As I said before, they went through a complicated and thus unusual process, but the end result is still animation. That process was a computer algorithm that turned live action into animation. "Painted over" is a rather crude and insufficient term for what they actually did. In any case, it's still animation regardless of how it started.
Animation may traditionally come from hand drawing, but consider a computer printer which does not but put ink on paper, should everything a printer prints be labeled a drawing because it is ink on paper? Or should we call a printed photograph a photo and a printed sketch a sketch?
There are characteristics that make animation what it is, and though traditionally achieved by hand, computers can now replicate the process but it still needs to know what we want it to create and film is just how we communicate to the computer what to create an animation of.
If the characters in the movie are really excited and wave their arms about, can we call THAT animation, since they're really animated?
What about Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Cool World, or Monkeybone? Those are movies WITH animation in them. Are they animation?
What about a game that simulates reality but rolls under a number with modifiers instead of having set DCs? Can we still call it simulationist even if we don't like the method?
Upthread you've said
Quote:
D20 is better than others at being a tool for solving freeform issues of comunication, tension, consistency, etc.
So you've only picked a couple aspects of RPG games, sure, but you've clearly asserted that the D20 system is "better" than others at those aspects.
I'm glad you feel that way. I disagree. my OPINION differs from yours. However, we are now 200 + posts in and you are still arguing different angles, takes and rewordings of what amounts to opinions.
The fact is that communication, tension, and consistency can exist in any TTRPG, so long as the people at the table are good at those skills. If you're playing a D20 game but the GM is saying "You see a lock. What do you do?" and the players are saying "Disable Device. My rolls is... 21" to which the GM replies "Open. What do you do?" tension wasn't really conveyed.
Your contentions are subjective. Even the math challenges you made between gurps and D20 are weird. Somehow the D20 system is better b/c DCs are somewhat fixed and you have to roll OVER them, while in gurps the baseline is to be rolled under with 3d6 and the GM applies modifiers to simulate difficulty. While many have argued they don't like the bell curve from gurps, that's still their opinion. Technically the mechanic is still mathematically sound, there's nothing inherently WRONG with it, and in one way that simulates reality.
Lastly, in PF 1e the DCs are suggested in the skills, like a lock with a DC 20 to be disabled. Except, varying degrees of lock complexity raise the DC. Also, the GM can arbitrarily apply situational modifiers. Maybe the lock is rusted, imposing a -2 to the roll; maybe that ooze attack left the PC and his gear soiled for another -2.
I kind of feel like this thread isn't an exploration of Milieu/Mechanics and the sub categories you mentioned in your first post. Maybe the discussion has meandered a bit. More than that, it kind of feels like most of the arguments are subjective, like D20 being better than Rolemaster or GURPS at being simulationist or managing tension.
IC, the one thing I can point to that is a fact is that mechanically, in the D20 system, a roll specifically translates to SOMETHING sometimes, as opposed to rolls just being a pass or a fail. Specifically with the Jump skill. If you take a 10' move ahead of time, then jump horizontally, a total check of 7 is GUARANTEED to move your character 7' horizontally.
Yes, some rolls in D20 translate to something you can count on, something consistent. However, if your PC needs to CLEAR 20' and you only roll a 12, you still don't succeed.
I don't know. I apologize I to the C if I'm STILL not getting it. We started out disputing GNS, then we moved back and forth over style being a function of system or players; we've also crisscrossed over the "D20 is better..." or "no, I'm NOT saying D20 is better...' territory. I honestly don't know what we're actually haggling over anymore.
Except to say that ALL of it appears to be folks' opinions. Cool. You feel a way, I don't, and QB REALLY doesn't. TOZ, as always, feels like the human equivalent of a smirk.
IC, the one thing I can point to that is a fact is that mechanically, in the D20 system, a roll specifically translates to SOMETHING sometimes, as opposed to rolls just being a pass or a fail. Specifically with the Jump skill. If you take a 10' move ahead of time, then jump horizontally, a total check of 7 is GUARANTEED to move your character 7' horizontally.
Yes, some rolls in D20 translate to something you can count on, something consistent. However, if your PC needs to CLEAR 20' and you only roll a 12, you still don't succeed.
Even that isn't quite true. Functionally even the Jump rules in d20 are overwhelmingly pass/fail, not a measure of how far you move. Unless you are specifically jumping as far as you can.
If someone with a penalty to Jump (from armor or some such) tries to jump a 5' pit and gets a 1 on the die, they don't move backwards, they fail to make the DC and fall in the pit.
If you need to jump a 10' to a 5' pillar in the middle of a larger chasm, you need to make the DC for jumping to the pillar. You don't go sailing past if the result is above a 15.
Beat the DC for an obstacle and you land on the other side of it, not some distance past it based on the roll - though you could if you wanted to in some cases.
It really is mostly a pass/fail system, that occasionally has something else tacked in for edge cases where it's obvious and maybe useful.
Somehow the D20 system is better b/c DCs are somewhat fixed and you have to roll OVER them,
That is not what I said. Not in the slightest.
