|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 20, 2012 2:52:02 GMT -8
Thank you for that reply CC, you saved me much typing and yelling at my iPhones autocorrect 20 times in a row. The only caveat I would add is the original question was not should system exist but it's importance in application as a tool for giving flavour/assigning genre. Ie how much does the system predetermine these things as an unavoidable default being an emergent property of the system (without ambiguity)? I am reminded of the old philosophical debate tondo with knowledge and forms - what is the true form of a RPG and what essential properties do all RPG's share that allow us to have knowledge of them as being RPG's?? It's philosophy now framed in a question that has been debated for 1000's if years . . . So let's go . . . (see if this threads page count can crack 20)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 20, 2012 5:25:54 GMT -8
As a quick primer to Plato's Theory of Forms to help kick off the debate into further arcane territories of knowledge: 3 Minute Philosophy - www.othieves.com/philosophy/vid_plato.htm(as an aside the creator if 3 min philosophy hails from my home town and we have a common alma mater). (I do love a good debate with loads of people . . . I think you can see where this one is going )
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 20, 2012 5:30:00 GMT -8
The only caveat I would add is the original question was not should system exist but it's importance in application as a tool for giving flavour/assigning genre. Ie how much does the system predetermine these things as an unavoidable default being an emergent property of the system (without ambiguity)? A system exists, let’s say, regardless of system. That is not in question. I am in syncopation with Aaron here and with his argument in general. There is no debate on whether a system exists so long as the players are actively breathing life into the game of RPGs. However, I consider whether the system leaps from the printed page, comes from a box, or, and I argue, from the players themselves? The sound of one-hand clapping is when a player presents a system (GM = system) that no one is willing to play, which is no less a system itself and no less legitimate than, say, a brand named game everyone wants to play. Aaron makes the conclusion the system (I mean game) exists only when the players play and bring it to life – sometimes in unexpected and non-RAW ways – and I certainly agree here. This ballet is more than just the following numbered footprints on a printed page. There is genuine artistry involved in GMing, at both the simple level of the PC roles and the more complex level of the players’ intention. There is no artistry in playing a video game. Those passive games are like monopoly: requiring nothing more than a die roll, a standard action, a card play and come compete with official rules as impartial arbiter because the designer who wrote them designed a complete system. I would not describe the mechanics of Monopoly as being tools because there is nothing to actively build from it: STFU and play the game is entirely appropriate to this board game. The game is a beautiful concrete bunker and players play inside it or they do not – they certainly do not contribute to the system any more than a train lays its own tracks. This is an essential feature in the system of competitive board games. Am I attacking designers with my argument? I can only figure I am attacking the ballooning egos of some; but I am far from attacking designers of RPGs who, if you are following my argument, have a much more difficult task than board game designers that design the highway on which the board game is played. “Go to jail for three turns unless you roll double 6’s” is a systematic rule players cannot argue against, can only agree to play under, because the system exists without an inherent Fiat currency. How could the rules be modified and remain a competitive game people would play? So few trust real estate agents much less Bankers today. Could rules constriction be the unspoken reason behind Monte Cook’s decision to depart from DnD Next, I casually wonder…. If Mearle’s timetable is speaking the truth, and this is not simply a play to own the news cycle until product launch, Monte was a long way from completing his contract at WotC when he walked out. And then, suddenly, he has his own game on Kickstarter and I notice his game’s “focuses on story and ideas over mechanics.” It’s a coincidence definitely. I think we all certainly agree that RPGs have GM administrators at least at the level of Monopoly’s player who controls the bank. But the board game administrator cannot make partial or wholesale changes to the game system, nor can changes to that system be as wildly different as it is possible in RPGs from one game table to another. Trust is not a commodity for sale from The Bank in Monopoly. That’s why I say the GM is the system. If it were not so, there would not be so many people offering opinions on the topic of RPGs. AND, moreover, because RPGs exist outside of the traditional board game “system” paradigm, all those opinions are equally valid and ready to be incorporated into the listener’s system however much he or she chooses as GM.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 21, 2012 7:17:44 GMT -8
