Ruminations on the Impossible Dream Before Breakfast
Daniel B:
I have no expectations of anyone responding to this post, but I'll gladly reply to anyone who does. I'm really more expressing a conclusion I've come to, because I thought it might be interesting to other people out there.
From the Forge Glossary:
Quote
Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.
It's something I've thought a lot, a lot, a lot about because I know that it is a logical contradiction (and therefore truly deserves the title "Impossible Dream.."), but I also deeply feel that I hunger for something that the definition seems to describe, or at least relates to. Fine, so, I started to wonder what exactly is that something? Well, part of the attraction of non-computer RPGs is complete and utter control over your character in the game world. This is the "players direct the actions of the protagonists" part, but it's bigger than that. You also direct the actions of a virtual avatar. In a Pen & Paper RPG, you can do absolutely anything!
So, if the real meat is PC-freewill, why do we even want the GM to be in control? Who cares?
Sure, we could get rid of the GM, and do or build or destroy stuff in the game, but it lacks bite. It's a sandbox. "The GM is the author of the story" bit is intended to fix that, since the GM could (theoretically) turn it into an interesting story, but again this is a contradiction. I'm not willing to give up PC-freewill, but I also want some of the story-bite, so what to do?
A bit of a tangent, but it's relevant. One of my absolute favourite videogames in existence was the N64's "Banjo Kazooie". If you haven't played it, I apologize, you'll have to just try and empathize in order to relate. Like pretty much all computer games, it was an example of pretty heavy-handed illusionism, but computers have finite memory so we all accept it and play anyway. For awhile now, I have understood that the reason I found the game to be so much fun is that it was built (possibly unintentionally, but I strongly suspect otherwise) according to certain principles of learning and growth. A chart showing the stages of growth can be found here.
Pretty much the central core of the game is that you learn about and practice a specific set of skills available to your bear & bird. By beating each level, you prove to yourself that you have mastered that particular skill set. Anyone who played it should have noticed that when you take on the final boss of the game, Gruntilda, you have to use each and every skill you've learned in a high-pressure environment. The enjoyment of that game came from having learned the skills yourself and used them to defeat the challenges that were presented to you, especially the last challenge. The game had bite, but it was pure illusionism (.. and poor illusionism at that.)
It sounds like I'm arguing in favour of illusionism, but I'm not. What I'm trying to do is identify what it is about illusionism that satisfies the hunger I mentioned earlier. I claim that the enjoyment achieved in this way is through the "celebration of identity", or in other words, learning more about yourself by mastering the character and seeing yourself through that character. Incidentally, the idea of enjoyment through exploration of identity was not originally my idea. I'd wondered for a long time what made that game so much fun, and made the connection after reading "Designing Virtual Worlds" (Richard A. Bartle). (Check it out. It's intended for electronic worlds but it's a great resource.)
So if this pattern of growth and character mastery is what is truly important, illusionism is no longer a prerequisite for getting that bite. In fact, illusionism would seem counter-productive because the players are no longer free to explore their own identities, instead being forced to explore the roles assigned to their characters as required by the plot of the GM's story. Multiple paths are forced to converge to meet at one single end point. (I suppose illusionism can be made to work if it is handled very delicately, and the GM knows his players.)
An alternative, then, might be turn to illusionism on its head; I propose a sort of reverse illusionism? Although the PCs (naturally) start at one place, they explore the world as they wish. The job of the GM is to track what skills the PCs are gaining and how they are using them. At some point, each given suite of skills solidify and the GM then presents the PCs with a challenge tailored to those skills. After a few iterations of this, the adventure would naturally feel like it was nearing an end, so the GM would present a final challenge that would require the PCs to take advantage of most or all of their skills in order to succeed.
Is this just another form of illusionism, in disguise? Hrm, maybe, but I don't think so. The world would adapt to the players, rather than the players' having to adapt to the story.
Daniel
Adam Dray:
Fascinating post! I hope people do respond to this and discuss it. It's pretty theoretical, though, and you might better serve your ideas by posting some actual play that illuminates examples of what you mean. CRPG actual play is kinda-sorta okay for this, but not really, ya know? The difference between a CRPG and a TRPG is larger than most people think.
First of all, the real meat of play is not "PC-freewill." It's player free will. For a game to be fun, players need to believe that their choices matter. Illusionism sets up a game where players believe their choices matter, but they really don't, because the GM is forcing things behind the curtain. When the players inevitably realize that the long serious of decisions they've made had no actual impact on the story, things usually collapse.
