Marco's Gaming Manifesto
Here is my take on gaming. I'm not saying this is all it can be. I'm not saying this way or these terms are "the best" or "correct." I'm not suggesting you "do it" this way. None of that. Here's how it usually works for me.

About the only claim I make is that In My Experience(TM) most people I've met would find themselves in general agreement with this description.

DEFINITIONS
1. Definition of REASONABLE: I use reasonable in something approximating the legal sense (as in "reasonable doubt"). If (and this is Valimir's example) a player says "I go to the bathroom and get a hairbrush" if the bathroom belongs solely to a bald man, it is REASONABLE that the GM says "there isn't one." If it belongs to a woman, it is REASONABLE that there is one. If it belongs to a male bachelor, it is REASONABLE for the GM to make a decision (rolling a dice would suffice with maybe a 50-50 split)—but neither outcome is unreasonable.

2. SITUATION: start conditions. These include NPC's with plans in motion. There is no concept of "fair" here. If Lecter is the only reliable way to catch Buffalo Bill (another serial killer), you may have to choose between playing his twisted mind games or letting the Senator's daughter die. You don't have a bitch that you are being railroaded—it’s SITUATION.*

SITUATION will necessarily evolve (in a REASONABLE fashion). That's okay.

3. The GM provides the GAME WORLD (acting as an agent for laws of physics, the character's senses, etc.) This is not the same as the "real world." If the GAME WORLD is one of omens and specters then it is REASONABLE that the GM describe/include/adjudicate these things. The GAME WORLD is expected to be defined in SITUATION (i.e. the nature of the world is a start condition).


4. BASIC POWER SPLIT also TRADITIONAL POWER SPLIT: this is how (IME) the vast majority of gamers would describe the split of power between GM's and players. In other words, if I came to them and said "it's like this?" They'd say "yes, it's like that." They might not always play that way—but they'd agree to it in theory.

GM: The GM sets up SITUATION
PC: The Players take ACTION
GM: The GM adjudicates RESULTS (of Actions) —also RESPONSE(same meaning).

This assumes no "isms" are in effect (illusionism, participationism, railroadism, consumerism, whatever). If they are, throw this whole thing out.

The GM does NOT "adjudicate" RESOLUTION (of scenes or problems)—that'd be, maybe, illusionism or something else. That is, the GM doesn't determine how the whole thing plays out.

RESOLUTION here means "how the problem got solved" or "how the scene played out." Nobody adjudicates it—it is simply a sequence of ACTION and RESULTS. In the case of what might be called illusionist play RESOLUTION might be pre-determined by the GM.

The GM is expected to be REASONABLE in all adjudication. This is important—if the GM is not behaving reasonably, he or she is violating these precepts. Since it's obviously a judgment call, you get to vote with your feet.

DRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING
When the GM is making a decision, so long as it is REASONABLE, he or she may or may not choose to exercise DRAMATIC TIMING or EDITING (as it can deal with things other than timing). For example, when choosing between two likely outcomes, the GM may choose the more dramatic/thematic of the two if he or she chooses. This doesn't violate the precepts here.

It is through the use of DRAMATIC EDITING the GM can introduce theme (recurring patterns in the game that reinforce an atmosphere). The GM can use FORSHADOWING (but the events foreshadowed are not necessarily destined to come to pass), etc.



CONCLUSION
I conclude that the combination of SITUATION (mostly), RESPONSE (not so much) and DRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING (varies) are in the media of RPG's the GM's "Story."

The PC's ACTIONS can have dramatic, influential effects and change the course in ways the GM did not foresee. The players ACTIONS may be taken in such a way that the Player is addressing a theme or tackling a problem—or they may not. It's up to the player(s). The players are the main characters, (usually) the focal point of the conflict (opposite the antagonists) and therefore are the Protagonists.

"Story oriented GM's" operating under these rules will probably want to construct adventures along the lines outlined in the editorial on our site. An example of this play is posted on the board.

END.

* If, on the other hand, you DO find a clever way to catch the guy and the GM unreasonably stops you, he's violating the contract.


Essay on Fault Tolerant Scenario Design that goes with these precepts
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/viewMessage.jsp?message=178&thread=73&forum=3

Examples of such scenarios.
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/viewMessage.jsp?message=179&thread=74&forum=3

-Marco

I assume that this is not intended to solicit feedback of any sort (just a reference thread)? Just trying to be clear, and avoid people posting where it's not suitable.

Mike

No--feedback's fine. I posted this, really, on request from Gordon Landis. In articulating my views to Ralph, some of this got put on paper (PMs, really ... bad metaphor again).

Ron said he thought my view of protagonization might be faulty even within my framework. This is my framework.

If you have comments, fire away, I'd be interested to hear 'em.

-Marco

Well, I'm not sure what would be appropriate. I mean this is a statement of how you play, and/or think is a good way for people to play. And it seems to me that it's entirely functional and all. What is there to say?

Mike

Dunno. Gordon asked for it. I wrote it. If you think it seems functional then cool.

I do have one suggestion: we might do some observation and see if my terms are as widely accepted outside indie RPG's as my experience indicates. If you, for example, see this as the traditional role-playing mode, say so. If you think, for example, that strong illusionism is more the norm, say so.

Whatever the case, a base-line of terms that are general enough to describe traditional roleplaying would be very helpful in analyzing future jargon.

(I have little problem with Jargon: so long as it's in the glossary, at least moderately intuitive, and used consistently and (mostly) correctly.)

-Marco

I hope I'm not derailing where you're looking to go with this, but I thought that I'd offer some of my commentary that derived from our PM exchange with these items.

BTW: Valamir...with an "a" ;-)

Marco wrote:
DEFINITIONS
1. Definition of REASONABLE: I use reasonable in something approximating the legal sense (as in "reasonable doubt"). If (and this is Valimir's example) a player says "I go to the bathroom and get a hairbrush" if the bathroom belongs solely to a bald man, it is REASONABLE that the GM says "there isn't one." If it belongs to a woman, it is REASONABLE that there is one. If it belongs to a male bachelor, it is REASONABLE for the GM to make a decision (rolling a dice would suffice with maybe a 50-50 split)—but neither outcome is unreasonable.

2. SITUATION: start conditions. These include NPC's with plans in motion. There is no concept of "fair" here. If Lecter is the only reliable way to catch Buffalo Bill (another serial killer), you may have to choose between playing his twisted mind games or letting the Senator's daughter die. You don't have a bitch that you are being railroaded—it’s SITUATION.*

SITUATION will necessarily evolve (in a REASONABLE fashion). That's okay.

DRAMATIC TIMING/EDITING
When the GM is making a decision, so long as it is REASONABLE, he or she may or may not choose to exercise DRAMATIC TIMING or EDITING
It is through the use of DRAMATIC EDITING the GM can introduce theme...