See, I don't agree with this because with a modular system you are building your own system out of the elements provided, but it is still the system. Your GM and players all interact and interpret said system, but for example you don't use the pieces to build a grim gritty campaign if you are trying to emulate My Little Pony. No, you don't, but the question then becomes "what inherent qualities does the system have if you can build it in many different ways?" You can't have it both ways: either a system can have strong characteristics which make it unsuitable for a certain range of stories/settings, OR it can be flexible and adaptable. Or to put it another way, either GURPS can be a deadly system that trains players not to charge into combat, OR it can be just as useful for pulpy-and-cinematic as it is for grim-and-gritty. For the people who contend that system doesn't matter, I pose the following: If system doesn't matter, and if you can run any type, genre, flavor, and/or tone of game in any system, there is never a need to modify that system. I don't think "system doesn't matter" means "system modification is never appropriate/desirable." Honestly, that position sounds to me more like something the "system does matter" side would say, because if you believe that, then it seems that the only solution to having a system that doesn't quite work for your story is to seek out a different system! Hmm, maybe I can define a third position for myself: how about "System is flexible"? (Within certain limits, anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 21, 2012 9:52:10 GMT -8
The problem is some people confuse 'system doesn't matter' with having 'no system at all' which is not the case. There should be a 'system' but how it evolves and how much it contributes to a certain type of experience is more the issue. I contend that a system emerges out of the dynamics of group interaction rather than the group interaction being delineated by the system . . . Their system is an emergent property of the game they wish to play be it RAW or Houseruled. The range of experiences within that emergent system therefore becoming a function of that process . . . '4e is combat heavy' yet 'it's lack of RP codification lends itself to plenty of free form RP outside of combat' . . . The group would then determine how much combat is involved as part of the whole 'collaborative storytelling' experience. One could imagine a 4e group that never rolls dice or gets into combat because that is the game that has emerged from their group interactions . . . Yet they're still playing 4e . . . in contrast to a group whose emergent system is styled on a 'D&D encounters type' campaign - one long dungeon delve with little exposition beyond the adventuring task at hand (combat).
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 21, 2012 16:59:32 GMT -8
The yard tool, no. they would be red box D&D, 1st edition, and 2nd edition D&D.
Seriously, why do we have to get all crazy existential just to say a group of mechanics does color how you role play in a situation?
I just listened to episode 9 and it explained things beautifully, in a very *short, concise manner* that I am just too damn lazy to type out here.
Just listen. It's nice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 21:44:56 GMT -8
The yard tool, no. they would be red box D&D, 1st edition, and 2nd edition D&D. Seriously, why do we have to get all crazy existential just to say a group of mechanics does color how you role play in a situation? I just listened to episode 9 and it explained things beautifully, in a very *short, concise manner* that I am just too damn lazy to type out here. Just listen. It's nice. Okay, let's use D&D as an example. I have to admit, I don't have first edition. I have the red box, and I played a lot of 2nd. Still have the books somewhere. I haven't finished reading the Red box entirely, but I'm mostly there, and it doesn't mention roleplaying at all. There is some alignment, but it seems to suggest only the types of decisions a character would make, and not really who they are as a person. So, can we say that early D&D basically doesn't tell you how to roleplay your character? I certainly haven't seen any mechanics associated with it as well. So it's freeform. You want to talk to the guard, you play that out with the GM, for good or ill. You aren't really incentivized to do so. I believe 2nd edition allowed for some bonus experience for good role playing, but I don't remember it being very much. Usually way less than you might get for killing something. Let's compare with Apocalypse World, because it's a pretty new game (two years old now) with a social mechanic system. In Apocalypse World, there are a few basic "moves" that every PC gets which affect social situations. Let's start with Read a Person. You roll dice on it. If you hit, you ask the other player (or GM) one of the following: "Is your character telling the truth?" "What is your character really feeling?" "What does your character intend to do?" "What does your character wish that I'd do?" "How could I get your character to ____?" These questions are player to player, not asked in game. So that's a hit. On a really good hit, you get to ask three. On a miss, they get to ask questions of you. In my experience, this helps people understand their character better, because they're forced to answer these questions. Also, it really helps resolve disputes. The best way at that is usually a compromise, but that seldom happens naturally in my experience. There are other moves. You can Seduce or Manipulate to get what you want. You could also Go Aggro if you want to go that route. The mechanics are similar in some ways. But there's more that feeds into this. On your character sheet, you have the names of the other PCs and value representing your history with them. This value in used in some of your rolls, and when it gets to a certain point, you reset it and gain experience. At the end of each session, each player pick character whom they feel knows their character better after that session. The player they choose gets a bonus to their history with you. Obviously, this gives a mechanical reason to entangle your character with the others at the table. It seems like I shouldn't have to tell you this, but in game, this plays totally different then D&D. The RP is fucking intense, man. I have been role playing for near twenty years, mostly D&D, and nothing I have seen from any version of D&D comes close to the same experience.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 21, 2012 23:31:07 GMT -8
