gamist/simulationist: a practical example
Mary K. Kuhner
I like real examples, and just got handed one--luckily not in a game
of my own.
In a game my husband is playing in, the PCs recently asked an NPC for
assistance with something they were doing. As I understand it, they
didn't ask the NPC to do it for them, but requested that she provide
some backing spells and other forms of aid. The NPC was in general
agreement with their goals, and the requested aid was within her
demonstrated capabilities.
This strikes me as a litmus test between use of game principles to
decide an event and use of simulation principles.
From a simulation point of view, the question is "What would the NPC
naturally do?" taking into account the sitaution, her personality,
and perhaps the mysterious factors one encounters when playing an NPC
Immersively.
From a game point of view, however, there may be additional concerns such
as "It's unfair for the PCs to get substantial help from NPCs." This
is very much akin to "It's unfair to put another piece on the chessboard
midgame." It reduces the fairness of the contest or challenge.
My husband's GM chose to contrive a (rather flimsy) reason why the aid
would not be given. This is extremely common, perhaps standard, for
that group, but it's not something a strict simulationist would be
likely to do. So it shows a definite difference between game-based
and simulation-based adjucation.
I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
knows where they're at.
I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
particularly in describing the games that do. A group might allow
certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others. The
_Radiant_ campaign uses Script Immunity, for example, but does not
use the kind of "fairness" considerations shown by this example.
If the PCs make a good pitch for having an NPC solve their problems,
the NPC will solve them. (This has happened several times now.)
In fact, even if the PCs don't make a pitch, an NPC may solve their
problems.
One important determinant of whether this style (NPC intervention
allowed) works well seems to be whether there are lots of engaging
things for the PCs to do in the setting, or only a few. If there are
not very many, "losing" any of them to NPCs will annoy the players.
If there are plenty, having NPCs intervene with some will be
welcomed. The other key variable is whether the players see NPC
intervention as coming out of world considerations, or out of a
frustrated desire on the GM's part to play a powerful character who
saves the day. I think my husband's group may eschew NPC activism
simply because it's their experience that if it's allowed, the GM
will have his favorite NPCs hog the spotlight. But it needn't work
that way, and hasn't in our games. (I've seen the stereotypical
"horrible GMing mistake" of having an NPC party leader who is massively
more powerful than the party work wonderfully well, when done by a
thoughtful, restrained, and scrupulously fair GM.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rick Cordes
In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>I like real examples, and just got handed one--luckily not in a game
>of my own.
>
>In a game my husband is playing in, the PCs recently asked an NPC for
>From a game point of view, however, there may be additional concerns such
>as "It's unfair for the PCs to get substantial help from NPCs." This
>is very much akin to "It's unfair to put another piece on the chessboard
>midgame." It reduces the fairness of the contest or challenge.
Unfair or fair only in the context of who is playing whom.
In the context of an RPG, it may be warranted on any number of
levels. In a CoC campaign I played in, there were a series of situations
me and my character both felt someone should call the police. At the first
of these, I thought the GM should have had an anonymous NPC do it off-stage,
-somehow I thought it that would better fit with our game contract- but
then my inclination grew to have my character follow through. The problem
was that it may have upset the balance, and so we come to your next
point...
>My husband's GM chose to contrive a (rather flimsy) reason why the aid
>would not be given. This is extremely common, perhaps standard, for
>that group, but it's not something a strict simulationist would be
>likely to do. So it shows a definite difference between game-based
>and simulation-based adjucation.
...or the difference between flimsey adjudications and otherwise.
Whether or not an NPC, or NPCs, helps or hinders -or PCs do whatever- is
all part of the game. Like so many distictions drawn on this newsgroup,
I question here utility here of talking about game-based-vs-simulationist-
based adjudications: are these in anyway really mutually exclusive approaches,
or in fact, are they really just characterizations for descriptions of
very limited context?
>I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
>might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
>dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
>each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
>uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
>knows where they're at.
My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
for me. Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
ennervation.
>I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
>metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
>particularly in describing the games that do. A group might allow
>certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others. The
>_Radiant_ campaign uses Script Immunity, for example, but does not
>use the kind of "fairness" considerations shown by this example.
>If the PCs make a good pitch for having an NPC solve their problems,
>the NPC will solve them. (This has happened several times now.)
>In fact, even if the PCs don't make a pitch, an NPC may solve their
>problems.
What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
condsiderations, but vehemently disallows others?" Well, either
one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
generally obscure what may be at issue. This metagame fluff is like
stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
or at best, less of a game.
>One important determinant of whether this style (NPC intervention
>allowed) works well seems to be whether there are lots of engaging
>things for the PCs to do in the setting, or only a few. If there are
>not very many, "losing" any of them to NPCs will annoy the players.
>If there are plenty, having NPCs intervene with some will be
>welcomed. The other key variable is whether the players see NPC
>intervention as coming out of world considerations, or out of a
>frustrated desire on the GM's part to play a powerful character who
>saves the day. I think my husband's group may eschew NPC activism
>simply because it's their experience that if it's allowed, the GM
>will have his favorite NPCs hog the spotlight. But it needn't work
>that way, and hasn't in our games. (I've seen the stereotypical
>"horrible GMing mistake" of having an NPC party leader who is massively
>more powerful than the party work wonderfully well, when done by a
>thoughtful, restrained, and scrupulously fair GM.)
This is at the heart of an RPG philosophy. Providing players
with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
context.
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
: Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
> >I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
> >might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
> >dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
> >each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
> >uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
> >knows where they're at.
I agree, but this is probably unsurprising, as like Mary
and Irina, I play in a mixed style.
> My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
> contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
> for me.
As characterizations of entire _games,_ I agree that they
are not very useful. This is primarily because "pure" examples
are so rare. As characterizations of approaches to *types* of
situations, however, I think they are very useful indeed. When
bad feeling arises in games, it is often because the participants
differed in their expectations of which approach was to be used
for the particular type of in-game situation. Having a common
vocabulary to describe these criteria can help to keep these
misunderstandings from occurring -- to ensure, as Mary puts it,
that "everyone knows where they're at."
> Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
> criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
> do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
> possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
> the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
> ennervation.
How does one determine "success" without speaking in such
terms? The evaluation of success is dependent on which criteria
one is using.
Mary's choice of example was fortuitous, from my point of
view, because a very similar situation arose in my group's
Isrillion campaign several years ago. The PCs, faced with a
tricky problem which carried with it potential for catastrophe,
decided that their best course of action was to call upon a far
more powerful group of NPCs for aid and adjudication. The then-acting
GM had not, it seems, even considered the possibility that the
characters might go this route: not only hadn't he _expected_ it,
he hadn't even _thought_ of it as a possible option.
Faced with this situation, the GM in Mary's example chose
to privilege gamist criteria: he came up with a reason for the NPC
to refuse to aid the PCs because had he not done so, the game would
have been less challenging. He may also have been considering
dramatist criteria: had the NPC stepped in to solve the PCs'
problems, then the dynamism of the story line would have been
weakened. He may also have *considered* simulationist criteria,
but when it came to making a decision, he chose to *privilege*
the gamist considerations. Based on his ranking of the
criteria, it made a better game that way.
When my group was faced with this situation, on the other
hand, we chose to deal with it differently. It seemed clear to
us that, given what we knew of the NPC group's motivations,
information, and political agenda, the people in question *would*
respond to the PCs' request. The ensuing events were not, perhaps,
as dramatic or dynamic as they would have been had the NPCs
refused, nor as challenging in a gamist sense -- the PCs played a
peripheral and somewhat passive role in the affair -- but
from our point of view, it made a better game *this* way. Our
interpretation of "what makes a better game" differed from that
of the GM in Mary's example because the criteria by which we
judge games are ranked differently.
I understand the point you are trying to make about
"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
does? I rather imagine it would have.
How we view the "success" of a game decision is always
going to be influenced by how we prioritize game values.
> >I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
> >metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
> >particularly in describing the games that do.
I agree. I also confess to the suspicion that everyone
uses _some_ metagame.
> >A group might allow
> >certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others.
Sure. Ruggels goes in for a gamist approach to "challenge,"
but runs screaming from the room at the sight of script immunity --
while I tend to do just the opposite.
> What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
> considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
"cheated?"
I think that establishing these sorts of boundaries
is a Good Thing. It serves to align the stylistic expectations
of the group, which reduces the likelihood of disagreements and
bad feeling. This is the purpose of a game contract.
> Well, either
> one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
> and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
> generally obscure what may be at issue.
They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
> This metagame fluff is like
> stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
> role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
> or at best, less of a game.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying here. Do you really
think that there is a platonic ideal of that "balance" on which
everyone will agree? That is contrary to my experience. One
person's "perfect balance" may seem insufferably gamist to
another, while a third party may consider it insufficiently
game-like -- or, in your words, "less of a game."
> Providing players
> with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
> providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
> though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
> device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
devices employed.
> Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
> excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
> players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
> a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
> be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
> and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
> cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
> context.
The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
his eye, it would not have been a "success." It would have
been unsatisfying and frustrating. Similarly, a player who
valued NPC consistency and realism very highly would not
have enjoyed the game Mary described very much, because the
decision to give the NPC an excuse to refuse to aid the PCs
would have weakened the very aspects of the game which she
valued most highly.
I don't think that it works very well to change
directions mid-stream, as it were. Going into a game knowing
that in the case of NPC intervention, gamist values will
be prioritized over simulationist ones is very different
than having the priorities switched on you. Having ones
expectations baffled that way is one of the chief causes
of coming away from a game with a nasty feeling that the
GM did something akin to cheating.
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}: In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
}: Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
}
}
} I agree, but this is probably unsurprising, as like Mary
}and Irina, I play in a mixed style.
}
}} My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
}} contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
}} for me.
}
} As characterizations of entire _games,_ I agree that they
}are so rare... [but] Having a common
}vocabulary to describe these criteria can help to keep these
}misunderstandings from occurring -- to ensure, as Mary puts it,
}that "everyone knows where they're at."
We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
taken to define them. As Mary points out, what they achieve
is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
}} Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
}} criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
}} do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
}} possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
}} the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
}} ennervation.
}
} How does one determine "success" without speaking in such
}terms? The evaluation of success is dependent on which criteria
}one is using.
Success is measured by what is accomplished rather than by
how it is accomplished, though what you may want to accomplish
may be achieved better by some means other than by others. In
an RPG, I like to see a variety of effects and prospectives at
play because it is what keeps things interesting. How something
is done of course contributes to the success of a venture but it
doesn't alone qualify success. Again, I would argue depending on
the nature of the campaign, certain perspectives, stance or
methodologies, in combination, may better insure the success
than another.
} I understand the point you are trying to make about
}"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
}of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
}Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
}not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
}a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
}I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
}by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
}does? I rather imagine it would have.
When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either. What
may amount to a glaring defect in one book, will not be in another.
In an RPG, the situation is fluid, and adopting or excluding a
single stance during the evolution of an adventure, under the
totem of preference, seems stodgy. The situation described seems
to be one where the GM created a situation, and then
dropped the ball, that's all. I would judge success by a number
of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
failed in that department.
} How we view the "success" of a game decision is always
}going to be influenced by how we prioritize game values.
}...
}...
} I agree. I also confess to the suspicion that everyone
}uses _some_ metagame.
}...
}} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
}} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
}
} Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
}feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
}"cheated?"
Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
an ettiquette. If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
} I think that establishing these sorts of boundaries
}is a Good Thing. It serves to align the stylistic expectations
}of the group, which reduces the likelihood of disagreements and
}bad feeling. This is the purpose of a game contract.