The PC's ACTIONS can have dramatic, influential effects and change the course in ways the GM did not foresee.

The players ACTIONS may be taken in such a way that the Player is addressing a theme or tackling a problem—or they may not. It's up to the player(s).

when choosing between two likely outcomes, the GM may choose the more dramatic/thematic of the two if he or she chooses

Hmm. Well, I'd agree with you that most people would use the particular terms that you do. But they'd all mean 100 different things by it. What you describe could even cover Gamism, as long as the GM interpereted "dramatic" as "challenging to the players". Which many do.

So, your description seems to cover two thirds of gaming to me. Well, maybe only half, as you dis-include potentially half or so of Sim by declaring Illusionism to "not be it".

None of us have any facts, really that can tell us how many people play what way. Even worse, I suspect that there are a lot of people out there playing in fasions that are not really what they prefer because they've not seen anything else. So, while this might be common or not, that doesn't say anything about player preference, really. Especially not in terms of Narrativism.

But that's exactly why we have all the Forge Jargon. Because it does indicate the exact differences that commonly used terms do not. It's precisely this manifold interperetation of terms that leads to TITBB. I will go out on a limb and say that you overestimate how many people would agree with your precise definitions of your own terms.

Mike

Hi there,

Marco wrote,

Ron said he thought my view of protagonization might be faulty even within my framework

Marco wrote: Dunno. Gordon asked for it. I wrote it. If you think it seems functional then cool.

Ralph,

I'll get back to all that later (got stuff to do)--but I'll rescind the whole players-making a theme thing. It's not clear. I think it's possible for a player to make a character with intent to play out a redemption story and then do so in the game. The GM can *prevent* this (sure)--but it's terrible form.

So I'm gonna have to address my thoughts on that in a separate section.

I also didn't put in some suggetions about cooperation that I think are pretty imparative to functional play.

Ron: Sorry man. I guess I misread you. Maybe it was the texts/text thing. I've been replying to a lotta threads.

Mike: By having a clearer interpertation of how people will react to certain terms the Jargon can probably improved. Maybe not. I dunno for sure.

-Marco

Marco wrote: Mike: By having a clearer interpertation of how people will react to certain terms the Jargon can probably improved. Maybe not. I dunno for sure.

Another consideration: it appears to me that railroading can be thoroughly accomplished without ever violating these principles of play. As a GM can always come up with a reasonable justification for ruling in such a way that any player action whose results I deem harmful to my railroaded plot will always fail.

It's the "sovereignty of Situation" principle that ultimately gives me this power, because I can, whenever necessary, represent my railroady rulings as (hitherto unrevealed) aspects of Situation. I can do this in many different ways: by writing a huge amount of situation details in advance, or by instantiating general facts that are part of the situation, or by refining the situation on the fly.

An example of each: one of the characters trying to rescue the Sentator's daughter decides to use a psychic clairvoyant power to try to discover the girl's location.

-- Pre-written: Knowing that this character would be in the game, I wrote down somewhere in the Situation text that Buffalo Bill knows of the danger of psychic detection and has placed psychic shielding around his location. (Or perhaps, I decided this in advance but didn't actually write it down; does that make a difference?)

-- Instantiation of a generality: I didn't write down anything about psychic shielding, but I did write down that "no other way exists to catch Buffalo Bill." From that established situational "fact," I can reasonably conclude that psychic powers, being an "other way," cannot work, and therefore Bill must have placed psychic shielding around his location.

-- Refining on the fly: I didn't write down anything, but when the player tries to use the psychic power, I decide on the spot that Buffalo Bill's location is psychically shielded. Note, this is not the same as "Buffalo Bill detects the psychic effort and responds by putting up shielding against it," which would be evolution of situation, whether reasonable or not. It's I, the GM, alter the situation in play... but does Marco's manifesto permit me to do this?

The interesting question is is there any real difference between these three cases? In other words, does Marco's manifesto permit the first (and perhaps the second) while ruling out the third (and perhaps the second)? The first might seem more "fair" than the latter two, but the resulting play in the first case is no better (certainly no more protagonizing for the player-character) than the others. It's arguably more "fair" at the cost of being more adversarial, implying that it's OK for the GM to railroad as long as he makes the effort to do it the hard way, and that the players, if they wish to break the GMs plan, must earn the right to do so by being clever enough to think up something the GM didn't think to write down in advance.

I can also point out that altering or augmenting the situation during play is not at all unusual and is done for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances, most of which are considered reasonable GM conduct by most players. For instance, recently Fang used the example of the German submarine that intercepts Indiana Jones' ship in Raiders of the Lost Ark as something he might introduce in play on the fly. The discussion was about how the play of subsequent events might be made railroady or not railroady... but no one questioned the appropriateness of the GM introducing the submarine in the first place.

I'm not saying that the principles Marco enumerates necessarily lead to railroading or even encourage it; only that they don't rule it out either.

- Walt

Walt--

No, I don't think they "rule out" railroading. That's where the REASONABLE clause comes in. If the GM lets in claravoiance and then determines the guy is shielded, he's (I'd say) railroading. If the game is full of cat-and-mouse claravoinat crooks and cops then it's pretty REASONABLE to suspect a killer might wear the tin-foil hat (or whatever).

That's why you vote with yer feet.

And yes, I expect to have to deal with tricky situations concocted by the GM. For me that *is* part of the game. I also expect creative solutions to work.

-Marco

Marco wrote: That's why you vote with yer feet.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Marco wrote: That's why you vote with yer feet.

I see a lot of potential voting going on if these things aren't set out a bit better in advance.

Mike

Valamir,

First the REASONABLE thing: you as a gamer get to make the determination. You can take hours and weigh evidence. You can make a snap decision. But it's you man--it's always you. They're your feet.

If the GM makes a call you feel is unreasonable, you argue it (hell, you think after a day or two here I'd expect ya not to?). It's all about cooperation. See--I expect (and I stated) that clever ideas oughta work--now, there may be situation the player isn't aware of that stymies the clever idea--and as Walt said that can lead to feelings of being railroaded.

If you think the GM is doin' that, then you make a decision--like it, lump it, or leave. Whatever you do, you take responsiblity for it. You don't stay there and grumble.

Personally, as the GM, if it was the character's own apartment I'd assume the player's perspective was the REASONABLE one as to whether a hairbrush exists (an Astin Martin in the tenement parkinglot is another matter). If the player walked over my decsion that a bachelor guy didn't have a hairbrush, I'd call it even.

So keep the take-responsibility-for-what-you-do thing in mind when reading REASONABLE.

As for the theme thing--that needs a lot more work before I can even discuss it well. Where I was goin' was that a character can be built with an arc in mind. You okay that arc with the GM--if he says 'no' you keep working until yer both happy. If he says 'yes,' he agreed to it and it's a deal.

