to, it will be hard for me to keep this coherent as I am now addressing four different replies in this one, but I will do my best. :)
Jonathan Walton:
I don't disagree with anything you said in your reply, I think, but I don't feel that it addressed the heart of what I am trying to noodle around - my fault, I'm sure, for not being entirely clear. I will try to give a better illustration of what I am thinking below, after this reply section. My ultimate point I think will be that the GM does decide what the players find in the world, while the players decide what to do about it, and neither one exclusively determines the outcome, but both together share in producing the outcome. Check out my example below.
Pagannani:
I found the Forge about a week ago. I posted yesterday. In the time between finding and posting, I have indeed read all the articles here, as well as perused many of the threads.
This doesn't mean I understand everything I have read - but that is why I am here, making trouble - er, asking questions. (grin)
For the sake of argument, can we get an example of the Impossible Thing(TM)? Can someone pull out their Vampire or Mage book (White Wolf) and add here word for word and letter for letter what the White Wolf's version of the Impossible Thing is? Maybe then it will be clearer what is and is not being said by that passage, and by that kind of passage as a whole? I would type it in, but I am at work presently and have no access to my rpg books.
However, the basic idea you said that the Impossible Thing is about "the GM controls the world, the players control the characters" is I think not a fallacy, but entirely possible, which I will attempt to show in the example below all the replies, so check that out, please.
Also - separate hp for one's spleen? This is a game I gotta see! :)
M. J. Young:
• Thank you.
• I have read all the articles, although as you can see, I still have questions and in some cases do not agree fully with everything stated...yet. The "Impossible Thing" is the first question I have.
• I am not convinced that most rpgs, when advocating the GM as author and the players as protagonists, are not envisioning the balances I have outlined. Perhaps we can look at and dissect White Wolf's Mage/Vampire treatment of the Impossible Thing, and learn thereby.
• I fully agree with you that you cannot have the players have total control of the outcome while the GM also has total control of the outcome - one contradicts the other. What I am wondering is, a) does each "side" have near total control of their separate domains (apart from the limits of consistency and continuity), and b) with each wielding that control, don't each have an equal say in the outcome of the game? I think (a) and (b) *is* what the "Impossible" Thing in most rpg's really means – and I don’t think it’s impossible.
• I was *not* deriding modules, but I *was* deriding the GM's possible use of them in a linear and controlling fashion. However, I do apologize for this, I of course believe that as long as everyone at the table is happy with the game and how it is being run, that that is the main goal. I *do* believe that for myself, and for many other players, being run through a module and its usually narrow constraints is akin to being put in a straightjacket - not much fun. However, I am not saying that I have no use for modules - I find good use for them as jumping off points and source material.
Also, I would like to know more about this Multiverser, do you have any links?
As far as the Zenda example goes - is the GM using his GM abilities to force the players to a place/confrontation/outcome of his choosing? If so, I would call that railroading and an abridgement of the GM/player divide.
IMHO, a GM is not an architect building a building, using the Players as girders; but the GM is more like a Cook, adding ingredients, and the players are the main ingredients. But even the cook cannot be sure what the result will be - all he can do is stir and simmer and see what happens.
In terms of asking the player which way he is going, but secretly deciding that the Important Building will be at the end of his path no matter which way he chooses, that’s not a big deal, and doesn't rob the players of free will.
However, forcing him to go in the building, when the player chooses not to, *is* (IMHO) railroading and again, a violation of the player's domain.
Also, if the streets of this city are well known to the character, and the character is attempting to get to a well known place, telling the player "somehow you wind up in front of this mysterious building" violates consistency - unless the GM has a good reason, say the player may have been ensorcelled. But in that case, the player has saving throws and the like...
I would also be interested to see what *you* make of my example below, check it out.
The Example.
The Genre: A modern realistic world, with no supernatural events or creatures, no psionics, no superheroes, just gritty reality. Perhaps this is a game of corporate espionage and shadowy world dominating groups.
The Scene: The PC (only one PC, for simplicity) is on his way from a meeting he just had in the park back toward his house for lunch. The PC has of late been working on defending his company from a hostile takeover from a rival corporation, the Sandhu Conglomerate. The Sandhu Conglomerate wants to take over the PC's company because the PC has just invented a way of storing energy into batteries that is 50 times more efficient than any other way before.
As the PC is walking through the streets, the GM tells the PC that he sees what appears to be a street thug grab the purse of an old woman nearby, and that this thug appears to be making a run for it.
As it so happens, the PC is armed with a handgun, and is proficient in its use.
The GM asks the player what his character will do, if anything.
Here is a list of several possible player’s choices, and of corresponding possible GM responses.
• Choice 1) Player: I do nothing, and keep on walking to my house.
Did the GM want the player to chase the thug? That (IMHO) is wrong. The GM should not set up or desire *outcomes*, only *situations*.
Now if the player’s dad was killed by a street thug, then maybe a roll is called for to see if the player can resist the urge to get involved. If it's the same thug that killed his dad, then a roll is definitely called for.
Of course, a roll would not be needed in most cases under those conditions. The average player if given a chance for revenge against a guy who offed his dad would take it.
On the other hand, if the PC is cautious by nature, or focused on other matters, the player may be disinclined to get involved with random street violence.
If the GM "takes over" the character and forces him to chase this guy, that is a violation of the player's Domain. (again, IMO)
The GM can set up the situation, but the character and his choices are sacrosanct.
• Choice 2) Player: I shoot the thug five times in the chest.
Well, this is a violent reaction, but not unpredictable when it comes to players. And unless the character is a committed pacifist, he has the right to make that decision for himself.
The GM may, if appropriate, ask the player, "Your character has never killed before. Are you sure you want to shoot to kill?"
Ultimately, again, it's the players Domain and choice.
• Choice 3) Player: I shoot the thug in the leg.
This is a harder shot to make, and the GM does not of course guarantee that the PC will hit the thug - BUT the GM does NOT "fudge" the results either. Player's Domain.
• Choice 4) Player: I chase the thug.
The GM should have the PC make rolls to keep up and perhaps catch up with the thug.
If the thug enters the Sandhu Corporate Building, the PC may break off the chase, not wanting to get involved with his rival corporation. Or, the player may choose to have the PC follow him in, for a host of reasons.
But what the GM cannot do is force or trick the player into entering the building. Now, if this is a plot by the Sandhu people, it is possible that in-game the Sandhu *people* will try to force or trick the PC into going into the building after the thug, but that is quite different from the GM doing that.
• Choice 5) Player: I concentrate real hard, perhaps harder then I ever have before, and mentally command the thug to stop in his tracks.
As a GM, I go, "Huh?" :) As previously stated, this game is non-supernatural/psionic/power based.
Therefore, as a GM, I would say, "Sure, you bring the entire weight of your will to focus, and you can almost feel your mental command shooting out at the thug. The thug, however, seems to feel nothing, and doesn't even break his stride."
In other words, the PC can give all the mental commands he wants, but not only does the character not possess this power, the power is not even compatible with the world.
This is an example of the player trying to usurp the GM's Domain. This is also not allowed (IMHO).
So, what have all the above examples shown?
I think it shows that the role of the GM and the role or the players are not naturally in conflict. As long as the GM limits his actions to that of the world and setting, and the players limits their actions to their characters motivations and choices, the two cannot come into real conflict. The only time when I can see a problem is when one side tries to usurp the power of the other side in order to force a specific outcome.
The central point is, neither "side" can (or should, IMO) control the outcome of the story. If the players are trying to do this, they must necessarily attempt to remove some of the world authoring power from the GM's Domain. If the GM tries to control the outcome of the story, he must be abridging the power of the players to make meaningful choices - the player's Domain.
Now, it is true that it is *easier* for the GM to abridge this line then the players, for the simple fact that the GM *can* use the forces of the world to *push* the PC's into a specific situation or outcome.
