The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Beejazztend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

Yeah, I think this is true.  And also an interesting point, in terms of immersion.

Whatever the hell I'm doing (and we can delve into it if conversational flow dictates), you are correct.  My games, even when I plan for shorter term or even when I should be constrained by real-life issues, turn out generally to go on and on and on.  

And this does have a side-bonus. The longer one thinks in character with a certain persona, the easier it becomes and the richer the character.  If we could get Limetom to comment, I think he'd say that that Moss, his IRC character, is starting to develop something of a 'mind of his own'.  and I have seen variations with this dozens and dozens of times.  

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Beejazztend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

Yeah, I think this is true.  And also an interesting point, in terms of immersion.

Whatever the hell I'm doing (and we can delve into it if conversational flow dictates), you are correct.  My games, even when I plan for shorter term or even when I should be constrained by real-life issues, turn out generally to go on and on and on. 

And this does have a side-bonus. The longer one thinks in character with a certain persona, the easier it becomes and the richer the character.  If we could get Limetom to comment, I think he'd say that that Moss, his IRC character, is starting to develop something of a 'mind of his own'.  and I have seen variations with this dozens and dozens of times. 

This is drifting off topic a bit, but this is one of the things I like about TV shows with long continuity. You can watch the actors grow into their role.

My main reason for preferring the adventure scale vs the campaign scale is because I tend to be called on to GM, and my schedule tends to not allow for multi-year campaigns (something I've always wanted to try).

I prefer adventure to encounter-based engagement partly because I have a history of running large groups (which makes involving everyone all the time difficult and time consuming) and having some players who show every week but are more along for the ride (some people plain don't want to be dragged into the spotlight). It is much easier to involve everyone in an adventure than in an encounter, and much easier to let the conversation flow naturally at that scale as well.

I think our preferences are shaped by our circumstances more than we tend to want to recognize, so the notion that there's any "right" way to do things strikes me as wrongheaded. Different games are different tools for different jobs.

Correct, we are drifting.
And no right way or wrong way on this, but interesting to see where the different foci are grown from. I do larger groups as well, and I agree that can be more challenging.

Although, to bring the tangent back to the topic:

Scale matters to balance. A consequence that sets in during later sessions or levels isn't a consequence in a one-shot. And in a campaign that last years, temporary setbacks matter much less than they do for said one-shot.

The actual value of some rules entities depends entirely on the duration of the game. 3.5's toughness (+3hp) is a good, specific, example here. Balanced* for short term play, but becomes useless at high levels. Vs Improved Toughness (+1/level, IIRC), which doesn't give that big boost in the short term, but quickly outstrips the usefulness of vanilla toughness. Which feat belongs in a rule set very much depends on what the rule set is for, scale-wise.

*Arguably balanced, anyway. It's a bigger deal for wizards and elves even for a low-level one shot.

Quote from: LordVreegUmm actually, the amount a player is bound to an adherence to what the character could 'really' do is a pretty decent shorthand definition for Immersion.  Bravo.  The statement above, however, when seen from this perspective seems to sum up your real point.  Cuttting through all the crap about player choice and rolling dice and randomization and saying what can or cannot be true, The above quote says, as I read it, that Immersion is of dubious value to you. and the rest of the para, about giving more narrative control despite the dissociated mechanic, ices it.  Which is fine, if true.  If I am wrong and this boiling down of your position is incorrect or incomplete, I'll be back on later.

Hmm. I do feel like some sort of immersion is important and valuable to me, but it may not be the same sort of immersion that you're talking about. Let me try to explain.

I like acting in character: speaking, responding, bantering, throwing in little actions and details, and such things. I like thinking through things in terms of what my character's feelings and motivations would be, and reacting to situations from that perspective. Maybe this is more method acting than what you would call immersion, but I feel "immersed" in the game when I do it this way. I don't like breaking out of this mindset-- I don't like spending a lot of time on "gamey" tasks such as rolling dice or messing with numbers and stats, and I am typically not all that fond of mechanics where outcomes are essentially negotiated (like in Apocalypse World where the GM gives the player a list of some things that could happen and the player gets to pick) rather than roleplayed out.

However, I do acknowledge that there is no strong wall for me between "things internal to my character" and "things external to my character" as long as they still fall into "things relevant to my character." For example, it doesn't bother me, when speaking in-character, to sometimes declare what she sees in addition to how she reacts to what she sees, or mix a bit of the results of her action into the description of the action itself. This is exerting a degree of narrative control that can break some definitions of immersion, but it does not to me, because everything is still being focused through the lens of what the character perceives. I'm simply generating some of the content myself.