---
One thing you are correct about though, is the meandering. People say X, Y, Z, and I tend to get caught up in responding to all these various points and lose track of the one point I'm really trying to make.
---
So, to get back on topic,
Brandon Sanderson talks about how on his first panel at a con, he was asked about making magic systems and he said that, to paraphrase, "first one must consider the rules of the magic," to which the others on the panel responded with emphatic "No! Rules ruin magic and take away the wonder!"
Do you see how there is a fundemental distinction between how Sanderson thinks and how the others think? It isn't so much opinion as method of thinking. Magic that is wondrous can't have rules but also can't solve problems satisfactorily, while rules allow the solving of problems in a satisfactory way but degrade the sense of wonder. Because of this argument at the panel, Sanderson ws able realize this and make his laws of magic, but notice how both sides initially thought in completely contradictory ways, believing their way to be of critical importance to making magic good.
This is my view on playstyles. There is a way of thinking which drives the popular way to play which in turn drives modern design. I have experience with a different way to play which usually leads to playing rules-light or more often freeform. However, because I can see both ways of playing, I can see a path of fusion which uses mechanics in a particular way that is radically different from how rules are used in the popular style.
However, because it comes from how one thinks (the methods of how they subconsciously analyze and understand situations, and thus develop strategies in response), the difference is not obvious and requires questioning one's own worldview in regards to the gameplay. Without that, you'll only ever look at my words from within your own matrix of expectations and never understand that the matrix of expectations itself is what I'm saying can be different.
This is my view on playstyles. There is a way of thinking which drives the popular way to play which in turn drives modern design. I have experience with a different way to play which usually leads to playing rules-light or more often freeform. However, because I can see both ways of playing, I can see a path of fusion which uses mechanics in a particular way that is radically different from how rules are used in the popular style.
What you keep refusing to acknowledge is that other people also have experience with multiple ways of play and don't agree with you. You're stuck on the idea that you've got this brilliant insight that everyone would acknowledge if they could just see it and you can't grasp that we just disagree. That's why you keep taking your responses off in irrelevant directions.
To sum up: You want a game where the mechanics align sufficiently with expectations that players don't need to consider the mechanics, but just choose what seems to make sense in the circumstances and the mechanics will work appropriately. You think that the basic mechanic of d20 (roll+modifiers over a target) works particularly well for this.
It took awhile for me to grasp that was the part you meant - since there's a lot more to d20 than that.
You think that the basic mechanic of d20 (roll+modifiers over a target) works particularly well for this.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with d20's basic mechanic. D20 is just the only one that does what I find useful.
Okay, so all this back and forth about how that basic mechanic supports your style, but something like GURPS doesn't was irrelevant, because it has nothing to with the mechanic. I'm back to completely confused.
In fact, although d20 is the only system that does what you find useful, it's not actually any mechanic from d20 that's useful.
Okay, so all this back and forth about how that basic mechanic supports your style, but something like GURPS doesn't was irrelevant, because it has nothing to with the mechanic. I'm back to completely confused.
In fact, although d20 is the only system that does what you find useful, it's not actually any mechanic from d20 that's useful.
It's not irrelevant, as if you know X and Y with a subtle difference and only X works, then you can analyze that subtle difference to try to understand why X works but not Y.
Look at my distinction between d20 and gurps again. Look at what I said d20 does that gurps does not. It is a subtle thing but an important element.
d20 is built on a number scale that is consistent. It can be thought of as thr lines on grid paper. But what are the lines on gridpaper there for? Some people see the lines and always follow the lines, while others see the lines as merely a reference.
For example, in Alexandrian's article on rules vs rulings, he mentions oart of an argument about how gm fiat is freedom to set DCs as desired, but then he counters that a gm in d20 sets the dc when describes the scene. Consider this, a gm fiat game means that the gm is free to set whatever dc he wants for balancing on a 2" beam across a gap after he describes the beam as 2" across, this means that players do not have any idea what the DC is until they ask. In contrast, the d20 gm sets the DC for balancing across the beam when he decides that the beam is 2", which means the players do not need to ask the DC at all. Of course, SW has a set DC, but the difference here is that in d20, it is all about the narrative milieu, one must understand the milieu to understand the DC, but in SW the players could literally ignore the narrative milieu and still play without any loss of anything important to the dice, while in d20, the DC of a 2" beam is two way, a player can be given either the beam description or the dc and figure out the other because there is a sort of equivalence there.
Another aspect of the same concept of thinking,
Consider a table. In an old video game, a table is functionally a low wall. Regardless of what it looks like, what you can do with it is entirely dependent on how it functions, not at all what you can do in the real world. When playing a video game, you have this idea of how video games work distinct from how the real world works. In fact, there is a youtube video about this where a guy films his wife being introduced to gaming, and one of the things he mentions is how she always got frustrated with how there were things she wanted to do but couldn't for no reason other than the devs not giving the option, for example, his wife wanted to jump through a window. It makes sense that she should be able to, but she couldn't because even though the narrative milieu works that way, video games don't work like that. There is a distinct difference between how the video game works and how the narrative milieu works.