The yard tool, no. they would be red box D&D, 1st edition, and 2nd edition D&D. Seriously, why do we have to get all crazy existential just to say a group of mechanics does color how you role play in a situation? I just listened to episode 9 and it explained things beautifully, in a very *short, concise manner* that I am just too damn lazy to type out here. Just listen. It's nice. Unfortunately that discussion got shut down way too early, or was started way too late into the podcast. I was enjoying it, and not disagreeing with it. I think had it gone on, some points would have been brought out. But the term system is not cut and dried RAW in RPGs and has to include the (let’s say) incalculable (from a designer’s perspective – players need to know each other) caprices of the GM; and is going to be a hobgoblin revisiting a discussion about "systems" influencing games due to their mechanics; interpretation of those mechanics in game; and the players application of mechanics in their roles - either in-character or as GM. Okay, let's use D&D as an example. I have to admit, I don't have first edition. I have the red box, and I played a lot of 2nd. Still have the books somewhere. I haven't finished reading the Red box entirely, but I'm mostly there, and it doesn't mention roleplaying at all. There is some alignment, but it seems to suggest only the types of decisions a character would make, and not really who they are as a person. So, can we say that early D&D basically doesn't tell you how to roleplay your character? I certainly haven't seen any mechanics associated with it as well. So it's freeform. You want to talk to the guard, you play that out with the GM, for good or ill. You aren't really incentivized to do so. I believe 2nd edition allowed for some bonus experience for good role playing, but I don't remember it being very much. Usually way less than you might get for killing something. Well, in AD&D 1e the amount of XPs granted for role-playing works by a factor of FOUR on the accumulated XPs for collecting gold. Deaths of monsters result in a very low XP count. By very low, I mean handfuls of XP that cannot get much lower without disappearing. Page 86, AD&D 1e: The GM (system RAW) mentally classified the overall performance of players (player characters were not differentiated from players avoiding the just playing my character situations). The RAW presents a scale from full XP down to 1/4. There is also associated the costs of living by using the same scale to determine the weeks of training and the in-game time required to spend away from adventuring. That is a substantial hit to XPs and GPs (GPs were XPs too.) Losing 75% of your XP for not RPing! I do not see this same emphasis on reinforcing role-playing in D&D 3.5, for example. If role-playing is automated, is it playing a role or The Horseman from Monopoly, asked the bear in the woods? As for determining the minutiae of role-playing opportunities via skills and such, the game specifically states (page 61 and elsewhere, I happened to open the book on that page) it was not written with that level of complication but with a view to abstraction, player interpretation, of action. Thus: no feats; skills; specifically describing in detail how to scale a building, or safe pick, etc. Let's compare with Apocalypse World, because it's a pretty new game (two years old now) with a social mechanic system. In Apocalypse World, there are a few basic "moves" that every PC gets which affect social situations. Let's start with Read a Person. You roll dice on it. If you hit, you ask the other player (or GM) one of the following: "Is your character telling the truth?" "What is your character really feeling?" "What does your character intend to do?" "What does your character wish that I'd do?" "How could I get your character to ____?" These questions are player to player, not asked in game. So that's a hit. On a really good hit, you get to ask three. On a miss, they get to ask questions of you. In my experience, this helps people understand their character better, because they're forced to answer these questions. Also, it really helps resolve disputes. The best way at that is usually a compromise, but that seldom happens naturally in my experience. There are other moves. You can Seduce or Manipulate to get what you want. You could also Go Aggro if you want to go that route. The mechanics are similar in some ways. But there's more that feeds into this. On your character sheet, you have the names of the other PCs and value representing your history with them. This value in used in some of your rolls, and when it gets to a certain point, you reset it and gain experience. At the end of each session, each player pick character whom they feel knows their character better after that session. The player they choose gets a bonus to their history with you. Obviously, this gives a mechanical reason to entangle your character with the others at the table. It seems like I shouldn't have to tell you this, but in game, this plays totally different then D&D. The RP is fucking intense, man. I have been role playing for near twenty years, mostly D&D, and nothing I have seen from any version of D&D comes close to the same experience. I would hate the automated straightjacket this game would play out to me, RAW. Again, if Stu were to run the game in a genre I wanted to play, I would definitely give it a try. That's not because he is a famous podcaster and beer connoisseur but because in the exchanges I have had with him he seems to be a GM/person that would offer me a fun game experience regardless of RAW game system he implements, and we would fit together at the table - perhaps these two points are one and the same: we would both have fun playing together. By describing the game, within the context of system matters, you are privileging the argument that there is, by fact of what you consider this to be superior RAW system mechanic, a wrong way to play RPGs. Essentially, it appears, Apocalypse World is a better system for role-playing and D&D does not compare favorably or even at all – whereas the system (removed from the GM = System equation as its definition) is not important is the argument that informs “there is no wrong way to play an RPG.” (The appearance for an edition wars debate is evident in your comparison, whether or not that is your actual intention, which I believe it is not.)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 0:52:19 GMT -8
