Some caveats upfront:
(1) If you have found yourself disagreeing with every post in the "Balance of Power" series so far, you probably won't agree with any of the posts to come.
(2) This series of posts is in reference to traditional role-playing games. In philosophy, there is something called the anthropic principle, which stems from the point that if we are here to observe the universe, the universe must exist in a condition that we can be here to observe it in. IOW, any universe observed by intelligent creatures must be a universe in which intelligent creatures can exist to observe it.
There are all kinds of versions of this principle, but one interpretation suggests that the universe we see is the result of our collective beliefs and expectations. I.e., if enough of us believe in unicorns, unicorns will not only exist, but they will always have existed.
A traditional role-playing game assumes that the players are dealing with a world whose basic properties are in some fashion set. In other words, the players, through the medium of their characters, explore that world, and their growing understanding of the principles by which that world works, including knowledge of peoples, places, etc., lead to increasing success within the game. Just as we must adapt to the real world, while attempting to use our increased understanding to alter our environment to our benefit, the PCs adapt to the fictional milieu, and attempt to change it to their desires and/or take advantage of its properties.
If you are playing a game in which the PCs' beliefs and desires shape the world around them, or where the world remains formless except in the immediate field of view, where there effectively is no "real world" within the game because flux occurs either due to lack of prep or the inherent nature of a world where the presence or absence of a guard behind a door is based upon a character's convictions, while that game may be incredibly fun to you, it is not a traditional role-playing game.
Outside the context of this discussion, I don't mind if you want to call it a traditional role-playing game. Inside this discussion, I would appreciate the acceptance of terms for the purpose of discussion. If it makes you feel any better, it would be no different than describing what I am referring to as "traditional role-playing games" as "apples" or "balmaranas"; the term is only used for clarity within the conversation.
(3) There is certainly no obligation to agree with me, and your comments are welcome. Assuming that I have thought through every objection you might have, that I am automatically right, or that I know exactly what all the repercussions of any idea might be will never be a prerequisite to commentary here!
Okay, then.
In the type of game that I am discussing, the players require that there be something to explore and interact with. Although it is impossible (and, in fact, undesirable) to eliminate the information disparity between the GM and the players, the players seek to reduce the disparity in order to make more effective choices within the context of the milieu.
That information disparity also means that the players require the ability to trust the GM, and the GM requires trust from the players.
While much of the dissociative game is played alone, in the creation of materials, and while the GM may move timelines forward without players being present, the GM requires players to bring the whole to life. Without an associative element, supplied by the players, a traditional role-playing game is nothing more than preparation for the game. NPCs cannot supply this - there is no discovery in "exploring" that which you have already created, and if you have not yet created it, you are probably writing fiction rather than playing a game.
Writing fiction is a fun pastime; it is not a traditional role-playing game.
Likewise, there is a reason why solo play - for example, generating a dungeon using the tables in the DMG while you play through it yourself - falls rather flat. Without both sides at the table, the prospective player-GM is like Gollum, who thinks that great secrets must be hidden beneath the Misty Mountains, but discovers only darkness and a sort of half-existence gnawing old fish bones.
Because this post is obviously in reference to comments I have made, I will comment.
ReplyDelete"If you are playing a game in which the PCs' beliefs and desires shape the world around them, or where the world remains formless except in the immediate field of view, where there effectively is no "real world" within the game because flux occurs either due to lack of prep or the inherent nature of a world where the presence or absence of a guard behind a door is based upon a character's convictions, while that game may be incredibly fun to you, it is not a traditional role-playing game.
Outside the context of this discussion, I don't mind if you want to call it a traditional role-playing game. Inside this discussion, I would appreciate the acceptance of terms for the purpose of discussion. "
You're moving goal posts here about what constitutes a traditional roleplaying game. You're also effectively saying that games which develop their world only through play (no to minimal prep) fall outside of this realm, which isn't true. It's my understanding that this model of play has existed for a long time. I also find it odd that this post comes now, after calling for open dialogue.
Your take on BW's Beliefs are wrong, but I don't want to argue about mechanics for a game you've never played. My advice would be to read "The hub and the Spokes", which is available as a free PDF if you want a deeper understanding.
By all means, view it as moving the goalposts if you must. I would refer to it as clarifying terms. The argument I am making has nothing to do with whether or not you think BW is a "traditional rpg". OTOH, the clarification of terms demonstrates aids in showing where the argument applies....and by extension, where it does not.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I did do some (obviously, second-hand) research into BW after reading your comments. I'll take a look at the pdf you recommend if you toss me a link.
