Meta-rules: Roleplaying within a frame

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=scmp]I'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories. Playing them as games means you give up a lot of control. Playing them as collaborative stories means that everyone holds on to some control. And you can play somewhere in the middle, where some control is given up by the players but not all.[/blockquote]
No.  Maybe it is the definitions and differentiations that are causing some of the problems.  But Obviously, I also see RPGs as collaborative storytelling.  Some of these collaborative stories have gone on for decades.  Currently, my Miston group has been playing the same characters, or at least the same group, for almost 13 yearsMiston.  
I said, specifically
[blockquote=Vreeg]No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments)[/blockquote]
So obviously, we both view our Role Playing Games this way as cooperative storytelling.  So once again, obviously, you should not use that term as a differentiator... I frankly don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I make that clear as heck that is how I view the game I play, and then you use the exact same term, somehow, as a contrast on how you believe we differ.

especially
[blockquote=SCMP][blockquote=Vreeg's Bordeaux]And at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]

At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it. No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the basic definition and reality of the game.[/blockquote]

And for me your position flies in the very face of what I know the reason for bothering to play cooperatively is.[/blockquote]

My position flies in the face of of the reason for playing cooperatively?  Maybe for you, but when I specifically use the term 'cooperatively' as part of the definition of what I do, and you respond with that without any reasons, you are drawing lines.

I think the issue between us is actually one of control.

What is implied but not stated in this and most traditional definitions of roleplaying games, (and I love you you didn't even bring up the definition or respond to it)
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]
is that the GM is the arbiter and controls the outcomes of a player characters interactions with their setting.  A good gm never misuses this but part of playing the game is consequences.  But your response to CC speaks volumes on this.  

[blockquote=SCMP]Did I say every surprise had to be run by me? I just don't want surprises sprung on me that invalidate all the work I've done up till that point.[/blockquote]  
I think this says it all.  
What I think it really says is that you want to create a cooperative storytelling experience with some elements of a traditional FRP, but with less GM fiat and more player input on the consequences of the setting upon the character.  

[Superfluous Crow]

Hmm, glad that the thread is active even if it has derailed somewhat from mechanics to style...
And i'm pretty sure this discussion can't be turned by anyone. Everybody is adamant about their own opinion. You see a game as a sandbox where everybody can act out their own personal image of a character and play a non-threatening but probably fun game with friends. The other camp focuses on more dynamic and "realistic" characters (realistic in motivation and emotion and thought that is) that are exploring an unknown world and an unknown story with the DM acting as the omniscient storyteller who sets the scene. The non-control type operate with dynamic environment, that changes to accomodate players, and static characters while the control camp operate with a static environment and dynamic characters. (and then there are of course a range of variants in between).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

...  If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?

Now i understand you don't like comparing fact to fiction (personally i prefer an equal mix), but you have to be faced with surprises on occassion yourself? Can't you transfer those experiences to your character?

That actually is what I'm doing.  It's the only way I know how to react to those types of situations.  My thought process is very simple regarding problems I realize I don't know how to solve: 1) stop doing anything, 2) determine if the can avoid/ignore the problem, 3) if #2 is not viable determine if you can destroy the problem (not very likely in RL), 4) if neither solution is possible do not do anything until instructions are forthcoming.  Probably I'll have to retreat and seek out instructions.  Aside from knowing what to do beforehand these are the only options I understand how to carry out.

It's not that i mind your gaming style, it just seems to lack some "challenge" (at least, that added bit you get from non-control games).

There are some challenges I know I can deal with, and some I know I will never overcome.  I avoid those I cannot overcome out of practicality.  The character-influencing situations are one such challenge.

And all roleplaying games will inevitably always include reality in some way. I'm pretty sure you would hate playing in a world that hadn't nothing to do with reality as much as everybody else would. Although a world that resembles reality entirely would be just as boring (or at least unneccessary).

It's the amount of reality that bothers me: past a certain point it just seems more logical to engage in real life.

[Superfluous Crow]

and now i advocate that we end this style discussion seeing as it will reach no conclusion.
(and of course so you can comment on my question from the first post :p)

[Ishmayl-Retired]

^Agreed

[Steerpike]

Personally I totally see the merit of your position, SCMP.  It's a totally valid style of play; it not only qualifies as collaborative storytelling, it transcends the usual bounds of player input, making them effective co-authors of the world.  Basically, as I understand it, some tenets of your play style might include (and these are all different facets of the same principle):

1) No changes, positive or negative, can be made to a character without the controlling player's prior permission; even if a GM doesn't explicitly plan an event, if the GM engineers a situation where a positive or negative change can happen, s/he must warn the player beforehand or check with them before making the change.

