The Forge Archives

I have a question about a phrase I have recently been exposed to.  Let me repeat the phrase in context:

Quote"All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated."

My question is simple:  Is it really impossible?

Is the idea of the GM's authorship and the player's directing their character's really that fundamentally incompatible?  Or have we been misusing or misunderstanding the terms in our assumption, perhaps too narrowly?

I am a GM, and have been one for around two decades.  So while I am always finding new things and new ways, I am not new to gaming.

It occurs to me that the problem is one of context.  When we say that a GM authors the story, we do not mean to imply that he can or should have a pre-created end in mind for the story.  When we say the players make choices for their characters and determine their actions, we do not mean to imply that the players have any more control over their character's fates then we ourselves have over our own fates in real life.

This is how I see the basic contract between the GM and the players, and how I think it affects the so-called Impossible Thing:

After character creation, the GM's role as author is primarily twofold. He must keep the game world processes running, and he must initiate new processes.

Any world, game or real, can be thought of as having natural flows, patterns of action and consequence.  When an event occurs, especially an event whose occurrence is not precisely in line with the established systems, interference and feedback occur, setting up new flows and patterns.

In a game world, one must imagine the vast and complex latticework of cause and effect - especially social cause and effect.  For the most part, it is not necessary for the GM to pre-determine what these are.

However, the players by their actions interact and interfere with the smooth running of the world.  The actions of the players, and the domains those actions occur in, determine for the GM what he now has to define, create, instantiate, and understand.

For example, a group of players moves to a new town, having been run out of the last town by the local gangs there.  As the players consider their future in this new place, they decide to take over the underworld of this new city, so what happened before doesn't happen to them again.

This is an instruction to the GM.  The players by their actions are saying to the GM: "We will be interacting with the underworld here in this new town.  This underworld has its own ebb and flows, its own balances.  Since we are now choosing to interact with it and to thereby affect it, you must now begin to create/define/understand/explore the current rhythms and potentials of the underworld, so that when we begin to affect it, you will know how the current underworld system will react to our actions.  Eventually, you may need to consider other systems that link to the underworld, such as the city politicians, for as we players affect the system of the underworld here in this new city, so too will it affect systems to which it is linked.

Basically, the entire world is made up of interlinked and interwoven systems.  In the absence of players' actions, the GM must be able to figure out how these systems interact with and prod the players.

In the presence of player actions and choices, the GM must figure out how the systems react to the players, and how these systems react to each others reactions about the players, and so the ripple widens...

Ultimately, it is only the ripples that eventually come back to impact upon the players that need to be tracked.

So the game world is a vast network of natural flows and resistances.  Given the players do nothing, the GM should have some idea of where the game world will go, especially in areas that affect or impinge on the players.

And when the players act, the GM must internally compute the consequences of their actions not just in the moment and in the immediate effects, but also against the backdrops of the many systems the players are connected to.

So, this to me is what I mean when I say the GM is the author of the story.  The GM has created and continues to create the game world in such a way to have "hooks" and potentials for several different paths to be taken by the players and their characters.  He does NOT railroad the characters to the ending of his choice.  He does not manipulate the players toward some specific story goal.

However, if he has created a living and breathing world, he won't have to.  Even in a game without the supernatural, one's destiny or fate is not random, or easily altered.  If I inherit my father's billion dollar corporate legacy, but I use it foolishly and without thought of the consequences, then the natural systems in place will "take care" of me.  Perhaps I become an easy mark for the board members to oust, or maybe by squandering my corporate power, I allow another rival corporation to get the upper hand, and perform a hostile takeover.

Perhaps I so anger my shareholders with my despicable, wasteful, or stupid actions that they vote against me with unexpected solidarity.  Or perhaps I victimize a group in such a way to anger a person capable of assassinating me.

Perhaps I am able to stave off one disaster, and then another.  But if I continue to act these ways, I will be continuing to provoke the systems of the world that I interact with to dealing with the upset I am causing.

Eventually, it probably won't go well for me.

That's a sort of Karma.  There's nothing supernatural about it, it's just an understanding of consequences in a world of sophisticated interlocking systems.  Social systems. Technological systems. Political systems.  Cultural systems.  And so on.

This web of systems and potentials, to me, is the very manifestation of the natural phenomenon called Tao.

So, back to the GM's twofold role as author: to create the world and its web of interlocking systems in such a way as to empower his plot points, and to compute the results of the interaction of the players choices/actions and this gameworld of interlocking systems.

Both create real opportunities for authorship.

For example, let's say I decide that the Holy Grail exists in my world.  I make decisions about what it is, what it can do, and where it currently fits in the vast web of the world.  This means deciding not just the immediate facts about it, such as where it is, but the "one-away" facts of "Where do people think it is" and the "two-away" facts of "What does that make happen in the world, that certain people think the Grail is in certain places.", and so on.