Some caveat words in there, like "usually" and such. Yeah, sometimes players just want to be entertained, let the GM to tell them a story, and go along for the ride while adding bits of color for their characters. And full-on 100% Illusionism is pretty rare, I think, because even Illusionist GMs react in some part to the actions of the players. However, tossing in occasional "free will" consequences where it doesn't matter to the GM can strengthen the GM's power over the illusion. It makes the players believe their actions always make a difference, but the GM knows that isn't true.
Additionally, as long as players are having fun, I don't have much bad to say about Illusionist play. I think, in most cases, adults who play in this style probably know what's going on but don't want to spoil the fun for themselves. They're pulling the curtain shut tight for themselves. It's not exactly Participationism, but it's pretty close.
Given two choices, however, which path would you take?
A) Your GM has a story he will tell. You have a little leeway to maneuver within the grand story the GM is telling, but no matter what you do, the story will turn out the way the GM has planned it. Your actions cannot influence that greater story in any way.
B) Your GM has no story. You have complete control over the decisions you make for your character, and those choices have meaning. Whether you make "good" or "bad" choices, the GM will apply the consequences of those choices. The story will shift accordingly.
Given those two choices, let's assume for a second that both potential stories will be of equal quality. That is, at the end of play (a session, a month, a year, a decade, whatever), you will look back at "the story" told along each path and judge it excellent. Given an excellent story, would you rather have free will as a player or would you rather have no influence on the story at all?
I realize the justification for GM-force / railroading / illusionism often is that it guarantees a good story. It keeps the characters alive. It produces a more "story like" story. It paces a story properly. And so on. Let's assume for a second that the illusionist method will produce an excellent story, guaranteed, but the player-agency method may or may not. Do you want to role-play a character for a decade through an excellent story in which you have no control? Is that what role-playing is to you? I'd prefer to take my chances that the story might turn out in a way I didn't expect but know that all my choices (and m friends' choices) led to that end.
So I have a group of friends together, and we're going to tell stories. That's role-playing, in my mind. We're going to share the responsibility for telling the stories. And hopefully we're all in agreement about the kind of story we want to tell--and the kinds of creative choices that matter to us. Really, "the story" is the destination, not the journey.
At the end of an evening of play, I want a personal story that is about me, not just about my character. After a night of playing D&D 4E, I want to talk about how my sorcerer pwned the dragon--but that story is really about how I built a kick-ass character and played him effectively, working closely with other players to create tactics that effectively overpowered a dangerous opponent. After a night of playing Apocalypse World, I want to talk about how Ebb the Operator sold out almost everything he believes in to survive another day, and how he's okay with that--but that story is really about how my friends and I are slowly drawing this terrible, horrible world and "discovering" its details and themes. After a night of playing My Life with Master, I want to talk about how the evil Master forced everyone's minions to kidnap children and distill their life force--but that story is really about how the players and GM addressed some difficult subject material (like co-dependence and abuse and violence) in an extremely poignant and disturbing way.
I like your "celebration of identity" idea. Is that your own phrase or did you see that somewhere? I think skill mastery is a clever technique for improving player-character identification. As the character masters a skill, so must the player, who mentally correlates his mastery with the character's. Look at D&D 4E. As you learn how best to use your PC's powers, you become a more effective player, but your character also becomes more effective. Then you level up and you have new powers to master but also tougher challenges to face. That's the reward cycle for that game. It's definitely not the reward cycle for all games, though.
For your "reverse illusionism" idea, you should take a look at the Burning Wheel game, which I think does exactly what you're proposing. It goes one more step, though. Characters get Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits which serve as beacons for the GM to know where the player wants to take the story--or really, what the story is. The player can rewrite them during play, too.
contracycle:
Quote from: Adam Dray on September 20, 2010, 07:31:19 AM
Given two choices, however, which path would you take?
A) Your GM has a story he will tell. You have a little leeway to maneuver within the grand story the GM is telling, but no matter what you do, the story will turn out the way the GM has planned it. Your actions cannot influence that greater story in any way.
B) Your GM has no story. You have complete control over the decisions you make for your character, and those choices have meaning. Whether you make "good" or "bad" choices, the GM will apply the consequences of those choices. The story will shift accordingly.
I would take A.
Quote
Given those two choices, let's assume for a second that both potential stories will be of equal quality.
But that is precisely the question. I don't think they will be of equal quality.
Quote
Do you want to role-play a character for a decade through an excellent story in which you have no control? Is that what role-playing is to you? I'd prefer to take my chances that the story might turn out in a way I didn't expect but know that all my choices (and m friends' choices) led to that end.