However, in truth, when the GM attempts to do this, the players (should they not want to be pressed into the mold) will react against it. And soon, the continuity or consistency of the game world (or both) will begin to suffer.
This is exactly why I keep referring to both the continuity and consistency of the world (c&c).
If the bad (IMO) GM want to get the players into a certain dungeon, he can start by saying "the party sees an interesting cave", and if the players pass that by, he can says "the party sees an interesting hole in the ground a mile past the cave", and if the party passes *that* by, the GM can say, "the party sees a fissure leading down into the earth"...
Eventually, the bad (IMO) GM can have monsters leap fro the dungeon entrance, overpower the characters (without rolls, of course, or with badly even baldly fudged rolls), and drag them into the dungeon.
I find this somewhat vile. Not only because it violates the precept that the characters get to make their own choices, but because it violates the game world as well, turning a rich and interesting world of possibility into an unavoidable black hole of a dungeon.
On the other hand, if the characters pass by the original cave, and the GM says, "oh well", and tosses the dungeon back into the gym bag, its cool.
After all, perhaps the players will eventually get it into their heads to explore a cave in another country, weeks later - and then the GM can pull out the dungeon for use. *Assuming* that this doesn't violate c&c to do so, i.e., the specific dungeon is NOT known to be anywhere else, etc...
As far as I know, regardless of GNS and other concerns, most role-playing games have a fundamental basic premise:
That the GM authors the world and its vast and sophisticated networks of cause and effect, and the Players have characters within this world, that get to choose what paths they will take.
This doesn't mean the Player has total control over the fate of his character - ie, he can't suddenly and with no explanation begin to use mental powers that he has never possessed.
This doesn't mean the GM has total control over the World - he cannot (and should not, IMO) prevent the Players from having an effect on the world by the choices they make.
The story, I think, is the interfacing of the GM's world and the Player's choices. Does the GM have total control over this? No. Does the Player? No.
Do they both have some, non-absolute control over the overall story? Definitely.
I think it's this shared control that is being denounced by the phrase "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" - but I think this denouncement is the result of black and white thinking. However, grey exists as well.
Sometimes it's not an all or nothing thing. Sometimes it is a "both, and" thing.
As far as I can see, it's possible, even *intended* for Players and the GM to jointly control the Story, with neither one's control absolute.
And as long as they do not trespass on the other's Domain, harmony should reign.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 4:33pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr,
You might check out the "Storyteller Heartbreakers" thread. I posted some quotes from Vampire 2nd edition thaty might help.
On 4/3/2003 at 4:35pm, Bruce Baugh wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
I suspect that one often-unrecognized source of clashing expectations is in the matter of situations and outcomes. I should dust off my old essay about Situationist gamemastering, since it's about setting up situations which will then unfold in a way surprising to the GM as well as to the players, but which can produce an outcome that feels like a satisfying story to the participants.
On 4/3/2003 at 4:40pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Mike Holmes said:
I don't really disagree with Ralph or MJ, except in the use of terms particularly. See, the problem with Sindyr's understanding is that he would say that what Ron refers to as the "series of related actions" is a story, whereas the "story" that Ron refers to goes by the Narrativist definition. I would agree with Sindyr that one can create something that could be called a story by some defintions by using his techniques, in which the players and GM both have some say. What he cannot do is create a "Story" in the Narrativist sense, becuse to do that requires player control of the elements that would create plot.
Hmm.. perhaps the differing shades and defintions of the word "story" is muddying up the discussion...
What I submit is that neither side absolutely controls the outcomes of events, but both "sides" influence the outcome. That both the GM and the Players participate is determining the outcomes equally.
[not every minor outcome, I mean, but the larger overall outcomes]
This sharing of the power to influence outcomes is what I think is eminently possible in a equal and harmonious way, and it is this very idea that I think is being denounced in the phrase "The Impossible Thing..."
I think so...
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 4:42pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Bruce, I would love to read that. :)
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 4:51pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: Hmm.. perhaps the differing shades and defintions of the word "story" is muddying up the discussion...Yes, yes, yes.
What I submit is that neither side absolutely controls the outcomes of events, but both "sides" influence the outcome. That both the GM and the Players participate is determining the outcomes equally.
[not every minor outcome, I mean, but the larger overall outcomes]
This sharing of the power to influence outcomes is what I think is eminently possible in a equal and harmonious way, and it is this very idea that I think is being denounced in the phrase "The Impossible Thing..."But it's not. That's not even close.
Now, before Ralph and MJ jump on me again, I would say that we'd still have to know more about your definitions to be sure if what you say is what we each think it is. You still might be proposing the Impossible Thing, but I don't think so...
Sindyr wrote: The story, I think, is the interfacing of the GM's world and the Player's choices. Does the GM have total control over this? No. Does the Player? No.
See.
Sindyr, I agree with you, that with that definition of story, you can succeed. But the result of that sort of play seems to some to be more like real life. Which some would not consider a story. It's this more restrictive definition that causes the problem. Again an again, you are not describing the Impossible Thing.
I'd also agree with you that the designers who put such text in their games never intended for the sort of story that the Narrativists refer to neccessarily be the point of play. Or, rather, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
But what's certainly true is that Narrativist players reading this will be dissillusioned. Because they may actually feel that there is some way for the GM to control the moral and ethical dillemmas which the character will face and their outcomes in terms of player choice, and that they can also control that as well. But this is what's not possible.
If that's not a priority for you, as it's not from your examples, well then the Impossible Thing is not something you need worry about.
Mike
On 4/3/2003 at 5:02pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Ok, I believe I stand corrected on the subject of White Wolf's Vampire.
some quotes from the Vampire book, lifted with help from Paganinni:
Rules:
"They are used mainly to avoid arguments . . . and to add a deeper sense of realism to the story. Rules direct and guide the progress of the story, and help define the capacities and weaknesses of the characters."
Storyteller:
". . . the person who creates and guides the stories."
"The Storyteller describes what happens as a result of what the players say and do, and must decide if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die."
"[the Storyteller] doesn't simply tell the story; instead, she must create the skeleton of a story and then let the players flesh it out by living the roles of its leading characters. . . . mostly she must decide what occurs in reaction to the words and actions of the characters - as realistically, impartially and creatively as she possibly can."
Player:
". . . you are inside the story and not just watching it. You are creating it as you go along, and the outcome is always uncertain."
"That is what this game is all about: not stories told to you, but stories you will tell yourself."
"Vampire is not only a storytelling game, but a roleplaying game as well. You not only tell stories, but actually act through them by taking on the roles of the central characters. It's a lot like acting, only you make up the lines."
"You decide what risks to accept or decline. Everything you say and do when you play your character has an effect on the world."
"To some extent, you are a Storyteller as well as a player, and should feel free to add ideas and elements to the story, though the Storyteller may accept or reject them as she sees fit.
"As a player, you try to do things which allow your character to succeed, so as to "win the game." This strategic element of the game is essential, for it is what so often creates the thrill and excitement of a dramatic moment."
"Although Vampire is a game, it is more about storytelling than it is about winning."
"There is no single "winner" of Vampire, since the object is not to defeat the other players. To win at all, you need to cooperate with the other players. Because this is a storytelling game, there is no way for one person to claim victory. In fact, Vampire is a game in which you are likely to lose, for it is difficult to do anything to slow your character's inexorable slide into madness. The whole idea is to hang on as long as possible and eke out the most drama from the ongoing tragedy."
Okay, so yes, the words do actually contradict each other, if taken at face value, and maybe they should be taken at face value.
It occurs to me, though, that the above words perhaps should not be taken at face value, for two reasons:
Maybe the writers of those sections were "dumbing" it down for rpg neophytes, and in the process, itroduced apparent contradictions. Perhaps behind the "dumbed-down" prose, a consistant framework looms?
Or, maybe, being an artsy bunch, the writers forsook a certain amount of clarity and precision for flowery and artistic ways of describing the roles of the players and GM.