If you want an rpg game where players think exclusively according to the narrative milieu and not think in terms of mechanical limitations similar to video games, two major helpful elements is 1) for players to be able to naturally infer how difficult tasks are from their understanding of the narrative milieu, and 2) for the mechanics to be interchangeable with narrative description, so that mechanics can work as shorthand for description that would otherwise take a lot of out-of-game conversation.
I am accused much earlier in the thread of internalizing the mechanics heavily, and for a good system, I see it as a benefit for all the players to internalize the mechanics that deeply. But that is really only useful if the mechanics are broad enough to handle any campaign the players might want to play. But if you go the PBtA route of a different system for different genres, then you never really get to internalize the mechanics enough that they can truly be consciously forgotten in play because you are constantly jumping to a new system with different options. (unless you give up the useful element of the mechanics being able to work as description).
Mechanics should communicate the narrative milieu better than a conversation without limiting players to acting according to system rather than according to narrative milieu.
There is another important element that works orthogonally to all of the above. That is what a player thinks of in play. Just like s story might have great characters but a sucky plot and inconsistent world, or maybe the opposite and have a great world with an interesting plot but bland and flat characters. Some people will read the first story and never even notice the inconsistency in the world and thus call it a great story and yet read the second story and hate it because they could never connect with the characters. A different sort of person would be the opposite and find their immersion in the first story constantly ruined by all the inconsistencies in the world and the boring plot, yet love the second book because of how interesting and cool the plot snd world are. Of course, the best story has all three, great characters, great plot, and great world, but achieving that requires understanding what makes each of those things appealing to both types of readers.
You're right Inty. Tell me, what else should games do? Also, tell me more about how GM fiat is the predecessor to milieu while set DCs based on milieu is more akin to D20.
Nevermind the fact that, sometimes, I set a scene for my players in PF 1e, they assume DCs, then I change them after the fact with Circumstance bonuses or penalties. Or the fact that in a 5e game recently my DM said because of the weathered nature of symbol I noticed on the ancient waystone I needed to hit a DC 17 to recognize it.
My point is - GMs can decide other things. They can do that before, during or after setting the scene. PEOPLE communicate DCs; the games merely suggest with rulesets.
This is why game or game system is irrelevant. Always. People can play rock, paper, scissors and one of the 2 players might just randomly invent a karate chop move that beats anything. They're still playing the same game, only someone did something new and the other person has a decision whether to go along with it or reject it.
Also some people are really into rules and mechanics, some arent. Cool. When the mechanics are subsumed so seamlessly that they communicate narrative milieu and players feel free to act based on milieu, there's still gonna be some folks who, by their nature are gonna be like "but magic has rules" because that's THEIR jam.
On the other hand you might have folks who look at the daunting chunks of the PF 1e Core book and go "meh" and play the milieu anyway.
But you're right that there's lots of ways of thinking. Different strokes for different folks. But in the end, regardless of rulesets, systems or mechanics and how seamlessly they blend into the narrative, you're playing the people at the table, not the game.
500 people could run a game of D&D 5e and have 500 different games. Why is that? Because all of those people had their own take on how to play. More than that, the players of all those games brought tons of different personalities, wants and needs to the tables. It doesn't matter what books or dice were present; it matters what the people assembled decided to do with them.
... and then also because there's rules to D&D 5e, and also the random chance of d20s, and build choices and so on. Those will be other reasons why there's different games.
To use music as a metaphor, if I'm shopping for concert tickets, I want to know at the very least, what kind of music it is. Maybe I'm looking for a classical music concert, in which case having AC/DC roll out on stage would be a bad thing.
Most people play all there games the same way, and the popular way to play is akin to video games where no one thinks beyond the mechanics (for example, they'll never consider flipping a table for cover because there is no mechanic for that) or they'll go for rules lite or freeform because to them, simply having rules means it must be played like a video game. A style that benefits from rules without it being about video game like playing is extremely hard to find players for. I want a way to not only make it easier to find such players, but also to make the distinction clear enough to encourage people to try something different than normal for them, and hopefully become known enough that I can sell my system specifically for my style and have people understand what I designed it for eather than trying to play it in a video game style and calling it terrible because they didn't understand that they weren't playing it as intended.
Further, I have the goal of studying and making the art of being a gm something that is studied and developed into a professional art akin to music and painting, and part of that is that a pro gm would need to be able to understand what kind of player each player is and thus how to run the game according to what the players are expecting, and that means understanding the differences in style on a much much deeper level than the common player.
tell me more about how GM fiat is the predecessor to milieu while set DCs based on milieu is more akin to D20.
What? Where did you get this crazy idea?
GM fiat is the idea that the gm arbitrarily chooses the DCs.
Setting DCs based on milieu does not need to be a two way thing nor an associated thing either. As it applies to this conversation is much deeper and more complex than merely setting DCs on milieu.
Remember, I'm autistic, that means I speak more directly and logically than most. Normal people say three different things that merely imply the thing they actually want to say. I do a poor job of trying to be less direct, so don't try to think of my words like a normal person would say, think of my words more like what a computer is saying.
