"RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want like "free love" ("If it's fun just do it!"). It has a distinct meaning, changing that meaning to "FUN!" or something else changes the word. People sitting around eating pizza and drinking beer while improving elves doesn't mean they're playing D&D even if it's a good time.
Hrm. A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu, and to make decisions from the perspective of the character(s) so undertaken. Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game.
But I am not about to say that, when Gary Gygax ran Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at GenCon, that he was not running a role-playing game, or that the players were not playing D&D.
2. "NPC" is only a word just like "dungeon" or "castle" or "monster". They are just props in a world. They don't create a story or a narrative on their own. They are only there because the players are interacting with them even if the DM controls their responses.
Erm....ugh.
They are there because the dictates of the fictional milieu require them to be there. I am not engaging in games, like some computer games, where "NPCs" only exist to interact with the PCs. In my games, NPCs have their own plans and motives, introduce their own threads, and change the milieu thereby.
Because I am attempting to simulate a "breathing world", I don't want the PCs to be the only, or in some cases not even the primary, movers for all that happens. The world is not a vacuum, existing merely to cater to their whims. I would find such a set-up boring at best.
If the DM decides to write a back-story for his game and decides to tell his players about it, there is no RPG narrative happening. There is one-sided narrative, but unless the players are driving that narrative into something by their interaction, it is not an RPG.
So, if the PCs decide to seek rumours, while the GM is telling them what they learn, it is not an RPG? Sorry, but no.
Narrative driven by anything but the players is not an RPG. If they're not driving it, who is? The DM or a rule-book. Neither of which constitute the requirements for an RPG.
I call bullshit. Sorry, but no.
OC: "Sure!" says the player of the cleric character, "I'm moving over to the sacks now, sticking close to the lefthand wall."
DM: "Just as the three are about in position to look down the passages, and while the cleric is heading for the rotting bags, the magic-user cries out, and you see something black and nasty looking upon her shoulder!"
LC: "Hold on, Gary. Are you trying to drive the narrative here, by introducing some kind of monster!?! If you do that, this isn't a role-playing game!"
Absolutely not. And this is more than "given them (the players) some props" - it is setting the context and consequences of choices. And both context and perceived consequence drive the narrative as much as choices. They are only "some props" if the players get told "There is a spider here" and then get to decide what it does (setting the context) and what happens as a result (determining the consequence).
Role-playing game narrative is driven by the mutual interaction of the players and the game milieu as devised by the GM.
And, yes, an RPG run without NPCs and without a DM is absolutely possible. It may not be a table-top RPG like D&D that requires a DM. But it qualifies as an RPG nonetheless.
A "storytelling" game maybe, but not a role-playing game. You say,
The key is who is "driving" narrative? The players must do this and this alone for it to be an RPG.
I say, bullshit. The qualifying element for a role-playing game is a primary purpose of the players to undertake roles, and to make decisions within the framework of the game from the stance of those roles. Doing so requires context, and it requires consequence. It requires, in fact, a volleying of narrative control from player (narrative control over character's choices) to GM (narrative control over the context in which those choices occur, and the outcome/consequences thereof).
Without those elements of GM narrative control, there is no PC "stance" that has any meaning - the players are simply writing a collaborative story.
There are storytelling games. There are linear games. There are role-playing games. Too much loss of player agency creates a linear game. Too much loss of GM agency creates a storytelling game. The golden region between - where Player and GM agency volley and build off of each other - is where the role-playing game can be found.
And, certainly, that means that there is a border area where a game can be both a storytelling game and a role-playing game, or a linear game and a role-playing game. But, in neither case would I make the claim that the game was a good role-playing game.
In conclusion, I agree with GaelicVigil that "RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want" but I disagree entirely that it means what GaelicVigil seems to think it means. If it did, sitting around making up a story would be a "role-playing game", but playing D&D as described or played by Gary Gygax would not be.
" A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu"
ReplyDeleteSo you agree with me then. Who is taking control of the characters? Are they not players? Your own definition supports the argument that an RPG requires players to drive it.
"They are there because the dictates of the fictional milieu require them to be there. I am not engaging in games, like some computer games, where "NPCs" only exist to interact with the PCs. In my games, NPCs have their own plans and motives, introduce their own threads, and change the milieu thereby. "
Nobody is saying that NPC's can't have their own motive or plans setup by the DM, but they are not the drivers of that story. The player characters are. If your NPC plot is driving the story then you are not playing an RPG, you are playing a CRPG. You may have created a narrative, but it is not -necessarily- an RPG narrative, it is just your own personal story that you are telling. Unless the players are creating that story through their interactions in that world, it is not an RPG.
