When Is A Game No Longer A Game?
With my last article that detailed my views on DM cheating, as well as the discussion that followed, brought a very good question to mind. When is a game no longer considered a game in the strictest sense?
With my last article that detailed my views on DM cheating, as well as the discussion that followed, brought a very good question to mind. When is a game no longer considered a game in the strictest sense?
Here is what dictionary.com seems to think:
Game.
n.
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
Informal.
a. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: "the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game" (Hedrick Smith).
Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party.
The above are three definitions for the same word. To me, they are all three very different takes on the same subject. The first one seems to imply a game is something purely for recreational use; there is no mention of rules whatsoever. The second one says basically the same thing, but throws in a bit about rules and the adherence to them. The third seems to be defining a theoretical game, but it's still relevant nonetheless in that it mentions rules and multiple parties. In doing this it shows a third take, and the attitude with it.
So when is a game no longer a game? When I, the GM, take a liberty that is opposite of the system of rules, do I create a new game in doing so? Is Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd edition, now "D&D, Wayne's edition?"
So is the game no longer a game when I "fudge" an action?
Is it no longer a game when I let the story take precedent over the rules?
Is it no longer a game when I do something differently than what the rules stipulate, due to bad design or any other reason?
Or was it never a game at all if the rules are just a guideline?
Let's compare things. Fallout, one of the best CRPG'S ever, is a game. No two ways about it, it is a game. There is a system, a set of rules that dictate things. The players are presented various situations, and they act accordingly within the rules. There is not a single way around this. Situation A dictates the results of situation B that will be defined by the following actions. I can shoot the shopkeeper. I can talk to him. I might even steal his key to the safe. However, I am not capable of taking my shoes off and smacking him in the head. That is not allowed by the game.
On the other side of gaming, there are traditional games, like the classic D&D. There are rules, and there is a distinct system to play within. A lot of the possible happenings will be handled by the rules. However, the biggest and most obvious difference is that the system is not static. If I dislike the amount of damage a great axe does, I can change it. Now, I can change it because I am the GM. If someone else is, and I am a PC, I have no right or ability to do this. I cannot change the amount of damage a hunting rifle will do in Fallout, for it is completely static and has no dynamic qualities, no matter how much I think I am a GM.
Now, this brings a really interesting question to mind. I just called a PC game static, and a tabletop RP game dynamic. I called the former static due to the code, and I called the latter dynamic due to the presence of a GM. Now the rules stipulate a need for a GM, so does that perhaps make whatever action the GM takes accepted by the rules? Does that in itself make the game static?
Back to the issue at hand.
Is the game no longer a game when I take that liberty of freedom as the GM? I do not know. This is a very large question, and there are no real clear-cut answers. On one hand, you can say it is no longer the game we started playing because I modified the rules. The rules themselves are static, even if they can be avoided, ignored, and changed in anyway possible. So on the strict meaning of "game" taken in the mathematical sense, I am no longer playing the game I started. It is now "Wayne's Edition" not "third edition." However, on the flip side of that, are games not created for recreational purposes? Are they not there to have fun? Was D&D not created to get a group of people together to explore and create worlds? So in that same vein, yes, I am still playing a game. Regardless of what is changed, flipped, or turned within the rules, it is still a game as long as it remains a recreational activity.
I just basically contradicted myself with the previous paragraph and the one before it, didn't I? That shows how much of a pickle this is to me. Perhaps to you it is something clear cut and simple. Or perhaps it is an even greater conundrum than what I feel I have here.
What say you?
- Login to post comments
I think the GMs "liberty" is used or should be used to insure the enjoyment of the game amongst the players...
Well, I think the game is still a game if somebody changes the rules, but if (or when) it happens the game only changes.
The word "Game" has very broad meaning, so it is hard to change game to no-game.
I would like to amend my previous statement...
I think the GMs "liberty" is used or should be used to insure the enjoyment of the game amongst the players...
(( IF ))
The players deserve it...
Another angle at the “Gig or Game” rant and the “Role-Playing to Win” rant. DMhoward had a lot of good points that pertain to this.
We can discuss further the definition of a game, but it seems to me the more important question is how you, as a participant, feel about the activity in which you are engaged.
1. Do you prefer to focus on negotiating how to play, maintaining flexibility? (ie like playing Calvinball)?
2. Do you prefer to begin with a set of agreed upon parameters within which you will engage the story?
The first instance (ironically) is less focused on the story, and more focused on the arbitration. The second instance, which takes the parameters as a given, chooses to engage the story instead.
Rider says:
Now the rules stipulate a need for a GM, so does that perhaps make whatever action the GM takes accepted by the rules?
Neph says:
No. A hockey game has a ref. An improvisation game has a moderator. Neither of them are really given carte blanche on matters of form (though there is fluidity in matters of content). They are not allowed to change the rules while not informing the participants. The presence of a ref does not make either of them into a game of Simon Says (ok, bad example, since even Simon Says has a set of agreed parameters – the participants will do what Simon tells them to do.)
Rider says:
However, on the flip side of that, are games not created for recreational purposes? Are they not there to have fun? Was D&D not created to get a group of people together to explore and create worlds? So in that same vein, yes, I am still playing a game.
Neph says:
No you aren’t. But are making a new game, or at least, making a mod of an existing one. That’s not really the same as playing it though. Now, is that recreational? Is it fun? Clearly – for many it is, whether or not it is ‘playing a game’.
Rider says:
Regardless of what is changed, flipped, or turned within the rules, it is still a game as long as it remains a recreational activity.
Neph says:
Not really. Building a ship in a bottle might be a recreation activity – but it isn’t really a game.