I am accused much earlier in the thread of internalizing the mechanics heavily, and for a good system, I see it as a benefit for all the players to internalize the mechanics that deeply. But that is really only useful if the mechanics are broad enough to handle any campaign the players might want to play.
I said this earlier, but that was when I thought you were actually talking about 3.x or at least a larger set of the d20 mechanics - recall the comments about combat movement and the action economy not working as someone would expect unless they'd internalized the mechanics.
I no longer think that, since your theory here ignores most of the mechanics of any actual d20 game, in favor of some abstract thing you're calling d20.
Interesting Character wrote:
It's not irrelevant, as if you know X and Y with a subtle difference and only X works, then you can analyze that subtle difference to try to understand why X works but not Y.
Look at my distinction between d20 and gurps again. Look at what I said d20 does that gurps does not. It is a subtle thing but an important element.
I thought I'd understood that, but since it apparently has nothing to do with the roll+modifier under target mechanic, I obviously don't. I thought you were saying that mechanic fit your style because it extrapolated cleanly to a higher result being better and thus to things like mapping to jump distance, while gurps "roll under" mechanic didn't work, despite being mathematically equivalent, because it didn't cleanly map to things like the jump example.
As for the balancing example: This is only useful information if the players actually know the DC for a 2" beam (or it maps closely enough to their intuition about walking such a beam in the real world.) Along with any relevant modifiers and as I suggested in the jumping example the variance. The narrative sets it, but if you haven't internalized the mechanics you'll still need to know both the description and the mechanic or hope your intuition matches the game designers.
And again, I'll emphasize the situations in any d20 game I've played that this kind of thing comes into play are pretty rare. There's a reason we keep hitting up a handful of physical skills for the examples and that's because those are the only cases where that kind of clean mapping between realism and the game mechanic can be made. Even most of the skills are pretty arbitrary or are used almost exclusively as opposed rolls.
Okay, I wrote some stuff, then I had an idea. Instead of trying to show why d20 is the best so far, instead, I'll discuss my system, what I'm doing with it and intending with it, why I make the choices I do, etc.
Should you be interested in what responses I originally had for some stuff.
stuff:
Quote:
I thought you were saying that mechanic fit your style because it extrapolated cleanly to a higher result being better and thus to things like mapping to jump distance, while gurps "roll under" mechanic didn't work, despite being mathematically equivalent, because it didn't cleanly map to things like the jump example.
Sort of, but the way I think you mean it would merely be the difference between doing it well vs poorly. If -8 always meant the same thing, it would technically work as d20, but poorly because it's less intuitive. What really breaks it is that the stat shifts things around, so for one character -6 would be equal to another character's -9, which makes the whole number scale dependent on the character. D20 is different in that the number scale is independent of the character. If you get a final result of 12, then that means the same thing for any and all characters . You can just look at six player's dice results and simply compare them all to a single objective number line for meaning. Gurps fails at this because the numbers are different for every character, you could never just look at the final results objectively, you would have to consider the character's stats or add a whole new layer of math to translate into an objective number scale.
Quote:
This is only useful information if the players actually know the DC for a 2" beam (or it maps closely enough to their intuition about walking such a beam in the real world.)
Indeed, which is why having a single system in which numbers always map to the same result is desirable, as learning a system that well would not only be easier, but you'd only need to learn a single system that well.
Quote:
Even most of the skills are pretty arbitrary or are used almost exclusively as opposed rolls.
It's not arbitrary at all. It is all according to the number scale.
The dmg states on pages 30-31 that combat and spellcasting have their own rules, but skills and ability checks cover just about everything else. They then include a table on those pages which gives many examples of what the numbers mean, very clearly showing that around 40 is the limit of the best that real world humanity has to offer.
GM fiat is the idea that the gm arbitrarily chooses the DCs.
What? Where did you get that crazy idea?
Is this yet another example of you creating your own personal definitions of generally-accepted RPG terms, and then expecting everyone else to use yours?
GM fiat is when the GM decides when and when not to engage the game mechanics, and also what happens when the mechanics are not being engaged.
Interesting Character wrote:
Most people play all there games the same way, and the popular way to play is akin to video games where no one thinks beyond the mechanics (for example, they'll never consider flipping a table for cover because there is no mechanic for that) or they'll go for rules lite or freeform because to them, simply having rules means it must be played like a video game.
How on Earth did you come up with the idea that "most people play all their games the same way"? Because that statement is both completely subjective and false on its face.
And what on Earth do you mean by "to them, simply having rules means it must be played like a video game"? I have no idea what you're trying to express here.
Interesting Character wrote:
Remember, I'm autistic, that means I speak more directly and logically than most.
. . .
I'm autistic, that means I speak more directly and logically than most. Normal people say three different things that merely imply the thing they actually want to say. I do a poor job of trying to be less direct, so don't try to think of my words like a normal person would say, think of my words more like what a computer is saying.
And that is out-and-out hubris.
I've never interacted with you in person, so maybe you do speak more plainly and directly in a face-to-face conversation than the average neurotypical (i.e. in a manner a neurotypical would consider rude). But at least in this forum, you are far from direct or logical.