How exactly that gets reflected is foggier. I've never had a problem with it. The GM is certainly free to ask. If it's sticking for ya, then you and the GM should go into detail about that.

I would expect the player to say "My character, at this stage as a violent thug, gets into a lot of bar fights--I go to a tough bar where the cycle-gangs hang out and they're always looking for trouble."

Is it REASONABLE that there should be one? For most places yeah. If the character lives on the planet "Utopia V" then as the GM I'd rule "no--no such place" and the player would have to argue it, accept it, or leave. But it'd have to be pretty extreme for me to rule there was no cycle gang and no seedy bar.

And if I did that and hadn't discussed that with the player before hand, I'd probably be in violation of the agreement (sure, you can play a violent thug who fights with other violent thugs ... except there are none on this planet ....)

As for the turning point? A moment of thematic climax? Well, it's best to work together--I've seen it work together. I've also done it internally. Just shifting the way my character played over time--or saying "my character was deeply affected by that and now does 'X'"

Man, this is long.

Anyway, it's not a science. And what I mean by exploring a theme is pretty damn unclear--so I can't really "debate" it--just clarify it. Honestly, it's never been a *big* problem for our group(s).

-Marco

Walt,

I expect the GM to do the work for the background. Hell, I expect the GM to do *research* for the background situation. Just as I don't expect simple gaping logic holes in books or movies, I don't expect them in gaming. If the GM's scenario *does* have a gaping hole then It's like ... a blown "GMing" roll or something.

I mean if I have a way to catch the murder that doesn't involve talking to Lecter then bang--I should get him.

Someone said a player might be real pissed about having to visit Lecter in his cell and talk to him. You know I'm talking about Silence of the Lambs, right?

I mean, of Thomas Harris (who bloody well does his reasearch) offered to run ya through a game and at the start the FBI director came to your character and said "We have no leads--he'll kill again--and we need you to talk to the world's smartest sociopath--" you think they'd walk on him? I'm not talking about petty GM abuses of power or doing things to squash players.

What's the alternative? The set up is the ultra-cool silence of the lambs and this hypothetical guy looks levelly at Harris and says ... what? "I made a great detective roll--I catch him."? I don't wanna put words in this guy's mouth--but I'm confused.

You gotta put this in *perspective.* If the GM starts your characters in jail, there better be a good reason for it. And if it starts not-being-fun you know what to do: tell the GM--and if it doesn't get fixed--walk.

I was too strong when I said the player's don't "have a bitch"--they *always* do (it's like a right). But mostly I'd want to play with players who *trusted* me before I plunked them down in a scenario that looked like a no-win.

So add to the above that if the game's more of a negative than a positive you have the right to leave--even if the GM is behaving reasonably (same as you don't have to play in *any* game the GM runs).

-Marco

Marco, I want you to know that I hear what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying.

But I don't think its enough. Basically your entire post boils down to "Can't we all just get along". That's no better than the text we have now that purports to divy up control but in reality just leaves it up to the players to figure out.

If you have a group that really good at "getting along"...they don't even NEED rules. That's where all of the stories about "my GM is so good he can run anything...the rules don't matter" comes from.

If your group is like that, fantastic. I envy you. But you need to realize that you are then a member of an exceptional group...not a typical one, and IMO, this outline is insufficient.

Marco, I like this a lot.

And I like it partly because you are not trying to produce a system or set of guideliness that would guarantee good results. (Where "good" is the basic sensible thing of "satisfies the participants", with anything else as desirable fringe benefits.) I disbelieve in such things, and I take their absence as a good sign as to the writer's experience and judgment.

The last time I wrote character creation rules (For Dark Ages: Vampire) I put in a declaration about how it's very easy to build a character that is mechanically correct and totally in tune with the overall themes of the game, andyet wildly unsuitable for a particular series, like an obsessive stay-at-home in a game intended to include pilgrimage or crusade, ra devout Zoroastrian in a game about clerical politics in Rome. "Don't be a putz about this," I wrote, and developer Phil Boulle left it in, rather to my surprise and delight. I think that applies to everything in gaming. Everything has to get filtered through judgment. One reason to keep the terminology as simple and clear as possible is precisley to increase hte chances that more gamers will use it so as to figure out what they like or dislike and how to make those fit together for a mutually satisfying game.

I'd like to chime in alongside Marco's and Bruce's posts here. For the vast majority of people I've gamed with, Marco's text would describe an enjoyable play.

I don't think it's sufficient to be a "How to Roleplay" guide, but I'm not sure Marco ever intended it that way.

I'm not sure you can ever give advice sufficient to avoid dysfunction is all cases. Some people just don't play well with others.

For me, the useful and interesting discussions have been about dealing with certain dogmatic assumptions about roleplaying, which tend to promote bad role playing.

Ralph,

This wasn't supposed to be sold as Marco's recipie for *success;* it was 'the social contract Marco assumes is in effect as a standard form.' It has the added supposition that the players and GM will try to cooperate and that people will mo-o-less be mature about it (and that holds true for moderate amounts of less--I'm not always at the top of my game either).

It's been my observation that at least some of this behavior is *infectious.* I mean, show up for games you like, check out the group to see if you trust the GM. Talk about what you want ... and if you *don't* like what the GM is doin' and the way the GM is doin' it, at very least don't show up and then complain like hell all night.

Our editor in chief (in NYC) walked into a brand new group--one that had a fair amount 'a infighting going on, was handed a new game (Mutants and Masterminds), handled *one* serious player-player conflict (and it was a good one! He's-a-Munchkin-out-of-character-bad-for-the-plot vs. 'I'm a story oriented guy and he's hurting my experience and *attacking* my character' other player) and it's been week after week of great gaming. I'm *envious*--and it's not even a system I like much (nor he, especially).

So I don't see how it can be a certain magical group: *I* just started with a new group, with a GM who's a real novice and a few players who are new--and whose play *totally* differs from what I'm used to, playing D&D 3-frikking-e, a system that doesn't excite me ... .

It's doesn't look like the group. It doesn't look like the game. What's left?

-Marco

Ian Charvill wrote: I'd like to chime in alongside Marco's and Bruce's posts here. For the vast majority of people I've gamed with, Marco's text would describe an enjoyable play.

I don't think it's sufficient to be a "How to Roleplay" guide, but I'm not sure Marco ever intended it that way.

Damn, had a nice reply that got eaten by an invalid session error.

Anyhow, Marco I think your summary is useful, it tells people exactly what you expect and what you enjoy. A very useful tool if you should ever try and bring new people into your group. Much more useful than many gamer's "I like fantasy games", which only tells us setting colour, and nothing about play style.

For me the execrise would be problematic, because I don't have a prefered play style, it changes based on the game, who I'm playing with, my mood, and so on.


