PDA

View Full Version : Telling the players *everything*



Aliquid
2017-10-04, 04:06 PM
I'm running a game right now where I'm handling the whole player knowledge vs. character knowledge and metagaming thing from a different angle than I normally do.

I let the players know what's going on without any concern for metagaming. They agreed and want to play a game where they have to remember to separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

I'm making it as if they are viewing the "story" as if they were reading it in a book, or watching it on a show.

So, if the "audience" would know something if this were a show, I tell the players about it. I even narrate the "meanwhile" scenes where you get to see what the bad guys are up to.

It seems to be working so far, but it certainly takes effort to change the way I approach the game... considering I have played the opposite way for decades.

Anyone else try this? Any advise on how to keep it working?

kyoryu
2017-10-04, 04:11 PM
I've done similar.

In almost any RPG I've ever played, there's some things the player knows that the character doesn't, and you have to learn to separate the two.

Fate kind of implicitly assumes that the player will take the part of both the audience as well as the character, and so that type of thing tends to happen a bit. (A Fate character sheet is more "what the audience knows" than a full detailed writeup of all the facts of a character, for instance).

I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience. But I do find that letting the players know things that "the audience" knows, rather than just what the characters see, can make for a good game in some circumstances.

Aliquid
2017-10-04, 04:17 PM
I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience.Agreed

The "meanwhile" scenes are typically vague and suspenseful. "20 minutes after you leave, a shadowy figure slips a note to the mayor. The mayor reads it and nods approvingly"

kyoryu
2017-10-04, 04:59 PM
One scenario I've run a few times typically starts with a cut scene involving the folks the PCs are *about* to meet. It's worked out pretty well.

But for other sorts of games, i absolutely wouldn't do it. It's definitely a situational technique, even more than most.

RazorChain
2017-10-04, 07:58 PM
Theatrix did this 25 years ago. The system is set up as episodic TV show or a movie with scenes showing what the bad guys are doing. I must admit it had a big influence on me at the time, opening up different possibilites of roleplaying as I started experimenting with different systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrix_(role-playing_game)

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-10-05, 05:58 AM
Absolutely, I love doing this sort of thing - I've only ever encountered a couple of players who didn't enjoy it (they were stick-in-the-mud old grognards who refused to go along with any sort of RPG innovation from after 1979).

Aran nu tasar
2017-10-05, 06:50 AM
This is exactly how I play, especially with intraparty conflicts and scheming. It leads to fantastic dramatic irony, and prevents unwelcome surprises for the players on the receiving end of schemes. I don't know if I'd go so far as to narrate 'meanwhile' scenes, except as a GM move/complication if I'm playing something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark, but that's more because of my preference for player-driven games that don't lend themselves super well to big bads with big evil plans.

kivzirrum
2017-10-05, 07:49 AM
Hmm, interesting! Never played in or DM'd a game quite like this--while there's always some difference between player knowledge and character knowledge in most games, nothing on that level. Could be fun!

Koo Rehtorb
2017-10-05, 08:06 AM
Set up situations where the interesting question isn't if the PCs know about something, the interesting question is what they're going to do about it.

"The King is totally lying to your faces right now, you can see it in his eyes. He has no intention of pardoning them. In fact, as soon as you leave the castle he's going to have them all executed. What do you do?"

Pleh
2017-10-05, 08:11 AM
Actually, I find that entrusting my players with larger portions of DM knowledge and authority (larger than typical, that is) only makes it easier to get them invested in the story I was intending to have them participate in.

I rather only hold back information where I feel the players would prefer to be surprised. It's a bit like getting older with christmas presents. I'm more transparent about asking them what they want and what I'm thinking about getting them, but I still wrap it up in a box for them and get a few things I didn't tell them about. I just don't feel much is gained holding my cards very close to my chest.

Geddy2112
2017-10-05, 08:31 AM
I don't have the meanwhile scenes of what is happening outside the players, but that is because in my games the camera is always on one of the party members. My group is really good about not metagaming, and we often laugh and say "if only my character knew..."I favor telling players a little too much than telling them nothing and leaving them to flounder in the dark.



I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience. But I do find that letting the players know things that "the audience" knows, rather than just what the characters see, can make for a good game in some circumstances.

+1 to this.

Tinkerer
2017-10-05, 09:35 AM
I've tried it and it's definitely a fun way to play however it tends not to fit well with my normal style. I generally prefer to do this post-campaign to show some aspects of the adventure which the players were unaware of and some background. Or if it's a long running campaign then show it once per tier level after the points are relevant.

But I've definitely seen several GMs where it fits perfectly with the atmosphere that they are setting.

kyoryu
2017-10-05, 10:49 AM
While it's not the same as a cut-scene, in one *very* old-school game I played, players wearing full helms were expected to make decisions as if they could not see anything outside of a very, very narrow cone directly in front of them.

The number of times you'd have to go "Well, I guess if this is all I saw, I'd go ahead and do this obviously dumb thing" was amazing.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-05, 04:13 PM
I did exactly this in a Star Wars game for a while. It totally fits that style.

Quertus
2017-10-07, 07:33 AM
Hmmm... This is very antithetical to my general style, but... I've had difficulty getting some of my players to engage in the "understand what's going on" portion of the game. We've hit this cultural impasse of "only using what's on the sheet" vs "read the GMs mind", and this may be an interesting technique to experiment with to try to work on overcoming that difficulty. I'd just need to practice the technique a bit first...

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-07, 08:51 AM
I do this a lot. I even describe scenes in terms of camera angles and shots, because it's easy shorthand for communicating visual information, and you can even throw in soundtrack information according to the mood. So if a character is feeling upset or sad, you can say something like "ah, so in this scene we get to hear Jason's theme but slowed down and in a minor key." Which most people understand.

It also makes it less jarring when you switch to scenes of other characters, since it already feels like a tv show at that point. Personally, I like it a lot. (I also like doing what Koo mentioned, where you give them information without having them roll for it just to see what they do.)

Bogwoppit
2017-10-07, 11:19 AM
I do this a lot. I even describe scenes in terms of camera angles and shots, because it's easy shorthand for communicating visual information, and you can even throw in soundtrack information according to the mood. So if a character is feeling upset or sad, you can say something like "ah, so in this scene we get to hear Jason's theme but slowed down and in a minor key." Which most people understand.

It also makes it less jarring when you switch to scenes of other characters, since it already feels like a tv show at that point. Personally, I like it a lot. (I also like doing what Koo mentioned, where you give them information without having them roll for it just to see what they do.)

Totally! This is exactly how I ran my Star Wars game - plus there's loads of SW music out there that can actually deliver on "Jason's theme, but slowed down and in a minor key".

AMFV
2017-10-07, 12:20 PM
It's certainly good for a particular sort of story (I would imagine). The issues I could see would be that for some players it might be very hard to not use knowledge to their advantage, as opposed to using knowledge to create a better story. For me, I think that could be difficult. But it'd probably be manageable. I'd be very interested in hearing a campaign log or a session report from your system.

It's also worth noting that there are entire systems based around this premise PTA or (Prime Time Adventures) is based around doing a show type thing. I've only skimmed it, so I can't recommend it or comment on it at any length but it seems interesting. I would check into it, maybe there's some tools you can adapt from it to suit your needs.

The main issue I could see cropping up would be first: As shows develop their plotlines get more and more muddied, so you get more and more meanwhiles, and more and more characters. Ergo you're spending more time narrating things and the players are spending less time playing. So I would potentially let the players have characters in the scenes that you're narrating. Like give the players characters who operate in the villain's retinue, that they're not fully in control of, but that would give them some narrative "oomph" that they would be lacking otherwise. Now that would take some control of the story out of your hands, so that may not be the best bet. But with how you're doing things you could always just hand them a plot outline, and then they could help develop the story with you and you'd get to see as many exciting surprises in execution as they might.

Now that might be a real hassle, but with your approach if you can work it, that would be what I would try.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-07, 01:20 PM
If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

AMFV
2017-10-07, 01:22 PM
If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

Well certainly, you see that same distinction in narratives and novels and TV shows. I mean LOTR doesn't have cutaways where you see Sauron or Saruman planning things, because it wouldn't work in that instance. The Belgariad doesn't. A lot of fantasy quest stories don't. And mysteries you shouldn't as well. But I think there are stories it would work for, depending on what kind of story you're telling with the campaign.

90s Kids Cartoon stories, work well that way. Now I don't mean that demeaningly, I don't object to 90s kids shows, but that's a very strong example of everything being revealed to the viewers as it were.

Aliquid
2017-10-07, 02:05 PM
Fate kind of implicitly assumes that the player will take the part of both the audience as well as the character, and so that type of thing tends to happen a bit.
I'm actually using FATE Accelerated rules, so yes it was the system that inspired me to use this new approach.

The main benefit of that system for this type of play is that you do get rewards for playing "in character" if doing so will cause you trouble.

The player knows there are traps in the room... but their character doesn't. They also know their character is impatient and would just barge in without thinking...

How does this pan out? Tragic? Slapstick? Let the player decide. The more they own it the more they will buy into it. Maybe even let them decide what type of trap and how it was triggered.

RazorChain
2017-10-07, 09:58 PM
It's certainly good for a particular sort of story (I would imagine). The issues I could see would be that for some players it might be very hard to not use knowledge to their advantage, as opposed to using knowledge to create a better story. For me, I think that could be difficult. But it'd probably be manageable. I'd be very interested in hearing a campaign log or a session report from your system.

It's also worth noting that there are entire systems based around this premise PTA or (Prime Time Adventures) is based around doing a show type thing. I've only skimmed it, so I can't recommend it or comment on it at any length but it seems interesting. I would check into it, maybe there's some tools you can adapt from it to suit your needs.

The main issue I could see cropping up would be first: As shows develop their plotlines get more and more muddied, so you get more and more meanwhiles, and more and more characters. Ergo you're spending more time narrating things and the players are spending less time playing. So I would potentially let the players have characters in the scenes that you're narrating. Like give the players characters who operate in the villain's retinue, that they're not fully in control of, but that would give them some narrative "oomph" that they would be lacking otherwise. Now that would take some control of the story out of your hands, so that may not be the best bet. But with how you're doing things you could always just hand them a plot outline, and then they could help develop the story with you and you'd get to see as many exciting surprises in execution as they might.

Now that might be a real hassle, but with your approach if you can work it, that would be what I would try.