Or maybe both?
Of course, it is entirely possible that the writers *are* advocating the schizophrenic approach they state.
They do state: "The Storyteller describes what happens as a result of what the players say and do, and must decide if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die." ,
as well as, ". . . you are inside the story and not just watching it. You are creating it as you go along, and the outcome is always uncertain." and "That is what this game is all about: not stories told to you, but stories you will tell yourself."
I dont know - it's not really clear.
I will have to go back and look through my vampire books, as well as my other rpg's to see how the other books present the "(Im)possible Great Thing"
But I do think we need to keep in mind that these passages are often pitched to rpg newbies, and are put in overly simplistic terms.
Thanks.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 5:23pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
This is really getting messy, and it doesn't need to be, because its not that hard of a concept.
Mike, again I think your bringing in of different kinds of story is not accurate. "STORY" or the definition of is NOT whats at stake in the Impossible Thing.
I don't care WHAT definition of story you're using...literary premise based or simple chain of causal events...doesn't matter. By any definition of story the impossible thing is impossible.
The issue is not one of story...its one of CONTROL.
Lets break it down, and leave story out of it.
The Impossible Thing states:
The GM has total control of "X".
The Player has total control of "Y"
But Y is a subset of X. Therefor this situation is NOT POSSIBLE. I don't care what X and Y are...its just plain not possible.
Go ahead and substitute World for Story...same thing. Characters are part of the Story, Characters are part of the world. Its Impossible for the GM to control the entirety of the Story or of the World...
Ahhh...so the solution is simple...the GM controls all of X except for subset Y...problem solved right...nope...this is in fact the problem itself. Because game text after game text ASSUMES this is possible...states it as an outright goal (and if I were home, I could quote some text).
But its not...and the reason its not is because these games don't define where the character ends and the rest of the story / world begins.
The character can interact with the world...they can kill NPCs they can blow up buildings they can do lots of stuff...so the characters are changing the world, and the players control the characters...there for the players are changing aspects of the world outside of their own character. Where does the character end and the world begin...
There is no definitional issue at stake here. It all boils down to authority. Who has the authority to say what and when. The reason the impossible thing is impossible is because it grants full authority to two different parties and that authority overlaps.
The solution to the Impossible Thing is to have clear demarkations and boundaries to define who has the authority and when.
Sindyr, all of your text to date is not proving that the Impossible Thing doesn't exist, or that you are successfully playing the Impossible Thing. What you have done is come up with a means of doing for you and your group what the game rules itself don't do...specify that authority. Where in your group is the GM willing to cede authority granted to him by the rules...where in your group are the players willing to cede authority granted to them by the rules in order to reach a point where at any given time only 1 party has the authority. You've successfully negotiated the overlapping authority in a way that is functional for your group.
The rules don't do this...the rules don't acknowledge this as necessary. The rules believe that you can have your cake and eat it too. That's Impossible. You've found a way to work it out. You're not DOING the impossible thing...you're avoiding it (which is a good thing).
One final note, because someone is going to say "wait the rules do do it, my rules very clearly say 'The GM is god and his word goes", so doesn't that mean that the overlapping areas of authority are already being adjucated.
Answer: No. This rule is by and large a completely meaningless one. Because it essentially has revoked all authority from the players all together, and if actually enforced would turn all characters into puppets. It turns the players authority into authority at the whim of the GM, which ain't any kind of authority at all.
It is ultimately the same situation...basically the overlap is dealt with simply by removing all authority from the players...but then again the text that says the Players have control of the Characters can not exist simultaneously with the text that says the GM has ultimate authority over everything.
On 4/3/2003 at 5:36pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr: Cross posted with you. I think you'll find text like that over and over in game books.
Its certainly hard to postulate what they meant, and maybe they are oversimplified for neophytes...but...
I think there is substantial evidence from reading the rest of the rules that this is not the case. The rules are written as if it were in fact possible...in fact the rest of the book simply takes for granted that this contradiction is the way things work.
Now this is a harder thing to prove because there is no single passage to point to and say "there...that's what it is". Instead it is the LACK of such passages that demonstrates the point I'm making. If the introduction is just a dumbed down summary, where in the rest of the material is the contradition addressed. Where is the specific discussion on the boundary and where the respective arenas of authority are? Surely in the GM's guide you wouldn't have the limit of being "dumbed down for newbies"...its the GM. But such discussions are very rare.
I can't say for absolute certainty that in no version of V:TG or any other game where simliar language exists (and there are alot of them) that there isn't a passage or turn of phrase somewhere that could be interpreted as addressing this issue. But what you'd be hard put to find is a section that puts the issue in black and white and frames it.
Most often the issue is left for play groups to do what you have done, and work it out for yourself, a process which is rarely painless. I'd be very surprised (i.e. not disbelieving, just surprised) if your group has never had a game interrupted by a player GM spat, that ultimately boiled down to who had the authority...and the reason such arguements exist is because the rules give the authority to both.
Edit to add:
Its kind of like a sweepstakes where they're giving away $1,000,000 but they announced two winners. I got a notification that I won the million, you got an announcement that you won the million. Since there's only 1 million total, we both can't have won the million...but then the contest runners decide to let us work it out for ourselves.
I want the full million because I'm entitled to it. You want the full million because you're entitled to it (That's the Impossible Thing). If we don't work something out niether of us get anything (play stops) so ultimately you and I will come to an agreement (split it 50/50 say) that allows us to move forward...but niether got what was promised to us.
On 4/3/2003 at 6:00pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Mike, you write some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas. :)
Mike Holmes wrote:
Sindyr, I agree with you, that with that definition of story, you can succeed. But the result of that sort of play seems to some to be more like real life. Which some would not consider a story. It's this more restrictive definition that causes the problem. Again an again, you are not describing the Impossible Thing.
So, maybe the Impossible thing rests on three legs, not two?
• That the GM controls the world.
• That the Players control their choices.
• The the goal is the creation of a standard-type story, with a beginning, middle and end, similar to what you read in books or see in films.
Given all three of those, I can see a definate contradiction.
However, as you rightly identified, I do not believe that the third is tenable or possible within the confines of a GM/Player dichotomy.
So I throw out the idea that an rpg game is "supposed" to generate a coherent simple story, and instead cherish what it *does* generate - not a simple narrative, but a *melange* of many narratives, interweaving, starting and stopping. A *reality*, as you noted.
Which is pretty much all you can *get* from an rpg, I think...
Mostly.
I'd also agree with you that the designers who put such text in their games never intended for the sort of story that the Narrativists refer to neccessarily be the point of play. Or, rather, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
What sort of story do Narrativists refer to?
But what's certainly true is that Narrativist players reading this will be dissillusioned. Because they may actually feel that there is some way for the GM to control the moral and ethical dillemmas which the character will face and their outcomes in terms of player choice, and that they can also control that as well. But this is what's not possible.
I am sorry, but I did not understand the above paragraph at all - could you explain?
Thanks.
-Sindyr
On 4/3/2003 at 6:32pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
I see no contradiction in this:
That the GM controls the world.
That the Players control their choices.
The the goal is the creation of a standard-type story, with a beginning, middle and end, similar to what you read in books or see in films.
I've played in and run games like that. I've written some of them up here. I do not belive the above three points address the impossible thing at all *unless* you subscribe to a specific definition of the use of the word 'creation' in the third point.
What *is* impossible is that if you define "story" in a certain way, and "creation of story" in a certain way then, yes, you get a self-contradictory situation (and when you don't use the tasty words like "creation of story" it becomes an astonishingly non-contraversial no brainer). The idea of the impossible thing seems often to studiously avoid taking responsibility for interperting the game that way.