Directness? I am having an extremely difficult time trying to figure out what you're arguing, what your points are, or where you are trying to go with this discussion: Your words are oblique, argumentative, and distracting. Ergo, the opposite of "direct."
And logic? In this discourse, you have repeatedly begged the question, appealed to authority, hastily generalized, attacked straw men, moved the goalposts, and thrown multiple red herrings.
You are are far less logical than you think yourself to be.
I want a way to not only make it easier to find such players, but also to make the distinction clear enough to encourage people to try something different than normal for them, and hopefully become known enough that I can sell my system specifically for my style and have people understand what I designed it for eather than trying to play it in a video game style and calling it terrible because they didn't understand that they weren't playing it as intended.
Further, I have the goal of studying and making the art of being a gm something that is studied and developed into a professional art akin to music and painting, and part of that is that a pro gm would need to be able to understand what kind of player each player is and thus how to run the game according to what the players are expecting, and that means understanding the differences in style on a much much deeper level than the common player.
Ok, thank you. We have clear verbiage of what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. We're looking for
1. A way to find players who use a system with rules, but don't play that system like a video game where they don't do certain things, like flipping tables, b/c the mechanics either don't give a method or are otherwise restrictive
2. IC to become known well enough to market and sell said system
3. Folks that buy Chair-Actor's system to understand the design method and his style as they influenced that design
4. Inty to become a Pro GM, with GMing being understood as a kind of artform
Well, now with those defined, we can start tackling them. Let's look at GMing as an artform.
It's not.
You're not actually creating anything as a GM. As an artist, you might create interesting maps or character/monster drawings; as a writer you might pen an amazing campaign backstory that develops in to a YA novella; as a professional storyteller you might make a living as an entertainer. Pro GMs exist (Matt Mercer, YouTube leaps to mind) but their running of games is part of a LARGER skillset that defines the discipline to which they're applying themselves.
In other words, even if you get paid to GM, and that's your primary job, it's not an art in and of itself.
Now as to game design and not having players play your game like a video game... that's not up to you. I'm nearly certain that when White Wolf created Vampire: The Masquerade and labeled it a "Storyteller" game, they never anticipated my brother Matt running it like a gritty, mechanics-dominated combat simulator featuring rival street gangs with vampires having 80's action-movie-inspired shootouts.
The fact that the campaign lasted 7 months and never contained a single dramatic monologue that wasn't drowned out by clattering D10s and a hail of gunfire didn't preclude my brother, me, and 5 of our best friends from having such a good time with it that a couple of us STILL reminisce about it at holidays. My point is, players gonna play.
People are cut from all kinds of cloth and the impact of rulesets on players' minds can be varied. Most, you're right, will seek to conform to rules, using them as the framework of what can and cannot be accomplished in a game. Others actively seek to rebel against the rules for multiple reasons. That choice however is up to the players, not the game designers.
As far as how to FIND players of a similar mindset to yours? That's easy: play with them.
I have a buddy that is currently my DM for a 5e game. We've had lengthy intellectual discussions on the nature of game design and he's professed he's not much of a "rules" guy. He has, however, in practice proved... less apt at creativity than he previously estimated his skills at.
In turn, even though he manipulates the rules as a DM to suit his own narrative, he is acutely focused on said rules. I should have guessed his emphasis on mechanics when I realized his other favorite pastimes are board gaming (rigid structure), several video games, and making close study of historical military campaigns.
In other words, people might portray themselves as players that fall into your aesthetic and style, but once the dice come out they reveal themselves to be highly governed by rules.
Weirdly, with all your musical analogies, what you're looking for in players are first-chair musicians with a background in improvisational jazz, rather than standard players. You want folks playing in games with you that are able to acknowledge that the medium they're engaging with HAS defined rules, but at the same time are willing to step beyond those constraints to "flip tables" or whatever suits the ongoing narrative.
There's a reason those folks don't make up whole orchestras.
I sincerely wish you luck on your game design Interesting Character. You will create great things and with your vocabulary you're well on your way to being a successful writer. If you are genuinely interested in communicating your style to others, I have only one piece of advice:
Keep it simple.
Rather than using a wall of text and grand metaphors that compare your game design, style, and GMing method to art forms, boil these points down to direct, digestible sound bites. The more you define and simplify your efforts, the more the general populace will hear and understand, and thus the more feedback you'll get.
The reality is that you're right - you have a fairly unique way of viewing the world, gaming, and game design. Most people don't have brains wired like you. Unfortunately, you're pitching to an audience of not-you. Rather than expecting us to meet your style you need use a voice and vocabulary consistent to the folks you're trying to reach.
You certainly live up to the name you've chosen for these boards I to the C. I hope your game finds it's way into the zeitgeist soon.
My suspicion is that he's focusing on these specific examples that do what he wants, but it's going to be practically impossible to extend the style of those few cases to cover an entire system.
You can have simple things like jump distance be intuitive and you can add rules for table flipping, but when you get to trying to define everything possible, especially in combat, the necessary abstractions start to break intuition.