By your own definition, it sounds like you would call a novel an RPG. It has NPCs with their own motives that can have an impact upon the world. Nobody's saying that NPCs can't have motive in an RPG, but they are not the key ingredient that makes it all work.
Look at it this way, what happens to your game when you remove the DM? Can your players alone still be playing an RPG without him? The answer is yes, of course. Two people acting as characters can easily role-play with each other without any help. I wrote a browser-based RPG that has no NPCs or DM that runs just fine without them (Faery Tale Online). The game is full of resources and tools to facilitate (or help) RP, but they are there simply as props that are not required. The fact is that two players can run an RPG in a void with little to no NPC props at all pretty easily contrary to what you have said.
But what happens when you remove the players from the game? Can a DM alone play the RPG without acting as a character in it? No. A DM can often take control of characters and give them actions (thus becoming a player), but his world is static. Without him or some other "player" acting as those roles, no RPG is happening. The game is simply a collection of names on paper.
I'd like you to give me an example of an RPG with no players filling roles.
(Btw, we're all Gygax fans here, but please stop with the milieu BS, he's not a god, we don't need to worship his diction).
What do you mean by "the milieu BS"? Milieu is a perfectly good word, and it perfectly describes what it is meant to describe.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I don't believe that crpgs are rpgs. I wouldn't qualify a browser-based game as such. Even if I did, by the way, by composing the game, you yourself would be acting as (remote) GM, so that damages your claim.
Re: Novels. What part of " A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu" does a novel fall under? Do you take on the role of a character when you read a novel? Is reading a novel a game? Just wondering what you are thinking here.
Nor do I agree that the world is static without the players - it should not be! - although I do agree that the game is not occurring without both sides at the table.
Mostly, he's thinking confrontational crap. A role playing game in a game in which a role is played. Everything else is obfuscation.
Delete" And this is more than "given them (the players) some props" - it is setting the context and consequences of choices. And both context and perceived consequence drive the narrative as much as choices. They are only "some props" if the players get told "There is a spider here" and then get to decide what it does (setting the context) and what happens as a result (determining the consequence)."
ReplyDeleteThey're still props. They are words that mean nothing unless actions are taken by players filling roles to manipulate them and create story from it. Whether they are permanent players at the table or the DM becoming a player temporarily by taking actions on the behalf of the static props in his world.
"There is a spider here" is just a prop. "DM: The spider crawls along the ceiling, moving closer and closer to the party....suddenly it lunges forward and attacks!", has become RPG narrative because a role was filled by the DM.
See the difference?
So, are you suggesting that the DM, as a player, is driving the narrative when he brings a monster into play?
DeleteHe seems to be, but there's a tremendous disconnect in the use of the word 'prop.' A prop is a physical, portable object other than furniture or costumes used in the set of a play or film. It is not the description for an abstract concept - though it is clumsily used as such by people with poor vocabulary skills.
DeleteThe correct word here is 'foil' ... a character (or in this case, a creature) that is employed to contrast with the will or purpose of another individual. The DM is there to employ foils, because it is a game, and without a foil there is no competition. It is irrelevant whether or not this makes a "roleplay" ... though obviously it does. What's relevant here is that without the foil, there is no 'game.'
I think we're just talking past each other here, so let me try to start over. Perhaps you misunderstood what I originally said, [paraphrased] "players must drive the narrative for it to be an RPG".
ReplyDeleteWhen a DM is railroading his players, he has decided that a pre-planned -STORYLINE- is going to drive the narrative.
For example. A railroader's notes might look something like this:
A. Players go to the inn and pick up the ranger.
B. The thieves attack the inn, killing the innkeeper's daughter and taking the gold.
C. The players are led by a note to the nearby cave hideout.
D. WHen the players get there, they find the longsword of fire +1 that only works on the theif troll leader.
That is a pre-written story like a novel. It's a sequence of events that has no player narrative. It was canned from the start where no one has -played- yet to decide the story.
A sandbox DM sets up a world with bandits, caves, trolls and longswords of fire and "plays" them in character within the scope of the world. The bandits may attack the town, an adventurer may wander into the cave and take the sword without the people at the table knowing, the troll may be killed. All of this narrative can happen through player action whether it be from the DM or the players themselves.
