Is risk a necessary part of the roleplaying experience? This is a question I have been grappling with for a bit now. What I mean by this is whether or not all players in an RPG must feel as though there is some kind of risk involved in the actions of their characters--from the epic idea (will I live or die) to the mediocre (will I jump over this gap). Would players be interested in a game where some of their actions are predetermined? I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

This would not be the extreme form of railroading because players could add their own parts to the "plot" via actions and dialog - just certain "landmarks" would have to be met in the scene before moving onto another. Beyond that - GM "powers" would cycle around.

Now the question I am getting at really focuses on the movement towards and at these landmarks--would there be enough interest to players to play, even though the outcome of certain events is already set in stone? If so, would there even need to be any kind of resolution system involved?

-Shane

That very idea I am trying out tomorrow.

I wondered if it would work. I am currently GMing a game of my own creation. Basic Fantasy stuff with a different system and mood of play.

Currently the players are awaiting the approval to meet Lord Barmel. This guy is kinda weird. In fact he is very weird. He has strange unexplained visions. When he has these visions the people that they are about have dreams of a strange nature the next time that they sleep.

The characters are going to be the point of this vision. Then when they have their dreams Lord Barmel is there to ask them about their dreams.

They play characters in their dreams that I made up as a sort of Piece of their inner person coming out through their dreams. I made up these characters based on what I had seen them play for the last three sessions and of what I can gather from their character sheets.

Anyways, what I want to happen is to have them read through what hapened and use what is on the second character sheet and tell the story as they saw it in their dream. I think it works the best this way because it gives the player the chance to bend the truth a little though staying with the story. They are more or less forced to follow a set pattern, but based on the prerequisite pattern of all those involved being have a similar dream the others can know if that person is lying.

It's late and I am really tired so I hope this makes some sense.

I will surely post the results on thursday.

This is something along the lines of what I am going to try with John Laviolette's 24-hour game Troubadours of Verticaille. The idea is to find some suitable song lyrics (Steeleye Span, Jethro Tull, Wishbone Ash, Fairport Convention etc) and present the lyrics to the players, explaining that the lyrics are the basis of the session. Haven't quite figured out the nitty gritty of how it works, not sure that I need to - just see how it develops I suppose.

Gideon
http://www.geocities.com/simonwashbourne/Beyond_Belief.html

I, for one, am not sure what you mean. Can you have suspence, unpredictability, or intrigue without "necessary risk?" Is the sensation of "necessary risk" the same as being curious enough about the unknown to 'do something?'

It's not clear whether you're asking if the gamemaster can define the whole scene in general terms to the players, including the conclusion, and the players will enjoy playing it out, even though they know the ending. That's a tough question by itself; I think at the heart of whether or not to railroad (insecurity over the potential lack of quality in an unpredictable game leads to railroading). How much fun is it to play if you know how each conflict will resolve?

I'm not sure what you're asking, can you clarify?

Fang Langford

Part of this depends on the definitions of the terms. If you use the "official" definition of Railroading, that being that the Force being used is non-consensual, and against the social contract, then, no, your proposal isn't Railroading per se. But you are advocating the use of a lot of Force. Enough that some players won't like it (and yes, they will use the term Railroad to indicate that dislike).

We've speculated that players can enjoy the entire range of Force. Given that most don't mind sitting through movies, it's not hard to see how they could play such a game with even the most minimal interaction and enjoy it. The problem is that most people expect to have more control than this in an RPG. It's traditional. As such, when applying this criteria, they may be dissapointed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPGs may even be intuitive to an extent, and this level of participation voids that intuitive expectation. But these are just expectations.

What it comes down to is ensuring that the players are all on-board with the level of participation that they'll have before hand. If play is described to them well, such that they know that their influence is limited, and they understand this without prejudice from prior play, then, yes, some can and will enjoy such a game.

How many people will find this level of participation suitable? Well, actually, what you describe sounds not too different from how a lot of Call of Cthulhu play occurs. So I think you have a shot. Just be prepared for a lot of potnetial prejudice.