Really, it seems to boil down to your preference. Do you prefer to play to engage the scenario, or do you prefer to play to develop a new rules set? If a GM or player chooses to disregard the parameters of that game, it is more a reflection of the GM's whim than it is a reflection of the game.
Neph says:
If a GM or player chooses to disregard the parameters of that game, it is more a reflection of the GM's whim than it is a reflection of the game.
Hey Neph, Have we had this conversation before?
I would say there are different kinds of games, as the definitional variety Rider mentions suggests. And different people want and demand different things from games, and are comfortable with different levels of dynamism in the rules of play.
Calvinball is clearly a game, a very very dynamic game, and yes, generating new rules is part of the fun, but so is running around the yard with your pet tiger. So creating the game is not separate from playing the game, it is PART of playing the game. Like the card game FLUXX. As long as all the participants enjoy Calvinball (as calvin and Hobbes seem to) it is a great game for them to play.
Now hockey is played differently everywhere it is played as well. The NHL, the minor leagues, international leagues, the olympics, and school games all use different rules, though they all call it hockey. When we played street hockey as kids, it was even more dynamic. Pedestrians, parked cars, stray dogs, garbage trucks et. al. all prompted rule changes. Though the underlying game did not change, it was still hockey.
Now, what does all this have to do with RPGs? Just because the rules change a little, like say axes do more damage in Wayne's edition than in 3rd edition, does not mean we're not playing the game. Or just because we choose to downplay alignment effects does not mean John's edition is no longer a game. It may be a slightly different game than Neph plays, but it is a game nonetheless.
Neph says:
We can discuss further the definition of a game, but it seems to me the more important question is how you, as a participant, feel about the activity in which you are engaged.
AND
Really, it seems to boil down to your preference.
I agree with these statements, but not with the choices laid out following them, I think they are artificially restrictive (not perhaps intentionally, as I am not suggesting intellectual dishonesty is at play, more like oversight). If your preferences for games run toward Waynes edition, and results in -An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games- then you've got a game as defined in definition 1, and if everyone enjoys it, a good one.
Anyway, I play a lot of Game Definition#1 games. Neph may well prefer Game Definition #2 or #3 games. It's all good.
Calvinball, Fluxx, Nightmare Chess, Wayne's edition D20 - they all sound like fun to me, in a game 1 sort of way.
Hockey, Settlers of Cataan, Standard Chess, Neph's D20 - also all sound like fun to me, in a game 2 or 3 sort of way.
I think it depends on how much dynamism in the rules you are comfortable with, or how much gaming rigor you desire.
Returning to the opening Neph Quote:
If a GM or player chooses to disregard the parameters of that game, it is more a reflection of the GM's whim than it is a reflection of the game.
It may be GM whim, or it may reflect a deep and reasoned understanding of what the GM and players want out of their game, and how best to get it, born out by decades of research and playtesting. GM whim just seems too dismissive a term to me, at least for the rules changes that I've implemented, and I imagine many GMs would feel the same way about their games.
Rider,
You must be a glutton for e-mail punishment, because if you keep writing articles about "DM Cheating", and How much can you change a game without losing that game, gus like Neph and me will keep replying with ridiculously long posts like these. :)
John
My personal opinions, of course.
1) A game is no longer a game when it is no longer fun - that is, when people begin to play it for reasons other than fun. Gambling, for example, is less like a game to me and more like a business.
If I ever have to ask myself, "why are we doing this?" it's a good sign that the game is no longer enjoyable. If I'm a GM when this happens, I usually end the campaign. If I'm a player, I usually stop playing.
2) A game is no longer a game when things that happen in the game spill into the lives of the players outside the game, or when things outside the game spill into the game.
When things in the game adversely affect personal relationships, the game is being taken too seriously. Sometimes role-players get too wrapped up in their roles, and profit from a little distance. In the same vein, when things in personal relationships adversely affect things in the game, the game becomes difficult to play and enjoy.
I think whether something is a game or not is less an issue of rules and more an issue of semantics. With no disrespect intended to Rider, who has so thoughtfully helped fuel our discussions, I think it's a silly question.
There are some, including Nephandus, if I do not mistake, who argue that when a DM supersedes the rules *during play* (as I think we've acknowledged that altering the rule set before play with house rules, etc., is a different situation), a role-playing game in the D&D sense becomes a role-playing game of a different sort. The issue is one of the players' degree of interaction: the more the DM overruns the rule set, the less the players can possibly interact with the environment created by the rules. By extension, this reduces the players' possibility of controlling their interaction with the setting and scenario.
That's the argument, anyway, as I've understood it so far. I think the essence of its logic is valid: a D&D-style role-playing game is not the same thing as an interactive story, though there might be shades of grey between the two. One of the most illuminating questions Nephandus has asked so far is essentially this: what is it you want from the game? Only when you answer that question can you determine what style of play is right for you and your group, whether you agree with Nephandus' prescriptions for better play or not.
Well, I was going to post but John and Cocytus allready summed up my opinion pretty well. Play to have fun. When it's not fun it's not a game.
If you like static rules than you have fun playing like that, as Neph seems to. Great. As long as you're having fun.
If you like a more dynamic and story based approach, as I do, then by all means play like that. As long as you're having a good time at it.
I wish I could write articles that got people talking. Good job Rider, you know it's getting to peole when they feel strongly enough to post a profusely as Neph, John, Cocytus and others seem to. keep up the good work, I look forward to more of your articles.
Well, I'd say when it's not fun, it's not something I want to do. That doesn't mean it's not a game. There are a lot of games that aren't any fun. And there's lot's of things that are fun that aren't really games.