In essence the DM, making actions for those props becomes a player himself, driving a narrative along with the other players. But he never follows a pre-fabricated script that has been created outside the scope of the game world's structure. He acts in character if he needs to, to breathe life into the NPCs just as the players breathe life into their characters.
Without those players (DM and players alike) playing out those NPCs, no RPG can happen.
With the exception that no railroad is likely to be a pure railroad - and thus, is likely to contain some element of game and role-playing - I would agree here. This is a much better formulation of what you are trying to say than previous.
DeleteRCK, I think you're misreading these posts. In your example with the monster, you're failing to account for the fact that the Cleric pursued the narrative in the direction that brought him into that situation in the first place. If the Cleric didn't put themself in that situation, they wouldn't have encountered the monster.
ReplyDeleteRegarding NPCs, it's perfectly fine for them to have a life outside of their interaction with the PCs. Where you're going wrong is thinking that they exist if the players do not encounter/are not impacted by them. They don't. While the world you play in does move forward without them, all games should be focused on the players. No one needs to know the farmer is secretly sabotaging his neighbors crops to make more money unless that is relevant to the story.
I would change GV's framing from props to obstacles. It is the players who should decide which narrative direction to go; the GM should place the appropriate obstacles in their path, which is why things like NPC motivations are irrelevant unless they impact the situation at hand and why things like monsters are perfectly acceptable. You want to take a shortcut through the underground passage? Great! Maybe few people use it because they've turned into spider food.
Vanguard, I don't think that I am failing to take into account the cleric's choice. My point is not that the magic-user's choice didn't bring her into the situation; my point is that the magic-user's choice ALONE did not bring her into the situation. By placing monsters/NPCs/traps/whatever, and by choosing how they react, the GM drives the narrative as much as the players.
DeleteNote that the magic-user need not have made the choice she did; she could have had an encounter while camping, while studying in her tower, or while on the road. All sorts of things might have happened. Later in the example text, the gnome's choice was to tap a spike for a rope, not to get eaten by ghouls. Getting eaten by ghouls was a consequence of that choice AND the narrative aspects added by the DM. It takes both sides to make a role-playing game.
"Where you're going wrong is thinking that they exist if the players do not encounter/are not impacted by them. They don't." Strongly disagree. "No one needs to know the farmer is secretly sabotaging his neighbors crops to make more money unless that is relevant to the story." I do, because I don't determine what "the story" is ahead of time, I determine what "the situation" is. Knowing whatever elements of the situation that I happen to know is important because it might impact the unfolding narrative.
"The situation" exists whether or not the players explore every aspect of it. The dungeons below the Hill Giant Chief's steading are there whether or not the PCs explore them. The drow are behind it, and Lolth behind them, whether or not the PCs pursue the dangling threads.
In this sense, "the story" is not what the players decide, or what I devise as the situation, but the amalgamation of the two that occurs at the table.
DeleteI agree it takes both sides to make it work. No dispute there. The question is who is driving the ship, so to speak. With few exceptions, nothing that significantly affects the characters should be the result of a situation they have no control over.
DeleteNot that it's well defined, but I think you're misusing "situation", or at least differently from how I use it. The situation, as I meant it, is what is happening in the game. It is the part of the world the players are interacting with immediately. What they are not interacting with is not part of the situation, and therefore doesn't exist for all intents and purposes.
You seem to be using it as a substitute for setting, which is different. I would ask, when you as a DM, improvise, did that exist prior to you making it up on the fly? Of course it did, in the sense that Africa exists even though I've never been to it. But in the context of a situation in an RPG, it does not exist until the players interact with it.
To return to the crops example, if you're playing a game that focuses on the politics of the royal family and most of your time is spent in court, the feud between farmers isn't relevant because it doesn't play any role in the situation at hand. It would be very odd for this to become a major focal point and would be a perfect example of the DM forcing the narrative and removing player agency because this is the story they want to tell. Now, if that farmer fabricates a story about a local tribe of Orcs pillaging farmland to give himself plausible deniability? Very relevant, and an interesting story to unravel.
To get a little more theoretical, it's impossible to represent the totality of a world in a RPG. What lies beyond the reaches of the party absolutely does exist in the setting, as I claimed above, but because of it's irrelevance to the situation at hand, does not exist for the players. One of the things I've learned in 12 years of gaming is that players latch onto whatever details you give them. While there is certainly a balance to be met, I think there is a point at which details crowd the narrative and distract from the situation at hand.
