The GM should stop me!
contracycle:
There is a difference between moderating yourself and consenting to be moderated. Even when that consent is ongoing, they are experientially very different.
Callan S.:
To me, yes, there's a difference between someone who A: Hands their car keys to a friend before they start drinking and B: Someone who relies on willpower to not drive.
But all the same I'd call them both self moderation - even when guy A after a few drinks tries wrestling with his friend to get the keys.
Daniel B:
Quote from: Callan S. on December 30, 2009, 08:03:49 PM
To me, yes, there's a difference between someone who A: Hands their car keys to a friend before they start drinking and B: Someone who relies on willpower to not drive.
But all the same I'd call them both self moderation - even when guy A after a few drinks tries wrestling with his friend to get the keys.
They may in reality BE different forms of the same thing, but when we're talking about fiction, they FEEL quite different.
I used to spend virtually all of my time behind the GM's screen, but I hit the GM's version of writer's block a few years back and quit cold turkey. My friends (i.e. the players) have been taking on the role and passing it between themselves, and have many times asked me for advice, or checked with me on how the game is measuring up "fun-wise", or told me how they set things up mechanically and asked how it could have been done better.
I found myself uncomfortable with this for two reasons:
(1) I think being a GM is like being a writer; there's no right or wrong way, just ways that are more or less appealing to your particular audience, and
(2) I found it somewhat wrecks the experience, seeing the rigging behind the props and the writer's notes behind the script.
In my opinion, there is a vast gulf between active self-moderation and the handing off of moderation duties to another party, when the creation of fictional content is involved. Callan, this is as compared to your car-keys example, because no creative content is generated here. There is no fiction that could be potentially damaged when the responsibilities of moderation are freely passed around.
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
Quote
Well, you can't authoritively tell someone to take up authority - because obviously when you do so, your taking the full authority. The desire to self moderate and be ones own authority has to naturally occur (though I guess it can be seeded - but that seed has to grow by itself, if it does at all).
That might actually make a good RPG in itself, one themed on taking up authority for oneself not because one is told. Or not taking it.
But I'll add that a gamer can also take so much responsiblity in moderating himself that he is practically making a/the sessions game himself. If the rules/the author of the rules doesn't also take some of the weight/responsiblity, the rules are basically non content and worthless (RPG equivalent of stone soup).
The rules require the player to occasionally (as a "tax" for his own character's advancement, specifically) contribute certain bits of content, and give him the power to enforce his vision regarding those. That's where the rules end. There is some "soft" non-mechanical advice regarding how and why to do it, but following the rules alone produces acceptable enough outcomes. Limits can be set high or low, and there are subtle trade-offs to it. The system is pretty much self-correcting, however, and it's virtually impossible to screw things up.
It seems the player might not be trusting the system, consequently, though he clearly trusts the GM. Whether it's a learned behavior, I'm not sure, but probably so, considering Moreno's points. At the same time it seems the player lacks trust in himself, and therefore turns to external authority. This seems to be curiously conflicted with the player's desire to go wild creatively - in the instance I describe in my opening post, I sensed that moment of tension that he just couldn't resolve on his own. Or perhaps his creative vision was actually internally conflicted, thus hindering self-moderation?
(And I'd rather the player didn't turn to me since, well, that's not my job as the GM in this game. Also, as far as I'm concerned, after re-establishing my trust in the system, due to its self-correcting nature, the issue of my trust in the player becomes largely irrelevant.)
Now, I'm not particularly sure how well the player understands the rules at this point. The entry requirement for this campaign was that the players read the document, but that's hardly any guarantee of in-depth understanding. Assuming the text was approached with the trad mindset suggested by Moreno, chances are the reading was actually limited to resolution basics, as that's all there is for the player to know in an average trad game. Without learning to be attentive to hints of unusual dynamics, such things are always easy to miss in game texts.
contracycle,
Quote
Such a role can of course be taken by opposing players, but if as you describe, those players also stand to "benefit" from these abilities, then the oppositional role is not really functional at this point.