Me and 3 friends played one season which was called Somewhere in Newfoundland. It centered on the fictional town of Somewhere and was set up as a weird soap opera, the Producer is a huge fan of the Soap tv serie, a parody soap opera. The mechanics are very light and we played 6 or 7 episodes and the stage (the town) always was reset after each episode, even though we had a cult of vampires, a flying saucer crash outside of town etc, everything always got back to normal the next episode.

I would recommend it for short 6-12 session campaign and bit of light hearted fun.

Aran nu tasar
2017-10-08, 09:26 AM
If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

Almost counter-intuitively, I've found that PCs with secrets is one of the best times to do that - it can lead to a lot of fun dramatic irony. But like you say, MMV. It's a technique that can work very well in the right circumstances with the right group, but I would never claim that it is universally the best way to run a game.

Avonar
2017-10-08, 12:03 PM
It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

kyoryu
2017-10-08, 05:17 PM
It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

If doing this, the goal should be to build tension, not release it. Even if doing so at the expense of surprise.

Allow me to use the words of someone much better than myself at this sort of thing. A master, one could argue.


There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-08, 08:02 PM
If doing this, the goal should be to build tension, not release it. Even if doing so at the expense of surprise.

Allow me to use the words of someone much better than myself at this sort of thing. A master, one could argue.

The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.

RazorChain
2017-10-08, 08:36 PM
The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive, they're not exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.


I agree with that. Even though I've played both Theatrix and Prime Time Adventures and had fun. Those systems are not my go-to systems when I'm going to run a game or want to play.

But I find fun to try out different mechanics and styles as it inspires me and gives me ideas to improve my games.

kyoryu
2017-10-08, 10:28 PM
The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive, they're not exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.

I do not disagree with that.

However, I would say that, to a certain extent, all players are the audience. Whether they want to have that be explicit or not is a separate issue.

Tinkerer
2017-10-09, 01:27 PM
It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

That is of assuming that the information is of the type which will be eventually revealed. I tend not to use the style however there are definitely times where I'm biting my tongue wanting to shout out a crucial detail that there is no way for the players to know. Hence one of the reasons why I do a debriefing later.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 02:23 PM
The major downside to this is it seperates player from PC, and increased the feeling that you're following a story, instead of role playing a character.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 02:31 PM
I do this and I like it.

IMHO it ameliorates a major information imbalance between characters and players.

The PCs live in this story. They don't spend a week between fights thinking about other things. They spent years in this world, learning nuances that would influence their decisions but which the players might never even notice.

So I think it's fair to let the players see things that help the characters make better in-character decisions.


That said, I like to provide genre-cues rather than outright tell the players who is good or who is bad. Like, if there's a person they're dealing with who might be suspicious, I'll show them a scene of that person behaving even more suspiciously. Is that person good-suspicious or bad-suspicious? They don't know yet. But they're aware that the genre for this arc includes politics, stealth, back-room dealings, misdirection, and possibly betrayal.

I want them to make informed decision. Not necessarily correct, but at least justifiable.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 04:17 PM
IMHO it ameliorates a major information imbalance between characters and players.lol less than 10 minutes after I said it makes the information imbalance between characters and players worse ...

Which just goes to show the different expectations of what information PCs in the in-game world *should* have, vs what the players *actually* have. :smallamused:

IMX and IMO it's rare that players have less info than the characters, outside of what the PCs senses can sense directly. That's the only place the PCs have any advantage over the players. Everything else, the players have a distinct advantage over the PCs.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 04:45 PM
lol less than 10 minutes after I said it makes the information imbalance between characters and players worse ...

Which just goes to show the different expectations of what information PCs in the in-game world *should* have, vs what the players *actually* have. :smallamused:

I think it also shows that implementation matters.

The specifics of which "everything" you tell the players does make a difference.

Like, don't ruin a mystery that you want them to solve.

But do give them sufficient clues that they can make progress towards solving that mystery.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 05:20 PM
But do give them sufficient clues that they can make progress towards solving that mystery.That is considerably different from giving them information the character's don't have access to. (Or for that matter, the players, before you tell them.)

Nifft
2017-10-09, 06:14 PM
That is considerably different from giving them information the character's don't have access to. (Or for that matter, the players, before you tell them.)
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

If you read many mystery stories, you'll surely stumble across one where a common fact of the world -- not mentioned in the narrative, but apparently blatant enough to be obvious in retrospect -- holds the key to solving the mystery.

Cut-scenes can provide those keys for players who live in very different worlds from the characters.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 06:17 PM
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

If you read many mystery stories, you'll surely stumble across one where a common fact of the world -- not mentioned in the narrative, but apparently blatant enough to be obvious in retrospect -- holds the key to solving the mystery.

Cut-scenes can provide those keys for players who live in very different worlds from the characters.Alternately the DM can just give the players the information that is common knowledge to the PCs, but not the players.
(That is certainly a time where the PC would know something the player does not. Good example! I didn't consider that aspect. For the most part, I assume if there is "world lore" that is relevant, the DM will either show the players in-game or flat out tell them.)

A cut-scene telling the players something the PCs cannot know is never the best solution to players lacking knowledge the PCs have. All it does is drive 'distance' between the players and the PCs.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 06:28 PM
Alternately the DM can just give the players the information that is common knowledge to the PCs, but not the players. ... and one way to do exactly that is to show a cut-scene to the players.

Seriously, it can be great.

I've shown them back-room deals between fey of different courts, so they know at a ballpark how fey behave in my worlds, and how they might value different things. That allowed them to act as competent negotiators in character.

I've shown them scenes which made explicit some potentially confusing things they had already discovered, which allowed the high-Int character to be played like a high-Int character by an average player.

Yes, giving more info to players can help them get into character better.

I've seen it from both sides of the screen.

It's great when it's done well.


A cut-scene telling the players something the PCs cannot know is never the best solution to players lacking knowledge the PCs have. All it does is drive 'distance' between the players and the PCs. We've just spent several posts going over all the other things that it can do, and talking about how 'distance' isn't a necessary consequence if you do it right.

I understand that you've seen it done wrong, and as a result you don't like it, and I can empathize -- but right now you're hyperbolizing and that is killing any credibility you might bring to this discussion.

This technique may have failed for you. But it's worked great for me.

I suspect it can work great for others.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 06:34 PM
We've just spent several posts going over all the other things that it can do, and talking about how 'distance' isn't a necessary consequence if you do it right.No we haven't. All we've done is establish there is a difference between giving the players in-character world lore that that the PC knows and the player doesn't, and giving the players out-of-character knowledge that the PC cannot know.

The former certainly helps role play. The latter drives the player and PC apart. There is no benefit to the latter.

Edit: Okay, I take that back. If your goal as a DM it to tell a story, instead of let the players Role Play their characters, then it benefits you telling a story.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 06:38 PM
Yes, giving more info to players can help them get into character better.

I've seen it from both sides of the screen.


Edit: Okay, I take that back. If your goal as a DM it to tell a story, instead of let the players Role Play their characters, then it benefits you telling a story.

It's like I'm seeing slices of a different discussion from a parallel universe.

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 06:42 PM
It's like I'm seeing slices of a different discussion from a parallel universe.Nah. You're just not seeing that what you're claiming helps get into character better, actually hurts it. That's all. :smalltongue:

For example, a storytelling hurts roleplaying, and vice versa. They are opposed concepts. More of one results in less of the other.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 06:46 PM
Nah. You're just not seeing that what you're claiming helps get into character better, actually hurts it. That's all. :smalltongue:

Ah, of course.

You claim to know better than I do about what I've seen and experienced, therefore you're justified in just ignoring everything I say.

What an astounding leap of rhetorical acrobatics you've made.

Truly worthy of note.

Aliquid
2017-10-09, 08:23 PM
No we haven't. All we've done is establish there is a difference between giving the players in-character world lore that that the PC knows and the player doesn't, and giving the players out-of-character knowledge that the PC cannot know.

The former certainly helps role play. The latter drives the player and PC apart. There is no benefit to the latter.Considering there are entire systems designed for this type of play... I'm thinking that there are people out there that see lots of benefit of the latter... just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Giving a cut scene with information that the PCs couldn't know adds to the story. If you are playing a game where the goal of the players and the GM is to create a story, than this adds to that goal.

Telling the players that their characters are silently being stalked by a creature and (based on rolls) the characters are currently unaware... that completely changes the style of game that you are playing, but it doesn't ruin the game. As kyoryu suggested, it could create suspense.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-09, 08:57 PM
I've found that these sorts of scenes, especially moments where I give players information without them needing to roll for it.
("Ed is lying to you 100%. Super obviously. You can see it in his little rat eyes. The man is a coward and a sneak.")

I love giving players little hints of upcoming things as well. For instance in a campaign going now, I revealed that a character was sent to hunt them down. Two sessions later, she showed up and the characters were shocked and unprepared, while the players had a moment of "oh no, it's happening now," which mirrored the dread the characters felt. The PLAYERS felt that pressure throughout the middle session, but it manifested in the characters being paranoid about an entirely different thing. (Namely, being in hostile territory and trying to save their friend from feral robots.) And the fact that the guillotone hung over their heads for an entire session without falling made the hunter's appearance all the more dreadful. The players loved it, it led to GREAT in-character stuff, and the players through this NPC they got to be thinking about in the background, the players got more in touch with their own characters backstories and what they knew of this NPC's reputation.

I've seen exactly the opposite of what Tanarii claims and there's the story about it. :D

Cluedrew
2017-10-09, 09:12 PM
For example, a storytelling hurts roleplaying, and vice versa. They are opposed concepts. More of one results in less of the other.Not always, for instance roleplaying a character well tends to create a consistent character, something that is also present in good stories.

(Consistent as in "makes sense for that character" not as in "the character always does the same thing".)

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 09:19 PM
What an astounding leap of rhetorical acrobatics you've made.

Truly worthy of note.I thought it was pretty amazing myself. I put some real thought into that one. :smallbiggrin:


The PLAYERS felt that pressure throughout the middle session, but it manifested in the characters being paranoid about an entirely different thing. (Namely, being in hostile territory and trying to save their friend from feral robots.)sounds like what people usually call metagaming, although I'm not really fond of that (technically misuse) of the term. I'd refer to it as playing the story, not their characters. They are taking actions on things their characters cannot know, furthering the story they're playing instead of their characters.


I've seen exactly the opposite of what Tanarii claims and there's the story about it. :DI feel like you've demonstrated my point quite well. It encouraged a play style I'm not big on: acting on what your character can't possibly know.

Now, I'll admit, that's a personal preference. :smallyuk: As Alaquid says, there are entire games based on that kind of play. And even ones that aren't can be done that way. But that was (originally, before I got sidetracked) my point. It creates separation between the players and the PCs. If that's cool, do it. It's worth knowing the effect, whether or not you think it's beneficial or harmful to your preferred style of play.

