The Forge Archives

Hello,

I urge everyone to recognize that pacing of internet discussions is a serious social problem. Time your input relative to the needs of the person you're addressing. It may seem perfectly all right to you to hammer in your brilliant point upon reading the post that prompts it ... but it's not. Not if the person who posted it hasn't replied yet to the three responses he's received already. You're joining a discourse - not a bear-baiting session.

We used to be really good about this at the Forge, but gradually and steadily, it's become a problem. You-all know exactly what I'm talking about, and this sort of cacophony would never be tolerated in spoken conversation. Don't do it here.

I'm starting a new thread for two reasons.

1. John (Sindyr) has acknowledged the impossibility of the Impossible Thing. This is a good opportunity to explain to Forge newcomers and relative newcomers that we conduct argument a little differently here from other internet discussion boards. Here, when someone (in this case, me) successfully defends or presses a point, the listener is obliged to acknowledge it. John did so, which I appreciate.

However, so that the exchange will not become a boxing match or bear-pit, such an acknowledgement closes the thread. A new topic or nuance should get its own thread. John clearly understands the difference between these:

Bob: Hence, topic X would seem to be resolved by my points 3 and 4.
Bill: Oh yeah? Then what about Y? You haven't addressed Y at all. C'mon.

or,

Bob: Hence, topic X would seem to be resolved by my points 3 and 4.
Bill: I see that - especially in the way that 3 relates to (some nuance of not-X). [Then Bill starts a new thread about topic Y, preferably with a link back to the topic X thread.]

2. John, I have some serious concerns with your call for textual examples of the Impossible Thing, specifically that you state that some texts will not be considered good enough. This renders the whole project impossible. I am to scour my library of games, finding examples, in full knowledge that you can reject them - not on the basis of their content, but the status of the game they come from? When such status is wholly yours to judge? Yoicks.

Maybe this will be OK instead. (a) If the text illustrates the Impossible Thing, then it's a data point. No "oh, but that's some piddly game, it doesn't count." I do acknowledge that the resulting data points can then be subjected to a qualitative analysis of their "importance," later. (b) That this endeavor is considered introductory - I don't plan to conduct an exhaustive search of every game out there, collate them all up, and deliver them. I'll provide a few examples and let everyone join in, or take up the endeavor privately.

Can we agree on those points? I have a batch of examples to provide, but if the above isn't the way to do it, then jeez ....

Here are two examples, too, to clarify a bit of my standards for the texts I'll be looking at.

(I used this example previously in the thread El Dorado: terms clarification)

Undiscovered (2001, Eilfin Publishing, authors are Adam D. Theriault, Antonio DeRosa, Philip Theriault):

QuoteLet the players control their own fate. Although it is your story, you must follow the whims of the characters. It is, after all, their lives they are playing out. The characters must have the freedom to choose their own fates, not just do what the AG [Adventure Guide] tells them to do. It is your job, however, to guide the characters through the story you have created.

That would indeed be The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Alternity, Player's Handbook (1998, TSR, authors are Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker):

QuoteThe Gamemaster sets up the overall plot of each story, also called an [/i]adventure[/i]. This includes creating the background, developing the characters who make up the supporting cast and villains, planning key events that propel the story forward, and establishing the opening scene that gets the action moving.
...
However, the Gamemaster doesn't dictate everything that happens. Unlike the characters in a novel or a movie, the players' heroes don't just do what an author decides they do. The players take an active role, describing how their heroes react to the events going on around them.

When players, characters, plots, rules, and imaginations get together, the resulting swirl of interaction and participation is called roleplaying. Through roleplaying, the group tells a story that's started by the Gamemaster and expanded on by the players - a group story.

I have three things to say about this text.

1. It does not represent the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It represents functional play, and I chose it because it's one of the best texts I've seen for doing so. If someone reads my description of the Impossible Thing, and they interpret it as the above, then they are missing my point. I think this happens a lot.

2. Important caveat: "plot," in the above text, apparently indicates something different from "plot" in other media. Instead of the fictional events established through play, I think it means, "preparation" or "back-story."

3. The text still has some minor pitfalls, especially that the adjective overall is subject to extensive and various reader interpretation. I think that some texts that look more like this one, and less like the Undiscovered text at first glance, actually contain more devastating pitfalls of this sort.

Best,
Ron

Fuck! I posted this initially to the end of the The Impossible Thing thread, by accident! Even with the whole "new thread" lecture in it!

Sorry guys. Hope I caught it in time to avoid replies to it cropping up on that thread.

Best,
Ron

This originally appeared in the 'The Impossible Thing' thread at the time Sindyr was getting swamped.  I'm repeating it here because it's a better home for it.  These are all excerpts from Call of Cthulhu 5th edition (1992).  For those unfamiliar with the system: Investigator = PC; Keeper = GM.