-Matt

Ok, first let me say that I'm not in any way against what Marco has written or opposed to the ideas it espouses in any way shape or form.

As a text that highlights Marco's solution (his game plan, his social contract summary) for getting around the issue of the Impossible Thing, I think its a great start. For a group that already has a tendency to play the same way and prioritize the same thing is is likely completely sufficient.

BUT, here's what I don't like about it.

1) If you have a group who already tends to play the same way and prioritize the same thing...you don't need a write up like this at all. The players would take it, read it, say "yup, whatever, isn't this how we've always done it" and never give it another thought. I mean really the vast majority of groups out there have been able to muddle their way to an agreeable solution since groups started playing together.

2) But, for players who aren't already of the same mindset. Its missing key pieces, a couple of which I elucidated above.


Which leaves me with the following.
I happen to be a fan of exploring the ideas of explicitly stated social contract...one of the reasons why I included it in Universalis. Have I done alot of this in the past...not really...I muddled through it to some mutally acceptable (often mutually tolerable) place just like everyone else.

Call it the benefit of setting everyones expectations properly up front, so they know exactly what they're getting into...rather than assuming that this group will play the same way as their last group and then being disappointed.

So. As a text which helps all of us to get a better glimpse of how Marco plays, this text is pretty good. I'm glad he shared it because its good to know where fellow posters are coming from. But beyond that, its would just be a testimonial...can't really critique a testimonial, so if that's what this is, there isn't much more to say about it.

As a text which a perspective new member of Marco's group might use to decide if he'd enjoy playing in one of Marco's games...its missing significant pieces. One can critique its effectiveness at performing this function. I'd give it high marks for attempting to lay out in writing something that most groups in fact just muddle their way through without much thought, an idea I applaud. But I'd deduct points for areas where I think its lacking (noted above in my post). If this were a text to be used in this way, I'd like to see much more clearly defined guidelines for what (if anything) and when (if ever) the player gets to make assertions that the GM is prohibited from interferring with. And what / when the GM gets to make assertions that the player is required to accept as fact without questioning. I submitt there is a HUGE range of possibilities here and since this is one of the biggest sources of in game friction it should be addressed.

How does this apply to game design. Because I think that the game designer should be upfront about the expectations he designed the game with. There is no "one true way" to roleplay. But there very likely is the "way I envisioned when I designed this game" from the designer. RPGs are usually completely devoid of clear explicit text describing the gaming assumptions the designer was operating under when they wrote the game. As we've discussed ad naseum in a few recent threads...this is where the Impossible Thing text falls far short.

This is one reason why Ron and I really like ArrowFlight as a game design. The designer makes it pretty clear how he plays. While the text dips too much into ranting and mocking it least makes it obvious what set of assumptions the designer was starting with when he wrote a particular rule the way he did and how he'd expect to use those rules himself.

Not only does such text make it easier to evaluate how good a job the designer did at creating a game that fulfills that style of play (even if its not a style we like), but it also is useful to prospective players to understand what they'd be getting into and how much they might have to drift the rules into something they'd like better.

So as text found at the beginning of an RPG book where the designer is explaining how he and his group play the game I think what Marco has above is about 100 times better than the usual schlock that passes for a "how to roleplay" section. But its still missing pieces. Rather than filling in those pieces absolutely (as above) for THIS use those pieces would need to be raised, with some of the different possible approaches touched up, rather than delivering "my way is the right way" (unless the point of the design was to be very specific in this regard.

No surprise, I agree with Ralph in toto.

I'd add some points, however. It isn't so much that the rules are there to resolve conflict between players ideas of how stuff sohould work. Ralph probably overstates the idea that your group must be ideal for this to work. But the point is that with a more tightly written framework, you can make it work better.

No, Bruce, we're never going to have the perfect game where one dilineated method will both serve all players as they'd like, and create a gaming experience free from conflicts of interest. And further, there's nothing wrong with refering players to the Social Contract level when the rules fail to provide further guidance. But (there's always a but, isn't there) that doesn't mean that we can't try to do better in creating rules and text that clarify how the game might best be played.

What you guys, Bruce and Marco, are saying is dagerously close to "System Doesn't Matter". That when all is said and done that it all hinges on come common understanding of players that underlies "common" play. Well, I think system matters critically, and that it's the reliance on such traditions that is the most common problem encountered in gaming groups.

Further, as Ralph points out, if you have a group that does have a common and functional way to play, and it doesn't happen to match the game in question (which I can only assume is the fear here), then we're all aware that it's a simple matter to drift the game to that mode in most cases. Or, in fact, if that's too hard, then, yes, play another game. As were all aware, no game is for everyone, and attempting to create such a game is fraught with potential problems that come, at their root, from trying to allow an open-ness to all modes when we know that many conflict.

So, no, Marco, nobody is advocating tying players down. Your exaggeration does your argument no good. There is a spectrum here from no statement or rules on the subject of Control in games to saying something like, "The GM tells the whole story, the players sit and listen." Nobody is advocating either extreme end of this spectrum. What they're advocating is slightly more information on how power is split between the participants of RPGs, and, perhaps, doing so in creative ways intended not to alienate anyone, but instead to bring them to a better understanding of different sorts of functional play.

Ironically, one of your biggest allies here is Ron. While he supports looking into games that have unique and rigid control structures, he's also said that he likes "vanilla" games a lot, and would like to see more of those. Included in this statement is the idea of designing games that are more like what you describe than some of the more extreme examples here (Universalis almost being the poster child for a non-vanilla game).

In any case, nobody is saying that the level that you've posted is non-functional. It's just less that what some of us here would like to see in a game. To the extent that it is traditional, though, it is a framework that I think we can improve upon over time. Even if only incrememntally for those who want to keep their games suitable for the (possible apocryphal) traditional gamer.

Mike

Hi Marco,

My reaction here is similar to Valamir's. There's nothing wrong with the way you've described play. In fact, the same framework describes much of my own play as well, though I believe my style is different from yours in key aspects of execution. (More on that later.)

I guess I thought from the context of this discussion was that you were trying to exhibit a style of play that (1) fulfills a reasonable gamer-on-the-street interpretation of The Impossible Thing" as it is actually typically stated in game text, and (2) avoids the consequences that Ron's essay goes on to describe as resulting from The Impossible Thing (the three most likely possibilities being drift to full-blown Narrativism, illusionism, or an ongoing power-struggle between "my guy" players and "my story" GMs.)

In other words, I guess I was looking for a recipe for "success." But the power struggle is still there, in full bore: the arguing about what's reasonable, the voting with your feet (or, the unspoken corollary to that, the threat of doing so used as a club in the struggle), the confused disbelief that "this hypothetical guy" (that is, a player's character) might do something so rude as to mess up a respected GM's "ultra-cool" set-up, juxtaposed with the insistence that players' clever unforeseen solutions must be respected.