Nifft
2017-10-09, 09:24 PM
I thought it was pretty amazing myself. I put some real thought into that one. :smallbiggrin:


Actually, the astonishing thing is that willfully ignoring all possible evidence requires the ability to avoid real thought. I'm sure you put in something, but it wasn't thought. And it certainly isn't a counter-argument.


Quite a few of us experience what you claim is impossible.

Now, I'm very willing to accept that you had a bad experience.

Are you willing to accept that the rest of us had good experiences, which were different from your own, and yet also valid?

Tanarii
2017-10-09, 09:43 PM
Are you willing to accept that the rest of us had good experiences, which were different from your own, and yet also valid?
I'm willing to accept that you accepted the separation of player and character, due to things the player now knows that the PC cannot, as a good thing.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-09, 11:10 PM
sounds like what people usually call metagaming, although I'm not really fond of that (technically misuse) of the term. I'd refer to it as playing the story, not their characters. They are taking actions on things their characters cannot know, furthering the story they're playing instead of their characters.

In what way is being paranoid about a situation the characters are already in and know about metagaming? Are you telling me it is inappropriate to feel paranoid when you are miles behind enemy lines, which enemy has deployed against you multiple times and successfully kidnapped one of your number already, and seems eager to bring harm to your group a second time? And you are actively aware of these things thanks to a combination of:
1. They've already tried to kill you
2. You watched them kidnap one of your group
2. You can hear their radio chatter about you

Are you suggesting that this situation could not possibly call for paranoia unless they had the knowledge of having a specific member of a second group they already know is also hunting them generally is now hunting them specifically?



I feel like you've demonstrated my point quite well. It encouraged a play style I'm not big on: acting on what your character can't possibly know.

Again, the most "preparing for problems" action those characters took was to take a breather in a bar after getting into a big fight, and hiding in the basement of said bar AFTER HEARING OVER RADIO THAT THE MACHINES WERE COMING (not the forecasted hunter, who is human, therefore acting on in-character knowledge only.)

Please demonstrate where the metagaming happened as described, rather than making a baseless claim about a game you weren't there for.

Oh who am I kidding. You ain't here to actually engage. Therefore you ain't worth the effort it takes to type.

Aliquid
2017-10-10, 12:07 AM
For example, a storytelling hurts roleplaying, and vice versa. They are opposed concepts. More of one results in less of the other.Depends on what you think roleplaying is...

If the player knows that their character is being lied to, but the character doesn't know... then it requires good roleplaying skills to continue the game as if the character believes the lie.

Truly roleplaying means that you are more interested in making sure your character stays "in character" and plays his/her role in the story. That doesn't mean that you do what you think the GM wants you to do, it means you do what your character would do, metagame knowledge shouldn't hurt that.

Tanarii
2017-10-10, 07:45 AM
Depends on what you think roleplaying is...
Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment.

If you're making decisions based on things the character cannot know, you're not doing that.

You're instead making decisions for the fantasy environment itself (ie acting like a DM does towards the game world and NPCs in a non-story game). Or the narrative flow of either the game's story, or the story you're trying to tell about your character.

Tinkerer
2017-10-10, 08:51 AM
Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment.

If you're making decisions based on things the character cannot know, you're not doing that.

You're instead making decisions for the fantasy environment itself (ie acting like a DM does towards the game world and NPCs in a non-story game). Or the narrative flow of either the game's story, or the story you're trying to tell about your character.

... That is pretty much what Aliquid said. The point is to enhance the players experience, not to change their character's actions. When playing with good roleplayers their actions shouldn't be changed but the players experience can be quite different. I like the earlier example of the heroes being stalked but not knowing it, the characters are proceeding normally through the system but the players experience has changed dramatically.

I quite like what someone said earlier about allowing scenes like this to show the world that the PCs inhabit much more succinctly than involving the players directly in an environment which impacts them but which they have no interest in impacting. For instance using something like this to exhibit court drama when the players have no interest in getting involved in court drama, assuming you keep it brief of course. I'm about to introduce a group of players to a new world and I might pick up this habit again briefly to showcase some of the elements where I was puzzling over how to introduce them.

Knaight
2017-10-10, 08:57 AM
There's been a pattern in this thread of conflating roleplaying with character immersion, and they're just not the same thing. These scenes would get in the way of deep character immersion simply by virtue of showing things outside of the perspective of the characters - there's not really a way around that. Meanwhile there's no reason to think that it would impede roleplaying.

I suspect Tanarii really values character immersion, and that's why he's so hostile to this. Meanwhile as someone who values roleplaying in RPGs but who doesn't give a(n) [expletive of choice] about immersion this sounds potentially pretty fun.

Pleh
2017-10-10, 08:58 AM
Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment.

If you're making decisions based on things the character cannot know, you're not doing that.

You're instead making decisions for the fantasy environment itself (ie acting like a DM does towards the game world and NPCs in a non-story game). Or the narrative flow of either the game's story, or the story you're trying to tell about your character.

Funny you quote that first sentence, then respond in this way, since quoting any more of that post would have revealed they were saying the opposite of what you claim.

Here, I'll quote the part that proves they said the opposite:


If the player knows that their character is being lied to, but the character doesn't know... then it requires good roleplaying skills to continue the game as if the character believes the lie.

Truly roleplaying means that you are more interested in making sure your character stays "in character" and plays his/her role in the story. That doesn't mean that you do what you think the GM wants you to do, it means you do what your character would do, metagame knowledge shouldn't hurt that.

Aliquid
2017-10-10, 10:27 AM
FATE takes the concept of "story" vs. "emersion" even further by giving the players a limited ability to change the environment or even the actions of an NPC

As a player you get a small number of tokens called "FATE points". As with other systems that use tokens, you can give one to the GM if you don't like a roll and want to re-roll etc. but the more interesting use of a FATE point is to take advantage of already established aspects of the story and tweaking them to your advantage. For example:

The characters are racing against the evil Duke to grab a MacGuffin that is currently lying in the middle of a field. Everyone rolls, the GM rolls slightly better for the Duke and says, "The Duke just beats you to the MacGuffin and picks it up, laughing at your misfortune"

One of the players hands the DM a FATE point and says... "Wait a minute. It has already been established that there was a storm last night AND it has already been established that the Duke is a narcissist that is obsessed with his clothing and appearance. So I'm going to use my FATE point to propose the following: Due to the storm there are a couple big mud puddles between the Duke and the MacGuffin. He hesitates and dances around them to avoid getting his expensive shoes muddy. That hesitation turns the tables and my character manages to get to the MacGuffin first"

Note that the player can only manipulate an already existing aspect. As such the players can't go all "Deus ex machina" on the story to save their hides.

Nifft
2017-10-10, 10:35 AM
FATE takes the concept of "story" vs. "emersion" even further by giving the players a limited ability to change the environment or even the actions of an NPC

As a player you get a small number of tokens called "FATE points". As with other systems that use tokens, you can give one to the GM if you don't like a roll and want to re-roll etc. but the more interesting use of a FATE point is to take advantage of already established aspects of the story and tweaking them to your advantage. For example:

The characters are racing against the evil Duke to grab a MacGuffin that is currently lying in the middle of a field. Everyone rolls, the GM rolls slightly better for the Duke and says, "The Duke just beats you to the MacGuffin and picks it up, laughing at your misfortune"

One of the players hands the DM a FATE point and says... "Wait a minute. It has already been established that there was a storm last night AND it has already been established that the Duke is a narcissist that is obsessed with his clothing and appearance. So I'm going to use my FATE point to propose the following: Due to the storm there are a couple big mud puddles between the Duke and the MacGuffin. He hesitates and dances around them to avoid getting his expensive shoes muddy. That hesitation turns the tables and my character manages to get to the MacGuffin first"

Note that the player can only manipulate an already existing aspect. As such the players can't go all "Deus ex machina" on the story to save their hides.

My favorite FATE point story is actually from Shadowrun, where we imported that mechanic.

There was a fire-fight on a construction site, and one character decided to declare that a pile of Sony Premium Ceiling Tiles were moderately bulletproof after two mid-level executives died due to gunfire on a different floor back in 2042, thus providing harder cover than the drywall stack nearby (which merely provided the equivalent of concealment).

That character was an ex-CorpSec mercenary, so it was entirely in-character to know that sort of brand-specific trivia.

"You would know that."

"Damn straight."

kyoryu
2017-10-10, 10:40 AM
Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment.

If you're making decisions based on things the character cannot know, you're not doing that.

The most immersion-heavy, old-school game I've ever played in was extremely tight about this.

They took it to, perhaps, a bit of an extreme. If you were wearing a closed helmet, your field of vision was extremely limited, and you were expected to make your character decisions based solely on what your character knew. These were often bad decisions, as you'd ignore obvious threats.

This was an old-school, open table game based on a combination of The Fantasy Trip and AD&D 1e, and it had been running since the 70s (I played in it in the 90s).

It is absolutely, totally possible to be immersed in your character and make in-character decisions while being aware of a superset of information as a player that your character is aware of. A more common example would be playing ignorant to the weaknesses of various enemies that you, as a player, had encountered before.

So you're right that if you're making decisions based on things the character doesn't know, you're not roleplaying. 100%. However, it is entirely possible to be aware of things as a player and *not* factor those into your decisions.


My favorite FATE point story is actually from Shadowrun, where we imported that mechanic.

My favorite is from a game that was set to evolve into a Mecha vs. Steam Mecha vs. Kaiju game, set in modern times.

There was a monster (smaller than most kaiju, the increase in size was part of the ongoing story) near a town. The PCs had gathered the townsfolk into a school gym to try to get them to support their plans for getting everyone safe. Then they decided it would be a *super* idea to lock the doors.

A few botched rolls later, the townsfolk are getting angry, so they kill the lights. Which turns it into a riot. Competent and capable aside, they were in real danger from the mob. So a player flips me a Fate Point and says "So, since there's a monster rampaging around, wouldn't it make sense that it would attack the gym right now?"

Last they had seen, this "kaiju" (most were Pokemon-sized) was about the size of a gorilla or something.

"Why yes, yes it would. All of a sudden, sunlight streams in from the hole in the ceiling where the kaiju has ripped it open. You notice it's a lot bigger now."

Aliquid
2017-10-10, 11:17 AM
That character was an ex-CorpSec mercenary, so it was entirely in-character to know that sort of brand-specific trivia.

"You would know that."

"Damn straight."I love this. It shows how playing this way allows you to make the story about your character in a completely different way than you would be allowed to with other rules.


