I stumbled onto this site through a chain of events: a player in my AD&D 1st ed. group brought a THAC0 wheel he'd downloaded from RPG United to a game session -> a guest player shared his involvement with a number of RPG groups on campus, suggesting that kids these days still get the bug and that M:TG and Blizzard PC Games haven't driven us off the table -> I did a search for RPG anything and found the rec.games.frp.advocacy forum -> I refined my search to RPG theory (there is such a thing?) and found The Forge.

I've been reading threads and articles and connecting the dots over my history of RPG gameplay and design attempts for the past few days, trying to catch up. I had no idea there was a community of designers. Or that someone had put together a tool for providing direction in writing games and deliberating play disputes (though I recognize a better application would be to propose an approach and qualify interest.)

Forums are strange to me. But the look and feel of this site coupled with the caliber of commentary have encouraged me to chance involvement.

I'm so simulationist. (To be pendantic: I infer sumlationist tendencies from my choices in play and design.) When I was 16, I got kicked out of my group for implementing a rule to capture blood loss who's overhead led to a 3 hour fight with 7 zombies, none of which were slain. (Ok, that was ridiculous of me.) What I've realized now is that all my gaming life I've been fighting with people who only want to win, whereas I want to make winning matter.

It all makes sense now. My every derivation was interpreted as a challenge, resented for limiting their advantage. Or as illegitimate, since the publisher hadn't authorized it. e.g. I made a M:TG card called Spirit of Waning Anger for 2 blue that was basically a 3/3 creature with Haste and a built-in Unstable Mutation. That seemed balanced to me -- a logical extension of concept. People refused to play with me, even casually, if I used it. And they ridiculed me for trying. Even when I could get them to loosen up a bit and try it out, if it worked, they said it was too powerful; if it underperformed, they said it sucked.

Recently, I've been meeting resistance to basic questions in the gaming group I've fallen in with:

GM: Aside from the 1 flyer that's just attacked, you notice several others, nested in the cave ceiling.
PC: How many are within 60 feet?
GM: What are you trying to do?
PC: (Tenses.) Well, how many are within 60 feet?
GM: It's not as though we're working with miniatures. Why don't you tell me what you're after, and I'll help make a determination?
PC: (Defeated.) I'm trying to cast a Fireball.
GM: And you want to know if you can hit the 1 attacking as well as some number of the others.
PC: (Nervous.) Yes.
GM: Well, that sounds like something Fireball should be able to handle.

And it just brings to mind how our goals are at cross purposes. To my mind, a flyer that melee attacks prevents it from being a legal target through range by the defender; so if the flyer had engaged the Mage, he couldn't Fireball it. But he could blast its buddies. (But I didn't say that because I'm human enough to recognize how highly invested this player was.)

Now, is that realistic? Doesn't the flame erupt from his fingertips and couldn't that trail through the melee flyer? Doesn't matter. I'm not writing a physics text; I'm just enforcing conditional requirements, keeping options for action in balance and maintaining consistent procedure.

This player doesn't give 2 wits about whether Fireball makes sense; he just wants maximum advantage. After all, this is his life we're talking about here! And no argument of mine will avail or even comfort. The whole point of his question is to commit an element of situation, thereby eliminating my director stance and insuring his purpose.

Here's what I'd like to offer for response. Think of it as "the simulationist's dilemma in the face a gamist's will." I basically see 3 options:


Play it straight. Make a rote reading of the module. The only prep necessary is to read and re-read it.



Introduce plot elements to match the level of challenge and pose ones that apply to the group skillset.



Antagonize them by introducing elements that frustrate their desires, play on their fears and work against their weaknesses. (This is not simple sadism; the idea is to be free of self-righteousness or resentment and seek the advancement of a player's skill in the same way a great coach would.)



At further levels of engagement, there is the additional choice to either (a) remain within the listed game options or (b) derive options (i.e. foes and items) according to your purpose.