I'd be interested in seeing the attempt, but I don't think it's possible to preserve the "casual simulation" throughout a complex system.
Or, how about a system where anything you can demonstrate doing in real life your character can do? You want to flip the table? Fine... flip the table.
1. A way to find players who use a system with rules, but don't play that system like a video game where they don't do certain things, like flipping tables, b/c the mechanics either don't give a method or are otherwise restrictive
This is not quite right. The issue isn't about mechanics. It is about thinking.
A video game, due to the nature of computers, has a different default answer to the question "Can I do X?" than a ttrpg.
In a video game, the player can not do something unless explicitly allowed. However, ttrpgs are reverse, the player can do anything unless explicitly denied or contrary to the narrative milieu.
This difference in thinking is the thing I want to define as it shapes so much of what the players do, especially when it comes to mechanics.
A video game player for example, will tend towards focusing on mechanics and looking at mechanics as the tools from which to build strategies, and this is why they never think to flip a table. Thinking the opposite way however, thinks in terms of what the narrative milieu allows and then after choosing a strategy they will apply chance/fate via the mechanics and communicate using the mechanics as a shorthand.
So more like,
1) Find players who recognize differences in how to think about the mechanics, and make it easier to define which way of thinking a particular group/campaign is looking for.
Quote:
Let's look at GMing as an artform.
It's not.
This is literally no different than saying that actors and singers are not artists. If you believe that, you have a really different idea of art than the rest of the world.
Art has two types, creation and performance. What makes them all art is that a thing is perceived that evokes emotion in the perceiver.
Stories are thus the highest form of art as stories have the greatest potential of all artforms to evoke emotions.
An rpg can be reduced to nothing more than stupid combat minis game, but the potential of rpgs exceeds that of any other medium for storytelling.
A GM is also both creator and performer, and the requirements to excel are higher than other artforms. A singer can practice singing the same lyrics many times before performing for an audience. A GM has to metaphorically write those lyrics while singing on stage for the premier, and aim to be just a good as the well rehearsed singer.
Even the pathetically incompetant GMs that rely on a module still must create, shaping the module to fit what the players do.
At the peak of what a RPG can do requires a GM who can write a bestseller story on the first draft, narrate the story in a way that draws the players in and keeps them there, act out the NPCs purely as improve, build a setting with themes that support and drive the story, utilize mechanics to enhance tension/risk and quickly communicate elements of the world to the players without breaking the player's immersion in the story.
To see this as a mere game for the basement is like saying music should never be created professionally.
To me, the artistic scope available to GMs is no less than a singer. A GM is a performer. That is what a GM does.
If you don't consider a singer to be an artist, then maybe you should redefine what you think an artist is.
Quote:
Now as to game design and not having players play your game like a video game... that's not up to you.
The same could be said to a composer. How people use their composition is not up to them. But a composer will still have an intent in how the composition is to be used and writes for that intent, and communicating that intent is a part of sharing the composition. If others want to misuse the composition, that's fine, but they have no right to criticize the composer when they didn't use the composition as intended.
Quote:
As far as how to FIND players of a similar mindset to yours? That's easy: play with them.
Easier said than done. Being able to communicate with others about style makes it more likely that players you play with will be sort you are looking for. Especially on the internet. Language is around 7% of the communication between two people talking in person, but is the only part of communication that crosses the internet. This means, that i meeting people i person can filter out major play issues quickly and usually before session 0, but on the internet, a whole lot of work goes into it long before you actually find whether someone plays your way or not, and often they only play a short while before you bothare building a new group of strangers.
Making it easier to communicate the style of game is all on it's own a massive benefit, especially on the internet.
Quote:
you have a fairly unique way of viewing the world, gaming, and game design.
I'm not that unique, heck this other style is how I was introduced to rpgs in the first place. But there are many aspects of psychology a d behavior that people can't consciously pin down. The Alexandrian gives a good example in his article on disociated mechanics, something that took him years to pin down and define, yet most players still complain about them with "unrealistic" being the common description even though it's neither accurate nor helpful a term.
I'm pretty sure that my issue is the same way, it isn't unique to me (it's just getting harder to find others), but pinning it down and defining the issue is elusive. That's why I use such examples, because I don't have better ways to define it, no simpler terms available.
1. A way to find players who use a system with rules, but don't play that system like a video game where they don't do certain things, like flipping tables, b/c the mechanics either don't give a method or are otherwise restrictive
This is not quite right. The issue isn't about mechanics. It is about thinking.
A video game, due to the nature of computers, has a different default answer to the question "Can I do X?" than a ttrpg.
In a video game, the player can not do something unless explicitly allowed. However, ttrpgs are reverse, the player can do anything unless explicitly denied or contrary to the narrative milieu.
This difference in thinking is the thing I want to define as it shapes so much of what the players do, especially when it comes to mechanics.
A video game player for example, will tend towards focusing on mechanics and looking at mechanics as the tools from which to build strategies, and this is why they never think to flip a table. Thinking the opposite way however, thinks in terms of what the narrative milieu allows and then after choosing a strategy they will apply chance/fate via the mechanics and communicate using the mechanics as a shorthand.