So a player flips me a Fate Point and says "So, since there's a monster rampaging around, wouldn't it make sense that it would attack the gym right now?"And this shows how the players can suddenly shift the story to make it far more dramatic and entertaining. Giving the players more control in how the story pans out can lead to more engagement and more creative ideas.

Quertus
2017-10-10, 03:30 PM
In what way is being paranoid about a situation the characters are already in and know about metagaming? Are you telling me it is inappropriate to feel paranoid when you are miles behind enemy lines, which enemy has deployed against you multiple times and successfully kidnapped one of your number already, and seems eager to bring harm to your group a second time? And you are actively aware of these things thanks to a combination of:
1. They've already tried to kill you
2. You watched them kidnap one of your group
2. You can hear their radio chatter about you

Are you suggesting that this situation could not possibly call for paranoia unless they had the knowledge of having a specific member of a second group they already know is also hunting them generally is now hunting them specifically?



Again, the most "preparing for problems" action those characters took was to take a breather in a bar after getting into a big fight, and hiding in the basement of said bar AFTER HEARING OVER RADIO THAT THE MACHINES WERE COMING (not the forecasted hunter, who is human, therefore acting on in-character knowledge only.)

Please demonstrate where the metagaming happened as described, rather than making a baseless claim about a game you weren't there for.

Oh who am I kidding. You ain't here to actually engage. Therefore you ain't worth the effort it takes to type.


Depends on what you think roleplaying is...

If the player knows that their character is being lied to, but the character doesn't know... then it requires good roleplaying skills to continue the game as if the character believes the lie.

Truly roleplaying means that you are more interested in making sure your character stays "in character" and plays his/her role in the story. That doesn't mean that you do what you think the GM wants you to do, it means you do what your character would do, metagame knowledge shouldn't hurt that.

I'm just trying to see how Windows does something. The fact that I'm running a Windows emulator on my Mac emulator on my Linux box doesn't matter, right?

While you may get the same outcome, there's also the matter of performance and workload. It's easier to roleplay when you don't have to worry as much about keeping your facts straight, because you just don't have the OOC knowledge to begin with.

Also, I question whether you'll get the same result. Actually, as the story clearly demonstrates, you won't get the same results. Because, even if they aren't consciously metagaming, that data is in there, futzing with the players' moods and subconscious decision-making.


Meanwhile there's no reason to think that it would impede roleplaying.

I can only hope I've made you reevaluate this statement.


However, it is entirely possible to be aware of things as a player and *not* factor those into your decisions.

Well, kinda. It's like playing the game, "don't picture a polar bear", or a well-done false dichotomy. It influences your mindset, and the way you view the adventure.

Sure, for most good roleplayers, it's less dangerous than, say, having a life outside the game. It probably does very little damage to your role-playing effort. But, as most roleplayers know, very little damage isn't the same as no damage. Why take the extra damage, and risk your role-playing losing its last hit point?The answer, imo, being "if the fun gained outweighs the risk for all involved". Your standard risks/rewards issue.

Tinkerer
2017-10-10, 03:45 PM
Well shoot, I was gonna go and respond to this and didn't know about the ambush text.

That's why I view it as an option although not one that I normally take. If I hadn't have been reminded of this option though I wouldn't be considering it for my next game. Using it I think can half the duration of the political machinations with AND have the players have more fun. The right tool for the right job. Note that while the players are engaging in some political machinations will most likely be with a different group.

Aliquid
2017-10-10, 04:03 PM
While you may get the same outcome, there's also the matter of performance and workload. It's easier to roleplay when you don't have to worry as much about keeping your facts straight, because you just don't have the OOC knowledge to begin with.It might be harder, but the work might be worth the reward.


Also, I question whether you'll get the same result. Actually, as the story clearly demonstrates, you won't get the same results. Because, even if they aren't consciously metagaming, that data is in there, futzing with the players' moods and subconscious decision-making.I don't care if you get the same result... that isn't an important for me. I'm just playing to have fun :)

My challenge with that line of thinking is that it implies that the result of one style of play is the "correct" result. And it should be used to measure the quality of the other style of play. The characters will act differently in one game vs. the other... well that's a given, considering that a different game style is being used.

Even if some of the changes are problematic, others are beneficial in comparison, and it depends on what you are looking for as a player of the game.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-10, 05:24 PM
I'm just trying to see how Windows does something. The fact that I'm running a Windows emulator on my Mac emulator on my Linux box doesn't matter, right?
I think this metaphor is strained and inaccurate. It's more like playing pokemon for the first time after hearing from a friend that the first gym leader has Rock types. This might affect your experience, but you likely won't have enough context from only that one piece of information to do anything terribly specific. (You don't know the type interactions, what a gym leader is, or other important pieces.)



While you may get the same outcome, there's also the matter of performance and workload. It's easier to roleplay when you don't have to worry as much about keeping your facts straight, because you just don't have the OOC knowledge to begin with.
You get the outcome you get. This idea, as others have said, suggests a "correct" outcome. No such outcome exists. Just the one you got.



Also, I question whether you'll get the same result. Actually, as the story clearly demonstrates, you won't get the same results. Because, even if they aren't consciously metagaming, that data is in there, futzing with the players' moods and subconscious decision-making.
Affecting the mood is a feature, not a bug. When you play Call of Cthulhu you know there are eldritch beasties around that will drive you mad. How? You're playing CoC.
I dislike horror movies because they stress me out long before the critters show up. Because I know they're in the movie.
I WANT my players to feel paranoid and stressed. They have plenty of reason to do so. Something that, again, hasn't actually been addressed.




Well, kinda. It's like playing the game, "don't picture a polar bear", or a well-done false dichotomy. It influences your mindset, and the way you view the adventure.
Good. It's for the benefit of the players.



Sure, for most good roleplayers, it's less dangerous than, say, having a life outside the game. It probably does very little damage to your role-playing effort. But, as most roleplayers know, very little damage isn't the same as no damage. Why take the extra damage, and risk your role-playing losing its last hit point?The answer, imo, being "if the fun gained outweighs the risk for all involved". Your standard risks/rewards issue.

You have a very weird conceptualization of roleplaying, friend. Roleplaying is a thing you DO, not a thing you can have more or less of. It's like saying your amount of swimmingness while swimming can go up and down depending on what stroke you use.

Quertus
2017-10-10, 07:21 PM
It might be harder, but the work might be worth the reward.

I don't care if you get the same result... that isn't an important for me. I'm just playing to have fun :)

My challenge with that line of thinking is that it implies that the result of one style of play is the "correct" result. And it should be used to measure the quality of the other style of play. The characters will act differently in one game vs. the other... well that's a given, considering that a different game style is being used.

Even if some of the changes are problematic, others are beneficial in comparison, and it depends on what you are looking for as a player of the game.


roleplaying means that you are more interested in making sure your character stays "in character"

metagame knowledge shouldn't hurt that.

It might be worth it, I agree. I just want people to enter into the discussion - let alone the activity - with eyes open to the fact that it is not, as several people have asserted, a zero-cost, zero-risk proposition where role-playing is concerned.


I think this metaphor is strained and inaccurate.

Not at all! I am emulating the behavior of a fictional character. Now, I'm adding in an additional layer of abstraction between myself and that character by actively filtering out very character-relevant information, that said character is not aware of.

There is a chance for something to go wrong at each layer. Much like the telephone game, or the example that was given.

Heck, I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly (on those rare occasions when I am playing as myself in an RPG).


It's more like playing pokemon for the first time after hearing from a friend that the first gym leader has Rock types. This might affect your experience, but you likely won't have enough context from only that one piece of information to do anything terribly specific. (You don't know the type interactions, what a gym leader is, or other important pieces.)

There's a video where 6 people - 3 in white vests, 3 in black vests - are dribbling basketballs. You are told to count the number of dribbles made by those in white vests. If you know the video I'm talking about, you should understand completely when I say that where your focus is really affects how you perceive the world


You get the outcome you get. This idea, as others have said, suggests a "correct" outcome. No such outcome exists. Just the one you got.

If I roleplay Batman using guns to protect his drug cartel, I hope you'll agree that I'm role-playing him incorrectly.


Affecting the mood is a feature, not a bug. When you play Call of Cthulhu you know there are eldritch beasties around that will drive you mad. How? You're playing CoC.
I dislike horror movies because they stress me out long before the critters show up. Because I know they're in the movie.
I WANT my players to feel paranoid and stressed. They have plenty of reason to do so. Something that, again, hasn't actually been addressed.

You believe that railroading the mood to the one correct mood is a feature? Unlike normal railroading, I'm not going to aggressively disagree with you here.

However, the point stands, that this information, which the PCs totally aren't using to metagaming still bloody changes their behavior.

I'm just arguing against people saying "it didn't change anything. See, look how it changes stuff".


You have a very weird conceptualization of roleplaying, friend. Roleplaying is a thing you DO, not a thing you can have more or less of. It's like saying your amount of swimmingness while swimming can go up and down depending on what stroke you use.

Eh, it was a silly metaphor.

When I play an RPG, I set myself the impossible goal of role-playing the character 100% correctly. But I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly (on those rare occasions when I am role-playing myself in a game).

But why not?

My silly metaphor was that the role-playing attempt had hit points, and was taking damage from various sources.

Metaphor aside, I was contending that possession of OOC knowledge increases the probability of role-playing the character incorrectly. Having witnessed it many times, and having even conducted experiments where I correctly identified which half of the party the GM had given OOC information to, I'm rather confident in that assertion.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-10, 09:08 PM
It might be worth it, I agree. I just want people to enter into the discussion - let alone the activity - with eyes open to the fact that it is not, as several people have asserted, a zero-cost, zero-risk proposition where role-playing is concerned.
Literally the only thing at risk is stepping over preference bounds. Let's not pretend there's anything more serious at stake than taste.



Not at all! I am emulating the behavior of a fictional character. Now, I'm adding in an additional layer of abstraction between myself and that character by actively filtering out very character-relevant information, that said character is not aware of.

Ah yes, a brief vignette detailing that the nation you are fugitives of is indeed sending people to find you, which you were already assuming to be the case, is a massive reveal that hella abstracts everything to the point where you are now pretending to pretend to be the character.
Come on, man.