Note that no such thing is occurring here. The individual player does not benefit from the abilities he contributes directly. On the contrary, when contributing an ability, he necessarily gives up a certain share of potential spotlight. Now, the group (as a whole, including the GM) might benefit from such abilities, but that's beyond the individual player's control. The player only gets to provide specific options and set their limits, and later holds veto power regarding their usage that he deems improper.
Quote
I think the existence of the game world as an external entity which pushes back against the players' desires is important for a lot of people.
Yes, the system in question is all about it. In this particular instance, the rules make it the player's job to specify that external wall for the others (and in return, the others specify the walls for him). With that, the player isn't expected to self-moderate any more than the GM would typically have to moderate himself in some other game. What strikes me is the player's expectation that there should be another layer of moderation when a certain portion of GM authority is delegated to him. Even in trad gaming, the central, all-powerful GM would have no such safety net to rely on. The fact that the GM is the final arbiter in the trad setup does not mean he does not have to self-moderate.
Quote
I don't approve of describing these responses are a desire for "nannying" or "policing".
Well, I think the descriptors are adequate enough for the purposes of the discussion.
Also, I don't think I recall ever seeing any instance of functional trad gaming that included the "nannying" thing. Similarly, I don't recall there being any "testing itself against unsympathetic reality involved" in such cases - at most, those games involved players testing their wits against unsympathetic GM, on a purely social level, should they refuse to submit to "nannying" in a particular case.
Quote
The "problem" you describe is not a problem, the play style is not absurd, there is no delinquincy of responsibility, and it can be perfectly functional as long as appropriate expectations are shared by the participants.
The problem is, I can only remain unconvinced. In practice, I have never encountered the sort of hypotetical setup that you describe. The "appropriate expectations" seems to be the issue - such things tend to be very vague until a random transgression crashes the game, even in groups where the players think they know each other rather well.
But here's the thing: whenever someone talks trad gaming in such discussions, I feel a growing disconnect. It feels like some entirely different, barely related type of games are being discussed (with concerns of their own that likely do not necessarily apply to the matter at hand fully). Frankly speaking, I guess I'd rather not discuss trad gaming at all. I feel more comfortable discussing board games or video games than that vagueness.
Callan S.:
Daniel B, I think I'd argue the priority you setting on fiction over moderation. But my point was that they are both moderation - I'll totally grant they have very different effects, feels and ramifications and I think your post was illustrating that, if I understood it correctly. I don't think I disagree with you?
Hi Filip,
Quote
The rules require the player to occasionally (as a "tax" for his own character's advancement, specifically) contribute certain bits of content, and give him the power to enforce his vision regarding those. That's where the rules end. There is some "soft" non-mechanical advice regarding how and why to do it, but following the rules alone produces acceptable enough outcomes. Limits can be set high or low, and there are subtle trade-offs to it. The system is pretty much self-correcting, however, and it's virtually impossible to screw things up.
It seems the player might not be trusting the system, consequently, though he clearly trusts the GM. Whether it's a learned behavior, I'm not sure, but probably so, considering Moreno's points. At the same time it seems the player lacks trust in himself, and therefore turns to external authority. This seems to be curiously conflicted with the player's desire to go wild creatively - in the instance I describe in my opening post, I sensed that moment of tension that he just couldn't resolve on his own. Or perhaps his creative vision was actually internally conflicted, thus hindering self-moderation?
If I'm understanding you right on the impossible to screw up, that'd mean he doesn't need to self moderate at all (except at the most basic level of following procedure...assuming he can do so during those soft bits as well).
I miss-understood your point then - he doesn't need to self moderate?
Are you just looking at the sort of hurdle of just pushing past the hang up and playing and then finding it's all fine anyway? (assuming he does - it could be that the hang up wins and he decides not to play because of 'that problem')
Though I'll be cheeky and note in the same way he sought authority you also reflexively sought to provide authority at the 'auto solve the adventure' bit. You'd both be moving on from something. >:) *smiley is a cheeky but well meaning smile*
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page