2) The player can veto anything negative that happens to their character, period.  Don't want to go insane?  No insanity.  Don't like that your character was physically or psychologically scarred, transformed, or degenerated?  It doesn't happen.

3)The player and the player alone controls their character and the direction they take that character, 100%.  A GM, or other players, can suggest changes, but the player's character remains sacred, untouchable.

4) The player not only controls the reaction their character might have to events within the world, s/he should be able to control the event itself insofar as that event might impact their character. Not only can your superhero react in a way you choose to the destruction of his/her home dimension, you as a player should actively be allowed to determine whether the home dimension gets destroyed.

This is cool, and I see its advantages.  What you should realize is that not everyone - in fact I'd go so far as to say very few people - play this way; it's not the only way to play.  The standard style of playing is quite different:

1) Actions have consequences in the game-world as in the real-world.  If a character's decisions place them in peril, they should have to respond to that peril.  The key here is that the player and the character still make choices, but they are limited to controlling only those things that their character can control.  Everything else is up to the GM and the other players.

2) The player has no automatic veto over negative changes that are a result of their own decisions.  A good GM will not simply assail a character with situations and confrontations in which they have no choice as to how to respond (railroading); instead, they a GM devises situations that a character, rather than a player, may respond to in a variety of ways.  They might consult about really big events, such as the destruction of an entire dimension.  But for most specific events, he won't ask permission to introduce, even if they could positively or negatively change a character.

3) Characters can die, be transformed, polymorphed, petrified, poisoned, and otherwise altered.  A player can attempt to avoid any of the alterations through their characters' actions, but through their characters' actions only.  This generates suspense and risk because the player feels that their character is genuinely in danger and will work harder to preserve them within the game-world.  A good GM won't overdose his campaign with uber-powerful villains or monsters, all of whom can alter a player, but he will include enough risks to make players think hard before taking action.

4) A GM listens to players wants and desires and allows a player to play their character in the manner that they choose.  S/he respects a player's choices for a character.  S/he expects in "return" for the player to understand that the world itself is essentially the GM's character, and just as the player has control over his character's actions, the GM has control over the world's actions.

I think this is a decent outline of SCMP vs. Vreeg in terms of play styles, to expand my above analysis a bit further...

EDIT: sorry, posted after the discussion ended.  Consider the above post as my footnote to the post I made before...

[Ishmayl-Retired]

No prob, Steerpike, it was a remarkably well-phrased closing statement on the subject.  
Cheers!

[Superfluous Crow]

A pretty good foodnote though. Nice and diplomatic and brings out the good parts equally in both styles :)

[Llum]

Call me a rollplayer then, but I absolutely love "invasive" RP rules like alignment and insanity. Back in 3E I had a long discussion with my players on how we were going to handle NPCs use of social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. I had statted up the player's primary NPC contact as a half-elf bard who absolutely hated his mother for falling in love with a human, shorting him out of the lifespan he would have had if his father had been an elf. This fear of death was leading him down the path of lichdom (it was an evil campaign, btw). Crow, his name, was (on the surface) the nicest person you could ever meet. Even though he had an 18 charisma, his Intimidate score was in the negatives due to the traits he took (from Unearthed Arcana) which imposed negatives to his Intimidate skill. He simply couldn't be intimidating; if he tried to be, people would take it in the best possible way and just think he was joking. He made a living writing plays that were commentaries on the royalty while he was also a patron to many of the noblemen's wives and daughters (he'd have them over to his manor for "private poetry readings").

Needless to say, the depth of this character absolutely required the players to play by the same rules that NPCs did. There were going to be duplicitous plot elements and I had to know that I could pull a fast one on the characters even though the players totally suspected it.

When I came to my players to ask them if they'd let me roll Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against them, they were at first confused. I explained to them that I was allowed to roll Bluff checks against their Sense Motive. I also asked them if they were okay when they failed a save against an NPC wizard's domination. Since they were fine playing out a wizard's domination, they decided they were fine playing out an NPC sweet talking them with Diplomacy or seeming like 10 levels stronger with Intimidate.

I was worried that they'd see it as me telling them how to play their characters, but after the discussion one player in particular told me that it wasn't so harsh. Instead of playing their characters for them, it's like a director giving an actor their motivation (less so, since actors are on a script). But an actor still gets to determine how they portray a character (that's why actor's get more awards and acclaim than the writers do).