I am using situation, in this case, a bit more broadly than you are. In this case, I am including not only the situation directly being resolved in a given moment of game-time, but elements of the setting which are both relevant to play, and, importantly, potentially relevant to play.
DeleteBecause, unless you determine what is going to happen ahead of time, you only know what is potentially relevant to play. You might have a strong idea about what is likely to be so, but that is all.
To return to the crops example, if you're running a game wherein the players are focused on the politics of the royal family and most of their time is spent in court, the feud between farmers isn't necessarily relevant, but it may become so if either (1) the players become interested in the feud for some reason, or (2) the feuders become interested in the players. Either could happen due to either players or GM introducing narrative threads.
If the GM spends time on devising out hypothetical crops example, it is either because (1) he is interested in it, and so will make it potentially relevant, or (2) he believes that the players will make it potentially relevant.
A good sandbox should, IMHO, feel like there are things going on all the time that do not directly involve the PCs, and it should also feel like ignoring those things is the surest way to have them affect the PCs. Contrary to your assertion, a ton of things should significantly affect the PCs. Some they have control over, some they do not. Getting control over some of these things is, in some cases, the seed of adventures.
I.e., an army is moving into Tinseltown, an earthquake levels Bobsville, and Hollywood is being overrun with orc puddings. There is no inn at Silverwater. No one in Tinyville can make plate mail. Sugar Mountain is now the home of a large dragon. All can significant affect the PCs.
"For some reason" is kind of hand-wavy. If I was running a game focused on the politics of the local court and my players are more interested in what the local farmers are up to, I've failed to create the sense of intrigue and urgency necessary to make them react to the situation. I hesitate to say I can't imagine a scenario in which their interactions with the court somehow leads to this information, just that it's unlikely. The most likely answer is that I've failed to produce an engaging situation or I'm forcing them in a direction they may not want to go.
DeleteThe issue of sandbox games is a little different from the general topics we're talking about, I think. It's really about the role of player and GM. A friend and I were discussing this recently. He likes GMing because he gets to tell a story and was confused as to what I found enjoyable about it. I like challenging the players. My ideal game feels like the players telling me their story while I challenge their goals.
At any rate, I'm going to put something up about this on my blog tomorrow. Good stuff.
"For some reason" is kind of hand-wavy? Really? Do I need to write out an entire campaign setting in order to use a hypothetical example? Do I need to play through every possible permutation to determine what did, and what could, happen?
DeleteI think not.
Of course it is hand-wavy!
Look forward to your blog post.
Vanguard, when that blog post goes up, can you link?
DeleteThanks.
Edit: "Now, if that farmer fabricates a story about a local tribe of Orcs pillaging farmland to give himself plausible deniability? Very relevant, and an interesting story to unravel."
ReplyDeleteShould be:
Now, if the players are trying to find out why all the farmers but one are having a poor season and that that farmer fabricates a story about a local tribe of Orcs pillaging farmland to give himself plausible deniability? Very relevant, and an interesting story to unravel.
"A good sandbox should, IMHO, feel like there are things going on all the time that do not directly involve the PCs, and it should also feel like ignoring those things is the surest way to have them affect the PCs. Contrary to your assertion, a ton of things should significantly affect the PCs. Some they have control over, some they do not. Getting control over some of these things is, in some cases, the seed of adventures.
ReplyDeleteI.e., an army is moving into Tinseltown, an earthquake levels Bobsville, and Hollywood is being overrun with orc puddings. There is no inn at Silverwater. No one in Tinyville can make plate mail. Sugar Mountain is now the home of a large dragon. All can significant affect the PCs."
I think we're all essentially saying the same thing here. It comes down to the old idiom, "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it actually fall".
My point is that if the DM is writing narrative that players actually never interact with, was he playing an RPG or was he simply writing a mini-novel for himself? Until the novel comes "into play" (IE the players make choices in that story), then it hasn't yet become an RPG. It's still a static story.
I state that players must drive the RPG for it to be defined as such because until they do, it is merely words on a page; "props" or "obstacles" or what have you that have no life.
For example, you may have written five pages of notes on the Kobold invasion of Antioch in the northwest Fire Mountains of Doom. As soon as the players hear a "rumor" or see a dead Kobold somewhere, they have seen the metaphorical "tip of the iceburg" story. It is at this point that a story goes from static narrative, to an RPG.