The Plot Point of the Grail begins to extend tendrils into the vast web of systems of the world.

This can happen in two ways: either the effect of the existence of the Grail is recent or new (for example, until recently people believed it a myth, but now have just found evidence that it's not) or the effects of the Grail's existence have always been part of the game world, even though the GM never knew it.  This second approach is the more interesting approach, because now the actions, events, and knowledge the GM has had of the world and its constituents must be re-examined and re-interpreted in the light of what the GM now "knows".

For example, did the players find a secret base of the third Reich in a strange place, say Brazil?  Have you as a GM come up with several possible reasons for that base, but since the players never pursued those answers, you never wrote anything in stone?

Perhaps the Brazil base is a dig site, looking for the Grail, or clues thereof.
Perhaps the third Reich is pinning their hopes of world domination to finding the grail.
Or perhaps the third Reich is indulging one of its influential members in the search, but besides that member, the Reich is contemptuous of the Grail's reality.
Perhaps the third Reich has already found the Grail, and is doing experiments on it!

Until the actions of the players crystallize one of these "perhaps" into a reality, they are all possible.

The key for the GM is to maintain consistency.  Any reality jiggery pokery must be consistent with the past experiences of the players.

That doesn't mean that the player's explanations of past experiences are the correct ones, but that the realities that the GM eventually invokes must ultimately be compatible and consistent with the experiences and understandings that the players have - even if the players can't see how.

So, perhaps the players infiltrate the base, make a daring raid, and steal the Grail!

But the GM says, hmmm... I need the Grail to be in the possession of Amon-Re in Egypt for the next plot point...

Unless the players have determined that the Grail that they have captured is authentic (in which case, that's that), exploring the web of possibilities yields interesting results:
That, if we as GM know they haven't authenticated the Grail yet, and we decide that Amon-Re has the real Grail, then what was the third Reich doing?
Well, perhaps Amon-Re already stole the Grail, and replaced it with a convincing fake.
Or perhaps the leader of the base never had the Grail, but wants to continue to justify the Base's existence, as well as that of his cushy job.

If that's the case, perhaps the base leader was dreading the arrival of a team of inspectors, and he lured the players into stealing the fake Grail.
Or maybe the base leader only thinks it's the fake Grail...  the possibilities go on and on...

The only requirements on the GM are logic, continuity, and consistency that the players ultimately get to understand.

So I think I have shown that the GM gets to author a LOT in this style...
...but are the players really determining their fate, making significant choices that affect their future?

I say yes.
It's true that forces from outside of the character can leave the player with few choices.  A leg breaker shows up and tells the player, "You owe Louie 20K for smashing up his joint last week.  Either pay up, or we breaks your legs."  A little later, it is revealed that Louie would like the player to do him a favor as an alternate to the money that the player doesn't have.

Is the player boxed in?  Yes, but that's not a bad thing, for many reasons:
1)  The situation that boxes the player is a natural consequence of the player's own actions (smashing up Louie's store)
2)  It is realistic that we are faced with limited choices from time to time.  In my real life, many times I have very little choice as to what I can do.
3)  And ultimately, even when boxed in there remain choices.  The characters could run for it.  They could try to kill Louie.  They could manipulate a gang war which would take the focus off of them.  They could try to make it look like someone else smashed up the store. They could even try to come up with the money.

So a narrowed field of choices does NOT mean that the player has no control over his character's fate.

One may ask, what about the fact that the GM may very well be retroactively editing the world?  Doesn't that place my character under his control?

No, it does not.  As long as there are plausible and logical reasons for seeming reversals of established fact, then this does NOT remove the players' ability to make decisions for his character.  It merely means that reality is not always as we see it.

In the Grail example above, the player may feel frustrated that the Grail he stole from the base was not really the authentic Holy Grail.  However, the key is that the GM is NOT preventing him from acquiring the Holy Grail permanently, or in principle, but only in that one instance.

While the GM can alter the truth of the matter, the GM is limited by continuity and consistency.  Once you have authenticated the Grail, used the powers of the Grail, and so forth, then the GM cannot in all likelihood edit the reality of the Grail.  I mean, the GM could stoop to saying it was all a dream or whatever, but that level of editing is not acceptable to most players and would in short order result in a lynched GM. :)

However, if they had just stolen it from the base, and if they find out that the man they hired to authenticate it was in Amon-re's employ (perhaps the same fellow who originally faked the authentication for the base), then the pieces begin to fall into place and it makes sense to the players.

The fact that keeps the players in control is that eventually they see through the immediate seemings to the ultimate truth of what is really going on.