}
}} Well, either
}} one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
}} and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
}} generally obscure what may be at issue.
Again, I see a proscriptive, exclusionary force at work here.
Games will have certain strengths and weaknesses, and different approaches
will conditionally allay them to varying degrees.
}
} They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
}style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
Describing a gaming stlye in a manner which is useful,
it seems, only in catering to preference.
}} This metagame fluff is like
}} stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
}} role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
}} or at best, less of a game.
}
} I'm not sure quite what you're saying here. Do you really
}think that there is a platonic ideal of that "balance" on which
}everyone will agree? That is contrary to my experience. One
}person's "perfect balance" may seem insufferably gamist to
}another, while a third party may consider it insufficiently
}game-like -- or, in your words, "less of a game."
I see this metagame distinction as being a fallacy, i.e.,
that you can have an RPG that does not possess a so called
metagame dimension. By "in the balance" the only sense
I meant it to be contrued as being an ideal was in the sense
that an RPG without metagame dimension is an absurdity.
By balance I meant the metagame part of the game be balanced
with the other elements in the game.
}} Providing players
}} with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
}} providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
}} though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
}} device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
}
} I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
}hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
}devices employed.
I agree, so, let's talk rather then in terms of what
defines propriety and fair play in a game. I think fair play
and propriety transcend definition by preference.
}} Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
}} excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
}} players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
}} a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
}} be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
}} and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
}} cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
}} context.
}
} The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
}between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
}arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
}campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
}any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
}It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
}values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
}challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
}his eye, it would not have been a "success."
... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
the game? I don't know how the Isrillion game was handled
but I can imagine how it could have been played so that it
was accessible to either hypothetical player's conception
of character or sensibility. I believe it is the part of the
game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
conception.
} It would have
}been unsatisfying and frustrating. Similarly, a player who
}valued NPC consistency and realism very highly would not
}have enjoyed the game Mary described very much, because the
}decision to give the NPC an excuse to refuse to aid the PCs
}would have weakened the very aspects of the game which she
}valued most highly.
Again, I do not think you can prioritize values even
within a group on an absolute scale: even if you prioritize
values, aren't you going to want to have proviso's of the
form, whenever possible we're going to do this rather than
that but if that's totally unreasonable (or "wouldn't this
be interesting") then...? The game was weakened by the
flimsy excuse, not because somebody was a gamist or not.
} I don't think that it works very well to change
}directions mid-stream, as it were. Going into a game knowing
}that in the case of NPC intervention, gamist values will
}be prioritized over simulationist ones is very different
}than having the priorities switched on you. Having ones
}expectations baffled that way is one of the chief causes
}of coming away from a game with a nasty feeling that the
}GM did something akin to cheating.
Let's talk about cheating. Simulationist and Gamist
values are not mutually exclusive. I think an arguement
can be made that a who GM cooks up a flimsy excuse to disallow
a character with the ability to solicit an NPC, to do so,
has at best had a failure of imagination. I don't see
how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
GM.
-Rick
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
: taken to define them.
What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
: As Mary points out, what they achieve
: is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
: the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
I don't see it so much as a "language of preference."
It is a language, by means of which many things may be communicated.
Preference is one of these things, certainly. So is technique.
So is analysis. So is plain old description.
Recently, I wrote in a response to Russell Wallace that
I would likely have handled a specific gaming situation by
"directing strongly at first." He understood what I was talking
about. This may seem a puny miracle to you, admittedly, but it
is communication, and it is facilitated by a shared language.
: Success is measured by what is accomplished rather than by
: how it is accomplished, though what you may want to accomplish
: may be achieved better by some means other than by others.
Yes, and how do you *describe* these goals and means?
How, for that matter, might you go about analyzing the dynamic
whereby "what you want to accomplish may be achieved better by
some means than by others?"
Well, perhaps you do so instinctively. That's fine, but
if you want to communicate your understanding to others -- perhaps
to give advice, perhaps to receive advice, or perhaps just to
discuss the phenomena you have observed -- then you need some
common vocabulary, some classification system, in which to express
it.
Mary Kuhner, for example, has done a very nice job in
the past of describing the problems that strongly DIP players
may have with certain types of character "templating." This
is useful information. Its accessibility to me, however, is
dependent upon my understanding of what "DIP" means, what
sort of character generation approach Mary is talking about when
she writes of a "template," and how these two factors are likely
to interact with one another.
This is far from a language in which only preference
may be expressed.
: } I understand the point you are trying to make about
: }"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
: }of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
: }Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
: }not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
: }a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
: }I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
: }by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
: }does? I rather imagine it would have.
: When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
: than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
stylistic preferences. My group's "common courtesy" might be
considered unspeakably rude by another gaming group, while
that group's standard practice could seem a terrible breach
of etiquette to us.
This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
as relevant or critical?
: The situation described seems
: to be one where the GM created a situation, and then
: dropped the ball, that's all.
Your interpretation of the situation, though, is rooted
in your own stylistic preference. To one group, an NPC solving
the PCs' problems for them indicates that the GM "dropped the ball."
To another group, the same NPC *refusing* to solve the PCs' problem
would be seen as symptomatic of a GM who has "created a situation,
and then dropped the ball."
: I would judge success by a number
: of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
: different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
: there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
: failed in that department.
Did it? We don't know that it did. Mary didn't say.
As far as I know, the evaluation of the excuse as "rather
flimsy" may have been solely that of Mary's husband. She didn't
mention whether anyone else in the group was bothered by it.
It's quite possible that what bothers Mary's husband
might not even be noticed by others. In cases of that sort,
the problem is not the GM dropping any sort of ball. The
problem is that one of the players is accustomed to playing
under different customs than the rest of the group -- different
etiquette, if you will.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that
"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
: }} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
: }} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
: }
: } Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
: }feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
: }"cheated?"
: Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
: only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
: an ettiquette.
If you like. It is a tool which can also be used to
analyze games after the fact, to predict (to some extent) which
gaming techniques might mesh well or poorly with other ones,
and to describe the dynamic by which various game-related
factors intersect.
If you define "etiquette" loosely enough to encompass
all of these phenomena, then I suppose that _is_ its function,
yes. But since these phenomena are the stuff and substance of
gaming style, I don't really see anything "only" about it.
Again I must ask, for I am becoming more and more curious:
What else is there that you would _like_ to see this terminology
address?
: If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
: was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
: define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
And 'round and 'round we go...
Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
If I were called upon to define cheating in an RPG, I
would say that cheating is a violation of the game contract.
Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
preference again.
Here are some examples of behavior which various gamers
might consider "cheating":
- fudging dice rolls
- varying adjudicative technique without first
establishing formal rules for this variance
- allowing characters access to OOC information
- retconning a scene
- *refusing* to retcon a scene
- Schroedingering an NPC or part of the game world
- changing the character sheet to reflect changes
in the character concept after play begins
- *not* changing the character sheet to reflect
changes in character concept after play begins
- sending a PC into a no-win situation
- *refusing* to send a PC into a no-win situation
- tailoring enemy NPCs to match the PCs' level of skill
- *not* tailoring enemy NPCs to match the PCs' level
of skill
- various types of plotting
- refusal to use various types of plotting
- allowing a powerful NPC to solve the PCs' problems
for them
- *not* allowing a powerful NPC to solve the PCs' problems
for them
- etc.
What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
preference and priorities.
: } They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
: }style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
: Describing a gaming stlye in a manner which is useful,
: it seems, only in catering to preference.
I'm not sure what you mean by "catering to preference."
Gaming style *is* a matter of preference, obviously. If it
were not, then we would all play games exactly the same way.
It is because we do not do so that the entire concept of "gaming
style" exists.
: } I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
: }hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
: }devices employed.
: I agree, so, let's talk rather then in terms of what
: defines propriety and fair play in a game. I think fair play
: and propriety transcend definition by preference.
How? I'm all ears.
: } The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
: }between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
: }arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
: }campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
: }any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
: }It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
: }values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
: }challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
: }his eye, it would not have been a "success."
: ... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
: and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
: the game?
More to the point, a player for whom PC centrality,
dynamism, and game challenge were *non-issues* might have
enjoyed the game.
The issue of "game challenge," for example, is not something
I consider when I play an RPG. I don't think about the game that way
at all, in terms of "easy" or "hard;" to do so is extremely alien to
my mode of thought. The question of whether the game was "challenging"
is therefore simply not one it would occur to me to ask myself. It
is an irrelevancy, a non-issue.
For a group which shares this approach, the idea that "NPCs
ought not solve the PCs' problems for them" just doesn't make any
sense. After all, why on earth shouldn't they?
For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
: I don't know how the Isrillion game was handled
: but I can imagine how it could have been played so that it
: was accessible to either hypothetical player's conception
: of character or sensibility.
Perhaps it could have. I don't really know, as I don't
have all that clear an idea of what sorts of things are necessary
to make people with that flavor of gaming preference happy. I
am fairly certain that that particular game, the Tension game,
would not have pleased such players, but I'm less certain as to
what would have made it acceptable to them.
One thing I do know, though, is that had the NPCs
in question *refused* to come to Isrillion, that would have
been unacceptable to *us.* It might have been hunky-dory
with a different group, but for my group, it was not an
acceptable option.
The point here is that the what different groups
consider "acceptable" is a matter of their priorities and
preferences, and that it is these that define how the group
will approach the game.
: I believe it is the part of the
: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
: conception.
I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
: Again, I do not think you can prioritize values even
: within a group on an absolute scale: even if you prioritize
: values, aren't you going to want to have proviso's of the
: form, whenever possible we're going to do this rather than
: that but if that's totally unreasonable (or "wouldn't this
: be interesting") then...?
That's still a setting of priorities. "We value
naturalism highly, but we are unwilling to dispense with
script immunity, so unless it is totally unreasonable, we
will intercede to keep major characters alive" is a very
different statement than "we value naturalism highly, but
we are unwilling to have the PCs at the periphery of important
events, so unless it is totally unreasonable, we will intercede
to ensure that the major characters have an important role
to play in the Big Plot."
They're both perfectly valid preferences, but they
are *different,* and it is quite possible to enjoy one while
disliking the other. This was Mary's original point: groups
differ in the specifics of how they set these priorities.
: The game was weakened by the
: flimsy excuse, not because somebody was a gamist or not.
No, the game was weakened because one person was
accustomed to the convention "NPC motivations and behaviors
are not altered for the purpose of providing game challenge
to the players," while another was accustomed to the rule:
"Intercession is justified to ensure that the plot not be
taken away from the PCs."
: Let's talk about cheating.
Okay.
: Simulationist and Gamist values are not mutually exclusive.
No, of course not. Neither are dramatist and simulationist
values, for that matter, or dramatist and gamist values.
There are situations, however, such as the one Mary
described, in which the GM's or group's decision will reflect
the specific system of prioritization they are using.
: I think an arguement
: can be made that a who GM cooks up a flimsy excuse to disallow
: a character with the ability to solicit an NPC, to do so,
: has at best had a failure of imagination.
Ugh. Again with the "flimsy."
Okay, what if it had been a _good_ excuse, one that was
made up on the spur-of-the-moment, but nonetheless did not come
across as flimsy or half-hearted.
Can you understand how some people might still feel that
it was the wrong decision, that the game would have been better
served by allowing the NPC to respond favorably to the call for
aid?
: I don't see
: how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
: from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
: indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
: GM.
Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
for the NPC to refuse such a request?