Currently, I'm trying to figure out a set of meta-rules to encourage my players to play Good aligned characters and make Evil both tempting and damning. I want Good to be the hard but rewarding path, and I want Evil to be the easy but ultimately bad path. Players will still be perfectly able to play Neutral and Evil characters, but I'd like some small mechanic to inject the sort of "moral shield" that people get when they truly believe they're doing the right thing (you know, that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do something truly altruistic). I'd like the world to reward such characters for going extensively out of their way to do the heroic thing, even though it not only puts them at risk but also costs them something.

I also love sanity/taint rules in settings which are made for them. Legend of the Five Rings wouldn't be the same without the threat of taint (Shadowlands creatures wouldn't be fearsome if they were just like fighting a warrior; sure, you could lose limb or life in both fights, but a fight with an Oni could cost you your soul). Likewise, Call of Cthulu wouldn't be the same without the ever present threat of sanity. One of my favorite video games of all times was "Eternal Darkness", which took advantage of being a video game with its sanity systems (there were times where the game would seem to turn off, or blue-screen-of-death you, or you'd see insects crawling on your TV screen, or you'd get game over screens).

I also loved the Traits of 3E, because they let players get some mechanical means to express the way they wanted to play their characters. One of the better written characters in games I've DMed was a halfling shuriken throwing rogue, who grew farsighted from constantly wearing his "goggles of minute seeing". The bonus and penalty he got from the trait (-2 search, +1 spot) wasn't overly beneficial or hindering for him, but the player found it nice to have his stat sheet reflect the way he intended to play his character (I actually never let a player see the effects of the traits we used, I'd have them either pick two traits from the list or just make up two of their own, and I'd add the changes to their character sheet after they were done. This way, no one picked traits to min/max their character, as I've seen done with advantages and disadvantages in many systems.)

LC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.

Disadvantages are actual mechanical penalties. By taking a disadvantage, you gain bonus character points to buy things to make you stronger. The amount of points you gain are based on the Severity and Frequency of the drawback. The Severity is how badly the drawback will affect you: lets say your vampire character begins to die in the sunlight, losing a point of Constitution every turn he's in sunlight. This drawback is severe, because it can kill your character. Rather than letting a player pick a drawback and then go through every means in their disposal to keep it from happening, the system incorporates Frequency into the value of the drawback. The frequency determines how often the GM will bring up your drawback (either 1/4th of sessions, 1/2, or 3/4ths of sessions). To keep it random, a GM is advised to roll a d4 (actually a d20, looking at 5's, since the system uses only d20s) before each adventure to see if the drawback will come up. Superman's weakness to kryptonite is a drawback of this sort; it is meaningless if it's not around, but it comes up whenever the GM wants it to (since most Superman players buy it with pretty heavy frequency to pay for all the BS Superman can do), even though it's supposed to be a rare element.

But again, I'm Kaptain Krunch. I ran a game involving a bleed from Far Realm where the group of characters were slowly losing their mind (one had snapped because she was forced to kill an old lady, a possessed child, and one of her adventuring companions all in the span of 5 minutes), and I was making extensive uses of the sanity and taint rules.

I like when the rules support the fluff. If a race's description says they're frail, I'd like to see a Con penalty. If a race description says that a race is athletic, I'd like to see a bonus to athletic-type skills. In 4E, I totally do not understand why Half-Elves have as much Constitution as Dwarves (the description of the Half-Elf says they're hardier than Elves, but since Elves don't have a Con penalty we ended up with Dwarf-tough Half-Elves).

Now, I think such meta rules typically work best if players have some say in it. If you're using Sanity rules, for instance, you should probably either only use one effect for everyone or just let each player choose the effect of their Sanity (from a mechanically balanced list, preferably). It might not have been in the player's picture of their character for their character to become irredeemably obsessive-compulsive, stopping to count the eyes on ever group of monsters they fight (mechanics, dazed for the first round of every encounter, combative or social), but it's also not on most player's agendas to have their character die a horrible death or be converted to a ghoul; these things happen.

I find it really odd that most players will accept their character dying at some amount of negative HP, or having their character's weapons be non-functional against a certain monster, a wizard dominating their character, or their character contracting Lycanthropy, yet I've seen posts of players saying that it's unfair for a DM to roll an Intimidate check, beat their Will defense and tell the player to play their character as if they're absolutely terrified of the NPC and should do what the NPC says or suffer the consequences. In fact, I saw a thread just today talking about the issue of an NPC grabbing a character, holding a knife to their throat and telling the other players to "freeze or he dies"; out of character the player of the held character says "let him, he can't deal 1/4th my life in damage in a single blow from a dagger, so even a coup de grace won't kill me". Mechanics don't match up with the fluff in that circumstance and many others. As an amateur designer, these are the things I hope to be able to address in any system I tweek or possibly create in the future.