Of course, what if the players, believing the authenticator, assumed they had the real Grail, and chucked it in the basement for storage?
As a GM, I would give them several chances to spot something fishy... maybe finding out more about the authenticator (like, he authenticated it for the third Reich, grin), maybe finding out that someone else in the world still claims to have the one and only grail, maybe having a museum ask for it, only to fail to authenticate themselves.

Or maybe, the players toss it in the basement, and continue to believe it's real for the rest of the game.
And maybe that makes it real after all. After all, a difference that makes no difference, is no difference.

Do the players have control over their characters?  Absolutely.  Do they have control over their fates through their choices? Of course.  Is that control total, 100%?  By no means - just like in the real world.

In fact, the only time I would condone a GM overriding a player choice for their character is when that choice cannot be rationally justified.

For example, if the player (not character) secretly wants the thrill or destroying the Grail (assuming its not indestructible), but the player has chosen to play a historian with a deep respect for history and culture, then when he announces to me (the GM) that having taken possession of the real Grail, that he will now dash it against the wall, I will pause and question him:
I would ask him, given his character's background, past, and psyche as previously described by the player himself, why would the character act in seeming contradiction to all that?
If the player responds that the Grail is too powerful to remain in existence, then I would have the char roll to see whether his motivation to destroy it can overcome his motivation to preserve it.
I might also have the player roll to see if the character could guess at other consequences, such as being greatly cursed or even killed outright.
If the player truly finds a good motivation for his seemingly out of character actions, and the player succeeds in making whatever roll he needs to overcome his character's desire to NOT destroy artifacts of the past, then as GM, I say so be it, and go with it.  This is a prime example of the player having control.

On the other hand, if the player cannot come up with a motivation to contradict his own previously established motivations, then the character would not be allowed to make the attempt at destruction.

After all, consistency and continuity limit not just the GM, but the players, too.

On the other hand, perhaps the player dashes the Grail against the wall, stating "the real Grail would not be so easily destroyed"
Again, the GM can react in many ways.  He can have the player roll to see if the character might be able to know that the real Grail can be so easily destroyed. Or he can allow the real Grail to be destroyed.
Or the GM can announce that the Grail is indeed indestructible, and bounces of the wall.
Or the GM can decide that the Grail was NOT the real Grail after all - if that can be plausibly explained. (Not right now, but later.)

Ultimately, if the player wants to destroy the Grail, he is more than welcome to pursue that.  It might not be easy.  It might not even be worth it. It might even be almost impossible.  But it wont be completely impossible.

However, the player may have to do more than just figure out how to do it.  He will also have to figure out why his character is so motivated to do so in the first place.

This firmly enmeshes the player in the gameworld's web of cause and effect once more.

So, in conclusion, I again must ask why it is impossible that the GM authors the world and plot points therein, while at the same time the players choose (within boundaries of logical consistency) the paths that their characters attempt to follow.

In this way, the culmination of the story is a joint effort of the players and the GM.  The GM for the setup and putting things in motion, and the players for the character impetus and choices.

How can the GM not be said to be authoring the story, even as the players determine the actions of their characters?

-Sindyr

That's quite a post.

QuoteSo, this to me is what I mean when I say the GM is the author of the story.

But that all has nothing to do with the Impossible Thing. Nobody disputes that the GM can play the way you describe. In fact you would be just the last in a long series of people to jump in and say that they've solved the problem with just this solution. Do a search for El Dorado.

Anyhow, the Imposible Thing is the Players and the GM both choosing the plot simultaneously. When Ron speaks of protagonism, he's not talking simply about the player directing the character's actions. He's talking about the player deciding what in the game is important to them the player (not to the character), and having the character pursue that. If the GM is deciding what's important, then the player is not.

Thus all your examples are Simulationism, mostly various forms of Illusionism. They are not Narrativism, because the player's are not empowered to choose what the plot will be about.

Now, you might say, so what? And you'd be right. There's nothing wrong with your style of play, and I'd probably say that it is, if not my favorite, certianly in the top three or four.

All the Impossible Thing says is that there are players who prefer Narrativism, and for whom Sim play is not satisfactory. And that there's no way to play that will provide for both sorts of players simultaneously. Note this also does not mean that you can't switch modes back and forth, in terms of player decisions (which is what GNS is all about), and in terms of GM support. Lot's of people would say that El Dorado is something like hovering back and forth around these styles of play, in such a manner as it's very much not apparent to the outside observer what's going on.

But the point it all is not to say you can't do these things. It's to say that for different players playing in different modes (Sim or Nar), what's required to support their play will, surprise, differ.

Mike

Mike, this is the second time I've seen you parse The Impossible Thing this way...I think you're completely wrong.  The Impossible Thing is Impossible...period.  It has nothing to do with Narrative preference over Simulationist.  It has nothing to do with some people doing it and other people not being satisfied with it.  It has everything to do with it not being physically possible to accomplish...by anyone.  Ever.