I should go into a little more detail about being bound by an adherence to what a character could "really" do. I am against binding players too much by "things the player knows that the character wouldn't" without considering "things the character knows that the player doesn't." When playing an RPG, the amount of information that players receive about the setting and situation (from their character sheets, the game's rules, and the GM) is much less than what characters would receive through their experiences and senses. Yes, some of this is simply compressing things for efficiency, but it's a very lossy compression. I feel like information, details, and options that would be very relevant to the character can and often will be left out due to factors related to the player or the game. While the GM will certainly try to filter out and inform the player what's relevant, players are also relying on the GM's definition of "relevant," and the GM might make a mistake, too. Too much specific information spoon-fed this way also feels like a railroad. However, if the GM is less specific, characters who would be normally expected to solve a problem in a certain way might not be directed to do so by their players because the player or the GM left something out or there was some other sort of mistake or misunderstanding. Large amounts of abstraction are one way out, but I don't like that. It can be taken to absurdity-- why not just roll your "Dungeoneering" skill any time you're roaming around a dungeon not in combat, and completely skip all the exploration? Well, that's no fun. On the other hand, demanding player knowledge of various obscure in-setting things is no fun either.

So, the way I personally solve the dilemma is to let players fill in some of the foggy details themselves. It feels more like "being your character" when you are able to state some fact your character knows, rather than the GM just telling you and you regurgitating it later-- that "fact" is probably something that you just made up right now, but that normally doesn't bother me too much. It's certainly not the only way to do it, but it's the way that works best for me.

Quote from: beejazzDoing both in this fashion kind of still incentivizes point buy if point buy characters tend to be better (and they will).

Well, they'll more min-maxed, certainly. Rolling randomly can often lead to characters that are "worth" more than the campaign would've allotted for point-buy, but are usually far less optimized, of course, because they have a few moderately high stats rather than one very high one.

Quote from: beejazzBut the line falls in different places for different people and different games.

I agree, but this is basically what I was saying-- that the game's mechanics and the rules chosen by the group should dictate what the player does and doesn't get to decide. If an argument is going to be made from the perspective of immersion, the person making the argument either has to stipulate that eventually there is some arbitrary demarcation on "immersion" made by the game's mechanics (thus acknowledging my point) or be prepared to defend the proposition for some truly ridiculous values of "things the player gets to decide."

Quote from: beejazzThat's just narrative efficiency given the limitations of the medium. Personally, I'd rather neither hear the chirp of every bird nor decide myself what the plot-relevant details are (say, deciding there's a rabbit to hunt instead of looking for one). It's a non-issue that doesn't need solving, so there are no worthwhile trade offs one could make to solve it.

It's your opinion that it's a non-issue that doesn't need solving. Personally, I think there is an issue here. I tried to explain the basic idea in my comments above to Vreeg.

On letting players narrate bits and pieces, there's a fuzzy line as usual. It varies player by player. Given the wildlife example, though, I could say that a character deciding whether to hunt or not determines whether the rabbit is relevant or not (and by extension whether it gets mentioned by the GM or not). These sorts of player questions -> GM answers scenarios can be seen as a kind of "narrative control." In an analogy with film, they aren't so much designing the sets as they are pointing the camera in this scenario. Works well enough for me, and most of my players.

This isn't always the most efficient way of doing things, but when players get to dictate environmental factors with game significance (whether they get to eat tonight in this example), it can hit a snag for some people. I think people's boundaries are usually a bit broader on aspects of the game they would describe as "flavor" or "set dressing." For example, if crits kill, few would have a problem with letting the player narrate the killshot so long as the effect was roughly the same.

Sparkle,
That was really useful and informative.  You explained very clearly your though process and playstyle in a way that helped me understand where your head was at.  And it also showed me where we agree and disagree and where the rather large grey area is where we sort of agree. 

I think one way I have always viewed the GM's job vs the players position is to be the background information in their story, as well as to provide any and all the information the players require to stay immersed.  and as I mentioned earlier, staying in the 'Setting-Reactive' mindeset is something I consider imprtant for staying immersed in the role of the character.  I can say with surety that there has never been a GS game since I have had the wiki that has not required me to update said wiki with information about the world I provided to the players in game that was actually not written anywhere or known yet.

This is from the GS wiki...
Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design

The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.

(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).

So you can see that the information flow to players and how it keeps them in a 'Setting -Reactive' mindset (as opposed to a 'Game-Proactive') mindeset during the game is something I have spent some time really sorting out, at least how it works for me and those I work with.  Again, it does not make it correct for everyone, and I am interested to see how this 'outside-in' immersion that seems to help you stay in character works as we progress down this long-term discussion.

Since we're quoting stuff that we wrote, I'll quote this from an old post I wrote before.

