James V pointed out something in the comments for the last article that I feel needs mention, although it more a case of how some players approach Personality Mechanics rather than the PMs themselves. They use them as excuses for the worst possible behavior.
Doing something because "that's what the character would do" has been around forever, and certainly happens in games with no PMs at all. Indeed, Alignment (it's own kind of PM, if a Meta-Game level one) has provided this excuse since day one.
PMs however take it a step further by providing an in-game mechanical excuse. Games like Poison'd that I've mentioned before show the extreme to which this can be taken. There is something about an actual rule that causes a subset of players to go where they wouldn't normally go, and indeed isn't that the whole idea behind such mechanics in the first place?
This simple fact is reason IMO to view any call for PMs with skepticism- some supporters are more interested in what they can get away with using mechanical backing, than they are with anything else.
Overall, I feel that players are completely responsible for what they bring to the table. And that breaking the group's social contract is grounds for being expelled no matter the excuse, PM inspired or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
It is an old problem for the hobby that people will behave as their character is "supposed to" so they can be disruptive. Adding rules that can encourage a jerk is a cause for pause.
I think it is important when you are building a rules set that the rules that can be abused are there because they are essential to play. I doubt that most gaming groups have this problem. There should be assumptions of a good level of trust between the people at the table to not be disruptive, so not every rule has to be scrutinized for its potential for abuse. Even then, PMs don't fit that criteria for me as needed which combined with its potential for misuse is a reason for me to not include them.
Here I go again agreeing with you. Say something outrageous this week.
Something outrageous... tall order, you'd think it would be easy for me :)
There's been a couple of interesting things about this series.
1. More debate than any other, including the GNS articles. More proof that GNS is fading from sight. And interesting that people do really love PMs.
2. Unlike my other series, I only intended to make one post and move on to other things. It became a series when people raised points that I overlooked. Which is cool in its own way.
A while ago I wrote a long reply to your series about GNS but I never posted it as a comment because I thought it was too harsh. :) Suffice to say that I think that the five articles were very biased and often quite inaccurate, mainly because of decontextualized quotations. I'm saying this just to point out that the absence of comments about your articles on the Big Model doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of interest. I have debated about the BM so many times that I lost the count... :)
About PMs: is there potential for abuse in the PMs? Probably there is, as for any other mechanic of a system. But the potential for abuse doesn't mean that PMs will actually be systematically abused! It depends on the priorities of the players. What I'm trying to say is that PMs are not "metaphysically" good nor bad. :) They are just tools, good for some style of gaming and bad for others. Personally, simply asking myself if I like them or not is meaningless... there are games where they represent a powerful instrument that allows players to develop a more focused and satisfying game with less effort, and games where they totally sucks. It depends on the game (especially on the integration of those mechanics with the rest of the system and on the kind of experience it's built to deliver) and, once again, on the priorities of players.
Reading your replies to other comments, I'm not sure you can accept that there are different styles of gaming and that each one of them can benefit from different and sometimes incompatible "tools". Am I misunderstanding you?
Ooops... I forgot...
If you have the time an if you are interested I would like to know your opinion about the Wordplay roleplaying system by Graham Spearing. You can donwload it here (it's the free version, released under a CC license): http://www.wordplaygames.co.uk/downloads.html
@Leonardo, it comes as no real surpise to me that the defenders of PMs end up being fans of the Forge and its rather depressing theories. After all, Forge designs are many ways nothing but PMs although the target is expanded somewhat beyond individual characters.
I certainly can accept there are different styles. Some are good, some are ok. Some like the Forge influenced ones are nothing but bad in the end. You'll find no love or acceptance of them from me.
You'd be better off reading www.story-games.com, this blog will have little of interest for you.
Note for other readers:
The Big Model was a grab bag of various RPG theories built on the foundation of GNS. It included other rather worthy work taken from non-Forge people (such as Karam/Drama/Fortune from Everway) although generally in a twisted version. There were even links to some of my own articles.
I didn't list it with the History of RPG Theory as it (as opposed to GNS) had no impact outside the Forge and little even there. It's used mostly to deflect GNS criticism by changing the terms of the debate.
Well, when I want to read the Story Games forum I go to www.story-games.com, when I want to read what you write I come here. The fact that I could disagree with what you say doesn't mean that I'm not interested in it. Also, why do you assume that I'm a "fan" of the Forge? For me the Big Model (today talking about GNS as a standalone concept is utterly misleading) is just a useful tool for analyzing my sessions from a specific perspective. It's not my "RPG Religion". I don't care if the BM is "true", I care about its usefulness as a tool. Metaphysical "truth" is for philosophers, not for me.