Again, however, if you make the control levels up-front (even better, make them mechanical), then I think it'll work at least on a Social Contract level.

Mike

I would like to address Risk a bit. I am unsure how Risk, the idea that a character is putting something, money - life - prestige, inter-relates with the GM's use of Force? Are you saying that the players pushing the action and getting to Point b from point A is riskier then allowing the GM to get them there?

I do not think that Risk is at the center or even inherent in an RPG design except as it relates to Conflict. I do think that Conflict, in its basic androgynous form that can relate to civilized debates or outright Kung Fu, is at the center of all Role Playing.

Why do I play? Well to test my wits in an environment that is full of possible Conflicts. So in any Conflict there is risk. So I would say an RPG without RISK, remember this does not mean death just some sort of risk of failure, would not be very enjoyable to play.

Thats my perspective on the situation.

Sean
ADGBoss

I too would like to know more what you mean.

I think some 'newness' is necessary for gaming, ie. I would not want to play a game that was exacly like the last time I played it.

To expound:

1)The conclusion may be preordained, but the path to it isn't, thus discovering the path is interesting. An example would be replaying a
computer game with a differnt charachter. You take a new path to the same end.


2)I've seen people replay computer games, to try to get a better score for example, so gamism can be a modivation, ie. the uncertenity is if you can do better.


3)People can re-watch a movie, but he modiviation is to extract more detail the second time around, i.e. the detail is new. I'm not sure this coudl be applied to a RPG, as more detail that doesn't affect game play isn't really the point, except in really hardcore Exploration of Setting. And if the new details do affect play, your reverting to case 1 or 2.

Is this what you meant?

Hi there,

I think what I need in order to participate in this thread is a better understanding of:

Risk to What?

All sorts of things are risky, at all levels of play. At the Social Contract (real human) level, there are all sorts of agreements and assumptions that may be at risk, as well as self-esteem. We can also talk about creative risks, which I suppose might include a GNS-level thing (as GNS = creative agenda). Then there are risks to characters' resources, to their continued fictional existence, to their imaginary circumstances and relationships ...

I'm pretty sure that if we leave this up for grabs, that the discussion will be opaque to me. Shane, can you help?

Best,
Ron

Buddha Nature wrote: Is risk a necessary part of the roleplaying experience? This is a question I have been grappling with for a bit now. What I mean by this is whether or not all players in an RPG must feel as though there is some kind of risk involved in the actions of their characters--from the epic idea (will I live or die) to the mediocre (will I jump over this gap). Would players be interested in a game where some of their actions are predetermined?

-Shane

Well, Collaborative Mechanical Story Hour in the case of some published gam..oh, wait...entertainment systems.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, Collaborative Mechanical Story Hour in the case of some published gam..oh, wait...entertainment systems.

Mike

Yanno, this discussion reminds me of a discussion we had way, way back about what makes a game.

I was expounding (sorta) on Free-form roleplaying, which is totally cooperation based. In a way, it's much like what Shane mentions. There's no risk, as everything is based on consent. Nothing happens to my character that I don't want to happen.

When we do "scenes" It's less free-form, as we'd agree to an overall goal before beginning to play, but the exact details are worked out in play.

Is it fun? Definitely. Especially when you're "on" that night, and the scene comes out with much foreshadowing, irony, and feeling that all participants just feel drained and in awe.

But is it a game? My argument was that it was not. There was no "risk", no set mechanics for advancement or punishment. It might be argued that there are mechanics, but they're more a form of social contract than rules. The rules can be broken with the consent and trust of other players, with the entire goal being to either make a good scene (either pre-set or impromptu) and to have fun.

I'm not sure if I've contributed to this topic or not, but I hope I did in some small way.

Le Joueur wrote: I, for one, am not sure what you mean. Can you have suspence, unpredictability, or intrigue without "necessary risk?" Is the sensation of "necessary risk" the same as being curious enough about the unknown to 'do something?'