ReplyDeleteYour worlds feels living and breathing, but only because the players have caught wind of that "living and breathing" and have made choices about it, if that makes sense.
Without both players and GM, it is not a game, but neither is it necessarily "static narrative". Correction: There may still be a form of game involved. In fact, the GM might be involved in another form of gaming to determine elements of the background.
DeleteThat said, though, the world feels living and breathing because it allows for a wide range of choices, within a strong context, and with real consequence. The players need not have intentionally have made choices about Aspect A of the milieu in order for that aspect to have influenced their experience of said milieu as a living and breathing world.
I get the impression that some of you would be VERY unhappy in a game I am running.
ReplyDeleteThe king may choose to tax you, and I guarantee you have no control over the king. At least, not initially.
Your god, should you be a cleric, may task you to do something for him, and I guarantee you that you have no control over your god. At least, not initially.
The price of food may go up. Volcanoes may erupt. Silence may fall. The world will not owe you a living, and things may happen that you would rather not have happen. If you want the power to control these things, it is up to you to get it. It is not automatic.
You've missed the point. You're defining "players" as strictly people who are not the GM. The GM is a player too, he just controls the rest of the world. The King taxing his people is done through a player who happens to also be the GM.
DeleteThe player has driven narrative even if his "characters" is the King, the price of food (through actions of NPCs), the volcano (by the gods, the earth), etc. Stop thinking in terms of GM and Players. They are ALL players, but the GM controls the world. Hence, the players are driving the world.
But you can't tell me that you're playing an RPG simply by making a tree fall in a forest that nobody hears. That's not an RPG, that's your own imagination or novel or story, etc. No players are interacting to witness or change events in that forest.
/You've missed the point. You're defining "players" as strictly people who are not the GM./
DeleteSo, let me see. You say the "players" must drive the narrative, because the DM driving the narrative is "railroading", but when I point out the problems with this, I am missing the point because the "players" includes the DM.
Huh.
A GM reciting a pre-planned, scripted series of events isn't role-playing. A GM interacting with the world using the static props he has created, is. I think I've explained this several times above. If you still don't get it, perhaps you're a lost cause.
DeleteBeyond the shadow of a doubt, the problem here is that I am a lost cause.
Delete"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the problem here is that I am a lost cause."
DeleteQFT.
You're definitely misunderstanding my position if you think players should have this stuff automatically. The only caveat I would add is that these things should be relevant to the game.
ReplyDeleteI would love to play a game where a local king is taxing the masses that it is causing more and more to go hungry and poor. I would hate to play a game where this isn't a major focus of the plotline though.
I would love to see a player actually play out their relationship to their god. Most players want all of the reward with none of the devotion. There is lots of great conflict potential as doubt and the refusal to act on your god's behalf makes your life more and more miserable. I would hate to play a game where this kind of struggle wasn't put front and center.
The local king, the rising food costs, and the dictates of the gods are all part of consequence and context. Where the "major focus of the plotline" is, however, is based on player choices. They can choose to ignore, i.e., "just live with", those things. They can run to the next kingdom. Etc.
DeleteContext and consequence are my job. That is my part of the back-and-forth volley that makes an rpg what it is. Choices, and where actual game play is focused, is dependent upon the player's choices.
"Where the "major focus of the plotline" is, however, is based on player choices."
Delete-
So your players have no choice on non-major plot-lines? Then you are railroading. Every event in the game world should be able to have participation by the players, not just the major ones.
Why is it your place to decide what a major plot-line is? Let the players decide that themselves.
/You've missed the point. You're defining "players" as strictly people who are not the GM./
DeleteAnd again, huh. Now the DM is not a "player" again. It boggles the mind how you need to juggle your definitions in order to argue your points.
But you might want to re-read what you are responding to.
"Where the "major focus of the plotline" is, however, is based on player choices." says nothing about whether a plotline is major or minor, only the level of focus placed upon it. There is major focus for no other reason than that the players choose to focus on it.
If there is a huge battle looming, that may be a larger plotline, but, if the players have their characters travel elsewhere, it may resolve itself without ever coming into focus in the game.
/Why is it your place to decide what a major plot-line is?/
Because it affects the world in a major way. A zombie apocalypse is a major plotline even if the PCs decide to head into the dungeon and never surface to face it.
"/You've missed the point. You're defining "players" as strictly people who are not the GM./
DeleteAnd again, huh. Now the DM is not a "player" again. It boggles the mind how you need to juggle your definitions in order to argue your points."