-Marco
[ An even worse problem (and one that Val hit with his analogy) is that the RPG "media" isn't much AT ALL like print or film or acting or any of the other things it's described as. Just as Valimir's analogy with the million dollars is flawed (I see it as if it's you and your wife who win the lottery and you're complaing you have to cooperate with her). There's yet to be a good way to describe the social contract and directoral mechanics of games that doesn't degenerate into a horrible terminology quagmire. ]
On 4/3/2003 at 6:45pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
M. J. Young wrote: It's no good deriding modules because they don't present your play style. Modules in fact are the quintessential representations of how game designers expect their games to be played. If your play style does not match the modules, then you're not playing as the game designers intended. Modules clearly show The Impossible Thing in action. In competition modules, I would wager that a large part of "play" involves players trying to intuit what it is that they are "supposed" to do next. [...] Modules insist that the players have complete control over their characters but referees control the story. That means that somehow the referee can always force the players to do A, B, C, and D, when they don't wish to do that, without overriding their autonomy. That is The Impossible Thing in sharp relief.
I wanted to pick up on the discussion of modules. I agree with M.J. that modules are important for understanding the designers -- they tell more about what designers really think the game should be like, whereas the vague introductory text is generally seen as fluff.
You know, the main thing I hear is that you (M.J.) don't like most game modules. That is fine as a personal preference. On the other hand, there are people who play and enjoy them, and their preference is also valid. You say that modules show "The Impossible Thing in action", which is a direct contradiction. If it is in action, then by definition it isn't impossible. Even if the literal text describing role-playing is unclear, there are people who play the modules and I think the result is largely the way they were intended by the designers.
I also think this addresses the preferences of many players. In my experience, players frequently do not want to control the larger plot. They enjoy doing dialogue, characterization, and tactics -- but prefer that the general plot structure be in the hands of the GM. Modules that define storyline are fine for players with this attitude.
Lastly, different modules vary in their approach. Many modules have little or no central storyline. Instead, they primarily define a location and NPCs. The GM and players are free to do whatever they want with these.
On 4/3/2003 at 6:56pm, Bruce Baugh wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
From the author's and developer's point of view, I can say that modules are often at best a flawed and incomplete approximation of how we'd like the game to be played. It's really hard to do anything of significance beyond the most straightforward action when you know nothing about the characters, but every bit of narrowing and focus one puts in cuts off some of the audience...the end result is a hodge-podge of compromises. And sometimes problems turn up that neither we nor playtesters caught, for various reasons.
Those of us who write and develop adventures try hard. Adventures are, by a wide margin, the hardest work I do. It's just that the results inevitably suffere in some way, and what we have to do is hope that the way is relatively minor rather than central and inescapable.
On 4/3/2003 at 7:42pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Ralph, obviously I disagree. I didn't want to get into it, but...
You point out yourself that the player can control his actions, and the GM can control the world until such point as these things come into conflict. If that was what we were discussing, then that would make it the "Occasionally Impossible Thing".
But that's not it. I agree with you on the issue of authority. But with a particular definition of story, or even world, then the Impossible Thing becomes quite possible. It's precisely that point at which doing so causes the issue of authority to be demarcated well.
Sindyr,
Not the three part definition. No that would be too easy. No, Ron has created his own definition of Story as it pertains to RPGs. This is based on the work of Egri, but altered to make sense in the RPG paradigm. And this definition is that story is created when the player makes his character take some action that represents some decision that pertains to some satisfying moral or ethical dillemma, in such a way as this was entirely his choice."
So, for example the GM can lead the character to the Grail, but he can't have any idea what will happen afterwards.
Two things. First, in practice, since "story" has become contentious, the definition drops that out, and just deals with decisions on moral or ehtical dillemas. The problem remains, however, that a player who wants to make these sorts of decisions isn't supported by text that implies to the GM that they control the story. Because, in practice what usually happens is that the GM doesn't leave control in the hands of the player. The plot is his, with the player left to follow it, more or less.
Now, your style of play allows for this control, occasionally, you say. Then fine, at that point the player can play Narrativist or Sim at his choice. But if you're not leaving control to the player at all times, then sometimes you're supporting Sim play. As I've said, it's easy enough to shift back and forth on what you support. You just can't do both at the same time. Have control, leave control.
So why should you be concerned? You shouldn't be. The point of the Impossible Thing isn't that you can't play around the Immposible Thing, it's that the idea that there's one consistent style of play that does both at the same time is impossible. And thus we see that Ralph and I are talking about the same thing (IMO).
See, when you say that this sort of play is "all you can get" from RPGs, that belies the fact that you've not played really Narrativist games. I mean, I assume that you realize that Gamism exists, and are merely rejecting it (that's a personal preference, Gamism is valid). But in fact, there's a whole third sort of game that you've just not tried.
Note that there's no particular reason why you need to try it either. It's not superior, either. It's just different. From a POV of gaining experience, I'd suggest it to anyone. But it just might not be your thing. Certainly there's nothing wrong with what you claim as the sumum bonum of gaming as a style either. I like the idea of chasing a "reality".
If you want to try a Narrativist game, one that you can't screw up at all (well, not without really intentionally trying to play in another mode) is SOAP. Hmm. Since that's not free anymore, you can check out The Pool, if you haven't already, at: http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html
Mike
On 4/3/2003 at 11:32pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Mike Holmes wrote: See, when you say that this sort of play is "all you can get" from RPGs, that belies the fact that you've not played really Narrativist games. I mean, I assume that you realize that Gamism exists, and are merely rejecting it (that's a personal preference, Gamism is valid). But in fact, there's a whole third sort of game that you've just not tried.
Well, I would go further than that. There are a LOT more than three sorts of games, and I think it is extremely deceptive to suggest otherwise. It may be that they can all be fit with one or more of 3 labels, but two solidly Simulationist games can be radically different from each other.
Even if you have played in a Narrativist game, that doesn't mean that there aren't all sorts of games which you haven't tried and don't have any clear conception of. My rough impression is that Ralph is talking about a game where the GM does not have a plotline in mind, but rather creates situations to be explored. In my experience, this is rare. Most people have not played in a Simulationist game where the players can and do direct the plot.
On 4/4/2003 at 12:10am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
OK, I am becoming confuseder and confuseder. :(
I started out thinking that I knew what The Inpossible Thing was... and now I am less certain than ever.
So...
ONE: Can we NOT talk about GNS? I do not have enough of a handle on GNS to include that into the discussion here - and that goes for most of the specialized lexicon used here: drift, abashed, currency, stances, etc...
It's not that I am claiming that I do not understand those terms - but I am not *confident* that I "get" them the way others may use them, and I don't want to leave any loopholes where confusion can slip through...
So, can we talk about The Impossible Thing without needing to use this specialized lexicon?
TWO If the answer to ONE was yes, can someone give me a clear and well defined explanation of what the Impossible thing really is? In normal english, mind you, no references to GNS thingamahootchie, etc..
Additionally, can you guys get togther so that I dont wind up getting 3 similar but actually different definitions? If person 1 says that the Impossible thing is A, and person 2 says that it is B, etc; and if A, B, C et al are similar enough to each other, it may look like A, B, etc are different ways to say the same thing.
BUT if A, B, C, etc are not *really* the same thing, then what I have is three or more seperate and different version of the Impossible Thing - and that will only make me MORE lost and short on sanity.
And I don't have a ton of sanity to begin with.
So lets start from scratch:
What is a clear and well defined explanation of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that does not use jargon like GNS and that all of you agree on (for the most part)?
Thank you.
-Sindyr
On 4/4/2003 at 1:17am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: What is a clear and well defined explanation of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that does not use jargon like GNS and that all of you agree on (for the most part)?OK, I'll start.
The Impossible Thing is the belief that the GM can control the story while the players can control the character. "Story" in this case refese to Narrativist style of play. When Ron wrote that essay, he exclusively used the term "story" for Narrativism even stated that Gamism and Simulationism had no story at one point.