It's not clear whether you're asking if the gamemaster can define the whole scene in general terms to the players, including the conclusion, and the players will enjoy playing it out, even though they know the ending. That's a tough question by itself; I think at the heart of whether or not to railroad (insecurity over the potential lack of quality in an unpredictable game leads to railroading). How much fun is it to play if you know how each conflict will resolve?

I'm not sure what you're asking, can you clarify?

Mike Holmes wrote: Part of this depends on the definitions of the terms. If you use the "official" definition of Railroading, that being that the Force being used is non-consensual, and against the social contract, then, no, your proposal isn't Railroading per se. But you are advocating the use of a lot of Force. Enough that some players won't like it (and yes, they will use the term Railroad to indicate that dislike).

Mike Holmes wrote: We've speculated that players can enjoy the entire range of Force. Given that most don't mind sitting through movies, it's not hard to see how they could play such a game with even the most minimal interaction and enjoy it. The problem is that most people expect to have more control than this in an RPG. It's traditional. As such, when applying this criteria, they may be dissapointed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPGs may even be intuitive to an extent, and this level of participation voids that intuitive expectation. But these are just expectations.

Mike Holmes wrote: What it comes down to is ensuring that the players are all on-board with the level of participation that they'll have before hand. If play is described to them well, such that they know that their influence is limited, and they understand this without prejudice from prior play, then, yes, some can and will enjoy such a game.

Mike Holmes wrote: How many people will find this level of participation suitable? Well, actually, what you describe sounds not too different from how a lot of Call of Cthulhu play occurs. So I think you have a shot. Just be prepared for a lot of potnetial prejudice.

Ron Edwards wrote: Risk to What?

All sorts of things are risky, at all levels of play. At the Social Contract (real human) level, there are all sorts of agreements and assumptions that may be at risk, as well as self-esteem. We can also talk about creative risks, which I suppose might include a GNS-level thing (as GNS = creative agenda). Then there are risks to characters' resources, to their continued fictional existence, to their imaginary circumstances and relationships ...

Wolfen wrote: Yanno, this discussion reminds me of a discussion we had way, way back about what makes a game.

I was expounding (sorta) on Free-form roleplaying, which is totally cooperation based. In a way, it's much like what Shane mentions. There's no risk, as everything is based on consent. Nothing happens to my character that I don't want to happen.

When we do "scenes" It's less free-form, as we'd agree to an overall goal before beginning to play, but the exact details are worked out in play.

Is it fun? Definitely. Especially when you're "on" that night, and the scene comes out with much foreshadowing, irony, and feeling that all participants just feel drained and in awe.

But is it a game? My argument was that it was not. There was no "risk", no set mechanics for advancement or punishment. It might be argued that there are mechanics, but they're more a form of social contract than rules. The rules can be broken with the consent and trust of other players, with the entire goal being to either make a good scene (either pre-set or impromptu) and to have fun.

I'm not sure if I've contributed to this topic or not, but I hope I did in some small way.

Buddha Nature wrote: Only in the realm of the Complication is the outcome ever in doubt.

Shane, I think it's been established that there's a difference between risk and uncertainty.

I disagree with Sean. Even though I have a strong gamist streak and like to play games where I win, I also like to play games in which this is not a factor, and I don't think they cease to be games. Did you ever play "out"? You know, where one person attempts a basketball shot, and if he makes it everyone else has to try or get a letter for failing, but if he misses it the ball passes to another player? Now, did you ever play it without keeping score? Is it less fun if you can't lose? Is it less a game if you never get any letters, but just see whether you can make the same shot?

You might find the Young Storymap thread in the Alyria forum worthwhile in this regard. If there is "risk" in that game, it's seriously mitigated. Your character can't die without your permission. My wife, who has been at work during our play sessions so far and heard about them second-hand, said she didn't understand how you play a game in which you already know what's going to happen. That's just it--we don't really know what's going to happen. We keep wondering, speculating about what's going to happen. Will one of the bad guys become a good guy? Will someone who is currently confused see the truth? When will this character discover her power, and what will it mean in play? Is someone going to die? Those are all matters that will be decided by the players during play. There's a sense in which we all can see where the story's going, and a sense in which it unfolds before us in surprising ways.