I would hazard that it strikes you as "something akin
to cheating" because the implicit game contract under which
you play has a clause concerning game challenge or PC centrality
to the plot. Is that right?
Can you not see how this reflects a different
prioritization of values than the contract under which my group
plays, or that under which Mary and her husband usually play?
-- Sarah
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
[in response to Rick Cordes, discussing my example of a GM forbidding an
NPC from helping the PCs]
> It's quite possible that what bothers Mary's husband
>might not even be noticed by others. In cases of that sort,
>the problem is not the GM dropping any sort of ball. The
>problem is that one of the players is accustomed to playing
>under different customs than the rest of the group -- different
>etiquette, if you will.
In fact, I believe that of the four regular players, one (my husband)
was disappointed that the NPC didn't help, but two would have been
disappointed if she had helped, because of the loss of PC centrality and
opportunity for action. This is an awkward makeup for a gaming group,
to be sure.
If the excuse had not been "flimsy" my husband (or I, in similar
situations) might not have objected to a single instance, but in such
games it rapidly becomes apparent that the NPCs will never provide
significant help to the PCs. Each instance can be justified, but not
the whole pattern. This still annoys both of us, as we are used to a
playing style in which the game-rules "Don't make things easy for the
PCs" and "Don't give the PCs anything they didn't earn" do not apply
at all.
I am not passing judgement on these styles: merely noting that if you
can recognize and describe them, disappointments of the kind I'm
describing may be rarer. You'll also be less likely to use a technique
applicable to one type of game inappropriately in another. I used to
run a fairly simulationist game, but feel guilty whenever anticlimaxes
occured. Realizing that they are a natural part of the style helped
me run more comfortably. I was using a tool-set which doesn't contract
to always make things work out dramatically, but still had the idea that
somehow I ought to be making things work out dramatically....
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rick Cordes
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
}: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}
}: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
}: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
}: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
}: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
}: taken to define them.
}
} What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
symtoms.
} Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
}did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
} The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
}is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
}you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
}know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
What has been achieved here has not required, much
less, justified the specialized vocabulary. A character is
more or less defined, and then to greater or lesser degree
evolves; likewise plot, story, background, tone, color. Terms
like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
by stylistic preference. Moreover, as you and others have
observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
is what is usually at play, and while talking about how
Wagglestaff used punctuation and iambic pentameter may be
diverting in itself, it has very little to do with
Wagglestaffian accomplishment.
}: As Mary points out, what they achieve
}: is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
}: the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
}
} I don't see it so much as a "language of preference."
}It is a language, by means of which many things may be communicated.
}Preference is one of these things, certainly. So is technique.
}So is analysis. So is plain old description.
Again, I see no justification for it beyond it being a
language of preference. I accept your proposition that it may
be useful to achieve accord. Still, the terminology seems
baroque. Moreover, the utility of this vocabulary in reference
to improving or prescribing technique or analysis has just
been claimed. I doubt that it does, and plain old description
is just what I would advocate in its stead.
} Recently, I wrote in a response to Russell Wallace that
}I would likely have handled a specific gaming situation by
}"directing strongly at first." He understood what I was talking
}about. This may seem a puny miracle to you, admittedly, but it
}is communication, and it is facilitated by a shared language.
The example you give is comprehendable to anyone who
plays, or at leasts runs, RPGs and speaks the english language.
}...
} Mary Kuhner, for example, has done a very nice job in
}the past of describing the problems that strongly DIP players
}may have with certain types of character "templating." This
}is useful information. Its accessibility to me, however, is
}dependent upon my understanding of what "DIP" means, what
}sort of character generation approach Mary is talking about when
}she writes of a "template," and how these two factors are likely
}to interact with one another.
}
} This is far from a language in which only preference
}may be expressed.
Are claiming you are more efficiently and effectively
communicating some nuance of practical import by saying "problems
that strongly DIP players may have with certain types of character
"templating"," instead of talking about the dynamics of players
who prefer to generate loosely defined characters? [The practical
problem seems to be how to relegate the broadest spectrum of
definition to preference.] Mary makes her points clearly, and
although she shows no aversion to speaking the cant, for me it
is the example she usually evokes that spells out the nuances
she is trying to convey: the jargon just lets me know she's one
of the boys.
}...
}: When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
}: than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
}
} I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
}etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
}stylistic preferences.
Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
it from objective analysis. You continue in this vein...
} This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
}discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
}apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
}character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
}it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
}etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
...here we have a group who think soliloquies are rude
who are counterposed to your group for which soliquies are not
de riguer but are not considered rude. Everything else being
equal, I think it one could argue from premises more substantial
than preference that the former position is more bonkers than
the latter.
}: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
}: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
}
} And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
}as relevant or critical?
You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
critical, will it be relevant or critical? It seems to me that
RPGing should enjoy their analog to literary license but that
is to bear the same aesthetic priviledges and responsibilities
that entails. This is to say, if a flimsy excuse is employed,
it needs to be justifies in terms of what is thereby accomplished
on a whole. However, one should avoid a daily fair of being
flimsy.
}...
}: I would judge success by a number
}: of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
}: different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
}: there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
}: failed in that department.
}
} Did it? We don't know that it did. Mary didn't say.
}As far as I know, the evaluation of the excuse as "rather
}flimsy" may have been solely that of Mary's husband. She didn't
}mention whether anyone else in the group was bothered by it.
I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
} You seem to be operating under the assumption that
}"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
}Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
eye of the beholder than is flimsiness. Again, I think a
RPG philosophy should in part define what constitutes both
fair play and cheating in roleplaying. You can see in this
instance why these characterizations of style do nothing for
me: I am more interested in how to accomodate, in what is to
be accomplished by, the broadest spectrum of devices and sytles.
}: }} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
}: }} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
}: }
}: } Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
}: }feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
}: }"cheated?"
}
}: Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
}: only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
}: an ettiquette.
}
} If you like. It is a tool which can also be used to
}analyze games after the fact, to predict (to some extent) which
}gaming techniques might mesh well or poorly with other ones,
}and to describe the dynamic by which various game-related
}factors intersect.
Ipsy Dixie, y'all. Whether or not it this language
can better serve in this capacity, I have yet to see any
body of commentary on how gaming techniques are to be meshed,
or how differing game related factors may be integrated,
couched, much less promoted, in these or any terms.
} If you define "etiquette" loosely enough to encompass
}all of these phenomena, then I suppose that _is_ its function,
}yes. But since these phenomena are the stuff and substance of
}gaming style, I don't really see anything "only" about it.
Vice Versa, I never implied such a broad definition for
etiquette: I intended its lexical meaning.
} Again I must ask, for I am becoming more and more curious:
}What else is there that you would _like_ to see this terminology
}address?
}
}: If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
}: was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
}: define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
}
} And 'round and 'round we go...
}
} Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
}"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
}
} Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
}which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
Yes, if we do not take everything and anything to constitute
simply a variance in style. Do you think it's unconditionally
impossible to define any kind of cheating in an RPG?
} If I were called upon to define cheating in an RPG, I
}would say that cheating is a violation of the game contract.
}Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
}preference again.
'round and 'round you go... again evoking preference.
} Here are some examples of behavior which various gamers
}might consider "cheating":
}
} ...[examples deleted]...
}
} What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
}_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
}else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
}preference and priorities.
In most of the examples you cited, without further
clarification of their context or without evoking my own
half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
fair play. True it would not be as easy as describing fair
play or cheating in a poker game, but I don't think it's
impossible.
}...
}: } The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
}: }between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
}: }arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
}: }campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
}: }any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
}: }It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
}: }values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
}: }challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
}: }his eye, it would not have been a "success."
}
}: ... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
}: and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
}: the game?
}
} More to the point, a player for whom PC centrality,
}dynamism, and game challenge were *non-issues* might have
}enjoyed the game.
This is tit-for-tat. My point is that styles of play
should be accomodating, not exclusionary, otherwise, play is
handicapped.
} The issue of "game challenge," for example, is not something
}I consider when I play an RPG. I don't think about the game that way
}at all, in terms of "easy" or "hard;" to do so is extremely alien to
}my mode of thought. The question of whether the game was "challenging"
}is therefore simply not one it would occur to me to ask myself. It
}is an irrelevancy, a non-issue.
This is beyond my ken, still, I would hope for a way
to play that would accomodate us all.
} For a group which shares this approach, the idea that "NPCs
}ought not solve the PCs' problems for them" just doesn't make any
}sense. After all, why on earth shouldn't they?
}
} For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
}the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
}to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
}clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
}a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
}within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
}of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
This logic assumes that all the challenges the character
will encounter were preordained, and that by cleverly defusing
this one, someone had unfairly advanced their absolute position.
This explains why the GM, et al, felt justified in cooking up, et
swallowing, the flimsy excuse. The error seems completely
understandable.
}: I believe it is the part of the
}: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
}: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
}: conception.
}
} I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
}interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
I'm all ears.
}...
}: Let's talk about cheating.
} ...
}
}: I don't see
}: how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
}: from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
}: indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
}: GM.
}
} Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
}for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
}for the NPC to refuse such a request?
Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
I don't think allowing the PC to coopt the NPC abandons gamist,
for simulationist, values; I do think the flimsy excuse is akin
to cheating. The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
this all to a question of preference.
-Rick
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
: I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
: symtoms.
What do you perceive the "disease" here to be?
: } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
: }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
: The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
Okay. Let's talk about design philosophy.
To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
avoid technique S.
You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
as it takes preference into account. (Why you have such an
aversion to the entire concept of preference is, I confess,
beyond me.) To my mind, however, any philosophy which does
not take preference into account is of extremely limited utility.
It is a dogma, rather than a physics. It serves only to define
one particular gaming approach, and it leads to a coercive
dynamic by which all those who do not conform to the philosophy
in all of its particulars are "cast out of the club," while
those who agree with the philosophy in its overall approach
but differ on a few minor points are faced with the choice of
either towing the party line or renouncing the philosophy
altogether.
This is just the dynamic Irina wrote about when she told
us that her GMing has become more self-conscious (and, she implied,
less effective and enjoyable) due to her quandry over whether or not
she "qualified" as a "True Simulationist."
We've heard similar complaints from the "dramatist" side.
"If I use dramatic technique X, but eschew technique Y, then does
that just make me a *bad* dramatist?"
Bleh. Phooey. This is counter-productive. I'm not
interested in who qualifies as a "real" Simulationist, or a
"real" Dramatist, or a "real" Rick-Cordian. I'm interested
in making games run better. Gaming Credos ("I believe in
the One True Way, the Path of Simulation and Righteousness...")
do not further this goal; they distract from it.
Discussions on this newsgroup which have focused on the
"physics of style," the give-and-take of techniques and effects,
that "language of preference" you so detest, on the other hand,
_have_ proved useful, not only to me, but to a number of others
as well.
: I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
: all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
If you dislike the jargon, then you don't have to use it.
After a time, though, it becomes tiresome writing out the full
explications of "DIP" or "DAS" each bloody time, when the
abbreviations serve the same function. The intent is not to
mystify: this is the reason for the various FAQs and glossaries
periodically posted and referenced on the newsgroup.
: Terms
: like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
: argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
: by stylistic preference.
I'm having some trouble parsing "always be staged in
the same way, by stylistic preference." What do you mean?
I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
: Moreover, as you and others have
: observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
: instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
: is what is usually at play...
These "effects," though, do not exist in a vacuum.
They are not isolated instances, unconnected to one another.