Wow that ended up being longer than I thought. Thanks for the awesome thread.

This is awsome Kap Xeviat. I really like how you explained all your points and it really gives a good in depth look at how meta-rules can be used in a really neat way. I think it is a bit more work to be done (randomizing traits, handling social checks vs PCs) but it really seems like you pulled it off.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I acknowledge that other people will see and play games differently.  I was only trying to clarify my own position and get clarification on the position of others.

[Superfluous Crow]

Oh yeah, forgot that one Xev. sorry. Got caught up in the discussion...
The alignment idea sounds really neat. I would love to see it if you were able to figure it out. Most aligment systems always seem to lack the rewards that you really want.
Haven't looked much at taint rules except shortly in unearthed arcana. I think insanity and fear rules can add much since these are factors that can be hard to fit into one's character by yourself.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Personally I totally see the merit of your position, SCMP.  It's a totally valid style of play; it not only qualifies as collaborative storytelling, it transcends the usual bounds of player input, making them effective co-authors of the world.  Basically, as I understand it, some tenets of your play style might include (and these are all different facets of the same principle):

1) No changes, positive or negative, can be made to a character without the controlling player's prior permission; even if a GM doesn't explicitly plan an event, if the GM engineers a situation where a positive or negative change can happen, s/he must warn the player beforehand or check with them before making the change.

2) The player can veto anything negative that happens to their character, period.  Don't want to go insane?  No insanity.  Don't like that your character was physically or psychologically scarred, transformed, or degenerated?  It doesn't happen.

3)The player and the player alone controls their character and the direction they take that character, 100%.  A GM, or other players, can suggest changes, but the player's character remains sacred, untouchable.

4) The player not only controls the reaction their character might have to events within the world, s/he should be able to control the event itself insofar as that event might impact their character. Not only can your superhero react in a way you choose to the destruction of his/her home dimension, you as a player should actively be allowed to determine whether the home dimension gets destroyed.

I've actually played several games like this, and it works very well once everyone understands the few simple rules and what each of the others is like.  Truthfully we don't bother with actual game rules, and we still don't have any problems with arbitration because we all know we're not competing.  (Yeah, it probably is a fantastic group devoid of power-players.)

[Lmns Crn]

LC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.

one[/i] FP for this compel, perhaps two will sweeten the pot? Now, if Henry wants to resist the compel, it costs two FP as well. (Upping the ante like this is supposed to be rare, and reserved for especially dramatic situations.)

If Henry runs out of Fate Points, he can no longer resist Aspect compels-- in this case, he'd "run out of willpower" and would have no choice but to smash the bomb.

This is a silly and extreme example, because unless the bomb is a dud (or is in some kind of really hard case), hitting it with a hammer will probably kill everyone.

To follow up on your Spider-Man example, it's recommended in SotC that you take an Aspect to represent any kind of dependent like that-- in SotC rules, Spider-Man would certainly have an Aspect for Mary Jane. Since they're going to be imperiled anyway, might as well snag a Fate Point when it happens.

[Steerpike]

I love the idea of Fate points!  I definitely have to adapt that for my own games.

[Nomadic]

Going back to what I was talking about earlier. I DM differently than I PC. As a DM I see importance in the ability to let players do what they want. My systems tend to be very loose and freeform with room for making rules and decisions on the fly. I prefer to stay away from complex and solid mechanics like madness rules. While I recognize that they have a place I tend to only use them where I have no choice.

As a player character though I don't mind rules and I don't mind major impacts to my character. But you see I don't roleplay to create a character I roleplay to create a story. I also see it as a joint effort between me and the DM. The DM sets the encounter I make the choices and the DM tells me the results. I like to roll with the results since that makes for some interesting character development that I simply couldn't make up if I was just creating a character alone.

This sort of by the seat of the pants dangerous roleplay isn't for everyone. That's fine. I grew up with it though so I greatly enjoy the challenge. My first DMs were people who made Gygaxian gameplay look like my little pony goes to candyland. I enjoyed it though and played for the sake of the story instead. It gleaned within me an interest to stake my claim in the story instead of the individual characters (a bit like writing a book jointly with the DM and my fellow PCs). Since then I have had far more mellow DMs but I still have that love in me and I think I always will.

...and now you all know a bit more about how the crazy nomad rolls.