So what is Narrativism? It is attempting to create a thematicly statisfying story based on a Premise. Premise was described in Lajos Egri's Art of Dramatic Writing and modified by Ron Edwards to RPG theory in the GNS and realted essays. A premise has been defined as a moral or ethical questioned to be answered by the events that unfold during play.
Sorry, but it is rather impossible to discuss this without the jargon.
So, back to the Impossible Thing. The GM controls the story? But he does not control the characters. If the players control the characters how can he be said to be in control of the story? The characters are a major part of the story so if he doesn't control them, he really doesn't control the story. And if the GM does control then the players really don't control the characters for the same reason. Instead, it's a collaborative effort to create a story. This leads to Ron's band analogy with the GM acting like the bass player, laying down the beat and supporting the other players while the riff and solo. The GM isn't in control of the story in this case. The players are in control more-or-less because they control their characters and are putting their characters through the paces to address the Premise. The GM is providing whatever support may be necessary to help the players address this premise and out of this comes the Story in the Egri/Edwards sense.
On 4/4/2003 at 1:29am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
ARGH!
After I asked nicely too! :)
Ok, thanks, but that did not help much cause you used jargon.
Can you do it again *without* referencing Gamism, Simulationism or Narrativism?
If The Impossible Thing cannot be described and defined without resorting to jargon, then I guess I don't feel that it is significant enough to bother with.
But I am betting that it can be described without all the forge-specific jargon.
As a computer professional, one thing I have heard helpful for giving explanations to the uninitiated is to pretend you are trying to explain it to your mother.
If I go back to the one thing you said before the jargon whipped out:
The Impossible Thing is the belief that the GM can control the story while the players can control the character.
than I would ask if that 's the same as saying the GM controls the world [everything apart from the PC's] and the player's control their characters.
Except of course where the rules or logical consistency overide them both.
-Sindyr
On 4/4/2003 at 1:49am, bladamson wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: Can you do it again *without* referencing Gamism, Simulationism or Narrativism?
Poking in the dark a little here... Let's try to define the terms. I'm new here myself and still trying to get a handle on the stuff. :)
Gamism- Treating the game as, well, a game. Not a medium for creating a story or for simulating anything real. Like Backgammon, tic-tac-toe, or a puzzlebox. At the risk of starting a flame war, I will postulate that AD&D 2e is a gamist game. The mechanics are not realistic, nor do they let the character do whatever they want in terms of story development. One could argue that they are very well balanced though.
Simulationism- Trying to make the game simulate reality. That is, have a mechanic that can cover any possible event, and to stick to that mechanic at the sake of the story. At the risk of starting a flame war, I will postulate that Rolemaster, Cyberpunk, or Mythus are simulationist.
Narrativism- Treating the game as the meduim for creating a story. It seems that these sorts of games are rules-light and unbalanced in a Gamist sense, but in being unrestrictive provide more leeway in creation of story. At the risk of starting a flame war, I will postulate that The Window is a narrativist game.
Sindyr wrote: If The Impossible Thing cannot be described and defined without resorting to jargon, then I guess I don't feel that it is significant enough to bother with.
But I am betting that it can be described without all the forge-specific jargon.
As a computer professional, one thing I have heard helpful for giving explanations to the uninitiated is to pretend you are trying to explain it to your mother.
If I go back to the one thing you said before the jargon whipped out:The Impossible Thing is the belief that the GM can control the story while the players can control the character.
than I would ask if that 's the same as saying the GM controls the world [everything apart from the PC's] and the player's control their characters.
Except of course where the rules or logical consistency overide them both.
I _think_ what they are getting at is that if the sole purpose of play is to tell a story, the GM cannot control it. He can give a situation to the players and take a peek at the outcome. He can even "trick" them into following where he wishes the story to go. But as soon as he starts railroading them they lose interest in contributing to the story, because they feel they can have no real effect on the outcome, and play breaks down.
These are all my guesses anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
On 4/4/2003 at 1:51am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: Ok, thanks, but that did not help much cause you used jargon.I did appologize for it, but you might want to learn the jargon. I did attempt to explain the jargon I used. Did any of that help.
The problem with the Impossible Thing is it is a concept that is reliant on the understanding of a few key concepts, like GNS and Premise for example. It's a little like trying to learn algebra without understanding addition and subtraction. I'm not saying you have to get it completely, but a decent idea of what is meant by "Narrativism" or "Premise" is kind of necessary.
than I would ask if that 's the same as saying the GM controls the world [everything apart from the PC's] and the player's control their characters.
No. It's about Story as defined in Narrative play, which is generated by addressing Premise. (see above)
I'm not trying to be difficult, but these terms were created to facilitate communication of certain ideas and concepts here at the Forge. It would really help if people would understand the basic concepts. Check out the Simulationism essay. There's a handy Glossary at the end of it.
Forge Reference Links:
On 4/4/2003 at 1:54am, Marco wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
I'll take a stab. I'm sure someone will flog me for it.
The impossible thing is that both the players and the GM can act "as the GM" at the same time.
By "acting as the GM," I mean:
1. Creating major elements of the world (what could be called situation or more abstractly 'plot'--characters, outcomes, information--important, critical information, etc.)
2. That the players and the GM both act as the (very nearly) singular guide of their characters *in reference* not just to the character's actions--but the results--and do this at the same time.
In other words, in the jargon (AFAIK) "creation of story" only happens with GM-like power--and GM-like power, being more or less absolute (at least within a given 'theater') isn't shared.
So the no-brainer, non-contraversial way of stating it (to my understanding) is "you can't have two traditional-style GM's at the same time without ... something really werid happening ... and it's probably something you don't want (i.e. a 'did'/'did not' argument).
-Marco
On 4/4/2003 at 2:05am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
OK, I'm editing my previous post but removing all of the jargon I can. Let's see if this helps.
The Impossible Thing is the belief that the GM can control the story while the players can control the character. "Story" in this case refers to style of play that Ron Edwards prefers. When Ron wrote that essay, he exclusively used the term "story" for his prefered style which involve addressing a moral or ethical issue that the players, not the characters find interesting. This ethical/moral question was described in Lajos Egri's Art of Dramatic Writing and modified by Ron Edwards to RPG theory in the his essays. So this is the definition of "Story" as described by the Impossible Thing
So, the GM controls the story? But he does not control the characters. If the players control the characters how can he be said to be in control of the story? The characters are a major part of the story so if he doesn't control them, he really doesn't control the story. And if the GM does control then the players really don't control the characters for the same reason. Instead, it's a collaborative effort to create a story. This leads to Ron's band analogy with the GM acting like the bass player, laying down the beat and supporting the other players while the riff and solo. The GM isn't in control of the story in this case. The players are in control more-or-less because they control their characters and are putting their characters through the paces to address the ethical/moral question. The GM is providing whatever support may be necessary to help the players address this ethical/moral question and out of this comes the Story in the Egri/Edwards sense.
Better?
On 4/4/2003 at 2:25am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Marco wrote: In other words, in the jargon (AFAIK) "creation of story" only happens with GM-like power--and GM-like power, being more or less absolute (at least within a given 'theater') isn't shared.
So the no-brainer, non-controversial way of stating it (to my understanding) is "you can't have two traditional-style GM's at the same time without ... something really werid happening ... and it's probably something you don't want (i.e. a 'did'/'did not' argument).
Sindyr -- I think the short answer appears to be that there is no clear agreement on what "The Impossible Thing" means. Many people seem to think it means something important, because Ron is a cool guy :). However, interpretations clearly vary.
Personally, I think it refers to the literal contradiction as illustrated in the quotes from the text of Vampire: The Masquerade given earlier. What that text is trying to say, I think, is that the GM should be responsible for defining a good overarching plot, but should not micromanage and try to narrowly control PC actions. As they put it, the GM defines the skeleton which the players flesh out. Put another way, the GM should define what the PCs are supposed to do (i.e. defeat this villian), but the players must be free to define how they do it. However, taken literally, the language is vague and arguably contradictory -- i.e. "impossible".
