Fiction again

Okay, I've been rebuilding the web archives for GAMERS (no, don't go look, 
they're not live yet), and I ran across a statement of Roger's that I 
think I missed at the time:

"An RPG is never going to be all that close to its source material unless 
its rules are about the sort of narrative you can create rather than the 
sort of thing a PC can do."

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with that (I think individual instances 
of games can end up very much like their source material without explicit 
rules), but I think that does sort of summarize a dichotomy in rules 
approaches.

I don't think I like rules that define the sort of narrative I can create 
(though, as it was put back when we discussed this here in 2001(!), I'm 
willing to allow that maybe I just don't like any of the implementations 
so far, rather than disliking the whole idea).  I do like being conscious, 
as a group, that we're creating narrative, and doing some work to make 
sure we're all trying to create the same kind (or let the same kind 
happen, as the case may be).

I also don't like rules about the sort of thing a PC can do when that 
interferes with the narrative.  That's the hard part.  PC-can-do rules are 
narrative-blind.  Can they be otherwise, without turning into rules that 
restrict the narrative?

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> "An RPG is never going to be all that close to its source material unless 
> its rules are about the sort of narrative you can create rather than the 
> sort of thing a PC can do."
> 
> I'm not sure that I entirely agree with that (I think individual instances 
> of games can end up very much like their source material without explicit 
> rules), but I think that does sort of summarize a dichotomy in rules 
> approaches.

I'm not so sure they need to be binary opposites.

Systems like GURPS or Primetime Adventures represent the opposite ends 
of a spectrum.

I'm sure it's possible to design a game that reaches a workable balance 
between the two approaches. But you have to recognise there's a tradeoff 
  going on, otherwise we'll end up brain damaged ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Tim Hall wrote:

TH>I'm not so sure they need to be binary opposites.

Not as such, but they're two very separate things.  I can't think of any 
individual rules that affect both, though there might be some.

TH>Systems like GURPS or Primetime Adventures represent the opposite ends 
TH>of a spectrum.

Pretty close, yeah.  But doesn't GURPS have... uh... some kind of Fudge 
Point system (I'm blanking here... been too long since I even read GURPS, 
especially outside the character generation part) somewhere in there?  I 
see that sort of thing as a sort of a safety system on character-can-do 
rules.

TH>I'm sure it's possible to design a game that reaches a workable balance 
TH>between the two approaches. But you have to recognise there's a tradeoff 
TH>  going on, otherwise we'll end up brain damaged ;)

I still haven't found a workable balance.  I *like* character-can-do 
rules.  Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.

But yeah, maybe I'm brain-damaged...

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Tim Hall wrote:
> 
> TH>I'm not so sure they need to be binary opposites.
> 
> Not as such, but they're two very separate things.  I can't think of any 
> individual rules that affect both, though there might be some.

I was thinking more of complete systems rather than individual mechanics.

> TH>Systems like GURPS or Primetime Adventures represent the opposite ends 
> TH>of a spectrum.
> 
> Pretty close, yeah.  But doesn't GURPS have... uh... some kind of Fudge 
> Point system (I'm blanking here... been too long since I even read GURPS, 
> especially outside the character generation part) somewhere in there?  I 
> see that sort of thing as a sort of a safety system on character-can-do 
> rules.

You're probably thinking of the Luck advantage, which works as a sort of 
Fudge Pointish sort of thing (you can reroll failed rolls so many times 
a session).  I've never encountered any game that's used this Advantage. 
  GURPS doesn't have Narrativist plot coupons as a core mechanic.

> TH>I'm sure it's possible to design a game that reaches a workable balance 
> TH>between the two approaches. But you have to recognise there's a tradeoff 
> TH>  going on, otherwise we'll end up brain damaged ;)
> 
> I still haven't found a workable balance.  I *like* character-can-do 
> rules.  Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.

The alternative is behind-the-scenes GM fudging, which is even more like 
cheating.  And I'm guilty as hell of doing this; there's a whole scene 
in the Kalyr game on Dreamlyrics which I've been running completely 
diceless, doing things like 'I'll let her succeed at doing that really 
cool psionic combat move without rolling any dice, but she'll catch hell 
later on from the collateral damage.  She's getting her money's worth 
out of the Bloodlust disadvantage'.

> But yeah, maybe I'm brain-damaged...