The Impossible Thing is simply that the GM is in charge of story and the Players are in charge of their character.  Not possible...can't happen any more than two physical bodies can exist in the same space at the same time.

Inevitably there will come a time when the GM's story and the Players play of their characters butt heads.  At that point having both is impossible.  Something has to give.  And as soon as it does all of that wonder fluffy nonsense in the "how to roleplay chapter" about the GM running story and the players running the characters is revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

If the player sacrifices his play of his character for the GM's story that you have either Railroading (if the GM demands it and the players only option is to not play), Illusionism (where the player THINKS they're making the meaningful choices for their character but really its an illusion and the GM is still pulling the strings), or what you've called in the past Participationism where the players are willing to play along with the illusionism.

Or you have the GM sacrificing his control over the story to the players choices for their characters, which is where alot of other techniques come in.

But at no time is it possible to have a situation where the GM controls the story and the players control the characters...because the characters are part of the story...which by definition means there is a mutually exclusive area of overlap...that's why its impossible.

The problem with the Impossible Thing is that gaming texts will instruct you to play this way...which since it can't really happen leads to all sorts of problems, because the rules...by assuming the Impossible is possible, don't offer any guidance as to how to portion out authority over the area that overlaps.  

It has nothing to do with GNS at all.  If GNS never existed, it would still be Impossible.

Hmm... let me try to follow what you said.

You said:

QuoteThe Imposible Thing is the Players and the GM both choosing the plot simultaneously.

In my examples above, the Gm creates the world and plot points, whereas the player chooses there character's actions.

In this way, neither alone determines the path of the story, ie, the Plot, but both do equally contribute to it.  So while it is true that niether the Players nor the GM have absolute control over the eventual Plot and path of the overall Story, neither has the "edge" over the other in creating that Plot.

So, if the "Great Impossible Thing" is defined as both have absolutely control over the Plot simulataneously, than that by definition cannot be true as one negates the other.

However, the idea of the GM as author and the Players as protagonists choosing their own paths do not contradict each other, and I think that it is this second idea, that most people hold as true: That the GM creates the rich fertile ground for the story, and helps midwife, but the players also have a hand in directing the story in two extremely significant ways:
1) Since the spotlight is on the players, than what the players feel is important i the story also shares the spotlight.
2) The players choose their characters paths through the world the GM creates and maintains.

Also, my understanding was the the Impossible Thing was not related directly to GNS, but was about who was in "control", the Players or the GM?

My question, is given the conditions I described originally, why can't it be equally, both?

Do I understand this correctly?

Also, as I understand Illusionism, none of the above examples were Illusionist.

To my way of understanding, Illusionism means GMing in such a way to eliminate the player's input from actually affecting the outcome of events, usually done covertly.

While in the above examples, some of the players actions might be retroactively modified (such as stealing a false relic instead of a real one), the intent is not to prevent the player from getting the real relic in general, or forever, but only in one instance.

The general pattern remains that the players CAN affect the world by their choices, just not always in obvious or predictable ways.

-Sindyr

Hello, Snidyr. Welcome to the Forge.

The deal with the Impossible Thing is it is a ticking time bomb. Just like it's possible to have one person steer the car and another person work the petal. Sure it's possible, but eventually it winds up a flaming, twisted wreck. That's what Ron meant by:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMost likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter.

What happens is eventually someone either feels slighted or gets sick of the power struggle and them socially the group starts to crumble.

Valamir, you wrote:

Quote"The Impossible Thing is simply that the GM is in charge of story and the Players are in charge of their character. Not possible...can't happen any more than two physical bodies can exist in the same space at the same time. "

I think it is a mistake to try to identify who is in charge of the story.  It seems intuitively obvious that the collective will of the group, GM and players, is "in charge" of the story.

What I would like to suggest is that the GM is responsible for authoring and maintaining the world and that players are responsible for authoring and maintaining their characters and their character's actions. (Although the GM may be called to overide the player's choices from time to time when the players choices for his character make no sense and cannot be justified, such as a lesbian that becomes hetero for no other reason than to hook up with a prominent NPC.  If the player could not find a way to justify this, then it wont happen.  Of course, there are many was to justify it - and the player choosing one sows the seeds for more story-making.)

Ultimately, I do not believe that anyone seriously thinks that the GM is the sole creator of the story, or that the players are.  I think most people are smart enough to see the simple truth - the GM "plays" the world, and the players play the protagonists, and between them they *both* create the story.

-Sindyr

Jack Spencer Jr - thanks for the welcome. :)

If the GM and the players are clear about their roles, how can the train derail?