That doesn't mean that your play isn't functional, it means that what makes it functional has almost nothing to do with your principles of the Basic Power Split, Reasonable Resolution, Dramatic Timing and so forth. It has far more to do with the processes of group selection, negotiation, and social etiquette for resolving differences that you describe in your subsequent posts, as well as on a lot of GM judgment calls to be made based on style, instinct, and player preferences.

Let me point out that I am far from an acolyte of Impossible Thing. In fact, though I chose not to participate in the most recent flurry of discussion, I've been one of the most outspoken skeptics of the Impossible Thing, because I too have a play style that (IMHO) is functional and yet is arguably accurately described by the game texts that state the Impossible Thing. In terms of your common framework, I avoid as much as possible using Dramatic Editing (I'm a Simulationist!), but instead take a reality-in-flux approach in order to use my privileges over Situation to maneuver the players into progagonizing situations and confront them with moral and ethical issues in order to create a good story. (I'm a Narrativist!) This essentially requires that I follow the players' lead, picking up their cues for how they want the story to develop and what sorts of challenges they want to confront. Others find this style of play creatively unrewarding for the GM, but I enjoy the challenge of it. (I'm a Gamist!).

Here's the same pattern again. My play is functional. But what makes it functional has almost nothing to do with the framework of the Basic Power Split, or with anything else that's written in the game texts.

This is why the Impossible Thing is important, even if it's not exactly always impossible except in the most rigorous technical sense. The game text says to do the Impossible Thing, but it doesn't give you the tools you need to do the hardest parts -- whether you're doing them your way, my way, or some other way. The system doesn't help you negotiate what's reasonable or to work out whether your version of what's reasonable is compatible with somebody else's version of what's reasonable when forming a group. It doesn't tell players when to respect the ultra-cool set-up and when to try clever alternative solutions. It doesn't help GMs get the most out of dramatic timing, or tell them how much dramatic editing is too much. It doesn't help GMs to prevent players from by-passing three quarters of a module without stepping on their autonomy, or help them judge when to let those three quarters of a module go. It doesn't mention that gamers generally recognize and agree that modules are usually a less satisfactory way to play. It doesn't cover the reality-in-flux techniques I use, or tell you how to prepare a session using flexible repurposable plot elements instead of a rigid world-description. It doesn't help GMs improvise after unplanned turns of events (except perhaps by providing random event or encounter tables hopelessly inadequate for that purpose) thus making unplanned turns of events something to be feared and avoided.

Instead, the system covers easy stuff, like how to estimate how much damage a guy takes from falling different distances.

You know those blister packed tool kits in drug stores? The ones with two screwdrivers, a small adjustable wrench, a four-ounce steel hammer, a can opener, and a paper clip? They're always called something like "Mechanic's DELUXE Tool Set" and have a picture that shows some guy overhauling a race car or building a house. I have the same "get real" reaction when I read a game text that says I should do the Impossible Thing using the rules the game provides.

- Walt

Okay. Since it looks like I'm getting few or no responses to this thread, I want to thank Marco for posting one possible reply to it - his Social Contract "template". It's pretty close to how I usually game, although my GMing sometimes flirts with illusionism (and my players are used to, and like, the style), but more importantly it flags the issues of control and so on in a way that (modified to turn it into more open "decide how your group feels about this" text) would work in a game book. Ordinary language is so important.

So my challenge, on behalf of my poor unresponded topic (grin), is to the others reading here. Rather than talking about where Marco's text might be making assumptions and so on, try and put down your own version of his text. I'm sure the exercise of writing it was somewhat clarifying to him, and might be for the rest of us, too. I'll certainly try, though I may not expose the result to the light of day. I recommend doing so without direct reference to Marco's version, so that it's maximally in your own words. Feel free to use the linked thread above to hold it, I'll consider any and all examples to be germane to the exercise of constructing "how to build a Social Contract" and therefore on-topic, or else (as Marco did) start it at the head of its own thread so that we can do similar discussion of points it hits or fails to hit on.

I'm sure these will always be true. As I said in the linked thread, the Nobilis section failed to thrill me because it's obvious that Bergstrom and I have different sections of the social contract which benefit from some attention; her text just didn't talk about the right issues, for me. For some of you, Marco's assumptions about the reasonableness of his playgroup are obviously a possible sticking point; he doesn't consider it an issue. Same basic disconnect.

Any takers?

Harlequin wrote: Any takers?

This is why the Impossible Thing is important, even if it's not exactly always impossible except in the most rigorous technical sense. The game text says to do the Impossible Thing, but it doesn't give you the tools you need to do the hardest parts...

Nicely put.

Paul

Hey guys,

1. The recipie for success is the same as everywhere else: take responsibility for what you do.

If what you want to do is power-struggle, well, there you go. Voting with your feet isn't power-struggle. Sure, you can be real *dramatic* about that--but if you're not, it's just treatin' yourself good.

2. If I'm coming close to saying System Doesn't Matter, that's cool with me. Maybe the above description takes a lotta SDM out of the equation?

3. Ralph, I think a lotta games *are* designed to be played the way I play them--the vast majority, actually. I think it's inherent in the basic 'simulationist' RPG design.

4. Walt, don't get hung up on the Dramatic Editing business. It's not *germain* to the document (no more than a player 'exploring a theme')--what I was sayin' was that if a GM has a submarine show up and it's REASONABLE that it might be there, even if it's also DRAMATIC, I wouldn't complain. Dramatic coincidences that I find REASONABLE (maybe I mean "don't deprotagonize me?") don't bother me.

-Marco

Marco wrote: Hey guys,

1. The recipie for success is the same as everywhere else: take responsibility for what you do.

If what you want to do is power-struggle, well, there you go. Voting with your feet isn't power-struggle. Sure, you can be real *dramatic* about that--but if you're not, it's just treatin' yourself good.

2. If I'm coming close to saying System Doesn't Matter, that's cool with me. Maybe the above description takes a lotta SDM out of the equation?

3. Ralph, I think a lotta games *are* designed to be played the way I play them--the vast majority, actually. I think it's inherent in the basic 'simulationist' RPG design.

4. Walt, don't get hung up on the Dramatic Editing business. It's not *germain* to the document (no more than a player 'exploring a theme')--what I was sayin' was that if a GM has a submarine show up and it's REASONABLE that it might be there, even if it's also DRAMATIC, I wouldn't complain. Dramatic coincidences that I find REASONABLE (maybe I mean "don't deprotagonize me?") don't bother me.