I am not sure how many ways you want me to agree that my comments do not apply to the game that you run, Vanguard, if your game is not the kind of game I am interested in/talking about.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I am confused, also, why I am expected to simultaneously accept that BW is a traditional RPG, and that BW is so different that it must be played to be understood. If you have played a bunch of traditional RPGs for decades, and yet you cannot grok this one because it is so different, the logical inference would be.....?
Because you are making assertions that the methods I use (shared fiction, on the fly GMing) produces play with a lesser sense of discovery.
DeleteEvery system has its quirks, but BW is still, for all intents and purposes, a traditional RPG that puts the focus on the characters. That to me is the main difference between it and other games. You assume the role of a character within the setting that wants something and takes steps to get it.
Well, that's because of basic logic. If one game allows discovery of Set X, and the same game, wherein the players created Y, allows only the discovery of Set X-Y, the second game allows for less discovery than the first. If the same game allows for either exploration of events Z, or takes events in the set A off the table, then Z allows for a greater potential for exploration that Z-A.
DeleteThat's not true because I say that it is true; that's true because logic mandates it to be true. You can, of course, say "So what? I am not interested in Set A or Set Y." in which case, obviously, you don't see the limitation. But that does not make the limitation any less real.
Likewise, where Y is an extremely small set, like in your Medieval Walking Dead example, the limitations are correspondingly small, but just as real. And they have been brought up already, and you have already dismissed them as irrelevant on the basis of Set A, which you also don't seem to think is a limitation, so I think we should agree to disagree on that point.
Still waiting on that link, by the way.
Trying to quantify the number of things in a shared, fictional space is not the same as counting beans.
DeleteLet's start with some basic assumptions.
Players will react to whatever situation you put in front of them (even if that reaction is to turn around and walk away from it).
For the purposes of the game, the world consists of what players encounter. Anything they do not is waiting to be discovered.
Finally, players are limited by what they can discover by both their in-game decisions and time (as in, we play once a week for four hours).
In either approach to GMing (planned vs. improvised), the kind of things they discover are necessarily constrained. For the former, it's restricted to whatever the GM put there. For the latter, it will be something within the scope of the shared fiction.
When you're playing the dissociative game, you have every option, sure. Once play begins? No, not if you're sticking to your notes. Likewise, when we sit down to build the situation, we have every option as well. Once we play, however, we are firmly within the prison of our own making.
Is either better? No, but I prefer one. The primary difference, as I see it, is adaptability. Improvising from a handful (or more) of stage props, allows you to tweak the knobs as you see fit to ratchet up the drama, to turn the situation in unforeseen directions. And that's the most important thing to me; running an exciting, fun, and challenging game that the players are invested in.
I should note, I'm deeply amused by one thing in this conversation. You're arguing here that on-the-fly GMing doesn't lead to a believable consistent world (which is not true), but criticiszing this approach as more akin to fiction writing. Isn't verisimilitude, which is what you're going for, part of that same equation?
Also, here's the link:
http://www.burningwheel.com/store/index.php/front-page/burning-wheel-gold-hub-and-spokes.html
(yes you have to create an account, but it is free, no billing info needed).
Is lack of preparation enough to set a game apart from being 'A Traditional Role-Playing Game'?
ReplyDeleteNo one is ever going to have his world mapped out down to the last blade of grass... at some point there is going to be some on-the-fly creation by the GM in response to the PCs going off the map. Does it matter so much whether I created that villager and his cow last week or just a second ago?
Sure, ideally I'd have a good set of notes going in... know the area and its occupants... know where the dangers and resources are... but there are occasions where friends have said, 'let's play' and I've had to cobble something up on the spot... were we not engaging in traditional play when that occurred?
That's a fuzzy logic area. At some point, lack of preparation means that the players are not reacting to the world, the world - through the agency of the GM - is being formed in reaction to the PCs. There is always a limit to how prepared you can be, but there is a difference, IMHO, between that villager and his cow being a logical extension of already created work, and that villager and cow just appearing because a PC wanted to buy a cow. Even then, the area is fuzzy, because the GM is unlikely to have considered whether or not even pre-scripted cows are for sale.
DeleteLike a hot shower or a cold shower, you can have quite a range and consider the water to be "hot", but if someone comes along and dumps a bucket of ice water down your back, no matter how "hot" he might consider it, the odds are pretty good that you will resist that interpretation.
If you are arguing that you don't need to do prep because your inconsistencies just add to the mystery (How come Sheriff Rick doesn't know about the prison within a day's drive of his home?) the odds are good that your shower is cold.
No offense truly meant by what's coming but it's my personal experience...
ReplyDeleteThose that heavily advocate what Vanguard is discussing are universally terrible at A) explaining it and B) honestly appraising the restrictions/limitations of their style.