If the GM's job is to "play" the world, creating interesting Plot Points a la the above, and the players' job is to play their characters with consistency, how can this go wrong?

Besides the obvious I mean.  Obviously, a GM can get burnt out, run out of creative juice, start railroading the characters, or alternatively, letting them get away with muder and monty hauls...

But *aside* from this, if each side is doing their *job* right, how can this become a power struggle?

The only problems I can see would be the people trying to do the *other* persons job, ie; a player trying to tell the GM what is in the world or how it works; or a GM trying to tell the players what they must do.

All either can request of the other is consistency and continuity.

-Sindyr

Quote from: SindyrIt seems intuitively obvious that the collective will of the group, GM and players, is "in charge" of the story.

It may seem intuitively obvious, but what does that actually mean?  I think that's at the heart of this issue.  "Collective will" is something that's pretty hard to define or evaluate, even in a small group of people.  Most roleplaying systems (excepting Universalis and it's offspring/relatives) don't allow consensus-building as a realistic way to create narrative, so ultimately it comes down to who has the ability to determine the outcomes of various components.

(Part of this also involves that tricky term "story" and what it means.  The entire narrative?  Just the sequence of events that occur?)

Your division of GM=world, players=characters is problematic whenever the two come into conflict.  The GM wants a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley, but the PCs come in and slaughter them all.  The players have now influenced the game world, which is supposed to be the GM's domain.  Likewise, if a character falls into a trap and dies or breaks his leg, the GM has exerted control over the characters.

Jonathan Walton wrote:

QuoteYour division of GM=world, players=characters is problematic whenever the two come into conflict. The GM wants a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley, but the PCs come in and slaughter them all. The players have now influenced the game world, which is supposed to be the GM's domain. Likewise, if a character falls into a trap and dies or breaks his leg, the GM has exerted control over the characters.

The key, as I see it is that the GM doesn't want a community of orcs to thrive in a specific valley per se, he wants to instigate interesting gameplay.

If the GM wants a thriving community of orcs in a specfic valley, then the GM can create such  a community.  The GM can even create methods by which the community protects itself.

Lets change the venue slightly.  Let's say the GM wants a thriving community of evil human bandits in a specific valley.

Fine, the GM waves his hand and they are there - more so, there are there completely entrenched in the world - for they have always been there since they settled in the valley 3 years ago.

Even though the GM just made them up right now.

This is assuming that there is not established contradictory evidence, such as the PC's just walked through this valley a few days ago.  If that's the case, drop them in a different valley.

Now, think about this: How is this community's systems and flows interlinked with the framework of the rest of the world?  And thereby, how is the reality of the valley of bandits linked to the PC's themselves?

Could the PC's be known to be destroyers?  Could the PC's be known to be in the area? Fine, perhaps the bandits not only have lookouts (which would make sense), but also have people following and watching the PC's...from a discrete distance.

Alternatively, maybe this community has a bad rap - perhaps they are NOT evil, and the PC's figure this out before the slaughter ensues?

The point is, the GM creates and maintains the world, but really doesn't care if a community of orcs he made gets destroyed - why should he?  All the GM cares about is creating plot points/devices, and leaving them scattered in the player's path from place to place.

After all, if the player's *do* slaughter a community of orcs, that can be use to propel the action forward too.

As far as a character fall into a trap, breaking his legs and possibly dieing, that is not the GM exerting control over the character's choices or destiny.  The GM did not simply decide that the player was going to wind up in that situation.  more than likely, what happened is this:

The player is out walking...

The GM thinks to himself, what are the possible and likely complications that could ensue?  Knowing that the forrest the character is walking in is home to a hostile trapper who wants to prevent people from entering what the trapper terms as *his* forrest, the GM can conjecture that the forrest is indeed trapped.

BUT the GM cannot simply declare to the character, "Hey, you been caught by an unexpected trap, your legs is broken, and you may die"

*That* would be the GM taking control of the character.

So what does the GM do?

1) Makes the player rolls to see if the character might now that the forrest has a keeper, and what the nature of the keeper might be.

Assuming a failed roll, or that the character presses on regardless,

2) Makes a roll to see if during time peroid "A" the PC comes across one of the trapper's traps.

If he does...

3) Makes a roll for the PC to see if the PC can detect the trap before it's too late.

If not,

4) Makes a roll to see what the effect of being caught by the trap is - anything from a scratch from a near  miss to catastrophic injury, depending on the nature of the trap and the roll.

so no less than FOUR rolls must be all failed to avoid real nastiness.

In addition, this assumes the player hasn't done his homework.  However, it is more likely that before wandering around strange woods, the player would do some investiagting before hand, thereby forewarming himself with the knowledge of what lies ahead.