That blog entry of mine was the #1 Google search result for "Ron Edwards 
Brain Damaged" at one point. Got a good comment by Will Mistretta :) 
"The Ayn Rand of RPGs, indeed".
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Hall" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: GM: Fiction again


> Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Tim Hall wrote:
>>
>> TH>I'm not so sure they need to be binary opposites.
>>
>> Not as such, but they're two very separate things.  I can't think of any
>> individual rules that affect both, though there might be some.
>
> I was thinking more of complete systems rather than individual mechanics.
>
>> TH>Systems like GURPS or Primetime Adventures represent the opposite ends
>> TH>of a spectrum.
>>
>> Pretty close, yeah.  But doesn't GURPS have... uh... some kind of Fudge
>> Point system (I'm blanking here... been too long since I even read GURPS,
>> especially outside the character generation part) somewhere in there?  I
>> see that sort of thing as a sort of a safety system on character-can-do
>> rules.
>
> You're probably thinking of the Luck advantage, which works as a sort of
> Fudge Pointish sort of thing (you can reroll failed rolls so many times
> a session).  I've never encountered any game that's used this Advantage.
>  GURPS doesn't have Narrativist plot coupons as a core mechanic.
>

There are some optional rules to that effect, especially in the current 
edition, beyond the Luck family of advantages.  Most of these burn the same 
currency used to develop characters (i.e., XP/CPs);  this often impacts the 
decision on the average given out per session...GURPS is struggling to make 
peace with the more cinematic end of the spectrum, but it will never be 
"Narrativist".  And most of us who play it prefer it that way, if only 
because we don't like some gol-darned whippersnapper fresh from some liberal 
arts college tellin' us how to play a game!*

*(Full disclosure:  Poster survived a VERY liberal arts college... :P )

>> TH>I'm sure it's possible to design a game that reaches a workable 
>> balance
>> TH>between the two approaches. But you have to recognise there's a 
>> tradeoff
>> TH>  going on, otherwise we'll end up brain damaged ;)
>>
>> I still haven't found a workable balance.  I *like* character-can-do
>> rules.  Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.
>
> The alternative is behind-the-scenes GM fudging, which is even more like
> cheating.  And I'm guilty as hell of doing this; there's a whole scene
> in the Kalyr game on Dreamlyrics which I've been running completely
> diceless, doing things like 'I'll let her succeed at doing that really
> cool psionic combat move without rolling any dice, but she'll catch hell
> later on from the collateral damage.  She's getting her money's worth
> out of the Bloodlust disadvantage'.
>
>> But yeah, maybe I'm brain-damaged...
>
> That blog entry of mine was the #1 Google search result for "Ron Edwards
> Brain Damaged" at one point. Got a good comment by Will Mistretta :)
> "The Ayn Rand of RPGs, indeed".

The only rules in this regard I find even remotely tolerable are ones that 
_reward_ narrative play, rather than _penalize_ lack of it, or ( forbid) _require_ it...but then, after a 
quarter century in this hobby, I'm entitled to be a little crotchety...

        --T. M. Neeck
                (Feeling old yet?) 

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:58:34PM -0600, T. M. Neeck wrote:
>From: "Tim Hall" 
>> You're probably thinking of the Luck advantage
>There are some optional rules to that effect, especially in the current 
>edition, beyond the Luck family of advantages.  Most of these burn the same 
>currency used to develop characters (i.e., XP/CPs)

I had the "spend points to affect die rolls after the fact" mechanic
switched on in my Crimson Skies campaign, but most of the time the
players didn't use it - it's explicitly useless in combat, which was the
time they wanted to recover from failed die rolls quickly - when they
were looking for information or trying to charm members of the opposite
sex, they preferred to role-play the results of their failed rolls. :-)

-- 
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:51:42PM -0600, Tim Hall wrote:
>Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>> I'm not sure that I entirely agree with that (I think individual instances 
>> of games can end up very much like their source material without explicit 
>> rules), but I think that does sort of summarize a dichotomy in rules 
>> approaches.

I think what I was trying to get at is that the sort of story that will
flow out of, say, a Firefly RPG - assuming there are no rules in place
to encourage or force a particular story type - is not going to be the
same sort of story you get on the TV series. I think it's a fair
contention that anything vaguely artistic is shaped by the constraints
of the medium.

TV constraints are things like a  limited budget for special effects and
exotic sets, limited number of guest speaking parts, variable
availability of actors, limited filming time, and so on.  Role-playing
has a different set (ability of GM to portray multiple roles, game
session length, attention span of players). Therefore one's simply not
going to get the same sorts of story occurring naturally in both media.

-- 
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Roger Burton West wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:51:42PM -0600, Tim Hall wrote:

> I think what I was trying to get at is that the sort of story that will
> flow out of, say, a Firefly RPG - assuming there are no rules in place
> to encourage or force a particular story type - is not going to be the
> same sort of story you get on the TV series. I think it's a fair
> contention that anything vaguely artistic is shaped by the constraints
> of the medium.

>From what I've heard from several people, the Buffy RPG does a very good 
job of producing play like the tv series with very character-focused 
mechanics.  One of my Saturday group is planning on running a game, so 
I'll get to see how well it works in practice.

Based on that, it seems that it's possible to make character-focused games 
that emphasize play that suits a particular story.  The obvious key is 
have mechanics that reward in-genre play and marginalize out-of-genre 
play.

In some ways, I'm doing this in the soon to end Star Wars game I'm 
running.  Blasters aren't as effective as lightsabers; the Force can do a 
lot of things easily; the characters have a ship, but any sort of 
adventure trading they decide to do will be glossed over and mostly 
ignored.  The characters are Jedi, and the game rewards them doing Jedi 
things.