What are you talking about? It seems you are simply dodging at this point. I said, "YOU" are only defining players strictly as those who are NOT the GM. I never said that the GM was not a player as well. When he role-plays a monster or other NPC in a game, he becomes as much a player as anyone else at the table. When he reads a script, he removes himself as a player and simply begins reciting a static storyline. There is no RPG at this point, it has become nothing more than a stage performance with a canned script.
You confuse me Mr ravencrowking. You seem so cogent when putting together many of your thoughts on RPGs, but trying to have a rational conversation is all but impossible. All of that wit seems to go out the window when you are required to have a conversation with someone.
""Where the "major focus of the plotline" is, however, is based on player choices." says nothing about whether a plotline is major or minor, only the level of focus placed upon it. There is major focus for no other reason than that the players choose to focus on it."
It does indeed say everything about whether a plotline is major or minor because you just defined it as such. Why do you use the word "plotline" anyway? That's code-speak for railroading. I try to get away from using diction like that because it sends up a red flag that the GM doesn't understand RPGs at all. There are no "plotlines" in RPGs. RPGs are built around organic worlds, a plot only happens if a story is created in an emergent way.
"/Why is it your place to decide what a major plot-line is?/
Because it affects the world in a major way. A zombie apocalypse is a major plotline even if the PCs decide to head into the dungeon and never surface to face it."
A zombie apocalypse isn't a "plotline", just like Kim Jong Un deciding to fire nukes isn't a "plotline". People like you are what's wrong with RPGs today. You need to stop thinking of RPGs as your little pet storylines that you get to force feed to your audience. We don't call events that happen in our real lives "plotlines" do we? Why are we calling them plotlines in RPGs?
The word "plotline" is anathema to "RPG". Plotlines are for movies, plays and books. That you can relate a story about something after the fact does not require there to be a plot. I don't wake up in the morning wondering what my "plotline" will be today. What happens happens, because I live in a living, breathing world. That's how RPGs work. If you're playing RPGs with "plotlines" you're not playing an RPG at all. Period.
I feel certain that this relates to my being a lost cause. I am sure it has nothing to do with arguing about shifting semantics.
DeleteIs that your response then? Good, I hope you feel better now.
DeleteOn the other hand, if you believe that I "seem so cogent when putting together many of your thoughts on RPGs" but "trying to have a rational conversation is all but impossible", you might consider that "All of that wit" has not gone "out the window", but rather there is a problem with the other end of the conversation.
DeleteJust spit-balling here, but maybe this is where rational conversation is breaking down:
"People like you are what's wrong with RPGs today. You need to stop thinking of RPGs as your little pet storylines that you get to force feed to your audience."
Or else, of course, I am just a lost cause. lol
GaelicVigil, I can thank you for making the blog lively for a couple of days, but I have a hard time being motivated to respond rationally to the diatribe you are spewing. Your responses have been a mass of shifting goalposts and shifting definitions when what you previously said turns out to be less than ideal.
Delete(Shrug)
I have limited time to waste.
Put your thoughts into a cogent form, that can be examined rationally, and I'll be happy to look at them. You can rail at words like "plotline" (a fictional sequence of cause and effect) all you like, but the term is still applicable without being "pet storylines that you get to force feed to your audience".
Likewise,
/I said, "YOU" are only defining players strictly as those who are NOT the GM. I never said that the GM was not a player as well./
Make up your mind. If the players driving the narrative is not railroading, and the GM is a player, then the GM driving the narrative is not railroading. If A performed by B is not C, and D is B, then A performed by D is not C. Inherent in saying that the players must drive the narrative, as opposed to the GM, is the separation of GM and players.
Likewise, why the insistence that what the GM brings to the table remains static until acted on by the players? Nothing in the real world does so. Nothing in the game world need do so, either.
Oh, so you're not done responding?
Delete"I have limited time to waste."
Cop-out. Put up or shut-up.
"Put your thoughts into a cogent form, that can be examined rationally, and I'll be happy to look at them. You can rail at words like "plotline" (a fictional sequence of cause and effect) all you like, but the term is still applicable without being "pet storylines that you get to force feed to your audience"."
I think you're grasping here. "Plotline" was a poor word to use to define an RPG and I think you know it. Look up the full meaning of a plotline, it indicates a story with structure, an exposition, rising action, climax, and falling action. I've never heard anyone use the word in any other context but a strict, pre-planned series of events for pre-fabbed narrative (read: non-sandbox).