(Emphasis added)
THANK YOU!!!
230 posts in and we finally have your thesis statement!
So it sounds like you are looking to try to find players who approach the game in the manner that I bolded in your quote above.
Now I understand, and I agree with you 100%... but...
That describes every player that I've ever played with in my 40 years in this hobby.
I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. It's a guesstimate, but I've probably played north of 4,000 individual TTRPG sessions in my life thus far.
I had a very hard time figuring out what problem you were trying to describe and solve, because I have never encountered this problem or the player mindset you're looking to work against. Heck, the very concept of the problem you're trying to solve never occurred to me.
Either you have a much smaller and/or skewed sample size, or we're drawing from vastly different pools of players.
I have encountered players who constantly scan their character sheet looking for abilities that apply to the situation at hand, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
By the way, if you want to get an idea of my style as a GM and what the standard TTRPG playstyle looks like in my section of the hobby, please see my YouTube channel, where I post recordings of sessions I have run and/or played in.
A good player pool, and eventually solid gaming group, is something you need to cultivate. It is not something you can just look into the internet and pull out. Especially, you IC, because you have a very specific need from a play style and cant even boil it down to simple terms. Its great that you have so much respect for the game, and are willing to dive in-depth and discuss it, but it seems you are unable to step back and generalize the game as well.
I would recommend looking into a meetup group, player forum, or some other space where players hang to look for groups and talk shop. It certainly wouldnt hurt to discuss this with potential players before joining any games. This place may not exist for you and that means you may have to build it yourself.
You gotta get to the (virtual)table and play. It is the only way to find out if people match your style. I have dozens of failed attempts with people who signed up for what I wanted, only to be disappointed when they didnt know what I was talking about. Thats ok, a good game is worth working for. Also, I have a number 1 rule to never ever join a long term game with strangers. I only do one shots and organized play until I find a good set of players that match my style. You would be surprised how little annoying gamers and mis-matched playstyles bother you when its short term and you have an easy out.
So yeap, im back here again letting you know there is no simple statement to separate the wheat from the chaff. People dont understand, or worse they lie. You need to dial it in through trial and error. Good things come to those who wait, but more importantly, put in the work.
Whatever we say, it's not quite right. I'll concede that running a game could technically be considered a form of performance, though I still argue that its more like it borrows from other performance disciplines. Still, we could take that into a separate thread.
The rest of it though... if Haladir is correct in his interpretation of the bolded part above then I agree with him. I've said as much; I think thejeff has as well in their way. But so far, in every instance, we've been wrong.
Another thing Haladir and I agree with: all of my players already play this way. My buddy, who is a 7th grade science teacher, ran a "Pathfinder Club" for his students until this year. His KIDS play this way, as first time players. Most folks, once they understand the open world aspect of TTRPGs, play this way.
But again... I will not be getting it.
People have EVERY right to criticize the composer. People had every right to criticize Gary and Dave for mutating historical minis battles games into the legend they created. That criticism is what led us to this thread, right now.
Art is subjective. The intent of the creator is THEIR intent. What the audience reads from the work is up to THEM. They can certainly feel free to criticize the art AND its creator, and this can, has, and will happen. Now, if such criticism is just mudslinging and persecution, that's not ok, but if the debate focuses on the way of thinking that the creator was trying to enforce, and the merits of that way... this is healthy and necessary.
Yes, the internet is all about communicating with people. LOTS of people. If you're speaking to a mass audience you HAVE to be able to boil your messages down to the most simple, direct language.
More than that, when I say play with them I mean it. I don't care how much you want to assess your potential players ahead of time, I'm saying that many folks don't present themselves well enough to illustrate whether they are or aren't on the same page with you.
I had 2 players a few years ago who played PF 1e, seemed to like the same things I do, and generally TOLD me things that made them ideal candidates to game with. I jumped into the gentleman's game... and rage-quit in session 3. What he TOLD me ended up being very opposite to what he SHOWED me.
So my point in saying you have to play with them was just that. You can talk with folks, interview them, get on the same page with them and they can be the exact thinkers you're looking for on paper. In practice, they may not meet your standards.
But again, I'm wrong. I just know I am. I'm replying, so I must be incorrect in SOME way here.
I'm wrong because, at their absolute core, your assertions have over and over been about how people THINK. Now I could be reading too much into your words IC, but your focus on how folks think suggests to me that unless folks think how you do they're "not quite right" over and over.
Could it be that you're just looking for folks that think like you, who in turn, because of that way of thinking, are interested in gaming with you to deliver the play experience you want in a system you hold up as a creation that promotes that way of thinking, your way of thinking, as good, all the while delivering adulation and commercial success to you both for your creation and also for your ability to run games using your way of thinking?
1. A way to find players who use a system with rules, but don't play that system like a video game where they don't do certain things, like flipping tables, b/c the mechanics either don't give a method or are otherwise restrictive
This is not quite right. The issue isn't about mechanics. It is about thinking.