As Cocytus indicates, I don't like one party changing rules without the informed consent of everyone, and I prefer that it be done before the game, and for a good reason. I like everyone at the table to be playing the same game, if you know what I mean. So, john, to use the hockey example, I have no problem with the rules variants, but you certainly won't see each player going by different rules - in the same match.
For the most part, people changing or fiddling with the rules appears NOT to have been born out by any deep understanding of what they do, what their effect will be. More like my mother moving a handfull of sliders on my equalizer.
Even games like Calvinball, or Fluxx agree at the beginning that rules are not important, or that the way they change as the game progresses is important.
And for the most part, it appears players are *rarely* consulted at all. In fact, many DMs seem to pride themselves on how well they hide their cheating from the players to make a 'better' story.
John, it's not so much about "dynamism" or "gaming rigor" in the rules set. Save that for the game designers. For me, I'd rather have "dynamism" and "rigor" in the story, the challenge, and the scenario. That's where I'd like to focus, and that's where the players should be focusing. People go to the Indy500 to see fast cars race - not so much to see the pit crew change tires, you know?
I suspect that people have been tweaking and massaging broken or arbitrary rules systems for so long now, that some people are beginning to think THAT is the game.
I think the main problem..is really..what really is the game your playing?
People have brought up calvinball..where part of the fun was making up the rules..was changing the rules around. Then people bring up things like Hockey..or in my opinion a better example are board games like chess. Where the rules are rather rigid.
And I guess this is part of the problem..which type of game are you playing? Are you playing a game where the rules are not so static..where rules are static..or something inbetween? It's about like the whole hack/slasher, rules lawyer, role player, laidback/casual player bit. All of them are definately playing for different reasons..they want something diff out of the game. In effect..they are playing different games..in their own mind.
Some people don't mind the GM fudging rules. They enjoy it..especially when it might make sense for a fudge (perhaps the rules handled a situation poorly..or didn't take in account certain modifiers). Perhaps it simply seemed unfair for that kobold to get a lucky hit and take out the well armored warrior. Or that cliath getting past lvl 5+ potence.
Perhaps the GM has grand ideas for a NPC..and alot of things, gamewise, would be lost if that NPC were to die. Perhaps that NPC was to wind up being a fun char....etc..or he would offer needed info...and it would only make sense for him to have it.
Others just like being rigid..they like adapting to what happens. That kobold suddenly becomes feared by the players....that lucky shot..instead making him look like a master fighter. Other kobolds look up to him..he now starts to lead an army of kobolds (perhaps pushed into the position). Maybe his name might even get spread...or that army amounts to something. Why? Because of one lucky shot the GM might have otherwise said can't get through.
But then..if that Kobold did enough of a lucky shot..he might have caused a new char to require getting rolled up. Maybe resulted in the loss of an old favorite char....or on the flip side the new char might have been better than the old.
At this point..I think its just hard to tell. Part of the game has litterally become the different GM's style of playing it. Especially with such a wide player base..who definately prefer different styles of playing. For some they may only enjoy a game..if a certain GM's changes to the rules are put in.
When are you playing a different game? Impossible to say...while the extreems are obvious..the line seperating them seems to be a huge blur.
The thing that gets me is that those who do not choose to go loosey-goosey, are often cast in the roles of rules lawyers and hack/slashers.
My experience is that with a good rules set, those who adhere to it tightly and uniformly across the player base, will have FEWER arguments and negotiations about what is or isn't permitted. And, they will have MORE time to spend on developing stories and characters.
Games like the hypothetical Calvinball - the whole point of them is to change the rules constantly. Developing the rules as you go is part of the game, part of the playing field. I don't really see that as part of D&D.
But then if you play strickly by the rules. You stop alot of things from happening. Its back to that boardgame example....or as in the article a video game. You can't do anything the rules don't say how to do...if the rules don't tell you what it takes to whack someone over the head with a shoe. Then you arn't gonna be able to do it.
And really when you think of PnP RPG's in general...then your gonna get different versions of how the game needs to be played.
And really...GM fudging, changing rules and so on..give a very different taste storyline wise when compared to always following the rules.
Now I don't know if I came off that way (I hope not) but I don't assume those who prefer to play by the rules are not role players. But its a bit obvious they want to really play around a world more than anything. They want to live in a world thats bigger than them.
But, for those who enjoy a fudging GM....I would almost say they want to be bigger than the world..be on the front of the storyline with their char.
It really comes to two diff styles when that choice comes.
For you, perhaps, changing the rules isn't part of the game. But for alot of others it is part of the game.
If we go to the computer game example..or even the board game one. Mod's in either are pretty popular..change the rules..graphics..or whatever. Some people like em...and in some points the Mod is as popular, if not more popular than the actual game.
"If we go to the computer game example..or even the board game one. Mod's in either are pretty popular..change the rules..graphics..or whatever. Some people like em...and in some points the Mod is as popular, if not more popular than the actual game."
But mods are more like playing with house rules, which is a very different issue from that of GM fudging. When you use a mod, it governs the game from the start of play, and doesn't change while play is in progress.
I think most role-players want to be bigger than the world; pretty much every role-playing system I can think of sets down rules which inevitably result in the development of characters whose power level is far beyond that of the everyday folk around them. You don't need a fudging GM to be bigger than the world - your character is likely to become so even if you follow the rule set very strictly.
Yo Rider,
Thank you for this article. Its produced something like a lucid discussion, and helped me to clarify my thoughts on this matter.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK:
Obviously a RPG is not a pure game as given in your definition. It has elements of game-ness (rules, player skillfactors and random results). It also has elements of story-ness ( player goals, and campaign logic ). I would say that it is a composite activity some where between these two activities. Call it Story-Gaming or hey why not call it Role-Play-Gaming ?