If you want to keep defending the word, be my guest. But you're on a poor footing right now, I'd just let it go now and cut your loss. It's synonymous for railroad.
"If the players driving the narrative is not railroading"
True.
"and the GM is a player"
Not always. The GM is a player when he is role-playing at the table. Making notes, maps, etc is not role-playing. When he takes and uses a character or his other props at the table, he beings to role-play and we have an RPG.
"then the GM driving the narrative is not railroading."
Players drive narrative, the GM can act as a player at times at the table.
"If A performed by B is not C, and D is B, then A performed by D is not C."
False. A != C. D != B.
"Inherent in saying that the players must drive the narrative, as opposed to the GM, is the separation of GM and players."
The GM can act as a player at the table. When he acts as an NPC interacting with a static world, he becomes a player just like everyone else.
"Likewise, why the insistence that what the GM brings to the table remains static until acted on by the players? Nothing in the real world does so. Nothing in the game world need do so, either."
Because anything acted upon before brought to the table is simply a novelization, or a script. When you write a story about some orcs killing some dwarves in your basement, alone, do you honestly believe you are playing a Role-Playing Game? If you believe so, you don't understand what an RPG is. If that were true, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a great Role-Playing Game, don't you think?
Check the latest blog post. If you show me you are willing to read, and you are comprehending what I am writing, then I am likely to keep responding.
DeleteCouple of relevant points to the above:
(1) If players are always players, and the GM is sometimes a player, then you are making a distinction between GMs and players. My point was that, for your initial premise to be valid, you must make this distinction. You have gone the long way around demonstrating that I was correct, but I hope now that you realize that you have made a distinction.
I would guess that, if you wanted to make your ideas/definition about rpgs clearer, you would then have to elucidate the difference between "GM as player" and "GM as GM", although I imagine that you will find considerable overlap if I understand how you are using these terms.
Even as you are, though, there is a major difference between the framework of player-as-player and GM-as-player, where player-as-player is attempting to supply resolution, and GM-as-player is attempting to supply context and consequence.
(2) "Because anything acted upon before brought to the table is simply a novelization, or a script." Let us use the example "Crysophylax Dives has landed in a village and begins to eat villagers." The initial village is located 8 days from Ham, where the PCs currently reside. The dragon is not static, it continues to move, perhaps using a random generator, pillaging the region until stopped.
What is brought to the table is the rumours of the dragon's location and activities, whether the players choose to address them or not. These activities and location change from session to session. The changes are determined away from the table, for the most part, and they become part of the contextual backdrop in which the players make choices.
Very specifically, the element remains active - the very opposite of static - and can only be made static by being acted upon by the players (or some other non-static force enacted by the GM).
This has nothing to do with novelizations, nothing to do with a script, and everything to do with the game. Again, your conclusion leaps from "non-static element" to "novel" without any logical connection.
"If players are always players, and the GM is sometimes a player, then you are making a distinction between GMs and players. My point was that, for your initial premise to be valid, you must make this distinction. You have gone the long way around demonstrating that I was correct, but I hope now that you realize that you have made a distinction."
DeleteThat's not what your point was. Your point was that a GM can never be a player. As I've shown you, that is false.
"I would guess that, if you wanted to make your ideas/definition about rpgs clearer, you would then have to elucidate the difference between "GM as player" and "GM as GM", although I imagine that you will find considerable overlap if I understand how you are using these terms."
I have made myself very clear. I can't help if the audience lacks the reading comprehension to understand it.
"Even as you are, though, there is a major difference between the framework of player-as-player and GM-as-player, where player-as-player is attempting to supply resolution, and GM-as-player is attempting to supply context and consequence."
You are half-right. The GM doesn't provide context and consequence for a game to be defined as an RPG if he's role-playing. When performing as an NPC, for example, he plays the NPC as realistically as possible (IE, how that NPC would act). He doesn't worry about consequences in a meta-game sense. If the goblin doesn't want to be attacked, the goblin doesn't attack, but he doesn't force the goblin to run away simply because he wants to provide a narrative or a consequence to an action.
""Because anything acted upon before brought to the table is simply a novelization, or a script." Let us use the example "Crysophylax Dives has landed in a village and begins to eat villagers." The initial village is located 8 days from Ham, where the PCs currently reside. The dragon is not static, it continues to move, perhaps using a random generator, pillaging the region until stopped. "
It's still a novelization until the events are brought to be acted upon by the players.
