tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post8200113178074808169..comments2023-05-12T05:10:20.941-04:00Comments on Raven Crowking's Nest: Unexpected This Is: Planned vs. Improvisedravencrowkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-48616212683507576302014-03-15T11:52:58.731-04:002014-03-15T11:52:58.731-04:00That is an example of how a non-traditional rpg ca...That is an example of how a non-traditional rpg can differ from a traditional one. There is nothing inherently wrong with non-traditional rpgs, but a trade-off will be involved in the strengths of a trpg and a n-trpg.<br /><br />Your question in your previous comment required some thought. At first, I was going to reply that, at some point, additional prep would actually reduce the GM's enjoyment of the game. If you posit the kind of superhuman intellect that could create and maintain perfect or near-perfect prep, though, the same basic joy in seeing the players do unexpected things would still occur, the only difference is that it would be easier to supply context and determine consequences.<br /><br />In realistic terms, though, the GM needs to be judicious in what prep is done, because none of us has such a towering intellect that they can do that,and, even if we did, there are probably better uses that we could put it to. There is, at some point, a diminishing return on prepwork, and the GM must balance the projected return against the level of effort required.<br /><br />The claim that there is no return - which is what a claim that prep doesn't matter really is - is one that I don't believe is ever true.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-82862571882157845212014-03-14T23:46:18.233-04:002014-03-14T23:46:18.233-04:00I have been thinking about this again today. I tho...I have been thinking about this again today. I thought of an analogy. I realize there are faults in all analogies but they can be useful in describing an idea. I wonder if it is like a chess game. Except instead of two player's fighting each other, the DM is setting up the pieces for both sides. Then, once it is set up, the player's take on one side (say black) and the DM takes on white.<br />The DM is not going to know how the game is going to go because the amount of possibilities after just a couple of moves is too complex to memorize. But, he can play a fair game, because how the pieces move are known rules and the player's know them.<br />In collaborative story games, the players actually get to move the DM pieces from time to time. In D&D, they do not.Random Wizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16200875405900408519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-62182129038309561602014-03-14T19:40:24.263-04:002014-03-14T19:40:24.263-04:00After thinking about this, my answer is that, it w...After thinking about this, my answer is that, it would probably make the game better for the players, and it would probably make the game better for me too. No matter how much prep there is, once the players are set loose, things are going to change in unexpected ways, and the interest in the game would remain just as vibrant....or more vibrant, if I were actually able to hold all those moving parts in my mind at the same time.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-27805863813973490622014-03-14T15:09:23.416-04:002014-03-14T15:09:23.416-04:00ravencrowking. You have a very sharp mind. I often...ravencrowking. You have a very sharp mind. I often do not even want to discuss such topics as this post because by their very intricate nature, I often feel like I am trying to converse with people who only want to argue or "be right" without delving deeply into the complexities of the topic.<br />I feel this topic is close to one I wrote about concerning Quantum Ogres and creating information beforehand or by ad libbing.<br />I have a question for you. You wrote something to the effect that "preparing" the game helps with the quality of the game, but it is not possible because we are human and fallible. My question is, If you were super-human and not constrained by time (hypothetically) would you try and "prep" every possible thing you could that the players might encounter or do?Random Wizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16200875405900408519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-67392161301620997652014-03-14T08:29:22.229-04:002014-03-14T08:29:22.229-04:00Clarification of what, exactly? Clarification of ...Clarification of what, exactly? Clarification of what is meant by conclusion in the statement "any conclusion you might draw through RRT (or any other similar critical theory) suspect."? How is that unclear at all? How does that related to your second question, "The end of the game/scenario?" which is clearly a direct follow-up to "What do you mean conclusion?"<br /><br />Sorry, but anyone with even a grade school reading level is going to read that exactly the same way I did, and a higher reading level isn't going to change matters. Nor in your claim that you were asking for clarification are you able to clarify the question in such a manner as to point toward another reasonable explanation. If we are not to be disingenuous, the obvious conclusion is exactly that...obvious.<br /><br />Earlier, you had accused me of shifting the goal posts when I clarified a definition. The difference between shifting goalposts and clarification is this: clarification both clarifies and delimits. It changes the nature of conclusions drawn about the general, and validates conclusions drawn about the specific.<br /><br />For example, moving the goalposts goes like this:<br /><br />"You cannot understand what I am talking about unless you have created a shared fictional space."