Now ! It has damn all to do with fun. I can have lots of fun with a pure story, and I can play a game which is no fun at all. The two matters are not related in an absolute way.
Nope, the answer to the question 'when is a game not a game' is : 'A game is no longer a game, when the elements of story-ness outweigh the elements of game-ness, to the extent that the game system is no longer significant in determining the outcome of the Story-Game.
Obviously this is a sliding scale and a matter of judgement. And where you put the balance is a matter of taste between the DM and Players.
God I'm so delightfully incisive. Its good to be me.
Mo
Mo said:
God I'm so delightfully incisive. Its good to be me.
And oddly I am inclined to agree. Nice concise summary, MO. I think I wrote about 5 pages to less clearly say something similar.
Every group sets that line of demarcation a little differently, but as long as everyone in the group enjoys the game/story balance in the resulting Role-Play-Gaming session, they probably made a good decision.
John
Well I am tempted to quote Seigmore Skinner (or Principal Skinner as most people in Springfield must call him under penalty of torture)
"Well bart, why don't you count how many envelopes you can lick in one minute and see if you can beat your record. Let's make a game out of it."
One's definition of what consists in a game depends enormously on what one considers fun.
Wow, the three definitions have seemed to be dead on from the type of people posting so far.
Thanks for the comments. While my article may have helped other's narrow their viewpoint, your comments have narrowed mine as well.
Now, onto the next article...Don't want you guys to think I'm a hack, just writing different sides of basically the same issue.
The next one better be just as discussion provoking, there Rider or we might just lynch you.
Just kidding, you seem to have a knack for getting people talking. Good job, folks need it. I look forward to your next installment.
Gurrrrgh, too much philosophy - Ogg want to roll dice!!
Starhawk, are you sure you aren't in my regular gaming group? 'Cause I swear I recognize that growl... ;)
Since D&D is really an open-ended game, with no definable "end" or "winners" most of the time, I'd say straying from the rules doesn't change the fact that it is still a game. Mr. Gygax said himself that the rules are merely a guideline, a skeleton to build your worlds on, and that any DM is welcome to change or omit those same rules to the benefit of the campaign. I'd say its no longer a game when everyone stops having fun. I've never let rules define my campaigns. If a ruling would lessen the enjoyment of a particular session or game moment, I have no problem going with the flow and putting the rule aside. Ever have a 10-minute argument with a rules lawyer right in the middle of a great gaming moment? You know what I mean then.
Stareater, you should read dmhoward's comments in the Gig or Game thread. I'd be interested to read your comments as they relate to what was discussed there, and to some of the solid points in this thread.
In essence, he (and I) challenge the notion that D&D is truly open ended. In many or most good games, there are definite goals to be achieved, definite criteria for victory. Some outcomes are preferable to others.
Whatever Gygax says about guidelines doesn't really hold much water with me. I think people sometimes invoke the Gygax as some kind of holy prophet. Yes, his games were a milestone along the evolution of this kind of gaming, but while I may tip my hat, I'd no more go to him for comment on 3e than I would go to Orville Wright for advice on how to build a stealth fighter. D&D 3e is a very different game than 1st ed, though it shares much of the same thematic material. It was frustration in playing Gygax's game that led me to other games to find something better, and 3e lured me back.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who will argue that rules "define their campaign". My campaign is defined by its story. I hold that it is when people put aside the rules, or when the rules themselves are broken (again - Gygax's game), that problems with rules lawyers erupt.
The more clear and workable the system is, the more people cooperate with it - the less discussions of rules you have. They fade into the background. I've had more fights with rules lawyers in the old system and with loosey goosy rules than I ever have with 3e. The reason is that the loose rules and arbitration reward negotiation on how to play, more than they reward smart playing within the rules. So, when faced with a challenge, the rules lawyer sees much more wiggle room and takes advantage of it.
If you want a psychological motivator to curb rules lawyers in a game - here's an idea. Keep track of rules challenges (not clarifications) on a board for every player. At the end of it, review them with the players. A string of 5 or so failed arguments - that might have been avoided had the players studied the rules better - might shame that player into actually reading the new stuff.
I am a big fan of house rules. In my campaign, albeit a miniatures campaign but I think it can be applied to all, I had a list of rules changes and omissions that were applied to the campaign to make it not only more enjoyable, but to make the game flow better. For example, in the game there is a variant called resiliance. Basically it gives a player a 2nd chance when they drop from 0 to -5 HP to basically be "touched by the hands of a god" and healed to 5hp. If hit below -5 hp, you are beyond saving. So how does this help? Well, it gives me, the DM, an out where I don't have to feel guilty or fall under the "Friends" category in the "Can DM's Cheat" essay.
So, do you need rules to play the game? Yes. Can you pick and choose what rules you don't like? Yes, but be sure that when you do you are doing it to promote the most enjoyment not only for you the DM, but for your players too.
What to do about rules lawyers? Well, I usually put a stop to it by stating the DM is the end-all be-all of final rules decisions and interpretations, not the players. You can suggest all you like, but it won't mean that your interpretation will be the one I use. :)
I am a big fan of house rules. In my campaign, albeit a miniatures campaign but I think it can be applied to all, I had a list of rules changes and omissions that were applied to the campaign to make it not only more enjoyable, but to make the game flow better. For example, in the game there is a variant called resiliance. Basically it gives a player a 2nd chance when they drop from 0 to -5 HP to basically be "touched by the hands of a god" and healed to 5hp. If hit below -5 hp, you are beyond saving. So how does this help? Well, it gives me, the DM, an out where I don't have to feel guilty or fall under the "Friends" category in the "Can DM's Cheat" essay.