This also assumes that the GM would even care to check this possibitility out.  If the PC is simply entering the forrest to get some firewood, and the plot element addition of the trapper and his traps would only annoyingly put the main endeavors of the PC on hold, the GM is likely to not even worry about it.

The only reason the GM would pursue this plot element is one of two reasons:
1) The trapper and his forrest further the current gameplay in some way.  Perhaps the Trapper is really the old Captain of the Gaurd of the local city?
2) the Players are bored, not currently on a mission or pursuit, and are looking for some action.

So, ultimately I fail to see how these two roles (GM and character) can genuinely come into conflict if both are fulfilling their own roles with consistency and continuity.

-Sindyr

Okay, I'm going to express my opinion in the form of a story.

A GM decides to run a session of an RPG. Let's say he decides to use D&D. It doesn't have to be D&D, I'm not making fun of D&D in the story, it could be anything, but for this story and this session, it's D&D.

So, this GM has an adventure that he prepared before the session. He could have written it himself, or bought it. Let's say he bought it. The adventure involves a wizard capturing a princess, whom the wizard intends to sacrifice to summon something-or-other. The PCs objective is to rescue the princess and defeat the wizard, and the scenario is considered complete once this happens.

Now, the players all buy into the initial plot; in other words, they don't just decide that they don't care about the princess and would rather go west down the road or something, but rather go to where the wizard is to pursue the adventure. However, somewhere along the way, the players begins making decisions that run counter to completing the adventure goal; in effect, they have come up with their own ending to the adventure, and are pursuing that. Perhaps they decide that whatever the wizard is summoning is good; perhaps they want it to be summoned so they can destroy it; perhaps they would prefer to spare both the princess and wizard's lives by convincing them to marry.

Now, the GM can certainly scrap the remainder of the adventure and follow the direction the players are interested in. However, there are many hobbyists out there who would not, and would rather make an effort to coerce the players into following the adventure to its prewritten conclusion. Indeed, there is a great deal of material out there, created by both hobbyists and in industry-published works, that informs members of the community that, when GMing, one should not let players detract from the scenario/story/adventure that the GM has decided to use; the GM is encouraged to use various means to direct play towards that direction. At the same time, the GM is discouraged from directing the choices that players make; after all, the characters belong to the players, and only they can say what their characters do and do not do.

This is how I see the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

See, what you're describing is exactly the way I tend to GM.  However, I think both of us are talking around each other without really hitting the mark.  Let me see if I can't find the point of contention...

Here's what happened in a Nobilis game I ran at a Con last month (all of this was improvised off the top of my head, without preparation):

1.  I established that the PCs were either A) family members of a demigod-like being, the embodiment of Roses, or B) members of a seperate family of demigods who were investigating Roses for suspected crimes.

Control: Me.  The players had absolutely no say in this.

2.  After a pleasant dinner with his investigators & family members, Roses excused himself and slipped away.  One PC decided to use her miraculous powers to sense where Roses had gone.  Not wanting them to uncover too many secrets early on (since I hadn't had time to come up with any secrets), I said that Roses had left the immediate area.

Control: Me.  The players actions motivated me to declare that Roses was gone.  However, the players had no say in this.

3.  Deciding to investigate (which I didn't suspect), the characters followed Roses tracks and ended up rowing out into the ocean, where they discovered a night-black ship at anchor.

Control: Me.  The players actions motivated me to invent all this stuff about the ship.  However, the players STILL had no say in this.  Motivating me to create things and actually having input into the story are very different things.  I was adapting based on what they did, but I was still the originator of everything that happened.

4.  One PC pulled out a sword that could cut through anything (dreams, worlds, truth, light) and sliced the entire ship in half.  It sank to the bottom of the ocean.

Control: Players.  Catch this.  The PC's powers allowed the player to have direct control over what happened, but it superceded my own power.  Maybe I wanted the black ship to stick around for a while.  But if I came up with excuses, fudged things, and kept the player from doing what he wanted to do, this part would just read "Control: Me" and be another example of GM railroading/Illusionism.

Is that a little clearer?  Maybe some others can help me if I'm just muddling the issue.  But this is how I understand it.

DaGreatJL said:

QuoteNow, the GM can certainly scrap the remainder of the adventure and follow the direction the players are interested in. However, there are many hobbyists out there who would not, and would rather make an effort to coerce the players into following the adventure to its prewritten conclusion. Indeed, there is a great deal of material out there, created by both hobbyists and in industry-published works, that informs members of the community that, when GMing, one should not let players detract from the scenario/story/adventure that the GM has decided to use; the GM is encouraged to use various means to direct play towards that direction. At the same time, the GM is discouraged from directing the choices that players make; after all, the characters belong to the players, and only they can say what their characters do and do not do.

This is how I see the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Okay, that makes sense.  That is one great reason I will never use modules - they assume that the players will be shepherded toward one of two or three possible ends.