Quote from: Giving more narrative control to playersOne challenge with giving players more narrative control is ensuring the setting nonetheless remains consistent. Admittedly, it does create a certain Schrödingeresque dynamic when things that are unknown and unseen are essentially amorphous, waiting to be defined by a declaration, but I think that no setting is ever as detailed as inquisitive players want, and the GM has to make up this kind of stuff on the fly anyway. Why not let players join in the process? Personally, I think it actually adds to immersion, because it gives the player a sense of ownership in the setting and the game-- and that's a good thing.

Perhaps I'm misreading you (and correct me if I am) but I get this feeling that you think the GM should be the absolute owner of the game and setting and the players are more like guests in the GM's world. I don't like this approach at all. The game belongs to everyone. I don't see any need to differentiate a "shared narrative" from anything else because that feels like what an RPG should always be-- someone who doesn't want to share the narrative can go write a book.

So, I'm actually against the "Illusion of Preparedness." While I definitely think that the GM should provide a coherent setting and should give the players needed information in order to be able to act and think in character, and of course making it up as you go along is a valuable skill as a GM, I also think the GM shouldn't be the only one ready, willing, and able to wing it. I think these little empty spaces are potential opportunities, not flaws. By pretending that everything is set in stone, it deprives the players of a lot of chances to feel a sense of ownership and belonging in the setting.

I think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

To me, keeping the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible has nothing to do with immersion, because a player who is even thinking in those terms is already thinking in terms of the metagame rather than how the information would actually be perceived by the character. To the character, as long as it's presented right, it's all just "stuff that happens." That's also why it doesn't really matter whether Player B or the GM gives a detail that is out of Player A's control. It only affects Player A's immersion if Player A is already starting to lose immersion by considering why the information was introduced and where it came from.

Just wanted to pop in real quick and say that while I've only been following this thing loosely I have found the discussion quite fascinating. I am part of what you'd call the collaborative storytelling camp. I personally feel that a campaign is the collective creation of the DM and the Players. Sometimes it is good to let the players have some narrative control, sometimes it's good to let the DM have some player control. Ultimately you are not your character and the DM is not the ultimate god within the setting. You are people outside this world, playing in it for the purpose of having fun and socializing while telling a story. You will never have total immersion (not until we get some better virtual reality at least) and to pursue immersion at the expense of game enjoyment and storytelling is IMHO counter to the idea of the roleplay game.

Quote from: sparkletwist
Since we're quoting stuff that we wrote, I'll quote this from an old post I wrote before.

Quote from: Giving more narrative control to playersOne challenge with giving players more narrative control is ensuring the setting nonetheless remains consistent. Admittedly, it does create a certain Schrödingeresque dynamic when things that are unknown and unseen are essentially amorphous, waiting to be defined by a declaration, but I think that no setting is ever as detailed as inquisitive players want, and the GM has to make up this kind of stuff on the fly anyway. Why not let players join in the process? Personally, I think it actually adds to immersion, because it gives the player a sense of ownership in the setting and the game-- and that's a good thing.

Perhaps I'm misreading you (and correct me if I am) but I get this feeling that you think the GM should be the absolute owner of the game and setting and the players are more like guests in the GM's world. I don't like this approach at all. The game belongs to everyone. I don't see any need to differentiate a "shared narrative" from anything else because that feels like what an RPG should always be-- someone who doesn't want to share the narrative can go write a book.

So, I'm actually against the "Illusion of Preparedness." While I definitely think that the GM should provide a coherent setting and should give the players needed information in order to be able to act and think in character, and of course making it up as you go along is a valuable skill as a GM, I also think the GM shouldn't be the only one ready, willing, and able to wing it. I think these little empty spaces are potential opportunities, not flaws. By pretending that everything is set in stone, it deprives the players of a lot of chances to feel a sense of ownership and belonging in the setting.

I think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

To me, keeping the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible has nothing to do with immersion, because a player who is even thinking in those terms is already thinking in terms of the metagame rather than how the information would actually be perceived by the character. To the character, as long as it's presented right, it's all just "stuff that happens." That's also why it doesn't really matter whether Player B or the GM gives a detail that is out of Player A's control. It only affects Player A's immersion if Player A is already starting to lose immersion by considering why the information was introduced and where it came from.

First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn.  

And , stripping away semantics as I did to you recently, I am only being fair to say by some perspectives, yes, the GM, or referee or Judge as he has been called variously could be seen as the owner of the game with the players being guests.  I have allowed a lot more player-direction in the last 7-8 years than ever before, and I agree more than ever that it  can help.
and while maybe Celtricia is an extreme example, but I think your version of a sense of ownership deprives the player of a level of immersion.  