I've seen this time and time again. They think it is the best thing since sliced bread because it is new and different to them and cannot objectively LOOK at what is going on and how the pieces fit together. When it is called into question, all they can do is assume others don't know what they're talking about...as Vanguard did with myself.
However, I have run and played in the exact sort of game he's describing. It is my preferred method for games like Marvel or DC superheroes. I've also done it with a medieval setting. And it is DEFINITELY different. It has it's own strengths and weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is a loss of discovery and sense of the unknown...of threat of the unknown. This should be obvious but those enamored with the style don't wish to think ANYTHING could be limited by it because it's their "cool new thing".
Raven's points have been spot on through-out.
You're misrepresenting my position a little here.
Delete"I've seen this time and time again. They think it is the best thing since sliced bread because it is new and different to them and cannot objectively LOOK at what is going on and how the pieces fit together. When it is called into question, all they can do is assume others don't know what they're talking about...as Vanguard did with myself."
I never made any claims about superiority. I responded to RCKs posts. He is the one that claimed There Is Only One True Way to Discover The World The Best.
As to the objectivity, that's a whole other rabbit hole of a discussion. All I will say is that RCKs claim that my preferred methods lead to a lesser sense of discovery do not bear out at the table. My games do not lack for it at all. If you want to disagree, fine. But until you sit at my table I don't know how anyone can make any sort of claim about it.
"This should be obvious but those enamored with the style don't wish to think ANYTHING could be limited by it because it's their "cool new thing"."
Again, not what I actually said. Obviously, if you put together a game about exploring the rumors of vampires killing townspeople. . .your game is going to be about that. But I don't see any difference between that and running a module with much of the same setup in terms of sense of discovery during play.
RCK used the example in another post about how you can't be surprised by the vampires under the sewers because you know they are there in the group setup. This is only true if you decide that as a group. You could just as easily have collectively decided you were going to explore a town wracked by Vampires and have the players discover it through actual play.
No you've repeatedly ignored the OBVIOUS reductinon in discovery by repeating that "that doesn't matter to my players because of [reason x/y/z]". However, discussion of the topic doesn't work that way. The reduction still exists whether or not your table chooses to downplay our outright ignore it.
DeleteThe fact of the matter is, ANYTHING decided beforehand by the players, cannot be discovered by the players. This is necessarily a reduction in discovery.
And yes, you have made a claim to superiority because it is what you use. If you do not believe you are using the best methodology for your table, you're a fool (or taking part in some experimentation I suppose). Your usage of the methodology is your claim. I'll also note that RCK did not make the claim you are stating but rather stated there was a DIFFERENCE in the two and that one offered more discovery while the other offered less. Again, this is true by simple use of logical reasoning. He did not say this as an all-encompassing qualitative statement of GOOD/BAD but rather as a difference between what two styles offer and how those styles impact discovery as well as associative and dis-associative gameplay.
As far as sitting at your table...that is ludicrous. The play style is obvious, common and used by many. You are not rolling dice you pulled out of the ark of the covenant or anything. I have played in the style. I like it. It works well at some things and less so at others. Like ANY style. One of the things it lacks is the aforementioned discovery.
What you're ignoring is that deciding on what the game is going to entail in a narrow regard is ALREADY limiting in and of itself. I believe RCK would agree that modules that presume that are ALSO a form of discovery limiting gameplay. That you equate what you do with a module basically admits to a reduction in discovery capable. This would seem to be exactly what RCK was talking about when he mentioned playing in a module he himself made. There is far less unknown for him because he created the components he's interacting with.
Thank you, YagamiFire.
DeleteAlso I hope not to come off as if I'm putting words in your mouth when referencing what you previously wrote. I'm merely trying to restate your points to the best of my own understanding and interpretation of them.
Delete"And yes, you have made a claim to superiority because it is what you use. If you do not believe you are using the best methodology for your table, you're a fool (or taking part in some experimentation I suppose). Your usage of the methodology is your claim."
ReplyDeleteDid I claim that I only use on-the-fly GMing? No, I prefer it, but I actually use both. Just as certain game systems are better tailored for certain kinds of games, I feel the same way about how to approach GMing.
"'ll also note that RCK did not make the claim you are stating but rather stated there was a DIFFERENCE in the two and that one offered more discovery while the other offered less. Again, this is true by simple use of logical reasoning."
He did absolutely make the claim that one led to more discovery, and that the other (shared world building) harms that discovery. That is what I'm disagreeing with, especially because I have extensive experience with both approaches. My experience does not bear that out.
Why? Because the amount of collaborative world building that gets done in my games is more broad strokes to provide a jumping off point, pretty much the same amount that you get from pitching a module and game system to your players. I agree that every choice gets made constrains our games, but I argue that this is true for BOTH approaches.