They themselves have effects, repercussions. If you use gaming
tools which do not blend well together -- which fight one another,
if you will, or which lead to incorrect assumptions -- then the
net amalgam is not going to be as effective as it might otherwise
have been.
: } I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
: }etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
: }stylistic preferences.
: Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
: otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
: what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
: it from objective analysis.
I disagree. Recognizing the issue of preference does
not in any way "remove it from objective analysis." One can
discuss the dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y
without denying the fact that a preference for Result Y is
just that: a preference.
Your statement only seems true to me if one interprets
"objective analysis" to mean "a discussion of which preferences
are better than others." To my mind, though, such discussion
is the antithesis of objective analysis. Rather, it is dogma,
and dogma is an entirely different animal.
: } This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
: }discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
: }apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
: }character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
: }it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
: }etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
: ...here we have a group who think soliloquies are rude
: who are counterposed to your group for which soliquies are not
: de riguer but are not considered rude. Everything else being
: equal, I think it one could argue from premises more substantial
: than preference that the former position is more bonkers than
: the latter.
The people who consider internal monologue rude behavior
explain the reasoning behind this rule of etiquette very cogently.
They are not "bonkers," nor are their social conventions.
If internal monologue interferes with the immersion
of the players, and if the group values immersion highly, then
it makes perfect sense to consider internal monologue a rude
behavior. If both of the qualifying statements were true for
me, then I'm sure that *I* would consider a monologuing player
a violator of etiquette.
As things stand, though, one of the qualifying statements
is untrue for my group: while we do value immersion highly, internal
monologue does *not* interfere with our immersive play. We therefore
do not have any social conventions discouraging this behavior. We
do, however, discourage those behaviors which *do* interfere
unacceptably with our immersion, such as "mechanicspeak."
Surely you can see how this ties into preference?
: }: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
: }: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
: }
: } And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
: }as relevant or critical?
: You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
: critical, will it be relevant or critical?
Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
it possibly have?
The problem with single instances, though, is that they
add up to become noticeable trends. If Mary's husband's GM had
come up with a _good_ excuse, rather than a "rather flimsy" one,
then perhaps no one would have noticed. Over time, though, there
is the risk that the emerging pattern ("NPCs will never help the
PCs solve their problems; the PCs are always going it alone") may
become a dire annoyance. This is the problem which often comes
up in discussions of script immunity.
: It seems to me that
: RPGing should enjoy their analog to literary license but that
: is to bear the same aesthetic priviledges and responsibilities
: that entails. This is to say, if a flimsy excuse is employed,
: it needs to be justifies in terms of what is thereby accomplished
: on a whole.
You can't escape the question of preference. To the
members of Mary's husband's gaming group, the flimsy excuse
was justified by the plot centrality it afforded the characters.
To a different group, plot centrality would not be sufficient
to justify the excuse. Whether something is "justified" or not
depends on the prioritization of those making that judgement.
: I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
: say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
: Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
: lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
If no one thinks that the excuse was "flimsy," then
how can you call it such? "Flimsy" to whom? To GOD?
: } You seem to be operating under the assumption that
: }"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
: }Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
: It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
: eye of the beholder than is flimsiness.
All of the discussion of fairness in gaming that I have
observed contradicts this notion.
: Again, I think a
: RPG philosophy should in part define what constitutes both
: fair play and cheating in roleplaying. You can see in this
: instance why these characterizations of style do nothing for
: me: I am more interested in how to accomodate, in what is to
: be accomplished by, the broadest spectrum of devices and sytles.
It seems to me that all you will end up doing is defining
yet another style, perhaps the "RickCordist Philosophy of Gaming."
That's fine -- I've written Credos of my own -- but I've come to
the conclusion that the utility of gaming credos lies more in the
elaborations of that "language of preference" you so dislike that
they inspire than in the credos themselves.
: Ipsy Dixie, y'all. Whether or not it this language
: can better serve in this capacity, I have yet to see any
: body of commentary on how gaming techniques are to be meshed,
: or how differing game related factors may be integrated,
: couched, much less promoted, in these or any terms.
The group has been slow lately. Stick around.
: } Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
: }"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
: }
: } Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
: }which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
: Yes, if we do not take everything and anything to constitute
: simply a variance in style. Do you think it's unconditionally
: impossible to define any kind of cheating in an RPG?
No, I don't. I have already told you my definition of
cheating in an RPG. Cheating is a violation of the game contract.
: }Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
: }preference again.
: 'round and 'round you go... again evoking preference.
You still haven't told me what you consider cheating
in an RPG.
: } What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
: }_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
: }else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
: }preference and priorities.
: In most of the examples you cited, without further
: clarification of their context or without evoking my own
: half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
: any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
Precisely. What constitutes fair play or cheating
is determined by the philosophy under which the game is being
run.
: Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
: upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
: that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
: fair play.
An RPG philosophy _not_ based on preference? How are
you going to create such a thing? And even if you *could* do
so (perhaps by rolling dice to make the decisions?), WHY would
you? What would be gained by using a philosophy of gaming that
is not in keeping with your own preferences? Sounds pretty
masochistic to me.
: This is tit-for-tat. My point is that styles of play
: should be accomodating, not exclusionary, otherwise, play is
: handicapped.
You can't please everyone. There are some preferences
which are simply mutually incompatable. Others are not so, and
where it is possible, I certainly approve of making every effort
to accomodate them, particularly if one is forging a brand new
gaming group.
: } For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
: }the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
: }to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
: }clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
: }a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
: }within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
: }of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
: This logic assumes that all the challenges the character
: will encounter were preordained, and that by cleverly defusing
: this one, someone had unfairly advanced their absolute position.
Agreed. This is close to what Mary said when she wrote
that if the PCs have their fingers in a number of different pies,
then the pressure to ensure their centrality in any one plot is
diffused.
: This explains why the GM, et al, felt justified in cooking up, et
: swallowing, the flimsy excuse. The error seems completely
: understandable.
That plot may have been the only one on the burner for
those particular PCs, making the entire group far less willing
to see the buck get passed. The solution you suggest -- for the
GM to ensure that there were other fish for the PCs to fry -- is
certainly one possibility.
: }: I believe it is the part of the
: }: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
: }: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
: }: conception.
: }
: } I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
: }interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
: I'm all ears.
Okay. I believe that if the GM gives the OK to a player's
character conception, he is then obligated to pay attention to
the Things That Matter to that character in play. For example,
if the player has created a character who is primarily interested
in magical theory, then in-game events dealing with magical theory
should not be consistently glossed over, or handled as "off-stage"
events. They should be played out with sufficient regularity to
satisfy the player. Similarly, if a player creates a character
who is a psychopathic serial killer, and the GM approves this
conception, then the GM should not use his power to make it
_impossible_ for the serial killer to commit murder. To do so
begs the question of how the character ever *became* a serial
killer in the first place, if the world does not permit such
activities.
I do not, however, play under a contract that states that
it is necessary for the GM to go out of his way to provide dramatic
hooks for the characters. If magical theory is important to the
character, then the character can seek out opportunities for this
endeavor on his own: they do not need to be thrust in his face.
Furthermore, unless the game is defined as one in which dramatic
hooks will be used, the GM ought *not* use them. If the game is
not so defined, and the GM goes fishing anyway, this is a minor
violation: it imposes a dramatism upon the game to which there was
no consent, which under this sort of contract is a bit of a no-no.
This is hardly the One True Contract, though. Some groups
play under a contract in which there is an *obligation* for the
GM to "hook" the characters. In this approach, the Gm who does *not*
hook the characters in accordance with their dramatic needs (defined
in part by the player's original character conception) is committing
the no-no: he is not doing his job. I've played under this sort of
contract as well, and it works fine. It does, however, create
a different kind of game: a more dramatic one. What contract
you use depends on what you want from the game.
: } Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
: }for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
: }for the NPC to refuse such a request?
: Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
: the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
Whoops! Sorry about that. I misunderstood.
: I don't think allowing the PC to coopt the NPC abandons gamist,
: for simulationist, values.
I don't think it does necessarily either. It might just
as easily be a decision designed to privilege dramatist values
over simulationist ones: maybe the NPC helping out makes a better
story. For that matter, it could go the other way: perhaps the
NPC should *not* help, but the GM decides to have the NPC help
out because *that* makes a better story (dramatist reasoning),
or because he suddenly realizes that the PCs on their own are
simply not powerful enough to take on the opposition in fair
contest (gamist reasoning).
The specifics don't really matter so much. The important
thing is that the decision must be made, and the criteria the GM
privileges in making the decision is a reflection of the system of
prioritization which constitutes gaming style. Inconsistency here
can cause trouble down the road -- can even lead to accusations
of "cheating" or "unfairness."
: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
good one?
In other words, is it the poor delivery which makes
it seem like cheating to you, or is it the alteration of NPC
motivations mid-stream? If the reason the NPC gave for not
helping out did not sound flimsy to you, and if you had no
idea that it was made up on the spot, would you still feel
that it was unfair, or would that be acceptable gaming practice
in your opinion?
: The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
: just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
: this all to a question of preference.
Oh, but there *is* a reason. The reason they play
that way is because they value PC plot centrality over NPC
character consistency. A Schroedingered NPC motivation is
therefore considered an acceptable GM action. It's a reflection
of a system of prioritization.
This prioritization of values is how people make
decisions. The PCs want the NPC to solve their problem for
them, and in your original conception of the NPC, there is
no reason why she should not do what they suggest. If she
does so, however, then that particular plot will be effectively
taken from the PCs' hands. What do you do?
Well, you can allow the NPC to solve the problem and
let the PCs find something else to do. That's one answer.
You can tweak the NPC so that, in fact, there *is* a reason for
her not to help. That is another.
Either response can be done well or badly. Even if
done well, however, one of these solutions might be considered
the "wrong one" by a group which sets its priorities differently
than you do.
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
In article <5lvm6k$9a9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,}...
}: } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
}: }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
>
}: The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
}
} Okay. Let's talk about design philosophy.
}
} To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
}useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
}If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
}R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
}avoid technique S.
}
} You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
}as it takes preference into account.
You'll next accuse me of picking straws from my hair
but you're right, I doubt such a recipe book approach would
be much use. If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
of a philosophy that addressed the question of techniques from the
perspective of how they should or should not be employed to
achieve fair play. The application of techniques within those
bounds should best be left to preference, though, perhaps
how to cope with finnicky or unimaginative players should also
be addressed.
(Why you have such an
}aversion to the entire concept of preference is, I confess,
}beyond me.)
My aversion is to preference as the overweening criteria
for RP analysis or philosophy.
To my mind, however, any philosophy which does
}not take preference into account is of extremely limited utility.
}It is a dogma, rather than a physics.
You are picking straws from your hair. My sense is that
the sectarianism which you advocate, is, if not the handmaiden of
dogmatism, at the very least antithetical to the growth of
roleplaying. What ever you mean by physics, your insistence that
fair play can only be determined by preference seeks to undermine
the idea that a philosophy could be devised which prescribed the
manner in which techniques may be integrated to achieve fair play,
by claiming the only way to achieve fairplay is by contractual
fiat. This seems dogmatic and of limited utility.
It serves only to define
}one particular gaming approach, and it leads to a coercive
}dynamic by which all those who do not conform to the philosophy
}in all of its particulars are "cast out of the club," while
}those who agree with the philosophy in its overall approach
}but differ on a few minor points are faced with the choice of
}either towing the party line or renouncing the philosophy
}altogether.