So, do you need rules to play the game? Yes. Can you pick and choose what rules you don't like? Yes, but be sure that when you do you are doing it to promote the most enjoyment not only for you the DM, but for your players too.
What to do about rules lawyers? Well, I usually put a stop to it by stating the DM is the end-all be-all of final rules decisions and interpretations, not the players. You can suggest all you like, but it won't mean that your interpretation will be the one I use. :)
Aedilis,
Jawohl mein Oberst !
No, seriously, I agree the DM is in charge but its all a question of balance. If he manipulates rules to force an event then its just not fair to the players.
About house rules ... I agree also that they're esential to customise the game to a form that you and your mates are comfortable with.
About your resilience rule. I can't remember exactly, but I think there are guidelines for negative hp and taking damage in 2E.
In short, we agree, but I do think your statement of authority was a little bit, well, authoritarian.
Hmm..
I suppose I did kind of misstate my opinion there. 90% of the time that I overrule a person is because that player is trying to powergame and usually in my campaign when this player does powergame, it ruins the fun for all. When the rules come into question I usually ask myself, "What would end up causing the most fun for the players and also not look cheesy?" I hate forcing events to happen and I am a big fan of letting things go on their own path. Can Tordek the fighter beat the piss out of the module hook? Sure.. I just come up with a different way to hook em in(Maybe a letter describing the hook,etc). I try not to be the totalitarian "dick"tator of a DM. After all, I want to have fun and by others having fun, I have fun too!
Thanks for agreeing with me. It feels good to have people with like minds in the world. :)
This seems to be the same conversation as the last arguemen...errr... conversation. The basic question still remains "is it alright for a DM to cheat".
The answer is no.
However..
The answer is based on the definition of "cheat".
If by "cheat" you mean unfairly manipulate the rules in your favor, which is how I define cheat, then we're talking the same language.
However, if you mean by cheat "occasionally fudge for the maximum enjoyment of the GM and players" then I disagree. The rules should NEVER EVER be allowed to derail a good story. Of course, it's best if you can take those lousy roles and twist them into more story arcs, but sometimes one bad roll might just screw EVERYTHING up. That one roll shouldn't be allowed to throw the whole story out.
Neph wrote that the game is a story told by the players and the dice. That's not exactly true. The GM is in there too! The GM is a storyteller as much as the players, who are moreso the storytellers than the dice are. The randomness of the dice is necessary to keep it a GAME, but lets not forget this is a shared experience.
You may argue, and probably would, that the GM designs the adventure ahead of time, and in many cases you would be correct. However, THAT is an example of a lack of creativity. Prefab adventures have their place, as a collection of POTENTIAL encounters for the GM to throw in as appopriate, but frankly, if you use a pre-designed adventure that requires you to move the game towards a specific outcome, or even a specific timeline even if the outcome is up in the air, you're railroading. ALL modules are railroading. All of them, because they don't allow the players to do something completely unexpected. The players MUST go into THIS dungeon and find THIS menace and stop him at THIS point.
As a GM, I don't railroad. I throw encounters in at points they seem appopriate to the story, but I enter the game with no idea of the plot: the players will give me a plot. The dice will help me to shape that plot. I will react to the players and the dice in such a way as to keep the adventure moving, not necessarily forward, but in any direction at all. As long as it moves and everyone is having fun.
And thus it IS always a game, fudging or no fudging. Much like FLUXX is a game. Much like NOMIC is a game. Even, in a way, like Blind Man's Bluff is a game. It's a game that leads to a SHARED storytelling experience by the players AND the Game Masters, using the randomness of the dice to spice things up and keep them interesting.
This seems to be the same conversation as the last arguemen...errr... conversation. The basic question still remains "is it alright for a DM to cheat".
The answer is no.
However..
The answer is based on the definition of "cheat".
If by "cheat" you mean unfairly manipulate the rules in your favor, which is how I define cheat, then we're talking the same language.
However, if you mean by cheat "occasionally fudge for the maximum enjoyment of the GM and players" then I disagree. The rules should NEVER EVER be allowed to derail a good story. Of course, it's best if you can take those lousy roles and twist them into more story arcs, but sometimes one bad roll might just screw EVERYTHING up. That one roll shouldn't be allowed to throw the whole story out.
Neph wrote that the game is a story told by the players and the dice. That's not exactly true. The GM is in there too! The GM is a storyteller as much as the players, who are moreso the storytellers than the dice are. The randomness of the dice is necessary to keep it a GAME, but lets not forget this is a shared experience.
You may argue, and probably would, that the GM designs the adventure ahead of time, and in many cases you would be correct. However, THAT is an example of a lack of creativity. Prefab adventures have their place, as a collection of POTENTIAL encounters for the GM to throw in as appopriate, but frankly, if you use a pre-designed adventure that requires you to move the game towards a specific outcome, or even a specific timeline even if the outcome is up in the air, you're railroading. ALL modules are railroading. All of them, because they don't allow the players to do something completely unexpected. The players MUST go into THIS dungeon and find THIS menace and stop him at THIS point.
As a GM, I don't railroad. I throw encounters in at points they seem appopriate to the story, but I enter the game with no idea of the plot: the players will give me a plot. The dice will help me to shape that plot. I will react to the players and the dice in such a way as to keep the adventure moving, not necessarily forward, but in any direction at all. As long as it moves and everyone is having fun.
And thus it IS always a game, fudging or no fudging. Much like FLUXX is a game. Much like NOMIC is a game. Even, in a way, like Blind Man's Bluff is a game. It's a game that leads to a SHARED storytelling experience by the players AND the Game Masters, using the randomness of the dice to spice things up and keep them interesting.