Marco wrote: 3. Ralph, I think a lotta games *are* designed to be played the way I play them--the vast majority, actually. I think it's inherent in the basic 'simulationist' RPG design.
-Marco

OK, I'm gonna try and keep this short and simple - Marco, I think you're right, something like your manifesto forms the basis of a a whole lot of gaming design, assumptions and actual play.

What I have found is that a lot of the time, it leads to everyone involved going "hey, that didn't work out as well as we thought it would. I'm kinda dissatisfied by that." As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), your answer as to why that happens is that there was a breakdown in being REASONABLE at some point along the line.

Nowadays, I'm attributing it (the dissatisfaction) primarily (once you get outside the purely dysfunctional realms) to the fact that an ongoing accumulation of adjudicated RESULTS/RESPONSES becomes, almost regardless of whether the GM/group wants it to or not, the same thing as adjudicating the RESOLUTION (somewhere around there is where the Impossible Thing would fit in your model/analysis, but I'm not sure exactly how it fits, so - having made note of that, I move on).

At some point, you (or at least I) start believing that "just do a better job of being REASONABLE" is not a sufficient response to the problem. There're two avenues I see to explore - tools that actually make REASONABLE easier to acheive, and the possibility that REASONABLE isn't actually the core issue (in at least some cases).

Forge discussions, System Matters, and GNS all touch on both the "how to acheive REASONABLE" and the "what else is involved besides REASONABLE" issues, so I get kind of excited about 'em.

Let me know if my understanding of what you said is somehow off, and I hope I was able to use the language you proposed to describe MY viewpoint/issues,

Gordon

A bit of an aside: "The integrity of the Sim" is a GREAT thing to have everyone cue off of in establishing boundries and shared understandings of what is REASONABLE, so that may be one reason why a) this manifesto works really well for Sim games, and b) Sim designs can get so fanatical about the consistency, "realism" and etc. of their imagined worlds and rule structures. Take that away, and it gets harder to establish a shared understanding of just what is and isn't REASONABLE.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Marco wrote: Hey guys,

1. The recipie for success is the same as everywhere else: take responsibility for what you do.

Nobody is arguing, or would argue otherwise. The Social Contract level comes first and formost in every model I've ever seen.

Valamir,

That was a long post--I'll address what I can with the time I've got.

1. "Gut Wrenching:" Not a hot button issue for me, particularly. I dunno--if the party walked in on a grizly murder scene and I said "make willpower checks for gut-reaction" and the guy playing the grizzled homicide cop said "I've seen this stuff before," I'd probably go "yeah, I can see that." If the person playing the suburban housewife said "my stomach's too strong to be turned by a grizly disembowelment," I'd probably go "Really? Why?" (honest surprise). If it kept happening that the person was playin' nerds who talked like Clint Eastwood characters with no real explanation I might talk to 'em. I might, you know, deal with it--okay, that's Tom. I might not invite the guy back or drop out if he was ruining my evening.

I'd really try not to argue about it.

2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

3. I think the GM has veto power (kinda like the US President)--and, like the US President, he can be voted out.

This is all simple stuff, really. I mean, do you have a social contract that spells this all out? If so, post it--I'd love to see it (not meant scarcasticly!)

-Marco

Marco,

You've never seen the case where everyone is being REASONABLE, but the resulting game is consistently NOT what everyone (or most everyone) wanted it to be? That's what I meant when I talked about putting aside pure dysfunction in my other post - REASONABLE just isn't getting the job done.

Now, one response is "add more REASONABLE, you dont have enough" - but I personally am just not seeing that as a real solution.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote:

What I have found is that a lot of the time, it leads to everyone involved going "hey, that didn't work out as well as we thought it would. I'm kinda dissatisfied by that." As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), your answer as to why that happens is that there was a breakdown in being REASONABLE at some point along the line.

Gordon

Marco wrote: Valamir,

This is all simple stuff, really. I mean, do you have a social contract that spells this all out? If so, post it--I'd love to see it (not meant scarcasticly!)

-Marco

Val,

I didn't miss the point--but I didn't illustrate mine well. My thought was that all of those issues have been non-issues for me. I thought about why. If you want my "rules for success", here they are:

1. Take responsibility--if you're arguing, yer responsible--not the game rules, not the how-to-text, not nothing else. The other guy's responsible to himself too--but regardless of how obnoxious, thickheaded, or whatever *he's* being, you're responsible for yourself--for being in the argument at all (within the argument space I include the Impossibe Thing power-struggle).

2. If you're adjudicating, strive to be REASONABLE. only you know if you're being reasonable. That's enough for my precept.

3. Cooperate as much as you can while still having fun. Compromise and Consensus (reaching a consensus) are just two of the tools you got to work with--use 'em (this is the more complex form of can't we all get along). Trust is good too--try to play with people you trust. If you finally run out of road on all of this, it's probably time to go home.

My answers above stem from these.

-Marco

Valamir wrote: When its cold outside and the players decide to make camp, does the GM make everyone roll for frostbite the next morning because they forgot to add that they're making a fire, or does he assume that "making camp" includes the normal assorted actions? If the GM does assume that they made a fire, is he then permitted to use that fire as attracting the attention of the group's enemy's? Or would the players balk at this claiming that they never stated they were making a fire?

Marco wrote: 2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Thanks Jason, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Allowing the GM to take control over certain seemingly mundane character actions has its pros and cons. Forbidding the GM to ever even suggest what the characters are and aren't doing has its pros and cons.

Very different play experience. Very easy to wind up fighting over. And there's no help from the game rules except to say "they're both right".

cruciel wrote:
I found this a superb situation to locate Marco's PoV with. What I think is so great about it is that, as GM, you're screwed no matter what you do - forcing you to draw the line somewhere and make a concession.

Marco wrote: 2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Yeah, maybe the frostbite thing is silly, but as I see it the point is to solve the situation presented. To me, the frostbite bit is implied as a system mechanic.

So, Marco, you choose to ask them. Seems like the best solution.

Hey Jason, Ralph,

See, I've been sitting back and watching this thread once I noticed that Marco pretty much stated the impossible thing up front. I've been following it really carefully since Ralph posted his list of 'tough questions.' The problem I've had is one unspoken assumption and some really easy (well, I thought so; I put it into Scattershot, too) solutions.

cruciel wrote:

Valamir wrote: When its cold outside and the players decide to make camp, does the GM make everyone roll for frostbite the next morning because they forgot to add that they're making a fire, or does he assume that "making camp" includes the normal assorted actions? If the GM does assume that they made a fire, is he then permitted to use that fire as attracting the attention of the group's enemy's? Or would the players balk at this claiming that they never stated they were making a fire?

I found this a superb situation to locate Marco's PoV with. What I think is so great about it is that, as GM, you're screwed no matter what you do - forcing you to draw the line somewhere and make a concession.