A GM that runs modules per se is talking the control away from the players and "allowing" them the privelege of playing the parts he, or more accurately, the module has chosen for them.

Now I am not saying that you can't use a module for great source material, you can.  But it is unfair to expect the players to follow a linear progression, or *any* particular path through it at all.

Modules are only good as source material, IMHO, frankly.

Which is why instead of buying modules, I am much more interested in buying sourcebooks decribing towns, countries, secret organizations, anything I can use as fodder for the imagination and meat to wrap my plot point/devices around.

-Sindyr

Jonathon Walton said:

QuoteSee, what you're describing is exactly the way I tend to GM. However, I think both of us are talking around each other without really hitting the mark. Let me see if I can't find the point of contention...

Here's what happened in a Nobilis game I ran at a Con last month (all of this was improvised off the top of my head, without preparation):

1. I established that the PCs were either A) family members of a demigod-like being, the embodiment of Roses, or B) members of a seperate family of demigods who were investigating Roses for suspected crimes.

Control: Me. The players had absolutely no say in this.

Okay, I generally do not like to take control of a player's creation.  You probably had to for a con, but a con IMHO is not an ideal venue for role-playing.

Were I to start up a game, I would sit down with the players and spend one entire session helping them create their characters.  And I would endeavor to allow them the broadest possible choices for character creation - as broad as the system will allow, and frequently more so.

For example, I play TORG, a game that allows for multiple universes of multiple genres, so a party could conceivably contain a wizard, a superhero, a gumshoe, a cyber soldier, etc...

But whatever system I use, I do not place restrictions on the players beside one:

Morality. Specifically, I do not want to GM a game for villains, in the games I run, the players must be the "good" guys.  They must be the kind of characters that usually try to do the right things, in as far as the PC's can figure out what that is.

This is a point that I am clear and vocal about.  My players know that I do not want to spend time involved in a story featuring the exploits of what are basically "bad" guys.  So if they wish to play a villain based game, they do so at someone else's game.

Apart from that, and the limits of the rules/setting/genre/logical consistency, I really dont impose any limits on character creation - nor do I want to.

What I will do however, is take what they have created for their characters, emotions, histories, and such, and use those for ideas to spur plot points/devices.

For example, if a character was a slave at one point in his life, then perhaps in the first adventure, the character runs across his former enslaver.  What does he do?

Quote2. After a pleasant dinner with his investigators & family members, Roses excused himself and slipped away. One PC decided to use her miraculous powers to sense where Roses had gone. Not wanting them to uncover too many secrets early on (since I hadn't had time to come up with any secrets), I said that Roses had left the immediate area.

Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to declare that Roses was gone. However, the players had no say in this.

I do not see how *you* had the control.  If you were committing to Roses being somewhere that the player truly couldn't sense, then the player had some control as well by making you establish this fact, if you see what I mean.  You didn't have *control* over the story as a whole, merely over an element of the story - and as GM, it is your job to be responsible for all the elements of the world that are not under direct player control. Again, you were forced by the player to make an indeterminate thing determinate - at that moment, you were forced to figure out what the answer to her question was, and what the player would get from that.  Hopefully, I am not being unclear, but I have a sense that my brain is fuzzy right now, so bear with me...

Quote3. Deciding to investigate (which I didn't suspect), the characters followed Roses tracks and ended up rowing out into the ocean, where they discovered a night-black ship at anchor.

Control: Me. The players actions motivated me to invent all this stuff about the ship. However, the players STILL had no say in this. Motivating me to create things and actually having input into the story are very different things. I was adapting based on what they did, but I was still the originator of everything that happened.

I must disagree.  You did not originate two things.
A) You did not originate where the line of the story was going, that is, what the focus of the current thread was.  By going after Roses, the player actively shifted the story.
B) You did not control what the players did with what they found, how they interpreted it, what their reactions were, or what the effect of their reactions were.

Quote4. One PC pulled out a sword that could cut through anything (dreams, worlds, truth, light) and sliced the entire ship in half. It sank to the bottom of the ocean.
Control: Players. Catch this. The PC's powers allowed the player to have direct control over what happened, but it superceded my own power. Maybe I wanted the black ship to stick around for a while. But if I came up with excuses, fudged things, and kept the player from doing what he wanted to do, this part would just read "Control: Me" and be another example of GM railroading/Illusionism.

Sure, this is the result of players having control over what they do. Simple.  BUT, if the ship is important to other plot devices you have hanging, then you as a GM have to make some decisions.  
1) Hang the leftover plot devices on another thread.  Perhaps this encounter leads the players to a crystaline tower in a Dreamland, that can contain the leftover plot devices...
2) Leave the plot devices where they are.  The PC's destroyed a myserous ship.  Was there more ships than the one?  What if there were, what does that mean?  And what could still be waiting on the other ship(s)?
3) Let the chips fall where they may.  The plot devices connected to the ship are lost - but what are the repercussions of the PC's actions in the destruction of that ship?  What reactions do the systems of that game world have happening?  