<br />"You have? Oh, well you cannot understand what I am talking about unless you have played Burning Wheel."<br />"You have? Oh, well you cannot understand what I am talking about unless you have played Burning Wheel at my table."<br /><br />Compare this to clarification:<br /><br />"I believe BW is a traditional RPG, but you cannot understand it unless you have experience in creating a shared fictional space."<br />"You have? Well, I still think it is a traditional RPG, but you need to play it to understand it."\<br />"You have? Well, what I am doing at my table is different, but if you need to get that granular to understand what I am talking about, I guess it is not a traditional RPG."<br /><br />Clarification cuts both ways; the conclusions on both sides are affected. Shifting the goalposts works only one way; it is an attempt to fit whatever evidence may exist into a predetermined conclusion. You can generally tell the difference by whether or not what follows the "clarification" still makes logical sense.<br /><br />And, no, I am not going to try to be "less condescending" to circular reasoning and ignoring the objections to said reasoning. That RRT breaks down if you consider the game to be the text is part of what you are responding to. The point is already raised. Again, it is back to the merry-go-round.<br /><br />(1) I believe my point is valid because I am making an analogy using RRT.<br />(2) An analogy using RRT is not valid.<br /><br />The logical conclusion is that the point cannot be valid due to the analogy (although it could be valid for other reasons).<br /><br />(3) Of course, RRT as an analogy is not valid<br /><br />may agree with (2), but unless you follow through to the rational conclusion, you have added nothing to the conversation.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-41750556240445629522014-03-13T22:33:42.568-04:002014-03-13T22:33:42.568-04:00I was asking for clarification dude, not for you t...I was asking for clarification dude, not for you to quote the fucking dictionary. You also ignored the point I made about game/text to be condescending. But let's not be disingenuous.Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-4083062859945197512014-03-13T20:39:38.108-04:002014-03-13T20:39:38.108-04:00"What do you mean conclusion? The end of the ..."What do you mean conclusion? The end of the game/scenario?"<br /><br />"I wasn't asking for you to define conclusion, no."<br /><br />Back on the merry-go-round. No thank you.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-61354168684195471812014-03-13T19:56:35.936-04:002014-03-13T19:56:35.936-04:00I wasn't asking for you to define conclusion, ...I wasn't asking for you to define conclusion, no. I was asking for you to put it in context since we're talking about how certain things affect play, play theory, and our ideas about them in like three different threads on this page. <br /><br />You might want to try being less condescending, especially when I was asking for clarification. Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-8328077144716153662014-03-13T19:36:42.538-04:002014-03-13T19:36:42.538-04:00Are you really asking me if "any conclusion y...Are you really asking me if "any conclusion you might draw" from a proposition is the end of a game or scenario? "A judgement or decision reached by reasoning."ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-64960875690429600082014-03-13T19:22:24.816-04:002014-03-13T19:22:24.816-04:00"In RRT, the reader interprets, but does not ..."In RRT, the reader interprets, but does not change, the text."<br /><br />I think this is where the analogy breaks, honestly. Games are not static, texts are. Or at least games shouldn't be static. The world should respond to the character's actions. <br /><br />"In addition, by conflating the role of Author and Reader, you make any conclusion you might draw through RRT (or any other similar critical theory) suspect."<br /><br />Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean conclusion? The end of the game/scenario?Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-74963533823628787482014-03-13T19:12:21.099-04:002014-03-13T19:12:21.099-04:00To address your question (what matter forest vs du...To address your question (what matter forest vs dungeon), I suppose it doesn't, aside from the fact that dungeons are much easier to map to the exact foot. <br /><br />"No one is suggesting that the GM is creating falling trees that have no chance of impacting the PCs, but the impact depends upon other factors in play."<br /><br />I guess this is what I want to know about your game, specifically. When do you draw that line between "the players have a good chance of finding/being interested in this" and the "tree"? This is part of the reason I prefer on-the-fly Gming. There is literally no "waste", so to speak. Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-80081292418141511002014-03-13T18:55:22.452-04:002014-03-13T18:55:22.452-04:00I'm not trying to be disingenuous at all. Yaga...I'm not trying to be disingenuous at all. YagamiFire made a claim that the idea I proposed was "very wrong". The examples he provided seemed, at least to me, to be about something else (unintended consequences as opposed to not causing/never encountering).<br /><br />Note: Sorry for the double comment - I was in my professional account. Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-82577309907524218492014-03-13T18:53:45.058-04:002014-03-13T18:53:45.058-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623917680629039459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-68592943098745310992014-03-13T18:02:27.854-04:002014-03-13T18:02:27.854-04:00Let's not be disingenuous, if we can avoid it....Let's not be disingenuous, if we can avoid it. No one is suggesting that the GM is creating falling trees that have no chance of impacting the PCs, but the impact depends upon other factors in play. Player choice is a primary factor. What difference if it is in a forest or a dungeon? <br /><br />Note: We are getting mighty close to the same old merry-go-round now, and I am not hopping back on if that is where you are hoping to lead this.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-59441136683247809132014-03-13T17:57:47.592-04:002014-03-13T17:57:47.592-04:00I think the dungeon example is a little different ...I think the dungeon example is a little different than what I'm asking, because the PCs COULD potentially interact with the path never chosen if they turned around. <br /><br />I'm talking about the "tree" scenario again. The tree falling was not due to a player's action, they did not hear it falling, and they never see it after it fell. I don't even know what that looks like. <br /><br />The difference in your final example boils down to (1) sandbox, (2) railroad, (3) make-it up as you go. Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-87032097360288490332014-03-13T17:39:47.820-04:002014-03-13T17:39:47.820-04:00"What would you as a GM be doing where someth..."What would you as a GM be doing where something happens completely unaware to the player/character and it never affects them?"<br /><br />If you create a non-linear dungeon, you may create areas that are never explored by the PCs, but which nonetheless are necessary if you are presenting actual choices, rather than the illusion of choices. If there is A down path 1 and B down path 2, the players might never discover what is there, but if they use spells such as /second sight/ to get an idea, or /wizard sense/ or just look, there is something there.<br /><br />There is a world of experiential difference between playing with a GM who (1) creates a world to explore, (2) wrote an encounter with an ogre, and godnaggit, you'll have that encounter!, and (3) didn't write a damn thing but thinks an ogre would be good now.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-46121068776649681042014-03-13T17:34:14.402-04:002014-03-13T17:34:14.402-04:00"If it's something that will impact the p..."If it's something that will impact the players, but they have no way of perceiving it until it affects them, what difference does it make whether or not you toil in the background or show your hand at the time of revelation?"<br /><br />I realize that you are being hypothetical here, but in a game of the type I advocate, I am not sure what would qualify as something that the players have no way of perceiving. <br /><br />I think the difference, of course, is that when you reveal your hand in the second case, the players may well wonder why they had no way of perceiving whatever it was you just revealed, or its "footprint" on the world, before now. One method allows perception or lack thereof, to reside with the players ("Damn! Why didn't we think of using that prison earlier!") and the other just leaves cognitive dissonance ("Golly," said Sheriff Rick. "How did I forget that Federal Penitentiary was here?").ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-85206041036392744952014-03-13T17:29:56.819-04:002014-03-13T17:29:56.819-04:00"My game world is FULL of things the players ..."My game world is FULL of things the players have not experienced or even heard of yet...but they know I have put those things out there. They are waiting to be discovered."<br /><br />Seems a little different than <br /><br />"If PC action A moves widget B into position C...that may have NO known impact until PC has the chance to become aware of C. "<br /><br />Because C is a logical, though unexpected extension of B, which was put into action by player doing A. The former quote just implies there is a whole world the PCs haven't interacted with, regardless if they do A, B, or C. <br /><br />More specifically, I'm more interested in what the below even looks like.<br /><br />"The tree fell, the PCs didn't here it...but via the DM it impacts them (to what degree may vary wildly from <b>not at all</b> to immensely)"<br /><br />What would you as a GM be doing where something happens completely unaware to the player/character and it never affects them? Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-45535884071973055732014-03-13T17:19:10.435-04:002014-03-13T17:19:10.435-04:00In RRT, the reader interprets, but does not change...In RRT, the reader interprets, but does not change, the text. If you rely on "Text = Game", I think that you are going to have problems with the validity of the analogy. It is to be hoped that the players actually have more input into the game, through actual play, than the GM does. If the game is the text, then there is no distinction in RRT between author and reader; the model falls apart.<br /><br />If we take the game world as including all that occurs, seen and unseen, much of it will always remain outside the "spotlight area" the PCs occupy. <br /><br />The analogy works, however, if you assume<br /><br />Author = GM<br />Text = The Dissociative game<br />Reader = Player<br />Reading = The Associative game<br /><br />However, whether you accept that or not, shared world-building in the sense of example (3) is analogous to the reader and author limiting the context of the text prior to it being written. In addition, by conflating the role of Author and Reader, you make any conclusion you might draw through RRT (or any other similar critical theory) suspect.