Quotep9, subsection headed Players: "A player has a duty to roleplay an investigator within the limits of the investigator's personality and abilities. That is the point of roleplaying.... Try to develop the investigator's personality well enough that the other players can imagine what he or she would do in a specific situation. "Good old Al," they'll say, "we knew he'd do that.""

Playing in character - including making decisions that character would make - is stated to be the point of roleplaying.

QuoteFrom the chapter About Investigators: p18 "Always create characters who you can enthusiastically roleplay"; p23 "It goes without saying that your [investigator] could be very different from what's written here" p25 "What schools were attended?" Who are the investigator's family? What is the investigator like?"

The personality of the investigator is held to be the property of the player (with the exception of Sanity, which is explicitly tied to a mechanic); the invention of "Deep Background" is given as a part of a player's responsibility both in character creation and in play.

Quotep.74, from the box-out headed Scenerio Structure: "1 A mystery or crisis is posed.... 2 The investigators become linked to the problem.... 3 The investigators attempt to define the mystery.... 4 The investigators use the evidence to confront the danger"

The account of scenerio structure presumes certain responses from the investigators contradicting the idea that players develop the investigator's personality - if the investigators must confront the danger rather than avoid it, that must be their personality (curious, brave, steadfast, etc.).

Quotep. 160 from the Scenerios chapter "Having played these adventures, new keepers can plan their own creations."

The example scenerios are held up as models of good scenario design, i.e. how the game should be played.

Quotep.161, The Edge of Darkness: "The investigators are all friends, relatives, past students or former collegues of the man. The exact relationship of each investigator must be decided ahead of time by the keeper and should involve some close personal bond and reason for trust."

Earlier sections put Deep Background under player control, here Deep Background is put under GM control.  Also the GM is told to control character emotional response, which in earlier text was held up as "the point of roleplaying" for players.  This is during scenerio set-up, which might be argued is not the same as the normal run of play.

Quotefrom various parts of the scenerio chapter: p.163 "Investigators may do as they wish but certainly one of them will want to read Rupert's journal"; p174 "Suspecting Mythos activity, the investigators decide to drive to Vermont and inspect the situation"; "the Packard and Joey Larson always get away. Encourage pursuing investigators to return to the Blue Heaven and see what's happened."; p182 "No matter how quickly the investigators figure this out, Leroy Turner always beats them to the cemetary."

The GM is told to influence or even dictate investigator actions and to render investigator actions irrelevent.  The player's text does not tell them this goes on, neither are GMs warned they will be confounding player expectations.  Argubly this section also represents a source text for illusionism.

Obviously these quotes do not represent the entire CoC game text - a game I like a great deal - but they do reflect The Impossible Thing in the text of a mainstream RPG.  I would be surprised in similar advice didn't exist in other BRP products (RuneQuest, Pendragon, etc.).

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

I urge everyone to recognize that pacing of internet discussions is a serious social problem. Time your input relative to the needs of the person you're addressing. It may seem perfectly all right to you to hammer in your brilliant point upon reading the post that prompts it ... but it's not. Not if the person who posted it hasn't replied yet to the three responses he's received already. You're joining a discourse - not a bear-baiting session.

We used to be really good about this at the Forge, but gradually and steadily, it's become a problem. You-all know exactly what I'm talking about, and this sort of cacophony would never be tolerated in spoken conversation. Don't do it here.

I would speculate that the cacophony over the last few days, when it was especially bad, may directly relate to the presence of the Birthday Forum.  It occurs to me that as a unique and limited forum, alot of people were spending alot more time online for extended periods (at least that is what the logged on list at the bottom seemed to indicate).  I know I caught myself on occassion perusing other forums while waiting for more Birthday stuff to arrive.

This is taken from the "What is Roleplaying" section of GURPS, 3rd Edition (1993 at the latest).  Copmpare and contrast.

Quote from: page 8Depending on the situation the GM may determine what happens arbitrarily (for the best possible story), or by referring to specific game rules (to decide what is realistically possible), or by rolling dice (to give an interesting random result).

My emphasis.

Quote from: later on the same pageWhile the GM is the chief storyteller, the players are responsible for creating their own characters. And if they want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story.

Author's emphasis.

Clearly, the GM is the boss but clearly too there is a problem with the ideas that players, through their characters, can make anything happen if the GM is deciding arbitrarily what happens for the best possible story.

Yeah, GURPS with the universal claim may be one of the original culprits.

Mike

Though I wonder, Ian, whether the first GURPS quote maps better to mechanics - i.e., Drama-Karma-Fortune - than to a call for the Impossible Thing.  Only the first clause - which sounds like an example of using Drama to resolve a conflict point - evokes TITBB, and I submit that games can employ Drama mechanics without automatically invoking the Impossible Thing.

Best,

Blake

Blake, your right about the initial quote possibly mapping to DKF.  Howebver, in general GURPS GMing advice is about as illusionist as it's possible to be.  To quote the chapter on "Writing Your Own Adventures" (p.198, 3rd Ed)...

QuoteThe more flexible you are, the more you avoid the appearance of manipulating your players. And appearance is more important than reality!