On 4/4/2003 at 3:12am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
OK, i do want to thank everyone for helping me with this - and I think I have resolved, with your help, the following:
• I need to learn the jargon, especially GNS, before I can participate well in these discussions. I am up for that. :)
• It is possible that The Impossible Thing simply refers to the obvious contradiction of having the GM posess absolute control over the story or game or whatever at the same time as the Players also posess total control over the same.
A simple and blatant contradiction in terms.
• It is possible that The Impossible Thing erroneously claims that one cannot have a GM author the world and plot points/devices while the players make significant choices for their characters.
• It is possible that The Impossible Thing means something imprecise and different for each person, such that discussing it, or even *defining* it becomes ardous and mostly impossible.
Given the above, I am going to completely table and drop my quest to understand just what The Impossible Thing is, and if it is truly impossible.
Instead, I will be focusing my enregies to trying to wrap my brain around GNS and what exactly G, N, and S are.
Thank you, I look forward to your participation in *that* new thread.
-Sindyr
On 4/4/2003 at 3:30am, bladamson wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Sindyr wrote: Given the above, I am going to completely table and drop my quest to understand just what The Impossible Thing is, and if it is truly impossible.
Ah, but _is_it_really_impossible_?
I have a hunch it's not. That I need to look at it from a different angle. But I want to contemplate it more before I stick my foot in my mouth some more. :)
On 4/4/2003 at 10:26am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
Mike, Ralph--how did you two ever manage to write a game together? It must be a good one. I know Multiverser came out of the collaboration of two gamers with completely opposite styles.
Ralph is right. The definition of story has nothing to do with it. The problem is simply that the rules give the referee complete control over the outcome of the story, seemingly in total disregard of what the player characters do, while at the same time granting total autonomy to the players to control their characters. It's sort of like saying that at three o'clock in the afternoon Mount Vesuvius is going to erupt and kill everyone, and there's nothing the player characters can do about it--except it isn't Mount Vesuvius erupting, it's every little thing in the referee's game plan. At point B the villain's henchmen are going to capture the player characters alive and take them to their leader--oh yeah? "You'll never catch me alive, said he," as the Aussie song goes. Gamist and even simulationist games keep suggesting these fully pre-plotted scenarios where the referee knows without doubt that in the twelfth scene the player characters are going to be standing in the throne room of Ming the Merciless prepared for their final confrontation where they prevent him from firing his ray at the earth. You can't possibly give players full autonomy over their characters and know where scene twelve is going to be. For all you know, by scene eight the PCs may have found a way to infiltrate Ming's castle and assassinate him in his sleep, despite your best laid plans. Either the referee can plot the story (in the least narrativist sense you can imagine, the story as presented in D&D modules, Gamma World scenarios, Star Frontiers adventures) or the players can make choices about what happens. Both cannot be true. The definition of story has nothing to do with it. It's merely a matter of whether the referee can decide what is going to happen to the characters later or not.
I played a long game with a very effective illusionist referee. He always made us feel like we were winning, and always by the skin of our teeth. He kept us on the edge of our seats, worrying about whether we were going to survive this next situation or not. He gave kill ratios for his adventures, and we all felt we'd accomplished something if we beat his odds. It was all illusion. His monsters died when we had taken enough damage. We reached our destination when he wanted us to get there. He was just so good at it, we never caught on. Then one day he was talking to some of the players about a situation happening to a particular character, not one of theirs, and he told them what was going to happen. They didn't really get it; but the player whose character it was overheard, and realized that nothing he did would make a difference: the game was going to go where the referee wanted it to go, because the referee was telling his story and making us all feel like we were part of it. This was his solution to The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast: the illusion of player autonomy. Everything we did was just color that he incorporated into his story. Now, participationism says that's an entirely viable solution to The Impossible Thing. It's a completely different solution from the one Sindyr is claiming is "intended" by the rules of most games. Yet it is just as reasonable an interpretation of the rules as written as his. In both cases, an arbitrary decision has been made by agreement within the gaming group as to where the power of each ends. In Sindyr's case, they've got a pretty good grasp of what part of it is "the world" and what part is "the character", and they use that as the basis of cooperative creation. In participationism, they have a different division, in which it's clearly agreed that the players provide color and get to feel like they're part of the story--like little children telling their grandfather that the heroes of the story he's telling them have their names, and giving him details to work into the story from time to time. That's right, Bobbie, his name was Bobbie, and he did have a sword, just like yours. They've traded their ability to impact the story for the priviledge of having their characters be heroes who never make mistakes.
John Kim wrote: You know, the main thing I hear is that you (M.J.) don't like most game modules.
Oops--actually, I was responding to Syndir's comment to the effect that modules were badly written and didn't represent real game play. I've run a couple of modules; I'm usually too full of my own ideas to spend much time on them, but I've run a few. One I ran when my computer crashed and took a lot of the adventure in which the players were then involved with it, so I needed to divert them to something else in a hurry, so I grabbed a module I had and devised a hook to get them into it in response to an emergent situation. A couple others I ran because I was very busy with Multiverser work and needed to run something in a D&D game. I've even got a couple of modules I've always wanted to run because they seem really neat. I've also played in quite a few modules. In my early gaming career, I generally did all my own D&D creations, but the Star Frontiers and Gamma World referees in our group never created their own stuff, sticking to TSR modules.
I do perceive that the design of modules has this linear quality to it. Players will do this, then that, then the other thing, and finally will reach their goal. Sometimes there will optional sections, sometimes there will be multiple paths, or unsequenced materials--I'm currently running a module in which the clues are scattered around the inside of the building. The player characters will need to recognize and gather the clues, and do something with them, but the sequence in which they do does not particularly matter. Still, they have to do them all to move beyond this to the next part of the module.
I know there are ways around this. I've written a fair number of Multiverser scenerios in which there's nothing specific for player characters to do--just options from which they can choose, possibilities they can explore. I've also written scenarios for Multiverser that seem to have this guilt: that the players have to do certain things (or at least solve certain problems, even if they find a different way to do it) in order to finish the adventure. I don't think that's always a bad thing. I do think it presses close to this issue of player autonomy versus referee control.
Then John wrote: You say that modules show "The Impossible Thing in action", which is a direct contradiction.
You go on to speak of player preferences, and everything you say is valid--but it also means that there is an inherent acceptance of the division of authority, which interestingly may be different both from that which Sydnir claims is intended by the games and that which has been defined as Participationism (although it may be closer to the latter).
I think that most players going into a module do accept that they are giving up autonomy over where the story is going. This is exactly the sort of autonomy that Syndir claims they always have, and the reason he rejected modules as representative of real play. When I say that the module represents The Impossible Thing "In Action", I mean that they (and this is a generalization, and therefore false) are written as if the players had complete control over their characters and were going to be "guided" by the referee (through whatever means are necessary) into hitting the marks, as it were, doing what they were supposed to do to be in the right place at the right time. The module takes it for granted that the players want to follow the outline of the adventure. Functional module play results because the players do want that; but in a sense, they cannot choose otherwise and continue with the module. Dysfunctional play occurs when the player characters decide to ignore the hooks or go off story, and the referee, locked into the module, turns up the heat to get them back to it.
Even something so general as The Keep on the Borderlands fails completely if the player characters say, I don't care if there's a temple of chaotic evil hidden in the mountain caves. Let the orcs and goblins do what they want in the wilderness. There has to be an initial agreement that the players are going to run characters who want to do what the module requires. This leads, in functional play, to players watching for the cues regarding what they are supposed to do next--which is exactly the opposite of the sort of autonomous character play Syndir claims is normative.