There is a chance for something to go wrong at each layer. Much like the telephone game, or the example that was given.
This is silliness that assumes there's a correct way to roleplay your own character



Heck, I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly (on those rare occasions when I am playing as myself in an RPG).
Except that you aren't roleplaying as yourself. You're playing as Yourself BUT!
Which works however you did it



There's a video where 6 people - 3 in white vests, 3 in black vests - are dribbling basketballs. You are told to count the number of dribbles made by those in white vests. If you know the video I'm talking about, you should understand completely when I say that where your focus is really affects how you perceive the world

I use this video to teach adolescents the importance of worldview.
This is a wild misapplication attempting to equivocate Misdirection and Expectation.



If I roleplay Batman using guns to protect his drug cartel, I hope you'll agree that I'm role-playing him incorrectly.
You'd be wrong. Your version of Batman is being roleplayed correctly. There are two versions of batman that use guns (three if we include the latest movie), several Evil versions of batman. There's even Evil superman and Communist Superman.

So no. There's enough room for pretty much any variation of the batman theme to be valid and interesting.



You believe that railroading the mood to the one correct mood is a feature?
Railroading implies forcing an outcome. I am unfortunately incapable of mind control and can only tailor the atmosphere.
I don't think I'd be doing a good job running a horror game in a brightly lit room with calming jazz saxophone playing and having most of the badguys be gumdrops and cookies.




However, the point stands, that this information, which the PCs totally aren't using to metagaming still bloody changes their behavior.




I'm just arguing against people saying "it didn't change anything. See, look how it changes stuff".

The only way you can reach this silly and inaccurate a conclusion is by conflating the two different statements as one thing. Namely:
"The BEHAVIOR of the CHARACTERS did NOT CHANGE"
And
"The EXPERIENCE of the PLAYERS CHANGED."
If you're struggling to figure out the difference between the two, hold up a character sheet next to your face in the mirror and see if you can spot the subtle differences.



Eh, it was a silly metaphor.

When I play an RPG, I set myself the impossible goal of role-playing the character 100% correctly. But I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly (on those rare occasions when I am role-playing myself in a game).
Congrats. You succeed every single time. What you decide your character did, as that character, is the most accurate portrayal that will ever exist, because it is 100% exactly the decision they made. You can tell, because the decision was made.



But why not?

My silly metaphor was that the role-playing attempt had hit points, and was taking damage from various sources.

Metaphor aside, I was contending that possession of OOC knowledge increases the probability of role-playing the character incorrectly. Having witnessed it many times, and having even conducted experiments where I correctly identified which half of the party the GM had given OOC information to, I'm rather confident in that assertion.

On your study:
You better have done it more than 10 or 15 times, because you have a 50/50 shot at guessing it right with a COIN FLIP. So I'm gonna tuck that into the "safely ignore as moot posturing" box.

And again, they roleplayed the characters correctly. They made the exact same decisions that the characters did. The next time that doesn't happen, please let the news know.

kyoryu
2017-10-10, 11:26 PM
It's obviously not to Quertus' style, and that's fine.

But at the same time, claiming that doing so is anathema to Real Roleplaying(tm) smacks heavily of OneTrueWayism.

Quertus
2017-10-11, 05:36 AM
It's obviously not to Quertus' style, and that's fine.

But at the same time, claiming that doing so is anathema to Real Roleplaying(tm) smacks heavily of OneTrueWayism.

Claiming that being stabbed in the face is anathema to one's health does not reek of OneTrueWayism, imo.

Nor, imo, does pointing out how OOC knowledge can be a mild detriment to the role-playing efforts of even skilled roleplayers.

But

I was trained in a OneTrueWayism of role-playing is the only good, and so I can certainly imagine people making the claim that having OOC knowledge is anathema to role-playing. Imagine, or, you know, just remember.


Literally the only thing at risk is stepping over preference bounds. Let's not pretend there's anything more serious at stake than taste.

That's... Difficult to argue with, actually. While OOC knowledge can be a mild detriment to the role-playing effort, you are absolutely correct that the most serious thing at stake is preference bounds.

However, while the most serious thing at stake may be the extermination of all life on the planet, that doesn't mean I should therefore stop caring how my tax dollars are spent.


This is silliness that assumes there's a correct way to roleplay your own character

... Yes, much of my argument is predicated upon that concept.


You'd be wrong. Your version of Batman is being roleplayed correctly. There are two versions of batman that use guns (three if we include the latest movie), several Evil versions of batman. There's even Evil superman and Communist Superman.

My ignorance is showing. How embarrassing. :smallredface:

Loss of comic geek cred aside, you do recognize the different personalities of these different incarnations as distinct, right? You wouldn't just accept it if "normal" bats or "normal" S started behaving like their counterparts, for no reason, right?


The only way you can reach this silly and inaccurate a conclusion is by conflating the two different statements as one thing. Namely:
"The BEHAVIOR of the CHARACTERS did NOT CHANGE"
And
"The EXPERIENCE of the PLAYERS CHANGED."

Perhaps I misread or misinterpreted the post, (I'll re-read it here in a bit), but I remember it as saying that, by introducing the players to a future element the PCs were unaware of, the PCs became more paranoid about their current mission.

EDIT:
I revealed that a character was sent to hunt them down.... The PLAYERS felt that pressure throughout the middle session, but it manifested in the characters being paranoid about an entirely different thing.

Yup, that's what I read. The characters' behavior changed because of entirely OOC information. Unless you're arguing that that paranoia was purely an emotional state which did not change their behavior... in which case I'm left scratching my head as to how you could have observed the emotional state of a fictional character to measure it if it had no outward manifestation.


Congrats. You succeed every single time. What you decide your character did, as that character, is the most accurate portrayal that will ever exist, because it is 100% exactly the decision they made. You can tell, because the decision was made.

Yeah, I'm struggling with this one, too. On the one hand, I agree with you, as the OneTrueWayism in which I was taught to roleplay says much the same thing.

On the other hand, I refuse to accept the notion that someone just using the character as a playing piece, with no concern for role-playing, is role-playing the character correctly. And it gets downright insulting if applied to their "bored of the rings" roleplay of an established character, let alone of a real person.


On your study:
You better have done it more than 10 or 15 times, because you have a 50/50 shot at guessing it right with a COIN FLIP. So I'm gonna tuck that into the "safely ignore as moot posturing" box.

Well, yes and no (and yes). I have made such observations double-digit number of times, but have not conducted rigorous scientific experimentation on that many groups. However, because you labeled it as a coin flip, you are looking at it at the scale of the individual, in which case, even a single one of my experiments with double-digit sized groups qualifies me to say that yes, yes I have.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-11, 06:19 AM
Claiming that being stabbed in the face is anathema to one's health does not reek of OneTrueWayism, imo.

Nor, imo, does pointing out how OOC knowledge can be a mild detriment to the role-playing efforts of even skilled roleplayers.

That you cannot comprehend the wildly different circumstances of these two things makes me very sad for society.



I was trained in a OneTrueWayism of role-playing is the only good, and so I can certainly imagine people making the claim that having OOC knowledge is anathema to role-playing. Imagine, or, you know, just remember.
People were also once taught a OneTrueWayism that left-handed people were evil.
It was equally BS.



That's... Difficult to argue with, actually. While OOC knowledge can be a mild detriment to the role-playing effort, you are absolutely correct that the most serious thing at stake is preference bounds.

I'm going to point out a thing from here on out.



However, while the most serious thing at stake may be the extermination of all life on the planet, that doesn't mean I should therefore stop caring how my tax dollars are spent.
There is a difference between saying "my preference is that my tax dollars be spent thusly:" and saying "The only way to correctly spend tax dollars is:"

Word your opinions as opinions, please.



... Yes, much of my argument is predicated upon that concept.

And the concept is silly.



My ignorance is showing. How embarrassing. :smallredface:

Loss of comic geek cred aside, you do recognize the different personalities of these different incarnations as distinct, right? You wouldn't just accept it if "normal" bats or "normal" S started behaving like their counterparts, for no reason, right?
Depends on a lot of factors. One of the Bad guy Superman incarnations WAS goodguy superman until he had a very bad day.

Though now we're arguing about something that isn't roleplaying and making an attempt to conflate two concepts again:
Character Consistency (which is already a joke. PEOPLE aren't consistent.) and Roleplaying.



Perhaps I misread or misinterpreted the post, (I'll re-read it here in a bit), but I remember it as saying that, by introducing the players to a future element the PCs were unaware of, the PCs became more paranoid about their current mission.
The mood of the character is not the actions of the character.
Come on, man.
If your entire argument keeps boiling down to taking two different things and pretending they're the same thing, you need to let me know now. Because it's becoming a pattern and I don't have time for this kind of thing.



Yeah, I'm struggling with this one, too. On the one hand, I agree with you, as the OneTrueWayism in which I was taught to roleplay says much the same thing.

On the other hand, I refuse to accept the notion that someone just using the character as a playing piece, with no concern for role-playing, is role-playing the character correctly. And it gets downright insulting if applied to their "bored of the rings" roleplay of an established character, let alone of a real person.

And there's a strawman nobody has mentioned.



Well, yes and no (and yes). I have made such observations double-digit number of times, but have not conducted rigorous scientific experimentation on that many groups. However, because you labeled it as a coin flip, you are looking at it at the scale of the individual, in which case, even a single one of my experiments with double-digit sized groups qualifies me to say that yes, yes I have.
You stated "which half of the group" meaning you knew about two distinct halves of the group to differentiate between. I was talking on groups, as you described it.
Had you said "which individuals" I'd be less willing to call the BS I'm calling on this since the story is now changing to sound more statistically impressive.

You can put the cash register away. I'm not buying it.

Zombimode
2017-10-11, 06:39 AM
In my experience Players and GMs preferences on this topic varies.

Personally, from a Player's perspective, I enjoy discovering things and solving problems and puzzles. And for me doing so is much less enjoyable if I, the player, already knows what my character is supposed to discover or if I already know the solution to a problem my character needs to solve. This is not a surprise since I'm very allergic to spoilers for movies, Shows and games.

It's not clear-cut, though. For instance, I have no problem with knowing monster stats even if my character has no knowledge of the creature. I'm much more annoyed by the practice of using random monsters in place of monsters that exist in the setting's lore or the practice of the changing monster details just for the sake of obfuscating information.

I also don't mind knowing more about the Eberron Setting then my character does (but Eberron is cleverly designed such that the true Enigmas are left for each individual GM to decide).


From GM's perspective, I feel telling Players everything is not necessary in many cases for Player buy-in (and that is all I care about) and actively harmfull in others (namely in any cases where mysteries are a big Point).

I'm not saying all metagame Knowledge is bad or unneccessary, or that there are no circumstances in which metagame Knowledge is good. I'm not above presenting ooc Infos to the Players to get Things moving. It is unavoidable in other cases also: if I want to inquire if my Players would be interested in a particular campaign I have to make a pitch - which necessarily includes some amount of Spoilers.