The sectarianism you advocate seems exclusionary and
degenerate to me, while, you seem to have a reciprocal abhorence
for my advocacy of a philosophy which seeks to define fairplay
because you think it's authoritarian. It would seem to me that
what you call the party line is somewhat similar to a game
contract, and that some game contracts would be better than
others based upon how effective and facile they are in how
much and what they achieve and enable, and this is what should
be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
} This is just the dynamic Irina wrote about when she told
}us that her GMing has become more self-conscious (and, she implied,
}less effective and enjoyable) due to her quandry over whether or not
}she "qualified" as a "True Simulationist."
}
} We've heard similar complaints from the "dramatist" side.
}"If I use dramatic technique X, but eschew technique Y, then does
}that just make me a *bad* dramatist?"
}
} Bleh. Phooey. This is counter-productive. I'm not
}interested in who qualifies as a "real" Simulationist, or a
}"real" Dramatist, or a "real" Rick-Cordian. I'm interested
}in making games run better. Gaming Credos ("I believe in
}the One True Way, the Path of Simulation and Righteousness...")
}do not further this goal; they distract from it.
This chauvinisn is abetted by sectarianism and
the language of preference. If you will recall, our debate
commenced with my endorsement of Irina's remarks. It is
you who has sought to defend the various camps by making a
virtue of preference; I was the one who said it was stodgy
and limiting. [If you're going to Sarahan-rap me, shouldn't
it be "Cordesian?"]
}...
} I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
}effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
}look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
}do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
I am of course interested in effects but I don't
want my hands tied by arbitrarilly limiting what can
happen in a game, nor do I want to encourage perspectives
which abet that: what I do want is guidelines for the fair
play of effects, not the restriction of effects. Will you
at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
}: Moreover, as you and others have
}: observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
}: instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
}: is what is usually at play...
}
} These "effects," though, do not exist in a vacuum.
}They are not isolated instances, unconnected to one another.
}They themselves have effects, repercussions. If you use gaming
}tools which do not blend well together -- which fight one another,
}if you will, or which lead to incorrect assumptions -- then the
}net amalgam is not going to be as effective as it might otherwise
}have been.
So you agree differeent methodologies and perspectives will
desirably be at play but you deny the utility of the pursuit of
a philosophy which would prescribe how different methodologies
and perspectives may by reconciled fairly? Moreover, as the
recent debate over the definition of "immersive"-vs-"IC"-vs-
"ICK" has shown these different methodologies and perspectives
represent a continuum of nuances and shadings, what would be
more useful, would be general principles that could be used,
as necessary, to guide how a any particular amalgam, static or
otherwise, be run fairly.
}: } I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
}: }etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
}: }stylistic preferences.
}
}: Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
}: otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
}: what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
}: it from objective analysis.
}
} I disagree. Recognizing the issue of preference does
}not in any way "remove it from objective analysis." One can
}discuss the dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y
}without denying the fact that a preference for Result Y is
}just that: a preference.
As you have said, this is not in a vacuum. According
to you, although we may discuss whatever you mean by "the
dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y", the only thing
that matters is the preference for Result Y.
So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
could never play a character who was even a little given to
self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
rather than one of being rude or not.
}...
}: }: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
}: }: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
}: }
}: } And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
}: }as relevant or critical?
}
}: You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
}: critical, will it be relevant or critical?
}
} Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
}in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
}has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
}If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
}it possibly have?
No brain, no pain, eh? How much impact, indeed. How about
if it was brought to the fore, and the game benefitted, and a
player who had felt stifled by the game but didn't know why,
didn't quit the game, and went on to become a great RPGer,
and then president and savior of a united earth?
}...
}: I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
}: say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
}: Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
}: lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
} If no one thinks that the excuse was "flimsy," then
}how can you call it such? "Flimsy" to whom? To GOD?
To GOD or any other judgemental SOB. It's a dirty
JOB, but somebody has to do it, obfuscations not
withstanding.
}: } You seem to be operating under the assumption that
}: }"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
}: }Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
}
}: It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
}: eye of the beholder than is flimsiness.
}
} All of the discussion of fairness in gaming that I have
}observed contradicts this notion.
Do tell.
}...
}: In most of the examples you cited, without further
}: clarification of their context or without evoking my own
}: half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
}: any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
}
} Precisely. What constitutes fair play or cheating
}is determined by the philosophy under which the game is being
}run.
}
}: Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
}: upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
}: that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
}: fair play.
}
} An RPG philosophy _not_ based on preference? How are
}you going to create such a thing? And even if you *could* do
}so (perhaps by rolling dice to make the decisions?), WHY would
}you? What would be gained by using a philosophy of gaming that
}is not in keeping with your own preferences? Sounds pretty
}masochistic to me.
Many would argue that aesthetics derive from one's
philosophy but you seem to have it the other way around. Your
rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
are thereby defined as being rude. On the otherhand, the
philosophy I idealize would provide general guidelines, for
example, how players and referees should cope with information
they received in or out of character or above, below or on
the table, to encourage fair play. Whether groups or individuals
want to exclude certain behaviors, may or may not the embrace of
a cogent philosophy. My stipulation is that it should address how
things should be properly employed, rather than what should be
properly be employed. Is this what we have been going round and
round about?!?
}...
} You can't please everyone. There are some preferences
}which are simply mutually incompatable. Others are not so, and
}where it is possible, I certainly approve of making every effort
>to accomodate them, particularly if one is forging a brand new
}gaming group.
There can be a world of difference between objective and
preferential incompatibility. By preferential incompatibility
one accepts things that are objectively compatible or reconcilable
may become incompatible, and vice versa. It is this chimera which
stands between you and an objective philosophy of fair play. That
is why I think it is futile to try to describe, much less, analyze
these things in terms of preference.
}...
} This is hardly the One True Contract, though. Some groups
}play under a contract in which there is an *obligation* for the
}GM to "hook" the characters. In this approach, the Gm who does *not*
}hook the characters in accordance with their dramatic needs (defined
}in part by the player's original character conception) is committing
>the no-no: he is not doing his job. I've played under this sort of
}contract as well, and it works fine. It does, however, create
}a different kind of game: a more dramatic one. What contract
}you use depends on what you want from the game.
I may have omitted too much super ubi but I think your
qualifications were unnecessary. A character is allowed to be
created, hooks or no, persuasive or not, thereafter, effort
is focusued in that spirit.
}...
}: Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
}: the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
}
} Whoops! Sorry about that. I misunderstood.
Gesundheit! Our etiquette happily achieves better
cordiality, at least, towards the end...
}...
}: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
}
} Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
}good one?
I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
think this was at least unfair to the player, and detracted
from the game because if a NPC makes a flimsy excuse, that
should mean something in and of itself. If I had thought it
would be better for the NPC not to help but could not think
of a plausible rational, I would hope I would have played the
mysterio gambit by saying the NPC "makes some flimsy excuse,"
and let them cope with that while I churned up a sub-plot:
the dicovery of which they could thereafter capitalize on.
So, unless PCs are somehow appropriately recompensed
for effective roleplay, then yes, it is akin to cheating.
}...
}: The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
}: just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
}: this all to a question of preference.
}
} Oh, but there *is* a reason. The reason they play
}that way is because they value PC plot centrality over NPC
}character consistency. A Schroedingered NPC motivation is
}therefore considered an acceptable GM action. It's a reflection
}of a system of prioritization.
Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
perspective of how to constitute fair play.
-Rick
Psychohist
Rick Cordes posts, in part:
If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
of a philosophy that addressed the question of
techniques from the perspective of how they should
or should not be employed to achieve fair play.
This presumes that there is a single, universal concept of 'fair play'.
Sarah's claims to the contrary, that what constitutes 'fair play' depends
on the particular players involved, is not merely her personal opinion.
Rather, it's based on observation: it's the conclusion that most of the
posters here have reached, after reading the essays (and watching the
flamewars) of the other regulars.
Basically, everyone has his own personal opinion of what constitutes
'fair', and some of these opinions are diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, they do seem to be opinions rather than conclusions - they
aren't something that people can be dissuaded from by reasoned argument.
This may be the most important lesson to be learned from r.g.f.a - that
the category of roleplaying games is broad enough that you can't please
everyone in one game. If one person shows up wanting to play bridge, and
another expects to play poker, you aren't going to be able to please both
with only one deck of cards.
Warren Dew
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: In fact, I believe that of the four regular players, one (my husband)
: was disappointed that the NPC didn't help, but two would have been
: disappointed if she had helped, because of the loss of PC centrality and
: opportunity for action. This is an awkward makeup for a gaming group,
: to be sure.
It is, but since Rick is particularly interested in accomodating
such differencs, rather than throwing up ones hands in despair over
them, perhaps we might want to think about what could have been done
to make this entire group happy.
It seems to me likely that the players in this group who
placed a high value on PC centrality might have accepted the NPC's
aid if they had felt that there were other plots in which their
characters could play a central role.
The player who valued NPC consistency highly, on the other
hand, would likely not have been too bothered by refusal if it
did not become a pattern over the course of the campaign. As
Mary writes:
: If the excuse had not been "flimsy" my husband (or I, in similar
: situations) might not have objected to a single instance, but in such
: games it rapidly becomes apparent that the NPCs will never provide
: significant help to the PCs. Each instance can be justified, but not
: the whole pattern.
I suspect that if that pattern were not permitted to emerge,
then even the "flimsiness" of the excuse would be forgivable. No
GM is perfect, after all, and even the best of them occasionally
let slip something completely lame in play, particularly when PC
actions take them by surprise. Reasonable players forgive such
blunders and move on.
I would say therefore that if one is running a game for
a group with this particular preferential mix, then one should
seriously consider having a number of plots available to the PCs
at all times (so that losing one will be no disaster), *and*
taking care that neither plot-loss nor NPC-inconsistency is
always chosen as the solution (so that neither pattern will
have the opportunity to become an irritation).
Some stylistic differences are irreconcilable, but I
don't think that this is necessarily one of them. Assuming that
the players are willing to be somewhat accomodating, I think that
a GM would be able to run a game for this group that would satisfy
everyone. To do so, he would just need to be aware of the differences
and willing to work a bit harder to negotiate around them.
: This still annoys both of us, as we are used to a
: playing style in which the game-rules "Don't make things easy for the
: PCs" and "Don't give the PCs anything they didn't earn" do not apply
: at all.
We play under a similar contract. In a game in which the
GM was taking pains to ensure that that pattern was not too intrusive,
however, I'd be willing to forgive the occasional flimsy excuse.
It is feeling that ones preferences here are being completely
disregarded (or, more often, not even *understood*) that makes
me come home from games feeling frustrated and angry.
: I am not passing judgement on these styles: merely noting that if you
: can recognize and describe them, disappointments of the kind I'm
: describing may be rarer. You'll also be less likely to use a technique
: applicable to one type of game inappropriately in another. I used to
: run a fairly simulationist game, but feel guilty whenever anticlimaxes
: occured. Realizing that they are a natural part of the style helped
: me run more comfortably. I was using a tool-set which doesn't contract
: to always make things work out dramatically, but still had the idea that
: somehow I ought to be making things work out dramatically....
Here, in my opinion, is one of those irreconcilable differences.
I don't see any way for a GM to accomodate both players who crave the
simulationist aesthetic *and* players who require consistently dramatic
denouments. The two do not go together.
I note, however, that you and your husband _have_ managed
to reconcile the twin desires for simulationist middle-games and
dramatic end-games in long-running campaigns. Here, an accomodation
was possible in a way that it would not have been had you required
consistently dramatic climaxes to each minor plot turning along the
way.