"What is brought to the table is the rumours of the dragon's location and activities, whether the players choose to address them or not. These activities and location change from session to session. The changes are determined away from the table, for the most part, and they become part of the contextual backdrop in which the players make choices."
Ah, but NOW you've brought something to the table, even if they are rumors, activities, etc. NOW and only now has your static narrative become an RPG because the players have made choices about them. But the changes occurring away from the table revert to static novelization again, until they are brought to the table yet again for interaction.
"Very specifically, the element remains active - the very opposite of static - and can only be made static by being acted upon by the players (or some other non-static force enacted by the GM)."
It remains acted when brought to the game. It is static when not brought to the game.
"This has nothing to do with novelizations, nothing to do with a script, and everything to do with the game. Again, your conclusion leaps from "non-static element" to "novel" without any logical connection.""
It has everything to do with novelization. A game not "gamed" is not a game at all. A game requires interaction, and a role-playing GAME requires player driven narrative to make it such.
/That's not what your point was. Your point was that a GM can never be a player./
DeleteJust for the sake of clarity, please quote what I said that makes you believe the above statement is true.
~~It comes down to the old idiom, "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it actually fall".~~
ReplyDelete"If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it make a sound?" is the idiom. But I do love the idea of the tree both falling and not-falling -- and I think I saw a cat both not under it and under it, as it fell and didn't fall.
*goes back to reading*
my head hurts.
ReplyDeletei see semantics being argued back and forth, and you are both right and both wrong.
the definition of an "RPG" is most definitely in the eye of the beholder ;)
Sorry about the headache.
DeleteAll definitions are subjective to some degree. The definitions of things like "role-playing game" and "railroad" no less so, and perhaps far more so as there have been concerted attempts over the decades to change the meanings of both.
However, any definition of "role-playing game" that disqualifies games run by Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson must, IMHO, fail the test.
Also, the sticking point is not the semantics per se, but rather what the semantics are being used to "prove". I don't care what any particular person defines X to mean. I can happily carry on a conversation accepting, for the purposes of that conversation, that X means Y.
DeleteIt is when one attempts to then use that to prove something in the wider arena that it becomes problematic. If you believe that Silent Hill or Betrayal at Hill House qualify as role-playing games, that's fine. I do not.
If, on the other hand, you come here to argue that running a module doesn't qualify as a role-playing game, then I am going to disagree. Any definition of a rpg that disqualifies Mr. Gygax running Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at a convention fails the bar for a working definition. IMHO. YMMV.
(I am hereafter going to call that "The Gygax Test" in order to avoid having to type the thing out again!)
DeleteWhich Gygax test? Gygax played his game so many different ways, you'd get a different answer depending on when you asked. Gygax invented RPGs, that doesn't mean he even fully understood them himself.
DeleteWhich Gygax Test? This is why reading is fundamental: "Any definition of a rpg that disqualifies Mr. Gygax running Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at a convention fails the bar for a working definition."
DeleteAgain, which Gygax test? Who says "Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at a convention" is the only Gygax test that can be made to define an RPG?
DeleteAgain, this is why reading is fundamental.
DeleteWhen I said "I am hereafter going to call that "The Gygax Test" in order to avoid having to type the thing out again!", the antecedent to "that" is "Any definition of a rpg that disqualifies Mr. Gygax running Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at a convention".
This is similar to having a list of fish in a post, and saying "I am hereafter going to call this The Fish List so I don't have to type it out each time". It does not mean that there are not alternate lists of fish, that there are not alternate lists, or that the fish could not have been listed in any other order.
Likewise, something that fails the Gygax Test fails the bar for a working definition for a role-playing game, but this does not in any way imply that the Gygax test is the only test that can be made to define an RPG.
This is similar to saying that a definition of fish that precludes trout fails as a definition of fish (although it might succeed as a definition of a subset of fish). Anyone reading that who concludes that all fish are trout, or it doesn't matter if a definition of fish precludes mudskippers, either has a screw loose or fails to comprehend what is being said.
Your test is wrong. Before you can apply a test to something, you first need to understand it yourself. You don't.
DeleteSo long as you're amusing yourself, I guess....
DeleteHey RCK, the first (of two) post went up. Here you go: http://earthlightacademy.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-role-of-gm-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html
ReplyDelete