And I'm not even saying that "most" gamers don't play in Syndir's style, or in module style, or in illusionist/participationist style. I'm not even saying that any one of those is right or wrong or good or bad. All I'm saying is that Every one of those sidesteps The Impossible Thing by creating an implicit agreement as to where the balance of authority lies. Personally, I don't care where it lies (although I like to know). I tend to give a tremendous amount of autonomy to my players. If they go so completely off story that I have no idea what to do, I toss out my notes and improvise. That's fine--I like to do that, too. I can coerce players into doing what I want, often without them having a clue they've been coerced. I studied illusionism from a master, and am still learning his secrets as I look back on those games. I'll play any mode you want, and enjoy it. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast still shines out from rules and modules texts such that once you've actually seen it you wonder how you managed to miss it all these years.
I don't know, but there might be text in Multiverser that suggests it at some point. If so, I'm embarrassed. All my years of study in theology and law, learning to see people's unfounded suppositions and destroy them by taking out their underpinnings, and I may have let an error as glaring as that get by me. I hope not.
Syndir wrote: What is a clear and well defined explanation of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that does not use jargon like GNS and that all of you agree on (for the most part)?
Syndir, one of the reasons you are finding this so confusing is that it is clear people misunderstand this. Of course, I think my understanding is correct; and I think Ron said as much in a post in this thread. Ralph "Valamir" Mazza agrees with me. Mike and Jack seem to have a completely different idea about this which obviously I think is mistaken.
The Impossible Thing has nothing to do with GNS or any other part of game theory (except maybe Stance, but it can be discussed entirely apart from Stance).
It has to do with control and autonomy, or, in a term used in an earlier thread (did I coin it, or did someone beat me to it?), credibility.
It means that two people cannot control the same outcome simultaneously.
You have found a way to play your games which bypasses The Impossible Thing, because you and your players have agreed regarding what you control and what they control. By now it should be clear from my (rather long and getting longer by the moment) post here that yours is not the only solution to that. There may be scores of ways in which control may be divided in a game. Some people on these fora have built games which expressly state how such control is divided, sometimes suggesting that everyone is a referee, or there is no referee, or people can through in-game means become the referee, or the referee will change at some point, giving very clear statements of where the division of authority lies. But the major games--D&D, Vampire, Champions, well, you know what they are--all say that the referee controls where the story goes and the players control their characters' actions. (Please, I am not using "story" in a narrativist sense. No one has ever accused me of being a narrativist. My game has been labeled simulationist; my play style has much in it that is gamist. By "story" in this context, I mean nothing more than the overall sequence of events in the narrative being created.) Now, assuming that the players are the main characters in this story, how can the referee control where the story goes, unless he can control the choices and actions of the protagonists? He can't. BUT the RULES say that he CAN, WITHOUT impinging in player autonomy. How does he do this? He doesn't. He can't.
Your "solution" gets around it by deciding that the referee does not control where the story goes; he only controls where it starts, and the players control where it goes. That's a popular solution. Mike likes it. I play that way myself more often than not, on both sides of the table, I think. Yours is not the only solution, and it's not found in the game texts you're citing. You read your experience into the text. (Hey, I'm a theologian--I see stuff like that all the time.)
Participationism "solves" it by deciding that the players have no control over the story at all; they just provide color by describing character actions which the clever referee then works into the story he's telling without derailing his plot.
Module play "solves" it by an implicit agreement in the social contract that the players will play in a manner geared to discover what they are "supposed" to do, and do that.
None of these make The Impossible Thing possible. They all sidestep it; they all say, "The text is wrong; you can't do that. We'll do this instead."
In doing so, they create functional play.
That's very important. Please do not think that I am at all saying that you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying that you have found a way to play that works by recognizing the text is wrong, and providing a compromise that works for your group.
I am sorry this is getting so long; but there were some questions addressed specifically to me before all this other stuff broke out, so I'm going to try to approach them as briefly as I can.
Sindyr wrote:
M. J. Young:
I would like to know more about this Multiverser, do you have any links?
heh-heh
Yeah, we're legit. http://www.multiverser.com/ is the site for the game. You can order from Valdron Inc directly, and it's available from most online booksellers, and can be ordered in nearly any bookstore (particularly the chain types with the computerized book catalogs--I know Borders and Barnes & Noble have it). Some game stores even carry it, but I have trouble getting lists.
He then wrote: As far as the Zenda example goes - is the GM using his GM abilities to force the players to a place/confrontation/outcome of his choosing? If so, I would call that railroading and an abridgement of the GM/player divide.
Your examples follow, but I think you may be confusing things--place, confrontation, and outcome are entirely different matters, I would think.
In Zenda, there are in-game forces that are coercive; they are not controlling.
In Multiverser, players enter a new world in a seemingly random place; yet such entry points are often carefully selected. In Zenda, you enter in an empty sleeping berth on a train headed for Ruritania; it isn't going to stop again until it reaches the border. That's rather coercive: you're going to get off the train in Ruritania, which is where I want you to be.
But you don't want to go to Ruritania, so what do you do? You have to get off the train before you get there. This isn't impossible. Jump. Stop the train. There are ways to do it. Now what? Now you're wandering around in unfamiliar territory in an unknown German state, and you are the spitting image of the prince of Ruritania. You don't know where you're going. If you don't specifically head away from Ruritania, there's no reason why you can't walk right into it, and now you're there. But let's suppose you do head in the opposite direction. Now you come into some town, where the authorities recognize you as the leader of the adjacent state. You tell them it's not you, and what then? Either they don't believe you (ah, the king wishes to travel incognito, well, we'll escort him safely to his border anyway--we don't want to be responsible for something happening to him in our country), or they do--in which case they'll want to see identity papers (you don't have) and will find themselves in a particular pickle, because if you are the king, they'd be in serious trouble with their neighbor if something happened to you, and if you're not, well, you look so much like him that you must be involved in some plot. What should we do? The only thing that makes sense: turn you over to the Ruritanian authorities, and let them figure it out. So whatever you do, you wind up in Ruritania, or you wind up dead and out of this scenario altogether.
Now that I've got you in Ruritania, you're going to be spotted by Colonel Sapt and Fritz Tarlenheim, the King's closest aids; you're going to meet the king and discover this remarkable resemblance. He, being the sort of person that he is, is going to insist that you come have a drink with him while the two of you sort out why you look so much alike (you must be related, probably through one of the famous scandals of the Elfborg house). If you decline, Colonel Sapt is going to grow considerably more suspicious and detain you--after all, he already suspects that you look like the king for some nefarious reason, and your unwillingness to cooperate intensifies that. I'd rather all this happened because you wandered into the royal game preserve. If you start walking, I can get you there, because you have no idea where you are. But if not, I can have it happen pretty much anywhere.
But why am I doing this?
Forgive this seeming digression. I've got a D&D module that begins with this story about how the kingdom needed to get some people who would be able to go on a special mission for them (I remember none of the details, I fear), so they had a contest to find the best people, and you, the player characters, won. I had three reactions to this. One was, yeah, right--like, my player's characters are going to be the best of the best, particularly given their diversity. The second was, how would I work this into the game, without completely blowing the calendar? The third was, this sounds really cool. Could I create these contests and let the players run their characters through them, so that it would be part of the story?
Now, really, the story of Prisoner of Zenda gets started when the king is drugged; everything that happens before that is geared to get the protagonist into a place where he can be asked to replace the king. All of this coercive stuff is exactly the same as me reading from the module that the characters went through these contests, except that it's played out. The moment we discover that the king is drugged, things start to loosen up drastically. Sure, if the player character won't replace the King, Sapt might arrest him as suspect in the poisoning; but the longer it goes, the less I care what the player chooses to do. Let him marry the princess, take Hentzau's bargain, ignore the letter from Maubon, whatever he wants to do is fine. I wanted to get him to the beginning of the story, fill in what was happening, and push him in the right direction; I wanted to do it as play, not description.