Fascinating fodder for future fun!

(Okay, wayyyy too much aliteration. :)  )

QuoteIs that a little clearer? Maybe some others can help me if I'm just muddling the issue. But this is how I understand it.
_________________
Jonathan Walton
1001 Designs

Sorry, I can't say that it is.  I mean, I agree that you *can* try to run a game railroading the players, and the players *can* try to walk all over the GM.

But fundamentally the roles of GM and the Player are not in conflict as far as I can see.

However, it *is* advisable to avoid the pitfalls of losing one's way.

For example, a GM that uses prewritten modules is liable to start encroaching on a player's choices.

Alternatively, a game system like Nobilis where everything is undefined and the players have super godlike power can lead to players telling the GM what the world is all about - which can lead to the backlash of GM's saying no, the world is mine..and then you are back in a tug of war.

I am not saying that certain game systems don't make it easy to lose sight of our respective resposibilities, as GM or as player.

I am merely saying that the base roles of GM and Player are not fundamentally in conflict as long as each does not try to usurp the rights and abilities of the other.

And as they continue to respect each other's domains, they both toegther and equally create the story - the GM as world author and overseer, and the players as protagonists.

-Sindyr

Quote from: SindyrI do not see how *you* had the control.  If you were committing to Roses being somewhere that the player truly couldn't sense, then the player had some control as well by making you establish this fact, if you see what I mean.

I do see what you mean.  The player did motivate me to make a decision, but the decision I made was completely in my hands.  You keep emphasizing the vast array of choices that GMs have, and that goes for here to.  I could have allowed the player to sense where Roses was.  I could have changed my plans for what Roses was doing.  I could have done any number of things.  My point is that, whatever happened, I was the one who decided it.  NOT the players.

Now, if I'd been more on top of things, I could have asked the PLAYER what they sensed.  They might describe Roses safely at home in his chambers.  That would be player determinism.  Then I could run with that.  Many games that have been created here on the Forge work that way, but that was NOT what happened in this case.

QuoteA) You did not originate where the line of the story was going, that is, what the focus of the current thread was.  By going after Roses, the player actively shifted the story.

Right, that's player determinism.  However, I could also have twarted them.  Used my GM powers to set up unsurmountable forces bwteen them and Roses, or just made it unappealing to go after him (set up other more important things that needed doing, for example).  If I did that, it would be GM determinism.  Both of these can't happen at once, though.  That's the Impossible Thing.

QuoteB) You did not control what the players did with what they found, how they interpreted it, what their reactions were, or what the effect of their reactions were.

I agree with all of this except "the affect of their reactions."  That, I'd argue is almost entirely in the hands of the GM.  The player decided to cut the boat in half, but maybe, since the boat wasn't a real thing of this world, even the sword that could cut through anything couldn't destroy it.  That's my call, as a GM.

Player thoughts, emotions, expressions, verbal reactions, and the like are all determined by them, but they also don't really affect the story in any way.  If all the players did was go around and react to stuff, that's about as railroaded as you can get.

Nobody's arguing (at least, I don't think so) that control can't alternate between the players and the GM.  That's what happens in Donjon, Sorceror, and the like, just using the normal rules.  In other games, some GMs allow players to have real input in the story.  Some don't.  If you do, that's great.

Sindyr,

Hey, I'm wondering if you've read the material writen by Ron wherin he defines The Impossible Thing. I get the feeling from your posts (although I admit to not having read every single word . . . I mean, they're freakin' huge! ;) that your view is that there is an ideal way to role-play and that all actual play either attains or falls short of the mark. This isn't really the case. The big message of GNS is that different gamers have different goals, and that different goals require different approaches.

So talking about how players and GMs should relate to each other is a bit meaningless. They should relate to each other as appropriate to gaming goals of a particular group.

The Impossible Thing is a simple observation that an often-described type of GM / player interface does not work in practice. Ron's description of the Impossible Thing is sort of like saying "the sky is blue" in a world where no one ever looked at the sky before. The sky's obviously blue, and always has been, we just never noticed. In a way, it's a circular statement. "Two people may not simultaneously control something that may only be controled by one person at a time."

Here's a simple explanation of the Impossible Thing. Most historical role-playing games have, at some point in their text, the statement that "the GM controls the world, the players control the characters." This looks fine at first glance. The problem is that the two spheres overlap. The characters live in the world. Unless there is some method for determining precedence, it is inevitable that toes will be stepped on.