Arcane_Snowman
2017-10-11, 07:14 AM
As long as you have the players buying into this approach, it can be an incredibly valuable and interesting tool for your game. Granted telling your players literally everything can ruin some of the suspense, but there's a sweet spot between giving players information beyond their characters, and just spoiling the whole narrative by laying it out in explicit detail.

In a couple of my groups, we've gone as far as roleplaying these scenes just to make things even more interesting, just a few off the top of my head:

We operated a circle of evil cultists under our main character's noses, and the DM took a lot of inspiration from the schemes that we laid out for these character moving forward.

In a number of my games I've had my players play out small vignettes surrounding their base of operations, playing characters that they have nothing more than a tangential relationship to and some of those have been the causes of some of the greatest moments in my games (as well as having some tangible effects on the "main" story-line). In one of the more amusing one of theses, my main character ended up one of the antagonists, it was great fun.

It can also really help with the immersion: one of the scenes of which I'm particularly proud, the DM took myself and another player who had failed a will-save aside and laid out part of the plot for us and we spent the rest of the session trying to get the other players to follow us into the core the coooore. That simply wouldn't have had the same effect if the DM had taken over control of our characters.

I've been meaning to use it as a tool to better develop the villains in my games, but at the moment I'm not really running anything for which an explicit villain is a thing but I was working on it in a previous game before it crashed due to ongoing scheduling conflicts.

As long as you make sure everyone is on the same page and happy to be doing it, you can stretch this idea pretty far and get away with it no problem. In fact I would go as far as to say that it can up player enjoyment and immersion as it makes some things more obvious.

Psyren
2017-10-11, 07:27 AM
Agreed

The "meanwhile" scenes are typically vague and suspenseful. "20 minutes after you leave, a shadowy figure slips a note to the mayor. The mayor reads it and nods approvingly"

I like these kinds of "cutscenes." But games without them are totally fine too.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 09:54 AM
There's been a pattern in this thread of conflating roleplaying with character immersion, and they're just not the same thing.Thats flat out wrong. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment. If you are making decisions about things other than your character, such as making decisions based on things the character cannot possibly know, then you're not doing that. You're doing some other kind of gaming.

This is not the same thing as character immersion. Being deep in a fantasy character's personality or not has nothing to do with it.

GrayGriffin
2017-10-11, 10:15 AM
Thats flat out wrong. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment. If you are making decisions about things other than your character, such as making decisions based on things the character cannot possibly know, then you're not doing that. You're doing some other kind of gaming.

This is not the same thing as character immersion. Being deep in a fantasy character's personality or not has nothing to do with it.

No one is saying they're making decisions based on things their characters don't know. They're even explicitly saying they're making decisions based on what their characters know despite being aware those are bad decisions, which is the complete opposite.

Nifft
2017-10-11, 11:29 AM
No one is saying they're making decisions based on things their characters don't know. They're even explicitly saying they're making decisions based on what their characters know despite being aware those are bad decisions, which is the complete opposite.

Yeah, and let's be honest here: a genre-savvy player has to do this anyway.

Limiting the player to only having character knowledge doesn't magically remove the meta-game knowledge that the character is in a game of one genre or another.

A good roleplayer is acting in-character in spite of out-of-character knowledge all the time, even if you try to limit the quantity.

Taking these tools off the table isn't going to magically remove the need to roleplay in spite of OoC info.

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 12:05 PM
Yeah, and let's be honest here: a genre-savvy player has to do this anyway.

Limiting the player to only having character knowledge doesn't magically remove the meta-game knowledge that the character is in a game of one genre or another.

A good roleplayer is acting in-character in spite of out-of-character knowledge all the time, even if you try to limit the quantity.

Taking these tools off the table isn't going to magically remove the need to roleplay in spite of OoC info.

No, however it will reduce the need. There are many, many, many, players who have enough of a problem separating IC and OoC knowledge and it's definitely worth keeping that in mind. Bear in mind, and this is something that I should probably add to my sig, NOT ALL PLAYERS ARE GOOD ROLEPLAYERS. Therefore if you are acting as a GM for people who do have an issue separating IC and OoC knowledge then I'd say yeah, using this technique would probably be a mistake. If you are a GM who regularly GMs for new people it may introduce some elements that you should keep an eye on. Heck that was one of the reasons why I stopped using this technique years ago and switch to my debriefing style. Not to mention that it breaks one of the fundamental guidelines by stopping the action.

This is nothing more than a stylistic choice. It has some benefits, it has some disadvantages, and it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not.

kyoryu
2017-10-11, 12:15 PM
This is nothing more than a stylistic choice. It has some benefits, it has some disadvantages, and it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not.

Exactly! Any statement that it is always right or wrong is erroneous.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 12:28 PM
No, however it will reduce the need. There are many, many, many, players who have enough of a problem separating IC and OoC knowledge and it's definitely worth keeping that in mind. Bear in mind, and this is something that I should probably add to my sig, NOT ALL PLAYERS ARE GOOD ROLEPLAYERS. Therefore if you are acting as a GM for people who do have an issue separating IC and OoC knowledge then I'd say yeah, using this technique would probably be a mistake.Or it might be the best way to solve the problem.

Shining a spotlight on the issue and having it constantly front and center, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

The metagamers get obsessed with "winning", they want to use their OoC knowledge to make their character "more successful". Tell them outright that to be "more successful" at playing this type of game, you need to make sure you play the story well. Throw it in their face and challenge them.

They might rise to the challenge if you change the definition of "winning", or they might just say "I don't like this type of game"

Nifft
2017-10-11, 12:54 PM
This is nothing more than a stylistic choice. It has some benefits, it has some disadvantages, and it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not.
I would say it's also a tool choice, not only a stylistic choice.

To your point, some tools may be a more natural fit for any given style.

But in contrast, many tools can be adapted to suit your style, once you are proficient in their use.


Exactly! Any statement that it is always right or wrong is erroneous.
Totally agree.

The examples which we've been posting prove that this sort of thing can be done well -- nothing more or less.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-11, 12:58 PM
My personal take on some of these details...



Yeah, and let's be honest here: a genre-savvy player has to do this anyway.

Limiting the player to only having character knowledge doesn't magically remove the meta-game knowledge that the character is in a game of one genre or another.

A good roleplayer is acting in-character in spite of out-of-character knowledge all the time, even if you try to limit the quantity.

Taking these tools off the table isn't going to magically remove the need to roleplay in spite of OoC info.


If we're specifically speaking of genre conventions / expectations, then really, if the game (or fiction) requires the characters to be continuously genre-blind (or genre-stupid) then I'm really not interested in the first place.




No, however it will reduce the need. There are many, many, many, players who have enough of a problem separating IC and OoC knowledge and it's definitely worth keeping that in mind. Bear in mind, and this is something that I should probably add to my sig, NOT ALL PLAYERS ARE GOOD ROLEPLAYERS. Therefore if you are acting as a GM for people who do have an issue separating IC and OoC knowledge then I'd say yeah, using this technique would probably be a mistake. If you are a GM who regularly GMs for new people it may introduce some elements that you should keep an eye on. Heck that was one of the reasons why I stopped using this technique years ago and switch to my debriefing style. Not to mention that it breaks one of the fundamental guidelines by stopping the action.

This is nothing more than a stylistic choice. It has some benefits, it has some disadvantages, and it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not.


For me, having to knowingly have my character walk into a trap or bad situation or whatever "because they don't know" is pretty much going to take the fun out of it and turn the moment into a purely robotic exercise in acting out a script. I'm not into RPGs as a form of acting, and I don't consider roleplaying and acting to be anything like synonymous.

Even bigger issue, though (but related to the above), is that because so much of what I enjoy in RPGs is solving mysteries and problems and questions while "exploring" a richly-developed "other reality", and exploring the character, having everything just dumped out on the table in front of me would severely reduce my enjoyment.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 01:09 PM
No one is saying they're making decisions based on things their characters don't know. They're even explicitly saying they're making decisions based on what their characters know despite being aware those are bad decisions, which is the complete opposite.I understand that. My initial assumption in this thread was specifically that these were things we're telling the player that the PC cannot know. Or at least, some amount of things the PC cannot know, mixed in with other things they might reasonably know. That's why I said it increases the separation between player and PC. Specifically, providing the players with knowledge their characters specifically cannot know does this.

I'm talking about the separation of player and PC knowledge. This is actually quite hard to do, unless the DM does it on purpose, or players are running multiple characters that have no way to communicate but are in a shared environment. So, in modern gaming, it is almost always the result of the DM giving the players knowledge there is no possible way for their characters to have.

Note that many people lump often confuse player-character knowledge (and it's seperation), and things like a player's awareness of the rules, under the same label of 'metagaming'. That's complete nonsense, because the things the mechanical rules represent are (by design) things the PC could have some awareness of in-game. They're a murky mirror abstractly reflecting (or simulating, depending on your view) the events of the in-game world, and vice versa.

But lets take an extreme example to demonstrate my point, which is (I admit) a rhetorical trick: 2 players are playing 2 PCs, and one of the players has a 3rd PC in a completely different part of the world that has never met the 2 PCs, and has no way to communicate or scry or get information between them. The distant PC knows how to teleport to a dungeon and can raise the dead. The 2 players take their PCs into the dungeon, and die. The one with the third PC has him teleport to the dungeon and raise the two PCs.

Now, in a roleplaying oriented game, where the players are playing the role of the characters based on the shared player-PC knowledge, the player needs to create a firewall in his mind regarding this information. Or the DM can just establish in advance that any and all characters played by a player must have some way to communicate. Or ... and this is the important bit ... if everyone is okay with it, they can be a story-oriented game. The 3rd PC 'just happens' to teleport to the dungeon they haven't been to in forever, because they're reminiscing, and decides to help these two poor souls that have died. Because it furthers the narrative the players and DM are establishing.

Pleh
2017-10-11, 02:29 PM
Exactly! Any statement that it is always right or wrong is erroneous.

My inner pedant cringes.

"Any statement that is always right... is erroneous."

Is that statement always right then?

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 02:34 PM
My inner pedant cringes.

"Any statement that is always right... is erroneous."

Is that statement always right then?

I assumed that it was stated tongue in cheek. Like when a person says "There are two types of people in the world. People who think that humanity can be divided into two groups and people who know better."

Edit: Oops, threw me off with the removal of the "it" making me remember the original statement as "Any statement that is always right or wrong is erroneous."

Nifft
2017-10-11, 02:41 PM
My inner pedant cringes.