I didn't come here looking for love or acceptance but, until now, I also didn't think to find myself involved in an old "badwrongfun" argument (especially since I always talked about concrete things). With my last post I wanted to verify if that was the case or if I was just being mislead by my imagination. Now that I know the answer I think that anything I might say would be eventually filtered through a sort of distorting lens that would make any word pointless (to be clear: I'm not saying that my words would be intentionally distorted. I'm just saying that their meaning would be filtered and interpreted from a point of view that cannot acknowledge elements that are intrinsically "external" with respect to its perspective).
Gleichman, I really appreciate that you let me express my opinion about your posts. And, believe me or not, I will continue reading your blog, even when I find post I don't agree with. :)
@Leonardo, about WordPlay.
I think RISUS got there first and better and didn't see anything in my quick scan of WordPlay that improved upon it.
And like RISUS, I would never play it. I don't consider RPGs to be an exercise in dice rolling backed up by on the fly justification of how many dice you're about to roll. Such things are best done as a joke rpg, as RISUS was originally written to be.
I am not a big GNS or Forge fan. I find the tone of most of the Forge discussion to be condescending, and most of the GNS model to be purposly confusing, not because I am not smart enought to get it, but because the terms are not well thought out and are often defined contradictory to the intuitive meaning of the words.
With that said, I am getting the same vibe that Leonardo is getting. It seems entirely parallel to the crap that came out of the Forge. The vibe is "some games are good, some are bad, and if there is no right way to play, there is definitely a wrong way." This goes completely againts any effort to create a unified theory on gaming, which is what I thought that you were doing.
By claiming that certain elements are bad, and not recognising the potential benefits of the rules, you are making the same falacious leaps of logic that the Forge did. Namely, that yours is the oe true way. This sort of thing never ends well.
I was hoping to get a discussion of games and game theory that would allow us to completely ditch the GNS model. I was hoping that we could get past the mentality that some ways of playing are inferior to others. We still could, but the only way that it will happen here is if you can come to understand and accept other ways of playing than yours. As it stands, it seems that you didn't like GNS because your games were not considered cool by GNS. I thought that it was because you wanted a more complete theory of gaming.
Your historical perspective is interesting, but recent positions have made me wonder about your position on earlier theories. I hope that you can get over this recent perspective, because if not, you will definitely condemn youself to either obscurity as a game theorist, or just create another round of fractionating game theory debate.
I am ready to get past that sort of nastiness. Are you?
@Precocious Apprentice, if you're not a GNS fan- you certainly provide the impression of one. Perhaps you should review why that's the case?
In any event, you'll find two types of articles here. My general RPG Theory articles (Layers, S&T in Game design, etc.), and basically what are opinion articles about individual concepts or events of the hobby.
You'll find the first linked on the right under Core Theory, the rest will just be posted. Take or leave either as you like.
As for me, obscurity is a given. Why would I expect otherwise?
You should expect othewise because there is a hole to be filled. GNS is not a good theory. You have a relatively high profile (as far as RPG blogs go) blog, and you seem to have a historical perspective on the theory debates that could get you a good start at figuring out what not to do. You are familiar with the dialogue so far. And the effort so far seems to point toward this as your goal.
As for some posts being opinion, and some being core theory, I am sorry, I had not picked up on that. I just read the blog entries as they come up on RPG Bloggers network. It was an oversight on my part, but you have to admit that it was an easy mistake to make.
My point is that you can have opinions, but some of the ones you have had have been written about in a way that makes you seem partidularly biased. Everyone in biased, but when you set out to create theory, it is best if you leave the bias behind, because it can bias others against your theory. This is the main failing, in my opinion, of GNS. It was ceated by a highly biased indevidual. I am not a fan of GNS, not because I dislike the types of games that the creators of GNS did, but because I know that there are many ways to play that are marginalized by GNS. When I want to understand gaming as a whole, GNS provides a very narrow peak into what it means to game. This is not useful, and it makes conversations about gaming with people who play differently than GNS promotes hard. I am not here to promote my own style. I am here to learn of other ways to play, and to learn how to communicate in a meaningful way with people who play differently than I do. Theories that are not inclusive do not help me with this.