Actually, DoctorJest, there are two basic approaches to the creation of a pre-fab "adventure": the character-customized plot and the persistent environment.
A character-customized plot can lend itself to what you call railroading, though I dispute your assertion that it invariably leads to that.
But a persistent environment isn't railroading at all. You set up the world logically, not with regard to the party's encounter level. If there's an ancient dragon living in a hill, then there's an ancient dragon there; low-level parties attract its attention at their own risk. In a persistent world model, the various plots and adventures lie waiting for the players to discover them, without forcing the characters' participation.
It's true that a plot will sweep the characters along with it, if they choose to participate in it. But I have no problem with letting the characters decide what the extent of their participation is. Again, in a persistent setting, the background plot proceeds whether the characters participate in it or not. Their interaction with it can shape its outcome, but a well-designed campaign need not presuppose a definite outcome one way or the other.
I think a good GM can motivate the _players_ to participate in the plot. If you get your PCs good and angry at your villain, they won't stop until they've hunted him down.
Players define the action, yes. But that doesn't mean that good plot preparation is railroading or a waste of time. If anything, I think an off-the-cuff encounter of the kind you mention is more arbitrary than a thoughtfully designed encounter area.
DoctorJest wrote:
Neph wrote that the game is a story told by the players and the dice. That's not exactly true.
Nephandus:
That's not actually what I wrote, either.
DoctorJest wrote:
ALL modules are railroading. All of them, because they don't allow the players to do something completely unexpected.
Nephandus says:
This just isn't true. Perhaps you just aren't very good at integrating modules into larger campaigns?
I'm a big fan of prepared adventures (good ones), and I am often surprised by my players' approaches, and sometimes by the outcomes.
A good module will set up an engaging story. A bad one will pull players by the nose through the process as well. The worst modules I've read were for the old Star Wars RPG - which required that players failed at various "acts" in the story, in order for it to progress. It was plot based, but it often seemed that the bulk of the game was just going through the motions until the final fight.
The best modules have set up an area with one or more engaging scenarios, with lots of atmosphere. It's hardly "railroading" to present a scenario for characters to play. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE THERE! Hopefully, the players are smart enough to recognize a hook and bite it. They should take some responsibility for their own enjoyment of the activity.
I agree with Neph. When I run pre-fab modules, I actually play them out in my mind and try to figure out the possibilities given the player character's class and how the players will play their characters. Usually by then I have a nice flushed out "what if" list of things that a player would try to do and plan accordingly. When I've done that, I've had very little problems with characters off the wall or unorthodox approaches to things.
As a side note, being that you are the GM, you have to power to read past the pre-fab module when someone does something unexpected and react. To tell a player, "you can't do that cause the module doesn't let you" or "nothing happens" because you don't want something to happen just shows that you aren't that improvisationally talented and thus should try to prepare a module ahead of time like I explained. :)
Hope that helps..
>>But a persistent environment isn't railroading at all.
I disagree on with that statement entirely, unless you're talking exclusively about backdrop.
>>It's true that a plot will sweep the characters along with it, if they choose to participate in it. >But I have no problem with letting the characters decide what the extent of their participation is. Again, in a persistent setting, the background plot proceeds whether the characters participate in it or not.>I think a good GM can motivate the _players_ to participate in the plot. >If you get your PCs good and angry at your villain, they won't stop until they've hunted him down.>Players define the action, yes. But that doesn't mean that good plot preparation is railroading or a waste of time. If anything, I think an off-the-cuff encounter of the kind you mention is more arbitrary than a thoughtfully designed encounter area.<<
You misunderstood me. Nothing is wrong with thoughtfully designed encounter areas, up until you put them into a sequential order that says "player encounter A then B then C, in that order, no matter what". That's railroading. By making those encounter areas dynamic in terms of sequence, time, and actual physical location in the world (up until you commit to their locations) then you have greater freedom as a GM AND the players have greater freedom as players to go off the beaten path.
Also, a GM should be prepared to throw away any encounter, no matter how thoughtfully prepared, if they will disrupt the flow of the game, or if a better idea for that encounter is suggested by the player-driven plot before hand.
>>This just isn't true. Perhaps you just aren't very good at integrating modules into larger campaigns?>I'm a big fan of prepared adventures (good ones), and I am often surprised by my players' approaches, and sometimes by the outcomes. >A good module will set up an engaging story.
And the set up is all you really need.
>>progress. It was plot based, but it often seemed that the bulk of the game was just going through the motions until the final fight.>The best modules have set up an area with one or more engaging scenarios, with lots of atmosphere. It's hardly "railroading" to present a scenario for characters to play. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE THERE! Hopefully, the players are smart enough to recognize a hook and bite it. They should take some responsibility for their own enjoyment of the activity. <<
Unless it's not really something they as players, or as characters, are interested in biting. That's the part I don't like: the obvious hook dangling in front of them that makes the players think "I think the adventure just started". Its much better when you can work the plot hooks into the ongoing story so the players, and their characters, can't be STOPPED from going after those hooks! They don't have to be knowingly caught on a hook after all. I've passed plot hooks as minor details (and conversely, minor details have become major plot hooks) many times.
>>I agree with Neph. When I run pre-fab modules, I actually play them out in my mind and try to figure out the possibilities given the player character's class and how the players will play their characters. Usually by then I have a nice flushed out "what if" list of things that a player would try to do and plan accordingly. >When I've done that, I've had very little problems with characters off the wall or unorthodox approaches to things. >As a side note, being that you are the GM, you have to power to read past the pre-fab module when someone does something unexpected and react. To tell a player, "you can't do that cause the module doesn't let you" or "nothing happens" because you don't want something to happen just shows that you aren't that improvisationally talented and thus should try to prepare a module ahead of time like I explained. :)<<
I almost agree with you. If you are unable to improvise, you probably shouldn't be a GM.