A video game, due to the nature of computers, has a different default answer to the question "Can I do X?" than a ttrpg.
In a video game, the player can not do something unless explicitly allowed. However, ttrpgs are reverse, the player can do anything unless explicitly denied or contrary to the narrative milieu.
This difference in thinking is the thing I want to define as it shapes so much of what the players do, especially when it comes to mechanics.
A video game player for example, will tend towards focusing on mechanics and looking at mechanics as the tools from which to build strategies, and this is why they never think to flip a table. Thinking the opposite way however, thinks in terms of what the narrative milieu allows and then after choosing a strategy they will apply chance/fate via the mechanics and communicate using the mechanics as a shorthand.
(Emphasis added)
THANK YOU!!!
230 posts in and we finally have your thesis statement!
So it sounds like you are looking to try to find players who approach the game in the manner that I bolded in your quote above.
Now I understand, and I agree with you 100%... but...
That describes every player that I've ever played with in my 40 years in this hobby.
I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. It's a guesstimate, but I've probably played north of 4,000 individual TTRPG sessions in my life thus far.
I had a very hard time figuring out what problem you were trying to describe and solve, because I have never...
But the key that goes beyond that is that he wants this to happen in a crunchy rules-heavy system and he wants the mechanics to correctly reflect people's strategies so that the mechanics cover everything in detail, but are still completely transparent. There's no advantage in considering the mechanics when deciding actions.
Which I've come close to with rules light games, but rarely with seriously crunchy games. You always need to check that the rules implementation matches your intuitive expectation - as we discussed with various examples earlier. Often it doesn't.
I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. ...
I have only a fraction of your gaming experience but I can only think of one player who had WoW expectations from a TTRPG. He attended a session zero and then one game and was out. People self-select pretty strongly and with tons of options on either side we won't see much crossover.
I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. ...
I have only a fraction of your gaming experience but I can only think of one player who had WoW expectations from a TTRPG. He attended a session zero and then one game and was out. People self-select pretty strongly and with tons of options on either side we won't see much crossover.
Yeah, it's almost like that player needed to PLAY a little bit to really confirm this game wasn't for them...
I have encountered a legion of players who attempt to join any game, by agreeing to anything, in an attempt just to find a game that will tolerate them. So there is that too.
I've met one person like the example video game player and one other borderline. Oddly enough the first self-described as autistic; maybe IC is drawing from a pool of people like that? I think such have self-selected out of the gaming groups I know.
Honestly, it's been quite a while since I've played with someone neurodivergent, and that was back in the mid-'90s while my primary RPGs were GURPS, Champions, and Call of Cthulhu.
All of those RPGs assume an OSR-style approach to how PCs interact with the environment, so players being in a "video-game mentality" wasn't an issue at the time. (Again: This was the mid-90s, before MMORPGs were a thing.)
Oh man MMORPGs have had their impact for sure. I was playing Dungeons and Dragons online several years ago. One of the players was talking over the chat wondering if anyone plays pen and paper anymore. Another player chimes in with, "I imagine in poor countries that dont have internet and/or computers"...
The style for music in movies is formally known as a score or colloquially as a soundtrack.
Consider yourself schooled. Again.
A Score is formally an original sequence of music created to accompany a film, it is not a "style" unto itself. We know this because Ennio Morricone's string score for The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a distinctly different "style" than John Carpenter's synch score fo Halloween and both are different from Howard Shores full Orchestral Score for Fellowship of the Ring.
Scores encompass many existing styles and genres of music.
"Soundtrack" is not a colloquial term for a score, it is in fact a legacy term derived from the fact that music and sound effects used to have their own dedicated track on the two channel audio sprocketed film - dialogue lived on one track, sound effects and music on another.
"Soundtrack" includes sourced audio cues, while scores are entirely composed works. All scores are indeed soundtracks, but not all soundtracks are scores.
The style for music in movies is formally known as a score or colloquially as a soundtrack.
Consider yourself schooled. Again.
A Score is formally an original sequence of music created to accompany a film, it is not a "style" unto itself. We know this because Ennio Morricone's string score for The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a distinctly different "style" than John Carpenter's synch score fo Halloween and both are different from Howard Shores full Orchestral Score for Fellowship of the Ring.
Scores encompass many existing styles and genres of music.
"Soundtrack" is not a colloquial term for a score, it is in fact a legacy term derived from the fact that music and sound effects used to have their own dedicated track on the two channel audio sprocketed film - dialogue lived on one track, sound effects and music on another.
"Soundtrack" includes sourced audio cues, while scores are entirely composed works. All scores are indeed soundtracks, but not all soundtracks are scores.
You weren't referring to scores in terms of other artistic works, you were specifically assigning definitions to film terms in order to "school" someone and you were using those terms incorrectly. I know you were specifically referring to movies because you used the phrase "The style of music in movies..." Referring to anything beyond the scope of movies is you moving the goalpost.
Scores are a type of musical work that can be in multiple styles, it is not a style of music all its own.
You were once again expressing your "superior" knowledge to try to "own" someone, and your "superior" knowledge was in fact lacking.