-- Sarah
scott....@3do.com
In article <5ltptu$n...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }Rick Cordes wrote:
> }: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
> }: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }
> }: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
> }: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
> }: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
> }: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
> }: taken to define them.
> }
> } What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
>
> Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
> I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
> symtoms.
I am looking for a way to steamline the startup and execution of RPg
events at my house. perhaps we are working at cross purposes.
>
> } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
> }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
>
> The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
> I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
> all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
>
> } The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
> }is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
> }you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
> }know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
>
> What has been achieved here has not required, much
> less, justified the specialized vocabulary. A character is
> more or less defined, and then to greater or lesser degree
> evolves; likewise plot, story, background, tone, color. Terms
> like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
> argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
> by stylistic preference.
This is >exactly my goal here, to help develope, and walk away with e
precise, detailed, and focussed vocabulary for analyzing particular
gaming styles and traits among GM's and players, so as to avoid style
clashes.
Scott
Life is too short to be stuck in bad games.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Phil K.
Rick Cordes wrote:
>
> In article <5lvm6k$9a9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }Rick Cordes wrote:
> }: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }...
[snip]
> Will you
> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
No! Definitely, and finally, NO! There are no objective criteria which
can be used to demonstrate that one set of preferences is more wise or
foolish than another. If I may be so bold/rude as to make a suggestion.
I've been lurking here for a few months, and have raised my head
occasionally, and I would suggest that if you haven't been lurking for
long that perhaps you should review recent postings on this newsgruop.
there has been enormous debate here on techniques, ettiquette, etc.,
etc. One thing which has become quite clear after millions of words of
debate is that there are no objective standards. Different people play
for difference reasons, they often use techniques which others would
subjectively regard as 'foolish', yet when an attempt is made to
objectively determine whether such techniques are foolish it has proven
impossible.
[snip]
> So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
> could never play a character who was even a little given to
> self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
> presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
> you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
> rather than one of being rude or not.
But the issue at point was not whether your character has a tendency to
self-declamation (such would be acceptable), but whether you _as a
player_ would be disrupting everyone elses enjoyment by declaiming, OOC,
the contents of your character's inner mind or feelings. In the "non
bonkers" group describing the contents of the characters mind in a many
other than IC self-declamation is not acceptable. Why do you have a
problem with this?
[snip]
> } Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
> }in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
> }has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
> }If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
> }it possibly have?
>
> No brain, no pain, eh? How much impact, indeed. How about
> if it was brought to the fore, and the game benefitted, and a
> player who had felt stifled by the game but didn't know why,
> didn't quit the game, and went on to become a great RPGer,
> and then president and savior of a united earth?
If a player feels stifled by a game and doesn't know why, then it is
time to examine the game contract and the techniques being used to
determine why. Perhaps the situation described is contributing to the
player's discomfort and should be corrected. But if so, it is because of
the preferences of the player, not because of some arbitrary objective
conditions which are not being met by the GM. To be a great RPGer is to
be someone who enjoys their hobby and with whom the other people who
regularly RPG with the person enjoy RPGing. These conditions can be
satisfied by innumerable different styles, none of which relate to
whether the person would make a great world leader.
[snip]
> To GOD or any other judgemental SOB. It's a dirty
> JOB, but somebody has to do it, obfuscations not
> withstanding.
When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
insulting, not to say rude.
[snip]
> Many would argue that aesthetics derive from one's
> philosophy but you seem to have it the other way around. Your
> rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
> effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
> that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
> are thereby defined as being rude. On the otherhand, the
> philosophy I idealize would provide general guidelines, for
> example, how players and referees should cope with information
> they received in or out of character or above, below or on
> the table, to encourage fair play. Whether groups or individuals
> want to exclude certain behaviors, may or may not the embrace of
> a cogent philosophy. My stipulation is that it should address how
> things should be properly employed, rather than what should be
> properly be employed. Is this what we have been going round and
> round about?!?
OK, a simple objective philosophy.
1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
techniques used by by another RPG group.
OK, there is your objective philosophy, as derived from millions of
words of debate on this news group.
[snip]
> Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
> one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
> prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
> preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
> I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
> sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
> perspective of how to constitute fair play.
>
> -Rick
In _your_ opinion. In _your_ campaigns. Others would disagree with you.
And since these are only opiions you'll be hard pressed to prove that
yours in 'objectively' superior to theirs. For a start you'll have to
agree on some objective criteria by which to judge those opinions, and
that isn't possible. Millions of words of debate have convinced most of
those on this newsgroup that the search for such objective rules is
doomed to failure because any such rules would result in some RPG
campaigns or games being declared 'wrong' despite being incredible
successes in terms of the enjoyment of the players and GM (which are the
only relevent criteria).
Phil K.
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
[some players hate to "lose control of the action", others crave
realistic NPC involvement]
> I would say therefore that if one is running a game for
>a group with this particular preferential mix, then one should
>seriously consider having a number of plots available to the PCs
>at all times (so that losing one will be no disaster), *and*
>taking care that neither plot-loss nor NPC-inconsistency is
>always chosen as the solution (so that neither pattern will
>have the opportunity to become an irritation).
The other thing that would, I think, be helpful is careful choice
of scenario and party template. For example, one of this group's
GMs did a scenario a while back where the PCs were junior mages
in a mages' guild, checking something local out at the request of
their usperiors. This is an invitation to trouble, since (a) NPCs
are clearly available who are much more capable than the PCs, and (b)
clearly it would be natural for the PCs to appeal for help if they
find something very threatening to the Guild, and natural for the
NPCs to respond.
If the game had been set up from the start as a _Mission Impossible_
"We will deny all knowledge of your existence" situation, the
issue of asking for help would not have arisen as naturally or as
often, reducing the amount of clash. Another possibility would be
"Guild agents behind enemy lines" where there is simply no
opportunity to ask for help.
I would personally prefer to avoid "We're testing you, so we won't
help you" as it sets stringent limits on how threatening the threat
can be before the PCs must, played in character, say, "I'm willing
to fail the test in order to save the Guild/my own life/something
I care deeply about." Almost every time I've seen this angle tried,
the PCs have run up against such a situation. It could be done, but
it seems risky.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> } To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
> }useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
> }If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
> }R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
> }avoid technique S.
> }
> } You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
> }as it takes preference into account.
> You'll next accuse me of picking straws from my hair
> but you're right, I doubt such a recipe book approach would
> be much use.
I think, then, that we must simply agree to disagree.
Such elaborations of the repercussions of style and technique
are precisely what I have found useful on this newsgroup.
> If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
> of a philosophy that addressed the question of techniques from the
> perspective of how they should or should not be employed to
> achieve fair play.
In other words, you want to write a game contract.
That's all well and good. Why you believe that it should be
a *universal* game contract, however, is beyond me. Most people
have their own game contracts, selected to suit their own needs.
Other people's game contracts are unlikely to prove as useful
or relevant as one the group has composed itself.
> The application of techniques within those
> bounds should best be left to preference, though, perhaps
> how to cope with finnicky or unimaginative players should also
> be addressed.
I find such discussions useful, and should you initiate
one, I would happily participate.
> You are picking straws from your hair. My sense is that
> the sectarianism which you advocate, is, if not the handmaiden of
> dogmatism, at the very least antithetical to the growth of
> roleplaying.
I do not advocate sectarianism. Sectarianism arises
as a by-product of One True Way proposals.
> What ever you mean by physics, your insistence that
> fair play can only be determined by preference seeks to undermine
> the idea that a philosophy could be devised which prescribed the
> manner in which techniques may be integrated to achieve fair play,
> by claiming the only way to achieve fairplay is by contractual
> fiat.
Yes, I do claim that the only way to achieve fair play is
by contractual agreement. ("Fiat" is an inappropriate word here,
as it implies imposition from above, rather than agreement through
consensus.) You have yet to convince me that I am mistaken.
I do not, however, think that questioning your initial
premise is quite the same thing as "seeking to undermine" your ideas.
The latter phrasing implies a subversive approach. I have been, I
think, quite straight-forward and open in my disagreement with your
starting premise.
> It would seem to me that
> what you call the party line is somewhat similar to a game
> contract...
Yes. A "party line" is a game contract which is proposed
as the best one to use for a specific style of gaming (ie
"simulationist," "dramatic," etc.). The problem with such proposals
is that because no one adheres to precisely the same contract in
practice, the labels tend to confuse discussion, rather than
facilitate it.
: ...and that some game contracts would be better than
: others based upon how effective and facile they are in how
: much and what they achieve and enable, and this is what should
: be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
: advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
What one is *trying* to "achieve and enable" is determined
by preference. This is how the question of preference makes its
way into the equation.
Once an agreement on precisely *what* you want the contract
to achieve and enable is reached, then discussion of whether the
contract chosen is a effective or ineffective for the effects you
have chosen can certainly take place.
But this gets us nowhere. Why don't you go ahead and
advocate your game contract? This discussion would benefit from
specifics. If you were to explain what it is you want from a game,
what your contract says, and how your contract helps you to achieve
your goals, then we'd have significantly more to talk about here.
> } I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
> }effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
> }look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
> }do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
> I am of course interested in effects but I don't
> want my hands tied by arbitrarilly limiting what can
> happen in a game, nor do I want to encourage perspectives
> which abet that...
Then don't choose arbitrary limits. Choose limits which
are designed to facilitate the effects you desire. A game contract
based on "arbitrary" limits is obviously going to be ineffective.
> : what I do want is guidelines for the fair
> play of effects, not the restriction of effects. Will you
> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
No, of course I won't! How can a preference be "objectively"
more wise or foolish than another?
If this is what our disagreement boils down to, then I
don't think there's much more to say. If you were to give me
*examples* of preferences which you would consider "wise" or
"foolish," then perhaps we could continue (although I doubt
the ensuing conversation would be very productive). In the
absence of such examples, though, we are simply at an impasse.
> So you agree differeent methodologies and perspectives will
> desirably be at play but you deny the utility of the pursuit of
> a philosophy which would prescribe how different methodologies
> and perspectives may by reconciled fairly?
No, I don't. In fact, I have such a philosophy. You
have rejected it on the grounds that it utilizes a "language
of preference." You have yet, however, to tell me anything
about your own philosophy. You have not even been willing to
tell me what you consider "cheating" and what "fair play" in
your own games.
You seem to be very excited to share *something* with
the rest of the group, but I am as in the dark about what this
something is as I was when this discussion began. If you have
the beginnings of a universally-applicable game contract stewing
in your mind, why not let us know something about it? Others
may join in, and we might well end up with something very useful.
> As you have said, this is not in a vacuum. According
> to you, although we may discuss whatever you mean by "the
> dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y", the only thing
> that matters is the preference for Result Y.
No, that isn't the "only thing that matters." The dynamic
is interesting and useful in and of itself. Whether one desires
or detests Result Y, however, will determine how one chooses to
*use* this information. The observed mechanism by which "Technique
X yields Result Y" is useful regardless of whether one wants to
achieve Y or to avoid it.
> Your rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
> effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
> that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
> are thereby defined as being rude.
Yes.
> On the otherhand, the philosophy I idealize would provide general
> guidelines, for example, how players and referees should cope with
> information they received in or out of character or above, below or on
> the table, to encourage fair play.
What I cannot understand is how you think these two things
differ. It comes to the same thing.
What you seem to resist is the idea that "fair play" is
not an objective term, that different people may have different
ideas about what constitutes "fair play," and that these ideas
are dependent on such factors as what they want to get out of
the game, what purpose they think the game serves, what the "goal"
of the game is, and other matters of <O horrors!> preference.