DoctorJest said:
Nothing is wrong with thoughtfully designed encounter areas, up until you put them into a sequential order that says "player encounter A then B then C, in that order, no matter what". That's railroading. By making those encounter areas dynamic in terms of sequence, time, and actual physical location in the world (up until you commit to their locations) then you have greater freedom as a GM AND the players have greater freedom as players to go off the beaten path.
Nephandus says:
Let’s get back to basics for a minute.
Stories require that certain things happen at certain times. For instance, the crisis must happen before the climax and denoument. Similarly, games are more enjoyable when they build in intensity and action over time. It isn’t a very good story or game if immediately, you take out the Big Bad, and then you are left spinning listlessly because you haven’t gathered clues about what was actually happening, or what was at stake (which, presumably, you would do throughout the story). Things happen for a reason in a story – first one thing, then the next. Players may react in unpredictable (or rather, mostly predictable) ways, but they don’t just flutter like a magpie, collecting bits of flotsam and detritus along the way.
So, the notion of sequential order being a bad thing, in at least a general sense, is right out the window. But what about in a more specific sense?
Good dungeon and plot based adventures are built like a flowchart. They offer choices and consequences. In the case of dungeons, they narrow the range of choices a player can take without necessarily revealing this limitation as artifice within the narrative. Players may prepare tactics, and have free range of RP decisions, but if they choose to proceed, some encounters will, by necessity, take place before others, simply by virtue of the geography. This is good, because that dungeon geography helps pace out plot events, putting them in a rough order, though players have a range of choice within the boundaries in which to work. A bit like a soccer game.
Plot based adventures are more challenging because players have more options to accidentally wander off into an area that is less interesting than the areas that are prepared.
But in neither case are the choices so restricted that they are literally a railroad track. A ‘corral’ perhaps, or a ‘playing field’, but certainly not a linear ABC track that affords no choices to players (Except Star Wars – edition 1). If the latter is your experience with modules – please email me so that I can give you a list of excellent prepared adventures, and perhaps some guidelines on how to evaluate them.
DoctorJest said:
Also, a GM should be prepared to throw away any encounter, no matter how thoughtfully prepared, if they will disrupt the flow of the game, or if a better idea for that encounter is suggested by the player-driven plot before hand.
Nephandus says:
Certainly a GM should be prepared to toss any encounter that is unfair, or which distracts from a certain sense of progression in an unpleasant manner – keeping in mind that in most cases – the encounters ARE the game, not a distraction from it. In fact, I’ve elected to toss entire modules – such as The Speaker In Dreams – because I thought they were terrible.
Taking cues from player-suggested plots is troublesome. I’ve seen two variations fail multiple times.
1. Charting the plot to follow player paranoia –
I’ve seen several GMs do this- one in Cyberpunk and one in Vampire. Both came out of the gate deliciously strong, with players hanging on their every word, with the GMs patting themselves on their backs because they managed to make multiple play sessions without a single prepared word. Cool! Except when it eventually became apparent that everything we said was getting tossed into the stew, and the jig was up. The players became disengaged immediately because their illusion of ‘gaming’ was destroyed. First they clammed up at the table, because everything they said was making the challenge more difficult. Then, they quit planning and simply forced the encounter – “CHARGE!” completely blindsiding the DM – didn’t have a single encounter or tactic prepped for the fight. Combat went long, and it was boring, and we could tell the GM was fudging every roll because he didn’t have any base stats rolled. What a joke!!! And an insult, since the players had spent the majority of 3 sessions devising careful tactics. All useless. Finally the GM panicked, force closed the encounter, and revealed that the entire paranoid “plot” (which he’d picked up from player paranoia), was simply a sham to lure the characters to a location – to present them with their REAL task. How many play sessions and hours down the tube? Scratch a GM.
2. Charting the plot to follow wannabe GM’s who are players.
I’ve written in this thread about Jeff, who had scripted his own character’s arc from beginning to end, with every milestone along the way, every reaction from other players and various powers within the setting. He made many suggestions on where to take the story – during the game and outside of it, but most of them really weren’t compatible with the game. Even if they were, how satisfying is it to play a game where you know already how it will end? Appeasement in these cases usually encourages more, while the rest of the players fade to the background. Scratch a player and a DM.
So there’s a few instances of how these things tend to fall apart in the long run, even if you get some short term interest from your players. A good DM, and there are precious few of them, should be able to project several moves ahead, and present some sense of an objective challenge which the players are up against. Total immersive, improvisational worlds (ie Myst, LARP), are really a different kind of thing than what I’m discussing – a role playing game. I like my role playing games to MOVE – to have a pulse, stakes, a sense of purpose or dread. I’m not into simulating an alternative reality and just wandering and living there. I want to be DOING something in that reality. For that, I’m very happy to have, and to be, a skilled DM establishing premises early on, setting the plot along a track that I will WANT to finish.
DoctorJest said:
"I disagree on with that statement entirely, unless you're talking exclusively about backdrop.
I gave some specific examples of what I'm talking about. If you want to disagree, that's your prerogative; but there isn't much chance I'll put effort into seeing your point of view unless you at least try to explain yourself.
Nephandus says:
Taking cues from player-suggested plots is troublesome. I’ve seen two variations fail multiple times.