"Any statement that is always right... is erroneous."

Is that statement always right then?

You deleted the word "it", thus changing the meaning of the sentence.

Then you elided some other words.

You'd be right to cringe at the statement you re-wrote, but the quoted statement is pretty solid.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 03:04 PM
If we're specifically speaking of genre conventions / expectations, then really, if the game (or fiction) requires the characters to be continuously genre-blind (or genre-stupid) then I'm really not interested in the first place. I think this was more talking about situations where a "genre savvy" player would know things that would typically be rare or mysterious for characters in-game.

A D&D player that has read the monster manual from end to end multiple times will know exactly how to deal with any monster... even if the creature is extremely rare and not know about in-game


Even bigger issue, though (but related to the above), is that because so much of what I enjoy in RPGs is solving mysteries and problems and questions while "exploring" a richly-developed "other reality", and exploring the character, having everything just dumped out on the table in front of me would severely reduce my enjoyment.Describing "cut scenes" of events that the characters wouldn't see actually helps give additional depth to the "other reality".

I see your concerns though. It certainly changes the experience. After decades of playing D&D and games with a similar style, switching to this new method of gaming has been challenging.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-11, 03:34 PM
I understand that. My initial assumption in this thread was specifically that these were things we're telling the player that the PC cannot know. Or at least, some amount of things the PC cannot know, mixed in with other things they might reasonably know. That's why I said it increases the separation between player and PC. Specifically, providing the players with knowledge their characters specifically cannot know does this.
You mean things like having read the monster manual before and knowing therefrom that trolls are weak to fire?

How is that knowledge mystically less harmful or less worth talking about than, say, a confirmation of a suspicion or some vague indication that the world around them is moving. Having a scene where the badguy says to an underling that "The next phase of my plan is soon to come to fruition..." that doesn't impart anything that the players aren't already expecting (which is that the BBEG didn't give up and become a potato farmer because they interfered once.) But it does give insight that yes, the BBEG is moving and active even without specificity. And generally, if you give them an exterior look about information they are about to learn or just learned, you're fine.



I'm talking about the separation of player and PC knowledge. This is actually quite hard to do, unless the DM does it on purpose, or players are running multiple characters that have no way to communicate but are in a shared environment. So, in modern gaming, it is almost always the result of the DM giving the players knowledge there is no possible way for their characters to have.
I've never had a problem with separating my knowledge of what other characters are doing unseen from what my character knows and cares about.



Note that many people lump often confuse player-character knowledge (and it's seperation), and things like a player's awareness of the rules, under the same label of 'metagaming'. That's complete nonsense, because the things the mechanical rules represent are (by design) things the PC could have some awareness of in-game. They're a murky mirror abstractly reflecting (or simulating, depending on your view) the events of the in-game world, and vice versa.
That they "could" know it does not mean they DO know it. Hence why the point stands.



But lets take an extreme example to demonstrate my point, which is (I admit) a rhetorical trick: 2 players are playing 2 PCs, and one of the players has a 3rd PC in a completely different part of the world that has never met the 2 PCs, and has no way to communicate or scry or get information between them. The distant PC knows how to teleport to a dungeon and can raise the dead. The 2 players take their PCs into the dungeon, and die. The one with the third PC has him teleport to the dungeon and raise the two PCs.

Now, in a roleplaying oriented game, where the players are playing the role of the characters based on the shared player-PC knowledge, the player needs to create a firewall in his mind regarding this information. Or the DM can just establish in advance that any and all characters played by a player must have some way to communicate. Or ... and this is the important bit ... if everyone is okay with it, they can be a story-oriented game. The 3rd PC 'just happens' to teleport to the dungeon they haven't been to in forever, because they're reminiscing, and decides to help these two poor souls that have died. Because it furthers the narrative the players and DM are establishing.

I don't see how it's difficult to say "oh, yeah, this character wouldn't know about it." You're portraying it like it's advanced mental gymnastics when it's more like a checklist. "Would they know X? Y/N"

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 03:44 PM
I've never had a problem with separating my knowledge of what other characters are doing unseen from what my character knows and cares about.

Great. I've seen many players who do. Like when you ask a person if they are reaching out to grab the doorknob with their right hand... or their left. How many PCs will choose to use their non-dominant hand?



I don't see how it's difficult to say "oh, yeah, this character wouldn't know about it." You're portraying it like it's advanced mental gymnastics when it's more like a checklist. "Would they know X? Y/N"

A long enough checklist is still an additional mental burden. When you're remembering something from 6 months ago and you go "Okay, I know the BBEG had plans for the City of Righthererightnow... or wait did I know that or did I only hear it in a cutscene..."

Once again not saying that it's not possible just that it has it's own set of drawbacks. And as always knowing your party is your best guide to knowing the difference.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 03:45 PM
You mean things like having read the monster manual before and knowing therefrom that trolls are weak to fire?No. That is a false problem. It only exists because the player and DM are, for some reason, insisting that the player PC cannot have this knowledge that should be commonplace among adventurers.

This is different from a player somehow knowing, for example, about a meeting that only two NPCs attended half a continent away ... when neither has told anyone else.


I don't see how it's difficult to say "oh, yeah, this character wouldn't know about it." You're portraying it like it's advanced mental gymnastics when it's more like a checklist. "Would they know X? Y/N"Try not to think about pink elephants, okay?

Edit: To be clear, most examples are things that the DM can easily, if they so choose, fit into the game. But explicitly introducing information the PCs cannot know to the players, then telling them 'but your character doesn't know this' (explicitly or implicitly) increases player <--> PC distance.

Also, I don't think player <--> PC knowledge is ever going to be perfectly aligned. But there is a big difference between creating a false problem (the Troll problem), and recognizing the seperation being increased due to something that cannot possibly be known. Or ignoring the distance because story and you don't care, for that matter.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 04:22 PM
Great. I've seen many players who do. Like when you ask a person if they are reaching out to grab the doorknob with their right hand... or their left. How many PCs will choose to use their non-dominant hand?And as a GM I would look at them and say "seriously?"


A long enough checklist is still an additional mental burden. When you're remembering something from 6 months ago and you go "Okay, I know the BBEG had plans for the City of Righthererightnow... or wait did I know that or did I only hear it in a cutscene..."We have been playing this game for 4 months and it hasn't come up yet... In general the game is well documented, but still, that's a good point that I will have to keep in mind


No. That is a false problem. It only exists because the player and DM are, for some reason, insisting that the player PC cannot have this knowledge that should be commonplace among adventurers.That is entirely setting specific. In some settings, a character could easily come from a part of the world where trolls are completely uncommon, and he/she has never heard of one before.


Try not to think about pink elephants, okay?I've never had a problem with that trick... but then pink elephants are pretty trivial, if someone said "try not to think about how much this will cost", I doubt it would be as easy for me to put out of mind as pink elephants.


Edit: To be clear, most examples are things that the DM can easily, if they so choose, fit into the game. But explicitly introducing information the PCs cannot know to the players, then telling them 'but your character doesn't know this' (explicitly or implicitly) increases player <--> PC distance. I'm not going to argue that point. I just don't see that as that big of a deal.


Also, I don't think player <--> PC knowledge is ever going to be perfectly aligned. But there is a big difference between creating a false problem (the Troll problem), and recognizing the seperation being increased due to something that cannot possibly be known. Or ignoring the distance because story and you don't care, for that matter.But that isn't a false problem. Many fantasy stories are about a character that is thrust out of their little town into the big world and only has little knowledge of the creatures that lurk in the dark. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, Eragon...

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-11, 04:33 PM
But that isn't a false problem. Many fantasy stories are about a character that is thrust out of their little town into the big world and only has little knowledge of the creatures that lurk in the dark. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, Eragon...


True, but not every story or campaign is about that sort of arc. (As an aside, one of my pet peeves of both spec fiction and RPGs is the presumption from some quarters that this "farmboy to world-savior" arc is the only legitimate central-protagonist character arc.)

Sometimes the writer or the player wants a character to start out from page 1 / session 0 as appreciably competent, and clued-in, and savvy.

Some settings or stories aren't going to foster that sort of initial ignorance.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 04:35 PM
That is entirely setting specific. In some settings, a character could easily come from a part of the world where trolls are completely uncommon, and he/she has never heard of one before.In other words, the DM has created this problem, apparently intentionally. The DM has decided that this thing which every is common knowledge among players, isn't common knowledge in his world. Like I said, it's a false problem. It's one the DM has specifically created when it doesn't need to exist. (Edit: To be clear, if you want a creature to be a mystery to the players, why don't you introduce a new creature they know nothing about?)


I've never had a problem with that trick... but then pink elephants are pretty trivial, if someone said "try not to think about how much this will cost", I doubt it would be as easy for me to put out of mind as pink elephants.Sorry I should have put that in blue. I'll go do that now. It was intended to be a slightly in jest response, not a serious counter point. :smallbiggrin:


I'm not going to argue that point. I just don't see that as that big of a deal.Fair. In that case, my continuing to bring it up as a point of discussion (or argumentation as the case may be :smallwink:) in your thread is just a distraction from whatever it is you wish to discuss.

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 04:40 PM
And as a GM I would look at them and say "seriously?"

Then why ask? I rarely if ever (okay once) use this trick for anything nasty however it is a great test of how the player reacts. If they use their non-dominant hand (or worse yet try and back out) then it is some pretty good evidence that they can't be trusted to keep OOC knowledge separate from IC knowledge, and you should plan accordingly. Not to say that means they can't be a fantastic player just something to keep an eye on :smallsmile:


But that isn't a false problem. Many fantasy stories are about a character that is thrust out of their little town into the big world and only has little knowledge of the creatures that lurk in the dark. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, Eragon...

Darn it I have no idea if this week's Oglaf is considered safe for work. Well I'm not going to link to it but yeah farm boys with birth-marks is quite the epidemic.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-11, 04:40 PM
Back in the day, we played so much Vampire* that eventually the overburden of player knowledge that the characters didn't have became so tedious that we started playing elder campaigns with a different focus and different stakes and challenges.


( * of course, we were also having badwrongfun and not wangsting over personal horror, and I'm sure the staff at White Wolf would have sniffed at their patchouli-doused lace kerchiefs and sneeringly said something about "superheroes with fangs". :smallwink::smalltongue: )

Lord Raziere
2017-10-11, 04:51 PM
Back in the day, we played so much Vampire* that eventually the overburden of player knowledge that the characters didn't have became so tedious that we started playing elder campaigns with a different focus and different stakes and challenges.