I think that's a gross exageration, and will counter in kind. The players make some decision and oh dear, they all get killed. Character A didn't get its revenge. Character B did not resolve it's issues with its father. Whatever. But you all made your "choice" right? You brought about your end by your own agency, is it therefore satisfying? No, I don't think it is.
You know, I've now read a goodly few AP reports of the sort of play you describe, player directed, "choice" rich, yada yada, and I still don't know where the fun is. To me, they look boring, deathly dull. Maybe you could say thats because I wasn't there, was not playing, but other people have commented approvingly and expressing interest, and I just don't know why.
So, whatever else might be said, the kind of game you describe is not for me. Following on from that, I think a lot of the criticism directed at Illusionist play is simplistic and wrong, relying on the worst possible examples from a range of real behaviours and therefore drawing erroneous conclusions from them.
Daniel B:
Actually, I in no way meant to pan illusionism. Truth be told, it's the technique I use regularly as a GM !
Also, I do agree that the ability to choose by itself is not a magic bullet, for precisely the reasons Contracycle has described. TPKs just SUCK. If they're rare and in my mind well-deserved, then so be it, but I don't want it to happen just because "the universe is a cold and unforgiving place". Screw the universe. I want to have a good time.
However, that attitude of "screw the universe, I want to have a good time" is why I'm trying so hard to walk that fine line between player free-will and mechanisms for organically emergent bite. I think it is simply illuminating to separate the latter from illusionism, because they don't have to be the same thing.
Quote from: Adam Dray on September 20, 2010, 07:31:19 AM
At the end of an evening of play, I want a personal story that is about me, not just about my character. After a night of playing D&D 4E, I want to talk about how my sorcerer pwned the dragon--but that story is really about how I built a kick-ass character and played him effectively, working closely with other players to create tactics that effectively overpowered a dangerous opponent. After a night of playing Apocalypse World, I want to talk about how Ebb the Operator sold out almost everything he believes in to survive another day, and how he's okay with that--but that story is really about how my friends and I are slowly drawing this terrible, horrible world and "discovering" its details and themes. After a night of playing My Life with Master, I want to talk about how the evil Master forced everyone's minions to kidnap children and distill their life force--but that story is really about how the players and GM addressed some difficult subject material (like co-dependence and abuse and violence) in an extremely poignant and disturbing way.
Adam, I like this. It "tastes" like what I'm looking for. On the other hand, in reading it, it kinda makes me wonder if this is all just beating down paths that have been beaten down before; i.e. concluding that Sim is just undecided Gamist/Narrativist. Unfortunately I don't have more Actual Play yet so it's all still just theoretical anyway. (I had to stop game designing and playing for a long span due to strife in my life, but it is coming to an end.)
Quote from: Adam Dray on September 20, 2010, 07:31:19 AM
I like your "celebration of identity" idea. Is that your own phrase or did you see that somewhere?
Not mine and not available on the web unfortunately. Check here. (I dislike taking credit for other peoples' ideas, so don't anyone else think I'm advertising please.) Nah, there's got to be something more to Sim. I'm convinced that "celebration of identity" is truly on to something deep in the human psyche .. or mine at least.
Dan
masqueradeball:
I'm starting to think that the pursuit of "Story" is the biggest red herring that *certain* role players can try to chase after. Why do we need to be telling a story at all? Is a dungeon in D&D really a story? Sure, we frame the fighting in the context of the PC's being lured into the dungeon with promise of loots or whatever, but that is all that is, framing.
When I run games they might seem like stories in the traditional sense, thats because I borrow a lot techniques from other forms of fiction to help create the kind of player experience I want, but I have one method of running games that works for me and the people I've played with, and everything else I've tried was sort of like Jack Skellington's attempt at Christmas...
That method. Make up difficult or interesting situations and throw them at the players, who have made difficult and interesting characters who then respond to the shit that's being thrown at them. There's a sense of continuity, the events in the games could be related like a story, I use dramatic techniques to keep the experience interesting, but I am NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO MAKE A GOOD STORY, or address themes or otherwise attempting to create a product that can be examined or appreciate outside of the experience of play.
Does this mean that this is the method that everyone should use? No, of course not, I'm just putting myself out there as an example of a gamer who's made years of fun for himself and others without ever once stopping to think about whether what he was creating was good stories... though thats something I've become interested in lately, like I said at the beginning, I'm starting to think that for me story has been a red herring.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page