The only reason that I commented originally is that you had been laying out a fantastic foundation for new theorizing, but this seris of posts pointed out an area that you had overlooked. Then you decided to start telling people how wrong their way of playing is. I bet this is exactly what happened with GNS. I hope you don't make the same mistakes.
I don't think I've overlooked PMs, or I wouldn't have talked about them. I just dont' like them :)
In any case, they fit nicely in the Layers and other Core articles and can certainly be examined in that light. Those are rather value neutral, intended to be so upfront due to my experiences with the Threefold and GNS.
In fact I was considering doing so myself, mostly in respect to use with NPCs. There I consider them to have a good solid use even I approve of. Morale rules for followers and the like. Something for a future article.
Oh, and I don't think I have a high profile except perhaps with a small set of people. I'm getting around 50-60 hits a day including repeat visits. More than I expected, theory isn't nearly as interesting as say a D&D blog to most people.
I hope you don't make the same mistakes.
PA, I think there is some really good theory here, but it is one you simply have to take with a pinch of salt. I also wish that RPG theory could be a little more objective, but we are talking about a very subjective hobby. RPGs are an activity defined by a group of people getting together and make a long series of agreements on what will be a good time for them and not. From this, it's become natural for me to take each piece of theory on its own and judge its value for the games I like to run and play.
I honestly think the only real part of RPG theory that could be kept objective is a framework, a simple jargon that could be understood by anyone. Once you get into the finer details, it's all about explaining what you do and do not like.
And like RISUS, I would never play it.
Outrageous!
I enjoy RISUS a great deal, though I will admit it is a very light game and one has to be in the mood for it, like deciding between Wine or TANG when you're thirsty (for me anyway).
@James V: Ah, glad to rise to your challenge(tm)!
Actually I think it would be a blast for a comic beer and more beer game so I may have overstated when I said I never would play it.
Never a long term campaign. I tend to think only those terms sometimes.
"In fact I was considering doing so myself, mostly in respect to use with NPCs. There I consider them to have a good solid use even I approve of. Morale rules for followers and the like. Something for a future article."
Actually, this highlights it right here. It seems that you feel that there is a fundamental difference between GMing and playing. I don't think that they are all that different.
I can understand the opinion parts. I think I understand why you don't like PM rules. I only got a little miffed because it didn't seem like you understood why I like them. The tone seemed to say that you thought that my fun was less respectable than your fun. Tone is hard to get across in text, so that is why I addressed it.
I didn't mean to imply that you had overlooked the existance of PM rules. I meant to point out that you had overlooked the value of PM rules. You seem to imply here that when immersive RP is not the highest priority, then PM rules can be fun and have value. Is that correct? If not, why would they be good for the GM and not for the players?
@Precocious Apprentice: "You seem to imply here that when immersive RP is not the highest priority, then PM rules can be fun and have value. Is that correct?"
That's effectively correct. If one is wishing to skip what I consider role-playing (we can use the old r.g.f.a term immersion if you like, it more specific in this case i think), than PMs are the way to go if you want to game (or control) the character in other ways.
I may not like it, and may speak against it. I may consider it unrealistic. But it certainly works for those who accept the method and the result.
I think you just revealed the greatest divide in the gaming theory and fun/not fun discussion in RPGs. There are some people who focus on things that are not "realistic", and others who don't. I am purposly leaving the issue rather vague, and I tried to couch it in terms that would be least offensive to people, but this is usually the heart of most game arguments. The argument always devolves into "What is realism in games with wizards/dragons/orcs/elves/starships/evil supervillains" vs. "It should at least not disrupt my verisimilitude!" I think that difining this gap, and acknowledging this difference between the two sides sorta has to be a part of any RPG theory. It seems to difine what players like more than any other single issue in gaming. Being able to talk about this issue, and being able to understand the other side, is key to creating any theory of games that will have menaing to the gaming community as a whole. Doing it in a way that is not offensive to one side or the other has been the challenge it seems for each generation of theorists. I would suggest we start to work on this issue, as others will not result in any progress if this issue is not worked out.
Hi Gleichman!
Thank you for taking the time to quickly scan WordPlay and for writing your opinion. I appreciate it.
@Precocious Apprentice: I think the terms of the realism/verisimilitude isn't really as powerful as all that. It's typically just a problem of communication although there are exceptions.
Not that there is a divide mind you. But I don't consider it worse than Story-Game for example.
I'll likely be posting on it in the future.
Post a Comment