<discussion of two separate game contracts: one in which
the GM is obligated to hook PCs, one in which the GM is not
supposed to do so>
> I may have omitted too much super ubi but I think your
> qualifications were unnecessary. A character is allowed to be
> created, hooks or no, persuasive or not, thereafter, effort
> is focusued in that spirit.
I don't mind omission -- I'm long-winded, I know -- but
it does strike me that the above paragraph does not even bother
to address the issue about which I wrote at such length. I
really do not want to write it all out a second time.
Are you saying that whether or not "hooking the characters"
is required or forbidden is *irrelevant* to the question of fair play?
If so, then could you explain this assertion? I do not understand
your reasoning.
> }: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
}
> } Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
> }good one?
> I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
> wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
> think this was at least unfair to the player, and detracted
> from the game because if a NPC makes a flimsy excuse, that
> should mean something in and of itself.
No, no, no. You've changed the question on me by
making the excuse "flimsy" again.
I asked you if you would also consider a *good* excuse
"something akin to cheating."
> Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
> one thing for another.
It's hard for me to comment on this, as you have still
not given me any idea what you consider "cheating" in an RPG.
-- Sarah
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: I would personally prefer to avoid "We're testing you, so we won't
: help you" as it sets stringent limits on how threatening the threat
: can be before the PCs must, played in character, say, "I'm willing
: to fail the test in order to save the Guild/my own life/something
: I care deeply about."
Or before the PCs must, played in-character, come to
the conclusion: "Our superiors are clearly either stupid or
utterly insane, and therefore they are unworthy of our respect
and loyalty." That's the one I've come up against most often.
: Almost every time I've seen this angle tried,
: the PCs have run up against such a situation. It could be done, but
: it seems risky.
My experience with this type of situation corresponds
to Mary's. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen this angle
worked successfully in a game.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone with different
experience. I find myself wondering if this plot approach is
just a dog, or whether it can work properly if handled in the
right way.
Mary -- when you _have_ seen this gambit work, do
you think it succeeded due to dumb luck, or were there particular
factors in play which made it an effective approach?
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
}> Will you
}> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
}> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
}
}No! Definitely, and finally, NO!
}> So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
}> could never play a character who was even a little given to
}> self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
}> presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
}> you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
}> rather than one of being rude or not.
}
}But the issue at point was not whether your character has a tendency to
}self-declamation (such would be acceptable), but whether you _as a
}player_ would be disrupting everyone elses enjoyment by declaiming, OOC,
}the contents of your character's inner mind or feelings. In the "non
}bonkers" group describing the contents of the characters mind in a many
}other than IC self-declamation is not acceptable. Why do you have a
}problem with this?
What is at issue, is whether or not a notion of fairplay can
be defined that resides on something other than preference. In this
group the description was that the characters should not reveal the
inner thoughts of their characters: no exception was made allowing
this to be done through soliloquy, in character. My point is that
rather than describing every possible nuanced instance of roleplay,
and ascribing by preference whether it is fair play or not to each,
a generalizable philosophy would provide rubrics to determine how
things may be used fairly or not, whether or not should they come
into play.
}...
}When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
}objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
}debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
}recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
}satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
}insulting, not to say rude.
Like I said, obfuscations not withstanding.
}...
}OK, a simple objective philosophy.
}
}1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
}environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
}
}2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
}the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
}manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
This is simple, it's patently subjective, and where's the
philosophy?
}...
}} Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
}} one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
}} prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
}} preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
}} I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
}} sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
}} perspective of how to constitute fair play.
}}
}In _your_ opinion. In _your_ campaigns. Others would disagree with you.
}And since these are only opiions you'll be hard pressed to prove that
}yours in 'objectively' superior to theirs. For a start you'll have to
}agree on some objective criteria by which to judge those opinions, and
}that isn't possible. Millions of words of debate have convinced most of
}those on this newsgroup that the search for such objective rules is
}doomed to failure because any such rules would result in some RPG
}campaigns or games being declared 'wrong' despite being incredible
}successes in terms of the enjoyment of the players and GM (which are the
}only relevent criteria).
Your objections go a little far afield. I just don't think it's
impossible to philosophize about what defines fairplay in a game
without having to resort to preference. I am not trying to define wrong,
I'm trying to define better, if that's not too airy-fairy. Your claim
that it is impossible to find objective criteria to agree upon seems
plainly wrong: how do you reason such a thing?
-Rick
Rick Cordes
In article <robbj95.864439379@octarine>,
Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
}cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
}
}...
}|} If internal monologue interferes with the immersion
}|}of the players, and if the group values immersion highly, then
}|}it makes perfect sense to consider internal monologue a rude
}|}behavior. If both of the qualifying statements were true for
}|}me, then I'm sure that *I* would consider a monologuing player
}|}a violator of etiquette.
All kinds of quirkiness, as well as, it seems to me all
sorts of more or less reasonableness, may define what constitutes
rude behavior. I'm not interested in this question: I'm looking to
define generalizable means to determine what constitutes fair
play in running or playing in RPGs. I can imagine how people who
play immersively, or just honestly try to roleplay, may be unfairly
taken advantage of by those who play characters like chess pieces,
whether either PCs or NPCs. As long as its done passably and
not to excess, I would never object to declamation, in or out
of character, but I would object if any information gleaned back
stage was used unfairly on stage. Now this may be construed as
preference but on the other hand it seems to me I'm generalizing
from what constitutes fair play in other games.
}| So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
}| could never play a character who was even a little given to
}| self-declamation?
}
}The case described was _internal_ monolgue (the player describing what
}their character is thinking), not self-declamation on the part of the
}PC, which the other characters would reasonably be aware of and could
}respond to.
This was not clear, and I purposefully used this ambiguity
to illustrate my feeling of the futility of this preferential
approach to define fairplay to be whatever doesn't seem rude to
whomever.
}<snip}
}| On the otherhand, the philosophy I idealize would provide general
}| guidelines, for example, how players and referees should cope with
}| information they received in or out of character or above, below or on
}| the table, to encourage fair play.
}
}The answers to these questions will depend on the aims of the group,
}what outcomes are valued and so on. For many games, the concept of
}"fair play" is not even an appropriate criteria for judging the best
}styles to adopt or rules to follow -- if the game is played to create
}a story rather than to engage in competition (against puzzles, against
}other PCs, against the GM's world, or whatever), then "fair play" is
}irrelevant.
This is a novel objection: games where fairplay is not
relevant. Most have been arguing that cheating is only in the
eye of the beholder. It seems peculiar that the concept of
rudeness has figured more often in this debate than the concept
of cheating, but now it seems while the potential for rudeness
can always exist, the potential for cheating cannot?
}...
}| I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
}| wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
}| think this was at least unfair to the player
}
}Whether it was unfair to the player depends on what the player wants
}and expects from the game. If it was agreed that the players were
}there with the expectation that the GM would provide a challenging
}scenario and a good story, it might be seen as unfair to allow an NPC
}to get in the way of these being provided.
}
}<snip}
}| So, unless PCs are somehow appropriately recompensed
}| for effective roleplay, then yes, it is akin to cheating.
}
}"Cheating" implies that an agreed or implied contract has been
}broken, that the GM has in some way broken the (stated or unstated)
}rules. If the game contract includes no expectation that the GM
}will not behave as described, there is no way in which "cheating"
}can be said to have occurred in the example given. A contract
}in which there was a rule that fudging should not occur but
}which allowed this to be bypassed with some kind of compensation
}for the plays or PCs would be unusual to say the least.
The GM was represented as having offered a flimsy
excuse for why the NPC did not act appropriately. This was
done because of a supposed preference that supposed this
would have amounted to allowing cheating, i.e., allowing
an NPC to help a PC. Besides this being a ludicrous notion,
the implication seems to be that the GM created a situation,
and then reneged on the follow through, for bad reasons
rather than good.
}...
}In the exaple given, one thing had to be sacrificed for another,
}whichever approach the GM adopted. If the GM had not fudged the NPC's
}reaction, the sense of challenge in the game and the plot would have
}been sacrificed for the sake of consistency.
By no means in the example given did the one thing have to
be sacrificed for the other. I believe Sarah grants this point though
she still wants to reduce it purely to a question of preference. It
is simply not true that having NPCs behaving realistically towards
the PCs will remove challenge from the game, and isn't it that
consistency should sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of plot, and
not as you have it, the other way around? What is a plot if it is not
usually consistent?
-Rick
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
["We're testing you, so we won't help you" as a plot strategy]
> Mary -- when you _have_ seen this gambit work, do
>you think it succeeded due to dumb luck, or were there particular
>factors in play which made it an effective approach?
In both of the cases that I can think of, the PC in question had
an essentially adversarial relationship with her superiors. Corazon,
for example, served someone she knew was teaching her only to
further his own aims. She was willing to do so, because she was
cold-bloodedly power-hungry and stood to learn a lot from him; but
respect and loyalty didn't enter into the deal at all. So when he
said "I won't help you here, even if that means you die" she was
neither surprised nor disappointed.
I think it might also work as a one-shot where the PCs know in
advance that the situation is a test and that it may well be a
test to destruction. They should have a chance to refuse at the
start, in this case. The reward, if the test is passed, should
probably involve substantial status. "To become a full Initiate
you must walk Shadow Vale from one end to the other...alone."
"We're testing you" on a regular basis, though, is going to destroy
any regard the PCs might have had for their superiors very
fast. Since the usual player dynamic is to dislike superiors anyway,
this strikes me as unfortunate.
I had an amusing encounter with this in a convention game. The game
started with a running combat (no explanations given, the game just
started in mid-fight) which killed half the PCs. Then the scene
shifted--the PCs were being unhooked from a virtual reality device.
The person doing so explained that he'd been testing them--he intended
to hire them for a dangerous mission, and had wanted to see them in
action.
The PCs looked at each other, looked at him...there was a long pause
while the players sort of said "Are we really going to play in
character here?"...and the PCs said "Take your job and shove it."
Then the players took the GM out to dinner. We had a bit of a talk,
and came up with the idea that the PCs, having heard about this job,
might get somewhat drunk and decide to go see how the fools who *did*
accept were doing. The job went wrong, the PCs got involved, and
we ran with it from there.
It was pretty clear that even with brand new, poorly developed
characters, there was *no way* the PCs would put up with being
"tested" in that fashion.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: ["We're testing you, so we won't help you" as a plot strategy]
[Under what circumstances can this gambit work?]
: In both of the cases that I can think of, the PC in question had
: an essentially adversarial relationship with her superiors. Corazon,
: for example, served someone she knew was teaching her only to
: further his own aims. She was willing to do so, because she was
: cold-bloodedly power-hungry and stood to learn a lot from him; but
: respect and loyalty didn't enter into the deal at all. So when he
: said "I won't help you here, even if that means you die" she was
: neither surprised nor disappointed.
Ah. Okay. The versions of this gambit that I've
encountered have quickly moved past "Fail and you die" and
straight to "Fail, and <insert name of appropriate institution>
will be harmed or destroyed." That's the point at which the
superiors' refusing to help seems like an indication of stupidity
or utter insanity, and at that point, it becomes very difficult for
the PCs to maintain enough loyalty to their own institution to
continue to risk their lives for its benefit.
I can certainly accept a potentially lethal test. When
failure of the "test" might destroy the testers as well, though,
then it just becomes absurd.