Marco wrote: 2. The Fire. If enemies were searching, I'd ask 'em. I wouldn't do the frost bite thing: seems ludicrous--you're *really* really cold--but because of a scene-cut you get frostbite? If a GM kept doing that to me, I'd talk to him ... and then maybe drop out ... or play more carefully if I really liked the game otherwise.

Yeah, maybe the frostbite thing is silly, but as I see it the point is to solve the situation presented. To me, the frostbite bit is implied as a system mechanic.

So, Marco, you choose to ask them. Seems like the best solution. But now, simply by asking, you've given away to any mildly intelligent person that something is going to see the fire. The players either say 'Yes' and the surprising event ain't so surprising, or they say 'No' because they don't want to be found. If they don't build a fire, you're right back at the beginning rolling for frostbite.

It's a circle of doom, Doom, DOOM...your play style will determine when you stop running around on the little wheel and sacrifice game rules, a dramatic event, Immersion, player power or GM power.

Valamir wrote: Thanks Jason, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Allowing the GM to take control over certain seemingly mundane character actions has its pros and cons. Forbidding the GM to ever even suggest what the characters are and aren't doing has its pros and cons.

Very different play experience. Very easy to wind up fighting over. And there's no help from the game rules except to say "they're both right".

Le Joueur wrote: So there is at least one game that doesn't say, "They're both right," yet answers these questions. I don't want to derail the thread, but I looked over your list of conundrums and saw that every one had an explicit solution in Scattershot. I maintain that a game designer can (and did) create a game that can handle these issues without creating all kinds of special situation rules.

Fang Langford

it's really up to them and they don't need to specify it 'up front.' Why? Because there is no 'reality' to it.

Fang,

Good answer, but the situation still got you.

You've chosen to give up a little Immersion to preserve as much GM and Player power as you can. The concensual/player decision about how the Complication should effect the characters requires a shift from Actor Stance to perfom. Buying into the 'myth of reality' can be part of the fun ("I'm really there and that fire really has been there the whole time.").

Marco's chosen to preserve the players' rights to Immersion, but taken away a little of their authorship rights.

There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

You both chose to accept the loss of the dramatic event (whatever was coming to get the campers) to preserve player power. Meaning, you wouldn't take the Illusionism approach and do it no matter what.

You also both chose to sacrifice the game rules to preserve GM/player power (you'd let the frostbite roll go if no one liked it).

Though my GMing preference is more similar to Marco's, I'd play in either game - both are functional and I think would be fun for me. The differences between approaches, as they would play out in game, seem pretty minor even though the fundamental philosophy behind either approach is radically different.

cruciel wrote: There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

Thanks for stopping that train with your man-o-steel physique Mike. You're right.

Not a problem, Jason (though my physique is more marshmallowey, especially in the midsection).

But you have to realize that there are those who either don't believe in SpecSimImm (Special Simulationist Immersion), or just don't care. This will of course be problematic, because I'm sure that Marco would claim the typical gamer wants SSI, Paul will claim that it doesn't exist, Fang will claim that his game does cater to both, and others will want to say it's a non-issue.

Thanks for bringing it up. :-(

The question for purposes of this thread cannot be wether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Mike

Paul will claim that it doesn't exist

I'll claim that Authorial power doesn't reduce Immersion? When Immersion means as little concern with the metagame level of play as possible? No I won't...because it certainly does. What I will claim is that Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

Paul

Mike Holmes wrote: The question for purposes of this thread cannot be wether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Mike Holmes wrote: Thanks for bringing it up. :-(

Hey Jason,

cruciel wrote: Good answer, but the situation still got you.

You've chosen to give up a little Immersion to preserve as much GM and Player power as you can. The consensual/player decision about how the Complication should affect the characters requires a shift from Actor Stance to perform. Buying into the 'myth of reality' can be part of the fun ("I'm really there and that fire really has been there the whole time.").

cruciel wrote: Marco's chosen to preserve the players' rights to Immersion, but taken away a little of their authorship rights.

There's always that trade off between Immersion and authorship rights.

You both chose to accept the loss of the dramatic event (whatever was coming to get the campers) to preserve player power. Meaning, you wouldn't take the Illusionism approach and do it no matter what.

Though my GMing preference is more similar to Marco's, I'd play in either game - both are functional and I think would be fun for me. The differences between approaches, as they would play out in game, seem pretty minor even though the fundamental philosophy behind either approach is radically different.

cruciel wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: The question for purposes of this thread cannot be whether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Fang will correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that Scattershot was an attempt at a universal game, designed to appeal to a whole-lot-a gamers. Rollercoasterism (man that's fun to say out loud) and SpecSimImm may be an issue. (I fear the can of worms I've opened.)

Mike Holmes wrote: ...Fang will claim that his game does cater to both...

Mike Holmes wrote: The question for purposes of this thread cannot be whether Fang's example will appeal to the "common" gamer, but will it appeal to anyone, and does it apportion credibility in such a way as to improve on older models.

Paul Czege wrote: When Immersion means as little concern with the metagame level of play as possible?

...What I will claim is that Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

Uh, the above post was meant to stop these sorts of responses, not elicit them. I'll be smart enough to tleave the names off next time. :-)

Mike

The thread wanders - into very cool and interesting places, but . . .

One last thing I'm hoping to get clear about with Marco - if disatisfaction can come from anywhere (most notably including, I submit, from the fact that a series of adjudicated RESULTS can easily - and almost unintentionally - become the same as adjudicating the RESOLUTION), why is REASONABLEness the only answer?

I mean, sure, if there's a power struggle and arguing happening, REASONABLE is where you have to start. Neccesary, but not (always)sufficient. But I'm mostly talking about disatisfaction that isn't about power struggle. I'm concerned with disatisfaction that is at worst about a disconnect in communication and mutual understanding, and at best is about a simple failure to acheive a well-understood and shared goal.

ASIDE: I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on "power struggle" as a key part of GNS and/or the Impossible Thing. While a "power struggle" is a . . . frequent? occasional? who knows for sure . . . outcome of the issues, the issues themselves aren't tied up with a power struggle, unless I completely misunderstand things.

So - maybe I'm asking Marco this: while your framework makes total sense and I can easily imagine enjoying a game that started from that place, can you see why I think it just isn't sufficient for the task sometimes? I mean, we can disagree about exactly what should be added, but - I look at your framework and say "you left out a whole bunch of important stuff - not just useful GM tips and the like, but fundamental aspects of the shared creative endeavor that RPGs can be." Is that, like, a totally alien thought, one that you just don't understand why I'd have, or . . . what?

I guess I'll just add - I'm also very happy with how this went, and find a LOT of useful stuff in even just Marco's initial post. And I've got those essay's bookmarked.

Gordon

Hey Fang,

I have a question: is 'choosing where to go' not authoring or are you talking narrowly about Author Stance?