Quote from: SparkleI think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

Hey..players in SIG, how many types of ale are their in Steel Isle?  I can tell you, and what the % of any ale being in a particular bar.  And what do you normally order or what Does Eddon or Heemious order?  In my opinion, in a roleplaying game, the player will ask if there is a tankard of ale that they did not order there to swig, the question will come up whose ale is it.  If the player did order it, then  there is no reason to ask.  trust me, we have these bar scenes very regularly, and sometimes they take up a lot of time...because we roleplay a lot of them.
Why do I do this?  Because I am trying to keep the same setting-reactive viewpoint.  If the players did not arrange for the tankard of ale and the GMN did not describe a reason that it was there, then the player is moving out of character saying it is there.

I am not saying you are wrong and that player ownership is not important...but I will tell you many Players come to Celtricia due to the level of completeness.  ANd many with deep dissatisfaction with shared narrativist games.  As written By a player who joined a few years back...(Sirrah Grobach's, to those who keep track)...
" I blamed my recent unsatisfaction in adult gaming on my growing older, until coming to the Igbar campaign.  I had been playing with more and more modern elements, and been told they were better for combined storytelling, until I played Guildschool and I found that the cost of narrative control was the feeling of really playing the character within the world."
When a player can see the invisble hand of the GM, when there is a noticable break...whether it is a player trying to play the system vs the setting, or a GM noticably making stuff up as they go along, the players note it and respond differently, and in my eyes, this is the same as when the players try to see behind the curtain and change their presptective is the end of playing from the perspective of the character.  It is still, at least in every experience I have had or had experienced to me by people who seem to grasp gaming mechanics, the difference between 'setting-reactive and immersed' and 'game-proactive and outside-in'.

You may not like the "illusion of Preparedness", but the term came up in a far reaching conversation about whether any mainly 'created on the fly' camapign could be really relevant, since it is somewhat common knowledge, or common consensus might be a less contentious term, that PCs who see things being created on the fly are always less immersed due to the lack of credibility of the GM.

I mean, heck, Sparkle, when Nomadic wanted to do some stuff with Kellik, and make stuff happen to his character, I arranged out of game for that to happen since we'd worked out outside of game, since that is where that belongs, so as not to upset immersion in game.  And that is how I do it...though I may be missing something, though, or maybe even missing a different source of fun, which is still the main rule.

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

The internet robs me of intent
That was really meant from a pro-sparkle, "hey, when you and I both talk about things as opinions, I am really happy to keep the conversation going."  And then I basically said to be fair, by some perspectives, Sparkle is right and my view could be seen as the exact way she described it.

Very interesting discussions; I pluralize it since it has went in a few different directions. I'm thinking that I very much want to play in a player driven game at least once, since I find my own feelings towards gaming to be closer to Vreeg's. I'm used to the DM being the giver of all information, and not used to players having much control other than the DM saying yes frequently to "Is there an X" type questions.

Mainly just announcing that I'm lurking and don't really have much to add at this point.

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

The internet robs me of intent
That was really meant from a pro-sparkle, "hey, when you and I both talk about things as opinions, I am really happy to keep the conversation going."  And then I basically said to be fair, by some perspectives, Sparkle is right and my view could be seen as the exact way she described it.

Perhaps but it came across as patronizing, I would very much like if people would avoid that kind of tone in a respectable debate thread like this one.

Yeah.  I apologize for writing it in a tone that could be misconstrued.  As said, the intention was not there; and it is hard to avoid what you are not actively attempting to do.   :?:
I'll try to avoid the compliments, since they are just causing confusion, twice now on this site in 2 days.

Quote from: XeviatVery interesting discussions; I pluralize it since it has went in a few different directions. I'm thinking that I very much want to play in a player driven game at least once, since I find my own feelings towards gaming to be closer to Vreeg's. I'm used to the DM being the giver of all information, and not used to players having much control other than the DM saying yes frequently to "Is there an X" type questions.

Mainly just announcing that I'm lurking and don't really have much to add at this point.

Well, the thread IS interesting.  A lot of it is defining what is meant when people use a word, and a few times it has literally been the definition of a word that has been the culprit.  As Beejazz obliquely inferred, we spend time on other sites talking about a thing, so we sort of assume that everyone has a pretty similar idea and has gone through the same process, and that is simply not true.  

I also get the feeling that there is a ratio of player enjoyment that comes from Buy-in that some players and GMs feel is enhanced when the narrative control is shared.  And that this enhancement is worth some loss of 'traditional Immersion' because of the buy-in benefits gained on the other side, and might even create a more 'story driven immersion'.
The 'Tankard of Ale' test (as it might become called) was actually a wonderfully simple test, since I believe Sparkle wrote it with ideal that it was 'small and incidenta'l, but it is actualy a fantastic GM litmus test, becasue for some GMs, it is not small and might not go unnoticed.