Hopefully I'll be able to manage similar tricks for the game I'm about to 
start running for Carl and Karen's group.  I just have to figure out what 
"in-genre play" is for the game.  :p


-Bill Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:12:25PM -0600, Tim Hall wrote:
>Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>> I still haven't found a workable balance.  I *like* character-can-do 
>> rules.  Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.
>The alternative is behind-the-scenes GM fudging, which is even more like 
>cheating.

Only if your rules say that the GM can't do whatever he likes. :-) This
comes back to the absolute power and trust relationship that I tend to
harp on about: the players trust me not to mess them about (so if
they've spent lots of points on a neat attack ability I'll let them get
some use out of it rather than just giving every bad guy invulnerability
to it), and because they trust me they don't mind my making strange
things happen - there's an assurance that there will eventually be an
explanation of some sort.

The opposite of this, as far as I'm concerned, is the D&D3.5-style game
with all its status flags and mechanistic detail: "I know that my (foo
power) should work this way on any monster that doesn't have (bar or baz
ability), and I'll argue with the DM if it doesn't". In some respects
that's very like the forced-narrativist games, except that the D&D rules
force you into a combat-orientated dungeon-bash instead. :-)

-- 
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Roger Burton West wrote:

RBW>Only if your rules say that the GM can't do whatever he likes. :-) This

It isn't exactly about "cheating" as in breaking the explicit rules of the 
game.  It's "cheating" as in "forcing a story instead of letting the story 
happen," if that makes sense.

Most of the time, story happens.  Well, all of the time, depending on your 
definition.  But I want the unsatisfying stories to not happen, where the 
dice or (less often) taking events to their logical, inevitable, but 
unforeseen conclusion results in characters not being protagonistic.  (And 
saying "Sometimes your character turns out not to be the protagonist" is, 
I'm sorry, a cop-out.  Unless you want it to happen that way, that is.  I 
like sometimes playing sidekicks, but retconning them into it is generally 
a feeble excuse for a broken story.)

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 11:40:46AM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

>It isn't exactly about "cheating" as in breaking the explicit rules of the 
>game.  It's "cheating" as in "forcing a story instead of letting the story 
>happen," if that makes sense.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I remain unconvinced
that any possible rule system is the way to get interesting stories to
happen. Cooperation between players and GM seems to me something that
either happens (as I'm fortunate enough to have with the groups in which
I play) or doesn't; rules that try to force the effects of cooperation
end up annoying a substantial fraction of the players (see rants from
T. M. Neeck and me, among others).

>Most of the time, story happens.  Well, all of the time, depending on your 
>definition.  But I want the unsatisfying stories to not happen, where the 
>dice or (less often) taking events to their logical, inevitable, but 
>unforeseen conclusion results in characters not being protagonistic.

I try to do that by shuffling things around behind the scenes. So the
players didn't spot the clue to where the bad guy is? OK, he's in the
place where they worked out that he _ought_ to be. I don't do this
_every_ time, and I never talk about specific cases when I might have
done it (because that breaks that "our decisions matter" illusion on
which some of the players' enjoyment relies - I try to make that
illusion a reality as far as possible).

-- 
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

TH>That blog entry of mine was the #1 Google search result for "Ron Edwards 
TH>Brain Damaged" at one point. Got a good comment by Will Mistretta :) 
TH>"The Ayn Rand of RPGs, indeed".

I suppose I'll have to Google for it, since I'm not able to find your 
archives...
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> TH>That blog entry of mine was the #1 Google search result for "Ron Edwards
> TH>Brain Damaged" at one point. Got a good comment by Will Mistretta :)
> TH>"The Ayn Rand of RPGs, indeed".
>
> I suppose I'll have to Google for it, since I'm not able to find your
> archives...

http://www.kalyr.com/weblog/games/001414.shtml


-Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Bill Hamilton wrote:

BH>http://www.kalyr.com/weblog/games/001414.shtml

But did you find that by Googling, or by an archive link?


----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> BH>http://www.kalyr.com/weblog/games/001414.shtml
> 
> But did you find that by Googling, or by an archive link?

I know my archives suck, OK :)

Actually, I find I google is the easiest way to find older posts even 
though it's my own site....

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
> BH>http://www.kalyr.com/weblog/games/001414.shtml
>
> But did you find that by Googling, or by an archive link?

Went to the "games" section of the blog and scrolled down some.


-Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Fiction again

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> I still haven't found a workable balance.  I *like* character-can-do
> rules.  Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.

While I like to create a good narrative, narrative isn't my end
goal... roleplaying, for me, is about "being and doing" and I fully
expect the rules to be about that.  I don't want the rules to be about 
_telling_ a story, I want them to be about _being_ the main character 
in a story.  And I think there's a fundamental difference between the 
two.

Narrative-focused rules can seem to be an entirely different kind of 
game to me.  If the game becomes _about the story of my character_ 
instead of _about my character_, it's a shift I'm finding I don't care 
for.

-- 
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                Gamers List Owner
   [  My Roleplaying Blog -- http://raven.phoenyx.net/mutterings/  ]
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/