<br /><br />If I agree to "encounter" meaning "anything the players become aware of", then in your Medieval Walking Dead, an encounter with a sorcerer being persecuted on the basis of the belief that magic caused the walkers is something the players are a priori encountering due to the prologue you supplied. Your earlier arguments about how the limitations placed on the same, because it would not be encountered, are therefore rendered void.<br /><br />That's part of the problem with this argument. A precludes B, and B precludes C, but you expect us to accept that A, B, and C are all true because you have reasons to argue A, reasons to argue B, and reasons to argue C, but an unwillingness to examine the logical repercussions of the claim that they are all true.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-14427868120222830562014-03-13T16:36:04.318-04:002014-03-13T16:36:04.318-04:00Also...why the concern over "purpose"? I...Also...why the concern over "purpose"? I do not care about "purpose" as a DM...that way lies madness and tyranny.YagamiFirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09280013813938686538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-21456478438116064132014-03-13T16:35:17.948-04:002014-03-13T16:35:17.948-04:00If PC action A moves widget B into position C...th...If PC action A moves widget B into position C...that may have NO known impact until PC has the chance to become aware of C. It still occurred though. Their action still had impact...in fact, more impact than they might be aware. It gives greater agency to the player to impact the world. As a DM I don't know if it will definitively be relevant to the players later on...but I am running a WORLD for them. I have told them their actions matter in that world. In that WORLD...not in "the game".<br /><br />Additionally, it keeps the DM honest by not allowing him to shift his battleships from behind the screen...and it simplifies running because things work more like moving clockwork with events occurring from other events and action->reaction being observed.<br /><br />I firmly believe this is also experienced on a subtle, subconscious level...the DM is more prepared, the world is more consistent, the players feel more empowered. It is an undercurrent...invisible but there...like gravity.YagamiFirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09280013813938686538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-89705442563171276702014-03-13T16:25:50.821-04:002014-03-13T16:25:50.821-04:00@YagamiFire
I believe it is. If something that ha...@YagamiFire<br /><br />I believe it is. If something that had, has, or will have zero impact on the game occurs in the game world I'm still curious what the purpose of it is. <br /><br />If it's something that will impact the players, but they have no way of perceiving it until it affects them, what difference does it make whether or not you toil in the background or show your hand at the time of revelation?Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-58976161611395913962014-03-13T16:19:01.931-04:002014-03-13T16:19:01.931-04:00RCK, now this is interesting. I think we need to d...RCK, now this is interesting. I think we need to define "encountered" if we're going to keep talking about games vis-a-vis theory (I like this!). Also, because an "encounter" has a particular meaning within the lexicon of RPGs. <br /><br />Encounter, as I mean it in "the only thing that matters for the purposes of the game is what the players encounter," is "become aware of". <br /><br />"The larger scope, pointed at by RRT, is that the game is more than what may be encountered, but also what the reader/player views as potentially encounterable."<br /><br />Yes, but in order to have a sense of that larger scope, they must be aware of that potentiality, no? <br /><br />Also, I was interpreting, for the sake of the example, like this<br /><br />Author = GM<br />Text = Game<br />Reader = PlayerVanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-87423792629687610642014-03-13T15:47:00.163-04:002014-03-13T15:47:00.163-04:00(Just to be clear, the above are rhetorical questi...(Just to be clear, the above are rhetorical questions. You are either willing to consider the implications, or you are not. I neither expect nor require answers to them.)ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-3919938058639984642014-03-13T15:37:44.103-04:002014-03-13T15:37:44.103-04:00@Vanguard, again The Walking Dead supplies example...@Vanguard, again The Walking Dead supplies examples.<br /><br />What difference did it make that the prison "didn't exist" until Rick & Co. got there? "Golly," said Sheriff Rick. "How did I forget that Federal Penitentiary was here?"<br /><br />Using RRT again, does it make any difference to the viewer that we can infer that there are more walkers out there, and more groups of bad living folk, than actually appear on screen? What would the impact on the viewer be if he KNEW that there would never be another bad living person on the show again? Would that impact be immediate, or would it have to wait until no bad people showed up for several seasons? Likewise, how would it change things if Rick KNEW that none of his friends could ever be turned into walkers any more? What if Carl knew that Rick had the same level of plot protection?<br /><br />Rick doesn't have to turn into a zombie for the potential to affect the others in his group, or for the potential to affect the viewer. That encounter need never happen, but its effects both within the scenario and watching the scenario have real consequences. The only thing that removes that impact is knowledge about what can and cannot affect the programme.<br /><br />From a gaming standpoint, letting Rick's player decide that Rick can't be bit is the same thing.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.com