When you first watched Star Wars, the original movie, did you have even a moment's doubt as to whether Luke Skywalker was going to destroy the Death Star? Did knowing that in advance make the moment any less exciting? Sometimes foreseeing or even knowing what is going to happen creates anticipation, which is itself a form of excitement.

Now, the degree to which your idea will work remains to be seen; but in general, you can certainly have a lot of fun playing in a game situation in which you know much of what is going to happen, particularly if part of what you're doing is figuring out how.

--M. J. Young

Before we get off on the tangent of the definition of Game, let's point out that it has been discussed to death elsewhere. The only consensus is that, game can mean activities with the sort of risk being discussed to some, and it can mean something wider to others. Even the dictionary allows for both.

And further, who cares? The only question is really whether or not certain kinds of risk are important. Don't worry about whether or not what your doing constitutes a "game" or not, it matters not at all. That only confounds the issue by brining in yet another ill defined term.

I'm on record as advocating that we call all RPGs something else like Role-Playing Systems. Or Role-Playing Entertainment. Because then people would forget about the whole question of whether or not these things constitute games. Which is pointless to debate.

Mike

Buddha Nature wrote:

Sorry, it was late and I was tired so I probably was less than lucid. My quandry is as to whether or not people would want to play a game where the outcome of certain events has already been decided for them previously. For example what if in this game the GM told the player(s) that in this scene he envisioned two PC's having an argument in front of an NPC about which land to travel to and having the NPC suggest that they head toward one land over the other. (Odd example I know) So then the players would then be able to pretty much set up the scene and do whatever else they wanted in the scene as long as an argument occured and the NPC did his piece. Is this something that would work do you think?

C. Edwards wrote:

Buddha Nature wrote: Only in the realm of the Complication is the outcome ever in doubt.

I think this may be an incredible fallacy.

Let's look at Universalis and SOAP. Nobody knows what is going to happen next except the current narrator. Changing narrators is the mechanic that creates the element of surprise.

In Universalis a Complication is basically just a way to take that mechanic down to a smaller scale and a way for another player besides the current narrator to have a say in the outcome of that chunk of narration.

The last SOAP game I played in only saw one Challenge, and that was at the very end of the game. It was also chock full of "I wonder what's going to happen next?" and character risk. We were all working overtime to take the characters of the other players down. As in Universalis the act of switching narrators provides the aspect of the unkown outcome. For everyone but the current narrator the outcome is to some degree a mystery.

Think of it like watching a movie for which you wrote a small piece of the script. You're still not going to know what happens in the other 75% of the film.

Hope that helps illuminate where the "unkown" lies in games with a collaborative storytelling aspect.

-Chris

Buddha Nature wrote: It is only in the Complication where there is a mechanic that "trumps" your narratrive control.

Buddha Nature wrote: I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

Bruce Baugh wrote:

Buddha Nature wrote: I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

I could see that being a lot of fun, given folks I shared ideas about our overall tone with. After all, in a great many genres the question is "how do we get where we know we're going" rather than "are we going to get there". Whatever complications arise, we know we'll overcome them, and we have the chance to show our respective styles doing it.

I seem to recall that Neel Krishnaswami once ran a game with Thomist angels. He and the players discussed the major events of the session beforehand, since angels have foreknowledge, and then played out the angels' actions and reactions. Likewise, I could see playing a James Ellroy-style game where players know that one of them has the character who dies, one the character who falls and then rises, and one the character who rises and then falls, but they don't know who has which.

Hey, glad to help. I've got noir on the brain myself, so it was a relevant thing to draw from. But the principle applies broadly - in most action movies, for instance, you know that the heroes just are going to succeed (and then die, if it's a non-comedy John Woo movie, but that's part of the fun), and it's about maximizing coolness along the way. Romance novels of different sorts have their own conventions. Etc etc.