I tend to use "power" when others might say "stance." For me, the latter term has too passive/reactive a connotation for what's actually going on. Do you disagree with either of the following?

Being in Author Stance doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

The use of Authorial power doesn't necessarily reduce identification with character.

If not, why are we quibbling over my choice of stance/power?

Paul

I would say that the use of Author stance places me in distinct relation to the character. This is bad when I want to feel like I am the character. As opposed to just identifying withy the character. When I write a book, or author in an RPG, I think, "gee, he's a lot like me in the way he's intelligently dodging that dragon". When I play in actor stance, I think, "Gee, I'd better get out of the way of that dragon."

Perhaps a new thread?

Mike

Heya Gordon,

REASONABLness isn't an answer--it's my base-line expectation. A lotta confusion has come from thinking my post was the best or only way I thought there was to play--it's not. It's what I walk into a traditional game expecting until I see or am told otherwise. It's how I run things (and I've been successful at it).

You asked if I though the shared power thing was alien--not at all--I just don't think it's standard. And I think it's different rather than *better.* It's kinda like asking "You talk about books all day--but hey, man, what about movies"

I like movies too. I just don't think they're the same.

I'm gonna start a thread about the power-struggle thing since I think Valamir assumes I still don't "get it"--but remember: the document I posted is NOT supposed to resolve power-split arguments. It's not what you're going to look at and say "hey, you screwed my character and it says you can't do this here."

My tools to resolve Ralph's fire example were posted later (the three precepts). I'm guessing Ralph found 'em insufficient for him--but that's a different discussion.

-Marco

Perhaps a new thread?

If Fang wants one, sure, Ron can split this stuff off. Though I don't appreciate you punishing me like this just for having denied I'd say what you said I'd say.

Paul

Le Joueur wrote: How so? The players are under no requirement to abandon "Immersion" (however you want to use this loaded term). Like choosing which game to play, the 'buy in' on the 'player power' issue can be entirely front-loaded ("We get to do that? Cool, now let's play.") and then forgotten by the "Immersive" player. In fact, I'd hazard the point that knowing this in advance affords them more trust that their gamemaster won't vindictively hose them over; fewer out-of-character worries should translate into more 'room to play,' I think. (Does death-by-system always support Immersion or do you just want 'the feel' of lethality?)

And about the 'players get to choose what happens,' this wasn't meant to say that the gamemaster asks, "Do you want to have a fire and get attacked or do you want the dark and frostbite?" What it means is whatever the players choose (it's their campsite) forces the hand of the gamemaster in terms of the details. The players simply trust (because of the front-loaded 'power issue') that the gamemaster won't indiscriminately kill them off because they didn't communicate their campsite well enough. (Remember, often players, even "Immersive" ones, will play characters who've more knowledge and experience than they; it seems wrong to penalize them for not having at least the same familiarities as the gamemaster.)

I don't see Marco's and my playing styles looking at all different from the player perspective during play. The set up is different, but once it gets going, I can't imagine any stripe of "Immersionist" noticing the difference. (Well, maybe when the social contract is challenged, but not otherwise.)

I don't know if it'd sacrifice Immersion--it might--I'm still wrapping my head around it.

If the GM said "It's dangerously cold." and I knew we were being hunted by an enemy army, I'd do what real armies do: share sleepingbags. Light discipline is a real keep-you alive kinda deal, and sleeping with a couple other humans under the same covers can make dangerous cold survivable--(although it won't, of course, work easily for true arctic conditons). I'd tell a story to the GM and players about a real-life night my unit spent on maneuvers in record-low temperatures.

Why does this matter? Because (if I understand it right) it would, as a player avoid Feng's Complication--would that be breaking the social contract? If so (GM proposes a Complication, player says 'I don't think so, I've got a way out') then it'd violate my precepts--i.e. I might decide I was gettin' railroaded ... probably not--I'm pretty sure I wouldn't leave a game Feng was running until he turned the lights out--but if the social contract said I hadda choose A or B and I wanted a legitimate C, I'd debate it.

I believe the original example assumed the PC's *didn't know* about the enemy patrol--making C *unlikely* (but there's that trained light-discipline thing so who knows).

My hazy I-don't-get-Scattershot-all-the-way guess is: that social contract *might* weaken my immersion.

-Marco

Marco,

Well, if you proposed it as GM you'd be giving an alternative to avoid a complication all together. If stated right, I think you could preserve Immersion pretty easily. You could do that all session, but if you always present a way out of conflict you might never get a dramatic event and that might be kinda boring. As a player I think you'd be giving up an eensy bit of Immersion now for a higher Immersion return later, pulling out of character to try and get everyone to do something that won't violate your suspense of disbelief. Thing is, if your character is the military type you could suggest it in character and lose nothing except the chance to tell a personal anecdote ;).

Reading you both I don't think either one of you would close out or force a player's suggestion. You'd let the whole camp/fire/frostbite roll thing disappear to preserve player power. Put another way: player input is more important than railroading your story or strictly enforcing a game rule.

Got a small question: Your position of do what's reasonable...Does resolving a player power struggle reasonably usually entail not screwing up someone else's stuff? If so, I don't think Fang's social contract conflicts, from an outside perspective it looks very similar. Not screwing up someone else's stuff is just the simple version of the Propietorship rules from Scattershot (I think). Fang's just got the social contract rules enumerated, making it more present. Which, if it plays out how I think it does, drops a little more SimSpecImm potential because the players have a metagame context for more situations.

There's a little bit of not messing with people's "stuff"--If a player makes a Dependant NPC in Hero, I wouldn't, y'know, turn the DNPC irrevokably into an evil vampire and give the guy a hunted for the same points.

On the other hand, if the player says "I build a fire" in a wind storm I might well rule (or roll for) the fire going out. Feng, would that constitute a violation of the sovringty?

Being reasonable (in my schema) means that I internally feel the call is justified--and that excuses *all* kinds of behavior. I can rationalize railroading. I can say "the game isn't *remotely* 'fair' but, hey, given the start situation, it's *reasonable.* Under my stated rules, I could start a group of ordinary guys plumetting at terminal velocity from an airplane with no parachutes. Real short gaming experience.

That's why reasonable is just an expectation. It's giving the GM the benefit of the doubt if I'm a player ("hey, I didn't like the way that panned out--but until it becomes a trend, I'm gonna assume that the GM is bein' true to his gameworld and since I'm likin' the rest of the game, I'm okay with it.")

-Marco

Hey Marco,

We're all friends here, call me Fang (like the tooth or Phyllis Diller's husband).

Marco wrote: On the other hand, if the player says "I build a fire" in a wind storm I might well rule (or roll for) the fire going out. [Fang], would that constitute a violation of the sovereignty?

...That's why reasonable is just an expectation. It's giving the GM the benefit of the doubt if I'm a player...