Their emphasis, not mine.

Thanks, Ian.  For what it's worth, I didn't doubt that conclusion at all, merely wondered about the particular quote.  I'll dig out my old copy and peruse p. 198.

Best,

Blake

QuoteThe more flexible you are, the more you avoid the appearance of manipulating your players. And appearance is more important than reality!

Holy cats is that a smoking gun or what? :-)

I think that some Illusionist text can be blamed to an extent for TITBB. That is, if a player doesn't read this, he may think he has control. In which case, you get dysfunction. TITBB texts probably came around as an attempt to fix this by calling for some sort of actual collaboration between players and GMs. But this just exacerbates the problem for some.

At the time we were all working through these things as "GMing issues". That is to say that it was still pretty much unthinkable to most GMs that the players be given any power over plot at all. The theory at the time was about how as a GM to make a plot, while not completely ignoring the player's decisions.

GMs like myself theorized a lot about just reacting to the player's decisions. But that didn't seem to allow for any GM input, and doesn't seem in play to lead to plot when attempted (and, indeed you do need to be proactive as a GM to empower a lot of Narrativist play).

Mike

Mike, that's a beautiful post. I haven't a quibble to quibble about.

One thing I think needs to be clarified in general for this discussion, though, is the reading of the key words "author" and "direct" and similar.

When a text says, "GM authors story," or "provides story," that carries a lot of weight in my reading - much more than "frames," "sets up," or "provides raw material" or anything similar.

I think a lot of people are "editing-down" what they read into a functional brand of play (i.e. relative to players' input), and failing to see what's textually on the page. Or, conversely, they are editing-down the part about "players directing the characters' actions" into "players providing Color and raw material," which again, results in functional play, but isn't what the text is saying.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI think a lot of people are "editing-down" what they read into a functional brand of play (i.e. relative to players' input), and failing to see what's textually on the page. Or, conversely, they are editing-down the part about "players directing the characters' actions" into "players providing Color and raw material," which again, results in functional play, but isn't what the text is saying.

Best,
Ron

This I think is actually the central difference illustrated by my recent PMs with Marco on the subject.  He tends to view the problem as being more about poorly written text...i.e. a willingness to edit down the text into what the designer obviously meant, rather than view the text as an actual set of conflicting instructions.

Marco, chime in, if I've mischaracterized you here.

My problem with that is that the editing down into what the designer must obviously have meant, actually means, editing down into something that resembles the way my group plays.

Hi Ralph,

My problem was two fold (and you're more or less right):

1. I don't see a conflicting set of instructions, just poorly written or poorly thought out text which is driven by a foundation of a bad metaphor.

2. While some how-to-game-text may be worse than others, the simply, clearly, and firmly stated 'Impossible Thing' wasn't contradictory at all (to me) and was therefore badly miss-named.

Finally, (and most importantly) reading too much into these texts is pretty de-constructionist. GURPS isn't a mathematical proof. There's a section in 3rd Ed that ascribes a magnificent dexterity to stage magicians ... a reader who sits around scratching his head that David Copperfield should be Martin Riggs is, IMO, missing the point.

I think of those sorts of things as the philosophical equivalent of a typo. I realize there is an intent to be *riggorous* in the analysis of the game-text ... and that's fine if you want to do that--interesting, even--that's also why I haven't been posting here. I don't see a riggourous analysis as being all that valuable.

-Marco

Hi Marco,

Your and Ralph's responses to my above post produced a moment of clarity for me. Many thanks to you both.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI think a lot of people are "editing-down" what they read into a functional brand of play (i.e. relative to players' input), and failing to see what's textually on the page. Or, conversely, they are editing-down the part about "players directing the characters' actions" into "players providing Color and raw material," which again, results in functional play, but isn't what the text is saying.

Quote from: ValamirMy problem with that is that the editing down into what the designer must obviously have meant, actually means, editing down into something that resembles the way my group plays.

On the other hand, it is also true that text always requires interpretation from the context in which it was written.  It is generally possible to snip out sentences or phrases from a text to support a point.  To that end, I am starting to try to collect some of the text in question in full, at the following URL:
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/styles/gametext/

When the text says "players control the characters' actions", it should be perfectly clear that this does not mean that whatever the player does is by definition acceptable.  By the same token, just because the GM controls the world doesn't mean that anything she does is fine.  There are limits of what is considered acceptable behavior.  As most RPGs define it, the GM is expected to design the framework of a fair story for the PCs (i.e. the overall arc, locations).  In turn, the players are expected to reasonably pursue the framework the GM as developed.  In principle, the GM is capable of designing things so that the PCs are automatically defeated.  In turn, the PCs are capable of ignoring the GM plot hooks.  However, both of these are discouraged.  

Now, it is perhaps a fair criticism that there is generally little text aimed at guiding the players.  Most RPGs have a full chapter on gamemastering, but only a paragraph or two on playing.  However, I would call this lack of clarity rather than contradiction.