: Then the players took the GM out to dinner. We had a bit of a talk,
: and came up with the idea that the PCs, having heard about this job,
: might get somewhat drunk and decide to go see how the fools who *did*
: accept were doing. The job went wrong, the PCs got involved, and
: we ran with it from there.
I am awash in admiration. That was nicely handled.
-- Sarah
Psychohist
Rick Cordes posts, in part:
I can imagine how people who play immersively, or just honestly
try to roleplay, may be unfairly taken advantage of by those
who play characters like chess pieces, whether either PCs or
NPCs.
Interesting statement ... I have a situation with Laratoa right now where
it seems much more likely that the one game oriented player will feel
'unfairly taken advantage of' by the world oriented players.
This one player recently started playing again, after a few years' hiatus.
He has a fairly clear game orientation: he plays for the challenge that
the game offers the player, he is highly sensitive to 'player character
glow', and he tends to treat gamesmaster characters as either adversaries
or resources, and not as individuals. The main exception to his treating
characters as playing pieces is that they don't collude, but it's mainly
because he considers a player's coordinating the actions of his multiple
characters to be cheating.
He does seem to play from the character stance, though not immersively.
He reconciles this with the desire for a player level challenge by
creating characters with fairly clear cut goals - typically, to become
'the best at' some specific thing - which can then be treated as game
objectives at the player level. He's also oriented towards traditional
'adventures'.
The rest of the current players, whether playing from the character stance
or immersively, have reached the point where their characters form goals
on their own, based on their personalities and their situations in the
game world. These characters are no longer 'adventurers' per se, though
they sometimes find that their positions require them to do something
that, in the words of one of them, 'looks like an adventure' - for
example, travelling around tracking down political enemies.
I don't think the game oriented player will interfere with the world
oriented players at all - since he does play his characters individually,
there won't be collusion that would be unexplainable at the character
level, and since the game oriented player does treat the other players'
characters as 'real', the character interactions won't seem strange,
either.
On the other hand, the game oriented player is likely to feel frustrated
at times. Though he's too polite to say such things, I can just see him
thinking things like, 'this is a perfectly good adventure - what do you
mean it's more important to balance the budget for your duchy?', or 'you
mean my character just got killed because you had to role play your
character's attachment to this random NPC?', or 'this other NPC was
obviously placed there to provide the players with key information - why
can't he just give it to me, instead of making me talk to his butler and
make an appointment?'
I suspect he'll find it worthwhile to play anyway. But I'd still be
interested in any ideas people have on making his time easier, without
compromising the world orientation of the gamesmaster and the other
players.
Warren J. Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
>On the other hand, the game oriented player is likely to feel frustrated
>at times. Though he's too polite to say such things, I can just see him
>thinking things like, 'this is a perfectly good adventure - what do you
>mean it's more important to balance the budget for your duchy?', or 'you
>mean my character just got killed because you had to role play your
>character's attachment to this random NPC?', or 'this other NPC was
>obviously placed there to provide the players with key information - why
>can't he just give it to me, instead of making me talk to his butler and
>make an appointment?'
One thing the player can do to help himself out is choose PC
personalities that mesh well with his goals. For example, if by
temperment the player is likely to want action and be frustrated by
politics, he will probably have more fun playing a PC of similar
leanings, so that he can say in-character "Enough with the budget
already, we have real problems out there!" Players sometimes don't
do this because they've been told it's bad roleplaying to play someone
with a personality similar to theirs, but I think it's worth a try.
If the game-oriented player can find a social role in the campaign
milieu that allows him to act as "advocate for adventure" he won't have
to spend so much time being too polite to say so. Often lords have
one advisor who always pushes the direct solution, for example, and
who is perhaps not very alert to social issues.
I don't know what to do about the NPC issue, though. My games also
emphasize NPCs very heavily and players who don't like to interact with
them never seem to fit in, no matter what we try. At best, like
Fred in the _Sunrise War_ campaign, the player just sits back and
listens when NPC interaction is center stage--but Fred was unusually
patient.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5mfg0g$j...@s10.math.uah.edu> lam...@s10.math.uah.edu (Doug Lampert) writes:
>I did this for a campaign and it worked quite well. Several scenarios
>were solved by 'I teleport back home, I tell (Rose, Marius, or Caroline
>as appropriate) what we are facing and hand over an appropriate set of
>information and arcane connections, whoever casts many powerful spells,
>teleports to source of problem, demolishes source of problem, takes the
>best loot, and teleports home.' Players get a small black mark for
>disturbing someone important, which largely cancels the credit for
>undertaking the mission.
>The players only rarely appealed for help. And they still had to do all
>the leg work, prep work, and investigations. Only the 'final climactic
>fight' is aborted. An important NPC mage is far to busy with research
>to go out and do routine leg work, that is what they have PC's for.
I would probably enjoy such a game, as long as the routine leg work was
not *too* emphatically routine. But I'm pretty sure that my husband's
group, except for him, would feel deeply cheated by missing the final
climatic fight. Different tastes.
I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of leg work your players did,
and how you handled it. I like such scenarios as a GM as well as
player, but I'm looking for ways to make them more engaging for my
players.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Doug Lampert
In article <5m6qho$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,>Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
>The other thing that would, I think, be helpful is careful choice
>of scenario and party template. For example, one of this group's
>GMs did a scenario a while back where the PCs were junior mages
>in a mages' guild, checking something local out at the request of
>their usperiors. This is an invitation to trouble, since (a) NPCs
>are clearly available who are much more capable than the PCs, and (b)
>clearly it would be natural for the PCs to appeal for help if they
>find something very threatening to the Guild, and natural for the
>NPCs to respond.
I did this for a campaign and it worked quite well. Several scenarios
were solved by 'I teleport back home, I tell (Rose, Marius, or Caroline
as appropriate) what we are facing and hand over an appropriate set of
information and arcane connections, whoever casts many powerful spells,
teleports to source of problem, demolishes source of problem, takes the
best loot, and teleports home.' Players get a small black mark for
disturbing someone important, which largely cancels the credit for
undertaking the mission.
The players only rarely appealed for help. And they still had to do all
the leg work, prep work, and investigations. Only the 'final climactic
fight' is aborted. An important NPC mage is far to busy with research
to go out and do routine leg work, that is what they have PC's for.
DougL
Doug Lampert
In article <5mfjbm$6...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>not *too* emphatically routine. But I'm pretty sure that my husband's
>group, except for him, would feel deeply cheated by missing the final
>climatic fight. Different tastes.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of leg work your players did,
>and how you handled it. I like such scenarios as a GM as well as
>player, but I'm looking for ways to make them more engaging for my
>players.
The last big problem they solved that way was an infestation of
vampires, they found out where the master vampire was by tracing
up through 'children', and then reported the location.
Several times they wound up with an arcane connection to a hostile
mage, and had no real long range attack spells, so they finished
anything else they were doing, then sent the connection back for
disposal (of the hostile mage, not the connection).
Once when out escorting a merchant ship they decided the opposing
pirates were to tough, so halfway through the battle one PC went
for help.
Several times someone was 'killed' (actually lethal wounds, with
death prevented by magic, no resurrection was available). Then all
they needed to do was keep the character alive till help showed up.
Unless the entire adventure hinges on a single fight, or dealing
with a single known enemy in head to head combat, the PC's could
do almost anything you can do in an adventure with a different
premise. Even for one or two deal with a known enemy in head to
head combat situations, remember that he who fires first often wins.
So the NPC would drag a bunch of weaker characters (PC's) along to
flush the main enemy and deal with henchmen. Does it matter that
you have an awe-inspiring NPC present if the NPC plans to lay low
till he can ambush the other sides equally powerful NPC, and when
that happens they will both be throughly busy for 10+ rounds?
DougL
Phil K.
Rick Cordes wrote:
[snip]
> What is at issue, is whether or not a notion of fairplay can
> be defined that resides on something other than preference. In this
> group the description was that the characters should not reveal the
> inner thoughts of their characters: no exception was made allowing
> this to be done through soliloquy, in character.
<blat> Wrong, thank you for trying. If you go back and check you'll find
that the example refered to the _player_ revealing the _character's_
inner thoughts. If a _character_ soliloquizes (is that a word?) then it
is a completely different situation. And if you can't recognise the
difference then you have some much more fundamental RPG concepts to
master before you're ready for the "Universal One True Way of RPGing".
> My point is that
> rather than describing every possible nuanced instance of roleplay,
> and ascribing by preference whether it is fair play or not to each,
> a generalizable philosophy would provide rubrics to determine how
> things may be used fairly or not, whether or not should they come
> into play.
You have yet to provide any possible criteria other than the context of
the individual game and players (ie: preference) for distinguishing
between different techniques. I can understand your desire for such a
generalizable philosophy, but it is my (and I'd suggest others)
experience that such a philosophy is impossible to develop. If you think
you can develop such a philosophy (without declaring the GMing styles of
some very successful GMs here wrong), then we are all ears. Until then,
though, I think we'll just have to potter along with our descriptive,
illustrative language.
>
> }...
> }When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
> }objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
> }debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
> }recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
> }satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
> }insulting, not to say rude.
>
> Like I said, obfuscations not withstanding.
I'm serious. The onus is on _you_ to demonstrate that your objective
criteria are justified and not based on fiat. So, when you eventually
get round to producing your objective rules I shall examine them
carefully for the quality of their justification and the arguments in
favor of them, compare them with my experience and extrapolation of
RPging in specific and general circumstances, and probably proceed to
debate those points which I will inevitably disagree with. Sorry Rick,
no free rides. ;)
>
> }...
> }OK, a simple objective philosophy.
> }
> }1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
> }environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
> }
> }2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
> }the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
> }manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
>
> This is simple, it's patently subjective, and where's the
> philosophy?
Sorry, but it IS a philosophy. It is a collection of intellectual
statements which can be taken as guidelines to action or belief or as
illustrations of particular concepts. If you somehow think that just
because it is simple it cannot be Philosophy them I'm afraid you are
wrong (and before you set yourself up to be contradicted again, I am a
post-graduate Philosophy student). And no, it is NOT a subjective
philosophy. It states that it is an obvious, a priori, objective,
'true-by-virtue-of-the-nature-of-reality' fact that preference and
context should taken into account in any discussion of RPGing. It
neccessarily follows, of course, that any specific, more detailed rules
or guidelines concerning proper RPGing must be contecxt based and hence
subjective. But the core philosophy itself isn't subjective. Care to try
again?
[snip]
>
> Your objections go a little far afield. I just don't think it's
> impossible to philosophize about what defines fairplay in a game
> without having to resort to preference. I am not trying to define wrong,
> I'm trying to define better, if that's not too airy-fairy. Your claim
> that it is impossible to find objective criteria to agree upon seems
> plainly wrong: how do you reason such a thing?
Simple. I cannot concieve of such a thing unless it is itself unfair to
numerous real world examples of good GM's, players, and games. Better by
what criteria? If you actually have some supposedly objective criteria
for fair/unfair, good/bad (better is only relative positioning on a
good/bad contiuum so you'll have to have definitions of good and bad),
etc., etc., then lets hear them. I predict that they'll be based on
preference, yours probably. I further predict that I could generate a
reasonable (note I say reasonable, not conclusive) counter-argument or
example to any supposedly objective criteria, thus reducing the criteria
to preference. There is my challenge. As the person championing an
objective RPGing philosophy the onus is on you to deliver one. Until you
do, I stand by my claim that I don't believe such an animal exists.
>
> -Rick
Have a nice day ;)
Phil K.