The system cannot determine the amount of emotional investment a player puts into a character. The player, thru his/her experience with the GM, makes this happen or not. Certain people might respond to a codified method of doing this others will be unaffected - I'm an ex-smoker because cigs cost too much now, a decision of economics, the antismoking ads did not affect me at all but they did affect some of my peers. I've seen players, grown men, weep at a table at the loss of a cherished character in a combat heavy game and seen other players laugh off afterwards some dark intense emotional experience in say the likes of a WoD game . . . (Not as some emotional defence either but because "it's just a game")
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 1:23:56 GMT -8
The system cannot determine the amount of emotional investment a player puts into a character. What about game supplements like Central Casting? Or Cyberpunk 2020' s Lifepaths? All that detailed background rolled up at character generation in some games, like in D&D NeXt for example - stuff that will inform the game's mechanics? Are you casually dismissing these published tools, Aaron? The player, thru his/her experience with the GM, makes this happen or not. I quite agree with Stu's GM application of a system argument happening here. And I have my own argument, too. And while I agree with your statement above, and elsewhere in general, I would like some clarification; please?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 1:52:59 GMT -8
The system cannot determine the amount of emotional investment a player puts into a character. What about game supplements like Central Casting? Or Cyberpunk 2020' s Lifepaths? All that detailed background rolled up at character generation in some games, like in D&D NeXt for example - stuff that will inform the game's mechanics? Are you casually dismissing these published tools, Aaron? The player, thru his/her experience with the GM, makes this happen or not. I quite agree with Stu's GM application of a system argument happening here. And I have my own argument, too. And while I agree with your statement above, and elsewhere in general, I would like some clarification; please? No I'm not dismissing them . . . They are character development which is different from emotional investment. I can have a well rounded detailed character that I care little about, I have one at this moment . . . The character is fun and interesting but live or die or whatever I'm not invested in that character as much as others. The tools above just inform the mechanic but they don't create RP or force the experience . . . That has to come from the players and the group. The reason there is so much debate it because . . . As noted previously . . . There were no guides it ruled to actual RP, 'in the day' we made that shit up as we went along . . . Some very enterprising individuals then codified these 'revelations' as a new 'system' the masses then stood back in awe of this 'knowledge' bequeathed. What the masses fail to realise us that these revelations started with them at gaming tables across the globe as different people RP'ed differently. We should never assume that the table top experience is consistent because that's hubris . . . The old UK modules were very different from the the US ones (sinister secret if salt marsh etc) in tone and flavour because they were informed by the RP experience in the UK as slightly different from the USA (then there was white dwarf mag and the original fiend folio) . . . How RP happens depends on the group and what informs that group as to what is RP and the accepted mores/conventions used. Eg: I've heard on podcast of a GM who says once game begun all conversation is in character . . . And there was a group mental orgasm over this practice . . . I disagree with this approach because I'd call the GM an anally retentive fascist control freak then walk out because for me RP is a game to be enjoyed as a social exercise with a group of friends/associates. Side treks . . . Casual discussion etc are all part of the game table experience . . . Along with Jim Daniels and crisps . . . But that's the dynamic of the groups I play with and it differs from other groups regardless if system but dependant in GM/Player dynamics (I don't mind bruef out if game discussions about x y z that result from some in game occurrence . . . They're often interesting and part if the social element if RP for me)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 3:07:08 GMT -8
As a side note about Central Casting . . . They look brilliant until you read part of one of the charts hidden away in the middle. It disturbed me because they didn't just gloss over or avoid a certain issue of personal moral choice/understanding they actually imply condemnation of that lifestyle choice while hiding behind the well practiced phrases of those used to expressing a certain amount of bigotry whilst being mindful of legal consequences. Maybe it's just me but I object to covert social engineering . . .