1. Charting the plot to follow player paranoia –
[snip]
2. Charting the plot to follow wannabe GM’s who are players.
Neph,
To borrow a phrase from Cocytus a "persistent environment " leads to all sorts of player inspired plotlines. The players get intrigued by some aspect of the environment, say the red dragon in Cocy's example, and devote their time and resources to researching and exploring it. With enough forethought and preparation a mid-level party might just be able to assault that dragon. Certainly I'd let them try. If their tactics work, they get a disproportionately large haul for their level, if not most or all of them burn to a crisp. Either way it should be pretty entertaining.
I agree that your examples stink, and would leach the fun right out of a game, but in a moderately fleshed out environment the players may choose to strike out on a quest of their own, rather than take the plot hook dangling in front of them. As long as the GM is OK with that (as I am) it works great. But you do have to have that red dragon statted up, improvising a roadway bandit is OK, but not the big bad. The game is not designed on the fly based on player paranoia, it is just the players picking which adventure option to pursue.
I will admit, that on one occasion a decade or so ago I had to call the session early because the guys had wandered so far from my expectations that I had nothing ready (they accepted the antagonists offer of spare parts to fix their spaceship if the party just leave in peace). So we played a little "Family Business" the rest of the evening, and I learned to keep a few spare adventures ready. A week later they got to follow the path they had selected, and all was well.
Anyway, when the GM is prepared, that is what I see as a good version of a player directed plot.
Of course, if the GM is not receptive to the idea, and would prefer you take the bait for the adventure he has planned, part of being a good gaming citizen is to try to cooperate. The GM and players need to agree what type of game they are playing beforehand. Which may well be paraphrasing a Neph quote from earlier in this list, but is worth repeating.
John
I allow for alot of player suggested plots, I usually make them subplots in the story if they can fit.
Of course, if their idea is way off and I think might lead to a disaster for the campaign, I don't follow up on it or discourage them overtly and covertly of following that course.
my 2 cents
Regarding "persistent environments" and modules. Most of the larger and better modules I've found do indeed contain some kind of local persistant environment, with a range of encounters.
In the best ones, the higher level 'unbalanced' encounters are off the beaten track, and are basically dead ends, so the players don't have to engage them to solve the story - but if they do, they will get a larger haul of experience and treasure.
The Sunless Citadel, an excellently designed module, has an example of this, with a high level encounter at the end of a dead end.
Other modules I've enjoyed in the past have a local area map with general encounters spread around it. Return to the Keep on the Borderlands for example. And some of the old Forgotten Realms modules, like Shadowdale, and Daggerdale - were excellent this way - with a prepared throughline partly buried within a rich environment. Those 2nd ed FR modules were excellent that way, always giving a sense of geography and distinctiveness to towns, making the backdrop a much more real place, and then placing the main adventure within that context. I wish more of them were done that way, especially since Greyhawk was supposed to be the 'default' world.
> - but if they do, they will get a larger haul of >experience and treasure.
And a larger haul is really the point! Isn't it?
>The Sunless Citadel, an excellently designed module, >has an example of this, with a high level encounter at >the end of a dead end.
Neph,
That is just what I am talking about (Though not in modules, since I don't use them). If something in the persistent environment attracts them, the party is free to pursue it. Now once they kill it and take its stuff, I see that as a succesful completion of a player chosen sub-plot, rather than just as a dead end in the bigger plot. But based on your description, I think it is just an issue of semantics. Since it seems clear you encourage (or at least permit) the party to go off and kill the red herring for fun and profit.
And fun and profit are what drives adventuring parties.
Right. People are motivated to solve stories, claim victories over real challenges, and to increase their abilities. These things bring players back to the table each week. They want to know what happens next.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that modules or prepared adventures follow a linear plot that goes from A-Z in that order, or that penetrate a dungeon that's laid out in a single file line - like a train.
But this objection to modules and preparation is really just an objection to poorly planned adventures. Good ones offer a range of choices and approaches within the playing field. And the playing field is interesting enough that the players want to stick around and find out more.
Red herrings are part of the color and choice within a prepared adventure. In arguing for prepared encounters, nobody is arguing that each such encounter must be vital to the 'main' storyline. My naming it a 'dead end' is just a description of its place on the plot flowchart, not a disdainful characterization of it.
I like player subplots.
I like persistent environments. The best form of this is a richly detailed campaign.
I advise DMs not to worry if the players don't follow your adventure plot. Let them have their fun and follow their sublots. If your adventure is interesting then they will get back to it eventually. In the meantime, you should be able to improvise quickly if you have a detailed campaign to fall back on.
Sounds like an article.
Persistent environments vs Organically grown, Pros and Cons.
Indeed it does...I've never been above stealing ideas from the BBS.
Hi Neph,
For a really linear adventure try the UK1/2/3 series. UK1 was remarkably good. Unfortunately because the designer had made the 2/3 stories completeley linear (and I do mean in an anti-Houdini manner) , but not done the same to UK1, it was possible to have a good time in UK1, but not be able to logically get into UK2/3.
Whoops!
As for cheating. This is of course impossible. Since the GM is always right, he is by definition never cheating.
This also means he can't ever be breaking any rules - no matter how that may seem to any player.
Cheers,
Grey...
I don't think that's a very good way of thinking...Grey. A GM with that state of mind will start off gaming with a group of 5...
then a group of 4...
then 3...2...1
then he'll play by himself...then ultimately...WITH himself.
(yeah, I just HAD to go there)
There HAS to be some degree of adherance to the rules of the game in which you are playing. I think if a GM cheats and/or bends the rules too often, the players may perceive this as a lack of substance or creativity.
Its good to be creative, but its GRRREAT (like the cereal) to be creative within the bounds of the game.
I'm off duty now,
The Good Cap'n