So yes, the player was railroaded to the place where the story begins; but then, any time the referee sets up events for the beginning of an adventure, one way or another the players are railroaded to the starting point. Then they can walk away, if that's what they want.
The alternative is never to set up a starting point. This can be done--you can just wait to see what the players are going to do, and invent the story around them--but you can't do a story like Prisoner of Zenda that way, because you have to set it up sufficiently at the starting point for it to go forward. Multiverser claims that it can run any story or world at all, without limitation. It would be silly if something as simple as this stymied it.
He then presents The Example. We'll skip the details.
Choice 1) Player: I do nothing, and keep on walking to my house.
I have no problem with that. Your analysis is pretty good. In Multiverser, there would have to be an extremely compelling reason (a listed character weakness, for example) for a referee to require any kind of roll for a character to be forced to forego this option.
What you're suggesting is that the referee set up this particular scene as a hook to get the character to chase the crook, and the character didn't bite. The right answer for the referee is get better tackle. Seriously, I think it's important for a referee to get to know his regular players well enough that he'll know what kinds of things particularly catch them, and that he use these judiciously so that the players don't learn that they always mean trouble.
Choice 2) Player: I shoot the thug five times in the chest.
The part about shooting him specifically in the chest maybe I'd ignore; I generally assume that potentially lethal attacks with unspecified targets are aimed for the best spots possible. This sort of thing leads to all kinds of potential complications--he's got his back to you, as he's running away, tht sort of thing. I'll ignore a specified location if it's not tactically important (as your next one is). That way if due to range or whatever the shots don't all hit and are not fatal, it doesn't seem incredibly strange that the guy is running away.
This actually raises a Fortune In the Middle versus Fortune at the End issue. In Multiverser, it's Fortune at the End, so even though you're saying "I shoot him in the chest" you mean "I attack him, intending to shoot him in the chest". The dice then determine whether you hit him at all, and how badly. Fortune in the Middle would mean you would state that you intend to attack him, and then roll the dice, and then depending on the determined degree of success, you could say, "I shoot him five times in the chest", meaning that this is the outcome indicated by the dice. But that's an entirely separate issue--ignore it for now.
Choice 3) Player: I shoot the thug in the leg.
Again, your analysis is correct, in my understanding.
Choice 4) Player: I chase the thug.
Right.
If the thug enters the Sandhu Corporate Building, the PC may break off the chase, not wanting to get involved with his rival corporation. Or, the player may choose to have the PC follow him in, for a host of reasons.
But what the GM cannot do is force or trick the player into entering the building. Now, if this is a plot by the Sandhu people, it is possible that in-game the Sandhu *people* will try to force or trick the PC into going into the building after the thug, but that is quite different from the GM doing that.
I understand.
You don't allow for the sort of thing--well, the climactic scene of The Man With One Red Shoe is a perfect example. Knowing they are being chased, Lori Singer's character leads Dabney Coleman's character into the Senate hearing room where the entire matter of covert ops is being investigated, and turns him in right there. Caught up in the chase, he is completely unaware of his location. There's a big difference between "The man you're chasing runs into the front door of an office building" and "The man you're chasing runs into the front door of the Sandhu office building". I can see either being done in a game; but if I do the former and the player doesn't ask what office it is, I don't feel I've treated him unfairly by not telling him--and if he does ask what office it is, I don't feel I'm being unfair if I ask if he intends to slow down to look at the signs.
Choice 5) Player: I concentrate real hard, perhaps harder then I ever have before, and mentally command the thug to stop in his tracks.
Well, in Multiverser, I'd let him roll, and then tell him nothing happened--but that's a quirk of Multiverser. Neither the player nor the character necessarily will know what is and is not possible in this world until he tries, and even then he may have tried and failed in a world where it is possible.
So, what have all the above examples shown?
That you still don't understand the problem?
It shows that you have a particular play style which works quite well; it shows that it's not much different from mine or Mikes. It does not show either that this is how everyone plays or that The Impossible Thing is possible. It only shows that in these specific situations, you and I would resolve matters in much the same way. These are, if you'll forgive my saying so, rather simple situations.
That illusionist referee I mentioned--I'd worked out that he was illusionist (not the word, but the method), but was still enjoying the game. He goaded me, based on my character's values, into taking on a venture that I considered incredibly dangerous. My character was one of those types that has no fear, and valued personal honor, so I knew he would not back down. I was terrified. Fortunately, though, I had stumbled on a single-use device that from what I could tell had great power, and for me as a player this was my security, my hole card. The character would take it with him, because he would take everything useful with him, and if things got impossible, he would use it.
It was about the third session of this venture that we reached what might be the point of no return. We'd gotten far enough along that there really was no turning back. Then, almost out of nowhere, we were attacked by an incredibly powerful force, the sort of thing that should have been our final battle in most people's games. We fought. I used ever bit of strategy and tactics I could muster, organized my people into defensible positions that would provide good attack opportunites and require the enemy to divide its forces against us, and kept things going. In the end, all of our people lived, although many were temporarily disabled and would require attention, and we killed all of them but one, who fled.
Even before I could assess the damages, that one returned with reinforcements, an army twenty times what we'd just barely repelled. We were already hurting, we would have had no chance against this at full strength, and we were running out of options. I played my hole card.
As soon as I played it, the enemy began to retreat, fleeing back to their strongholds out of our reach. We'd won.
It was later that night that I realized what had happened. The entire scenario had been designed to force me to sacrifice my security blanket. The referee had maneuvered me into playing that because he didn't want me to have it. It would mess up his plans.
I think we played once more. There were other reasons why the group broke up (social reasons), but I'd lost my taste for the game. It was then that I realized that nothing I did mattered. It was all color; he was in control.
Now, you will tell me that that referee was playing the "wrong" way. However, most of that gaming group went on to play with him for several more years, because they enjoyed it. They knew quite well that it was all illusionist; some of them went way over the edge, trying to bring things into the story that he couldn't handle, just to see what he would do with them. At that point, it went from illusionism to participationism--a group of players who are enjoying letting the referee tell them a story about their characters over which they know they have no control beyond color.
Note, please, that he never told me I had to play that hole card. Yet it was clear that he forced me to do it, and that this was his intent. You seem to think that because your play style works, it is 1) the only way to do it and 2) what the game texts mean when they say what they say. Yet he was equally convinced that texts saying he was the final arbiter in his game and controlled the story meant exactly this kind of play, that the players had full control over what their characters did within his ability to coerce them into his story and incorporate their actions into what he'd already decided was going to happen. You and he have both sidestepped The Impossible Thing by determining who gets to decide what. You've placed the lines in different places. Neither of you actually believes that the referee has full control over the story and the players have full control over their character actions. You've modified that by interpretation, creating a line where you think it belongs. That line is not in the text.
I think it shows that the role of the GM and the role or the players are not naturally in conflict.
As you define them, they are not.
As the books define them, they are.
That is the problem of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.
I apologize that this has taken so many words; I hope it has helped. I think I did manage to avoid most of the jargon, save only to say that it was irrelevant--and since it's getting close to time for me to wake up and I haven't been to bed, I'm not going to proofread this, so please also forgive any mistakes of that sort.
--M. J. Young
On 4/4/2003 at 9:12pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?
OK, I read and reread your very long and very interesting post.
I have decided to print out all *eight* pages so I can continue to think about them some more.
I appreciate the time your spent replying, and am sure I will learn much from it.
I will, however, refrain from posting a reply to it until
• I have gotten GNS and the rest of the lideas associated with them under my belt, and
• I have had time to fully assimilate all I have recently been exposed to, here at the forge.
My next step is to attempt an understanding of GNS - which I will do from the GNS forum.
By the way, I am intruiged with Multiverser, and plan to do some ordering as soon as my next paycheck comes in.
I am a collector of (hopefully) interesting rpg's, and Multiverser seems fascinating.
I also am pursuing some other RPG's reviewed here at the forge as well.
Thanks.
-Sindyr