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 3:24:16 GMT -8
covert social engineering . . . Welcome to my world. [edit] Now that I say that Stu will hate me... Well, think of me the way I thought of myself while I was practicing all those years: as one of The Magnificent Seven.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 3:24:38 GMT -8
What about game supplements like Central Casting? Or Cyberpunk 2020' s Lifepaths? All that detailed background rolled up at character generation in some games, like in D&D NeXt for example - stuff that will inform the game's mechanics? Are you casually dismissing these published tools, Aaron? I quite agree with Stu's GM application of a system argument happening here. And I have my own argument, too. And while I agree with your statement above, and elsewhere in general, I would like some clarification; please? No I'm not dismissing them . . . They are character development which is different from emotional investment. I can have a well rounded detailed character that I care little about, I have one at this moment . . . The character is fun and interesting but live or die or whatever I'm not invested in that character as much as others. Are you saying RPGs must create within its system (your definition of a player centric “bottom-up” system – the group dynamic experience being “the system”) the emotional investment; that this is an intricate fundamental to RPGs (and, according to system, the people who play them)? And, separately, though in concert, that this matters to system more than mechanics from anyone specific game (what other might term system – but is a game)? And I have a question: Is it not just as legitimate in RPGs to join a group to bully the other players and claim that’s what my character would do, in either a player character role or in the role of GM? Is that acting out an equally valid definition of emotional investment in the context of the game? The tools above just inform the mechanic but they don't create RP or force the experience . . . That has to come from the players and the group. The reason there is so much debate it because . . . As noted previously . . . There were no guides it ruled to actual RP, 'in the day' we made that shit up as we went along . . . Some very enterprising individuals then codified these 'revelations' as a new 'system' the masses then stood back in awe of this 'knowledge' bequeathed. What the masses fail to realise us that these revelations started with them at gaming tables across the globe as different people RP'ed differently. And they were only playing their game, and not their system, until they were published… We should never assume that the table top experience is consistent because that's hubris . And this hubris is insidiously deleterious to the hobby. Try forming a group when the players suffer this hubris! . . The old UK modules were very different from the the US ones (sinister secret if salt marsh etc) in tone and flavour because they were informed by the RP experience in the UK as slightly different from the USA (then there was white dwarf mag and the original fiend folio) . . . How RP happens depends on the group and what informs that group as to what is RP and the accepted mores/conventions used. Eg: I've heard on podcast of a GM who says once game begun all conversation is in character . . . And there was a group mental orgasm over this practice . . . I disagree with this approach because I'd call the GM an anally retentive fascist control freak then walk out because for me RP is a game to be enjoyed as a social exercise with a group of friends/associates. Side treks . . . Casual discussion etc are all part of the game table experience . . . Along with Jim Daniels and crisps . . . But that's the dynamic of the groups I play with and it differs from other groups regardless if system but dependant in GM/Player dynamics (I don't mind bruef out if game discussions about x y z that result from some in game occurrence . . . They're often interesting and part if the social element if RP for me) This is my experience with RPGs in cross-culture. We recently had an enquiry of our Facebook group from a video game designer, hired on to the Cyberpunk 2020 project being done in Warsaw. He took one look at us and offered to run a 4e game. Apparently his system (GM = system) was in more conflict that it was worth to join either the RAW Pathfinder or OSR D&D. He will have less trouble to recruit players at work than if he were to use the information boards I used for expatriates seeking friends.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 3:56:21 GMT -8
Emotional investment = engaged with the 'being the character' and concerned for its development/achieving goals as both a player outside the character and a player in character. Ie when the character becomes an extension of ones identity seen thru the lens of an RP world . . . Sometimes it's not a bad thing to 'be' the character or to allow the character to be your avatar - NOT a Mary Sue but an alternate you with different strengths and weaknesses more akin to the 'What If?' tropes in comics . . . This exploration of self can be positive/cathartic/challenging and should not be dismissed. But it doesn't rely on the mechanics of a system to make it happen . . . There are systems that attempt to do this as an exercise in codification of certain styles of game. Again though I say of those designers that it is something that either happens or it doesn't . . . System agnostic books on GM style and approach go much further in helping to conduct and encourage RP compared to the use of overt system mechanics. The likes of Burning Wheel with explicitly stated rules and assumptions about in game conduct are just too anally retentive and self reverential for my liking . . . I could go on about what I believe such designers are actually promoting but I don't want to offend people who enjoy that particular game (if it suits your style 'rock on': a games a games a game)
|
|