Since this is my introductory post, I close by giving thanks. I estimate that this community has been together in this format for at least 2 to 3 years. Clearly, there exists an echelon of figures with vision and passion. Gratitude for your commitment. Gratitude for formalizing this pursuit and providing tools for evaluation. Gratitude for validating my perspective and giving context to my struggles.

bcook1971 wrote: Here's what I'd like to offer for response. Think of it as "the simulationist's dilemma in the face a gamist's will." I basically see 3 options:

Welcome to the Forge, B Cook.

Actually, I believe that this community began in or about 1998, in another place, but that at least some of the discussions have been lost and some have been rendered at least temporarily inaccessible by that other site's problems.

I hear your problem. I think you're already getting a handle on it. The question is, to what degree are you willing to adapt to them?

If you've got some say in what is played, you might try suggesting some games that are specifically not gamist, and see if that broadens their horizons at all. I'd approach it more from the perspective of, "I heard of this role playing game, it's supposed to be very different from stuff we've tried, and I thought maybe we could see how it plays and whether we like it."

Hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

Hello, and welcome!

The real dilemma is distinguishing between "skill" and "aesthetic preference," isn't it? I've found that the analogous conflict between Narrativist and Simulationist play shows some of the same features you've outline. In my experience (from the Narrativist-agenda side) it can take some time to discover which is at work - is the other person, or perhaps all the other people at the table, going to jump at a specific (i.e. my desired) play-agenda once given the tools and some reinforcement? Or are they going to resist all the harder, because these tools and reinforcements are antithetical to what they want?

This distinction is also the core of the ongoing rumbles of dissatisfaction, not with the theory, but with the standard of "coherence first" as opposed to "incoherence first, Drift to happiness."

Best,
Ron

Hi, an interesting post, by the way. I'm intrigued by the situation you're in, but I don't think I fully understand it and I'd like to hear more. Please view my comments in that light.

bcook1971 wrote: Now, is that realistic? Doesn't the flame erupt from his fingertips and couldn't that trail through the melee flyer? Doesn't matter. I'm not writing a physics text; I'm just enforcing conditional requirements, keeping options for action in balance and maintaining consistent procedure.

This player doesn't give 2 wits about whether Fireball makes sense; he just wants maximum advantage. After all, this is his life we're talking about here! And no argument of mine will avail or even comfort. The whole point of his question is to commit an element of situation, thereby eliminating my director stance and insuring his purpose.

Play it straight. Make a rote reading of the module. The only prep necessary is to read and re-read it.



Introduce plot elements to match the level of challenge and pose ones that apply to the group skillset.



Antagonize them by introducing elements that frustrate their desires, play on their fears and work against their weaknesses. (This is not simple sadism; the idea is to be free of self-righteousness or resentment and seek the advancement of a player's skill in the same way a great coach would.)



At further levels of engagement, there is the additional choice to either (a) remain within the listed game options or (b) derive options (i.e. foes and items) according to your purpose.

I don't realy see how this approach to running the game is simulationist. If you're not simulating what a real person could do if they could shoot flames from their fingers, what are you simulating? If your argument is that being able to do that may be plausible but it's technicaly disqualified by the rules, then that's a gamist stance since you are placing following the rules of the game over the goal of simulation.

I suppose you could argue that you are trying to simulate the situation using the rules, but if the rules clearly contradict common sense yet you still follow them, then what you have is a failed simulation. Surely it would be better to improve the simulation by fixing the rule?

I'm having trouble understanding the source of the problem here as I can't see why "enforcing conditional requirements, keeping options for action in balance and maintaining consistent procedure" preclude the character frying these things.

To my mind, a flyer that melee attacks prevents it from being a legal target through range by the defender; so if the flyer had engaged the Mage, he couldn't Fireball it. But he could blast its buddies.

I'm not sure about 'Antagonising' players - a coach has a mandate to improve the skills of the people he's coaching. They want to be coached otherwise they wouldn't be there, it's part of what I suppose we could call the social contract. What mandate you have as GM depends on what consensus you reach within your group.

This is not simple sadism; the idea is to be free of self-righteousness or resentment and seek the advancement of a player's skill in the same way a great coach would.

I think it's a testament to the power of roleplaying games that people do often stick with it even when there are stark dislocations in the goals of the participants.