( * of course, we were also having badwrongfun and not wangsting over personal horror, and I'm sure the staff at White Wolf would have sniffed at their patchouli-doused lace kerchiefs and sneeringly said something about "superheroes with fangs". :smallwink::smalltongue: )

Man, I wish I could be in a campaign like that. World of Darkness is really hurt by its own premise in my opinion.

Nifft
2017-10-11, 04:56 PM
True, but not every story or campaign is about that sort of arc. (As an aside, one of my pet peeves of both spec fiction and RPGs is the presumption from some quarters that this "farmboy to world-savior" arc is the only legitimate central-protagonist character arc.)

To be fair, though, it's a pretty rare D&D game which has a single specific "legitimate central-protagonist character" at all.

There are all sorts of deep disconnects between the canonical tabletop fantasy RPG vs. the canonical fantasy novel / video game, and the central character (who is special) is one of those.

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 04:58 PM
Man, I wish I could be in a campaign like that. World of Darkness is really hurt by its own premise in my opinion.

Meh, it's overrated in my opinion. I only played in games like that and I wish I could have been a part of some standard games. WoD is one of those systems that really starts to break down at higher levels of play.

Knaight
2017-10-11, 05:24 PM
Then why ask? I rarely if ever (okay once) use this trick for anything nasty however it is a great test of how the player reacts. If they use their non-dominant hand (or worse yet try and back out) then it is some pretty good evidence that they can't be trusted to keep OOC knowledge separate from IC knowledge, and you should plan accordingly. Not to say that means they can't be a fantastic player just something to keep an eye on :smallsmile:

Either that or it's evidence that they remember that their character is holding something and that they're using their dominant hand for that.

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 05:54 PM
Either that or it's evidence that they remember that their character is holding something and that they're using their dominant hand for that.

Depends on if they remember their character is holding something (which I probably should have spotted) or if they "remember" their character was holding something ('cause I totally had my sword out guys) :smallwink:

It's not a conclusive test or anything like that, just a single piece of evidence. I always propose that the best piece of GM advice in the world is "know your group", any time that I can find out information faster about them is a win in my book.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 06:05 PM
We should be using OoTS as an example when discussing this...

i.e. if you were running Roy as a character, and there are two possibilities for you as the player
1) You are only aware of what Roy experiences in the story
2) You are aware of everything in the comic

How would the gaming experience differ?

Quertus
2017-10-11, 06:09 PM
Like when you ask a person if they are reaching out to grab the doorknob with their right hand... or their left. How many PCs will choose to use their non-dominant hand?


And as a GM I would look at them and say "seriously?"


Then why ask? I rarely if ever (okay once) use this trick for anything nasty however it is a great test of how the player reacts. If they use their non-dominant hand (or worse yet try and back out) then it is some pretty good evidence that they can't be trusted to keep OOC knowledge separate from IC knowledge, and you should plan accordingly. Not to say that means they can't be a fantastic player just something to keep an eye on :smallsmile:

I'm sorry. Are you playing a trained adventurer exploring a dangerous dungeon? If so, and you answered with anything short of, "I keep my sword / torch / dagger ready in my dominant hand, and open the door with my off hand", then you have failed.

Bonus points if you keep a dagger / torch in your off hand while opening the door, or place your booted foot such that the door cannot slam open in your face (if it opens outward) / tie a rope to the door knob first (if it opens inward).

Optimize your role-playing better. :smalltongue:

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 06:10 PM
It's not a conclusive test or anything like that, just a single piece of evidence. I always propose that the best piece of GM advice in the world is "know your group", any time that I can find out information faster about them is a win in my book.Again, that's a false problem. If you, the DM, are intentionally asking players for 'clarification' that sets them up to spend extra time thinking about something that's instinctive, then you've created the problem.

Just assume they use the character's dominant hand. Because that's what people do.

Edit: Lol at Q for taking the exact opposite stance from me. :smallbiggrin:

Quertus
2017-10-11, 06:18 PM
Just assume they use the character's dominant hand. Because that's what people do.

Edit: Lol at Q for taking the exact opposite stance from me. :smallbiggrin:

I mean, in a modern game, you'd be absolutely right. Unless you're dealing with a soldier / cop with his gun out.

Anybody know if SWAT cops develop a habit of opening doors with their offhand, even when not on duty?

Personally, I use both interchangeably. :smalltongue:

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 06:22 PM
I mean, in a modern game, you'd be absolutely right. Unless you're dealing with a soldier / cop with his gun out.
Fair enough. But the point remains if the DM is choosing to trigger "OOC", that's on them. Edit: Assuming they care.


We should be using OoTS as an example when discussing this...

i.e. if you were running Roy as a character, and there are two possibilities for you as the player
1) You are only aware of what Roy experiences in the story
2) You are aware of everything in the comic

How would the gaming experience differ?
Personally? It'd make a huge difference. It'd be the difference between DMing and playing, between being a personal participant and a neutral observer ... between writing a story and living.

That's the real difference to me. Living life isn't writing a story. And that's the illusion / feeling I'm trying to create by playing the game. That the game is feels 'real'. Not that it's a story.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-11, 06:26 PM
I'm sorry. Are you playing a trained adventurer exploring a dangerous dungeon? If so, and you answered with anything short of, "I keep my sword / torch / dagger ready in my dominant hand, and open the door with my off hand", then you have failed.

Bonus points if you keep a dagger / torch in your off hand while opening the door, or place your booted foot such that the door cannot slam open in your face (if it opens outward) / tie a rope to the door knob first (if it opens inward).

Optimize your role-playing better. :smalltongue:

I do not find your joke funny. :smallannoyed: It is in poor taste.

Tinkerer
2017-10-11, 06:29 PM
:smallsmile: You two are making a lot of assumptions. I pulled that line from a situation where the characters are modern civilians. I was really using it as an general example but I could have made that clearer. I am curious as to why Tanarii would call it a false problem when it was never a problem, it was an opportunity to learn something about the player. Learning more in less than 10 seconds than I could in a minute.

Knaight
2017-10-11, 06:29 PM
That's the real difference to me. Living life isn't writing a story. And that's the illusion / feeling I'm trying to create by playing the game. That the game is feels 'real'. Not that it's a story.

This right here? This is what I was talking about in terms of the difference between role playing and immersion. What you're asking for is immersion (which gets quickly shredded by the style under discussion) - and while immersion can't really happen without roleplaying*, roleplaying can happen without immersion just fine.

*In this medium.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 06:32 PM
"I keep my sword / torch / dagger ready in my dominant hand, and open the door with my off hand"If that was their response to my "seriously?", then I would know that I have a serious roleplayer on hand. Even if they made that up just to avoid using their dominant hand, I would be happy.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 06:33 PM
This right here? This is what I was talking about in terms of the difference between role playing and immersion. What you're asking for is immersion (which gets quickly shredded by the style under discussion) - and while immersion can't really happen without roleplaying*, roleplaying can happen without immersion just fine.

*In this medium.
Ah. That makes much more sense. And it fits the word. I've always seen & used immersion to mean "putting yourself deeply into the character's personality".

And no, I disagree that roleplaying can happen without immersion. If you're not making decisions for the character, you're not roleplaying. And if you're not immersed in this way, you cannot make decisions for the character. Only for things that happen to the character. Which is instead making decisions for the narrative, or story, or whatever. Edit: Actually, I'm wrong. Flat wrong on that. You CAN do that, because it's entirely possible to play it as a game board, keeping player and PC knowledge in sync, and not have a strong sense of immersion. And still be roleplaying, because you're making decisions FOR your character, not ABOUT your character. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.


:smallsmile: You two are making a lot of assumptions. I pulled that line from a situation where the characters are modern civilians. I was really using it as an general example but I could have made that clearer. I am curious as to why Tanarii would call it a false problem when it was never a problem, it was an opportunity to learn something about the player. Learning more in less than 10 seconds than I could in a minute.
Because the only thing you've learned is what happens when you create a unnecessary dilemma. It's not useful information. It's a false problem that's being presented.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 06:35 PM
Personally? It'd make a huge difference. It'd be the difference between DMing and playing, between being a personal participant and a neutral observer ... between writing a story and living.I agree it would make a huge difference, that's kinda the point... but I don't see how you are suddenly a neutral observer. You still make 100% of the decisions and control 100% of the actions of Roy, you (as a player) just happen to know additional information about the story.

Knaight
2017-10-11, 06:52 PM
And no, I disagree that roleplaying can happen without immersion. If you're not making decisions for the character, you're not roleplaying. And if you're not immersed in this way, you cannot make decisions for the character. Only for things that happen to the character. Which is instead making decisions for the narrative, or story, or whatever.

People can make decisions for the character just fine without being immersed in the character. You, personally might not be able to - and I've seen enough discussion about character writing among writers to suspect that this is a major divide with a lot of people on each side - but other people can. A detached assessment of a person is enough to predict their behavior to some degree, and while that's an imperfect method for real people it works just fine for RPG characters under one's personal control. It's the same way that actors can generally act (which is absolutely a form of playing a role) without method acting.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-11, 07:05 PM
Just got back from work. Catching up.


Great. I've seen many players who do. Like when you ask a person if they are reaching out to grab the doorknob with their right hand... or their left. How many PCs will choose to use their non-dominant hand?
This is an obnoxious question on a variety of levels because answering that they use their non-dominant hand is perfectly reasonable. (Most adventurers are, like, holding stuff in their dominant hand already.) And



A long enough checklist is still an additional mental burden. When you're remembering something from 6 months ago and you go "Okay, I know the BBEG had plans for the City of Righthererightnow... or wait did I know that or did I only hear it in a cutscene..."
If you're not capitalizing on these scenes until 6 months later, you're doing it wrong.



Once again not saying that it's not possible just that it has it's own set of drawbacks. And as always knowing your party is your best guide to knowing the difference.
My objection is not that it isn't a drawback. My argument is that 2 grains of additional sand on the beach aren't going to make a worthwhile difference by any measure, so why are we zooming in on these two particular grains as if they somehow matter way more?


No. That is a false problem. It only exists because the player and DM are, for some reason, insisting that the player PC cannot have this knowledge that should be commonplace among adventurers.[QUOTE]
Then replace Troll with Terrasque and its particulars, or planar monsters a character would have no business knowing about. Nitpicking the specifics of the example doesn't remove the point from play.

[QUOTE]
This is different from a player somehow knowing, for example, about a meeting that only two NPCs attended half a continent away ... when neither has told anyone else.
Again, knowing two people have talked is not going to ruin your fun or make it any harder for you. There is a difference between seeing two guys in a room and one saying "so we meet again" before fading to black, and two guys meeting in a room and barfing the details of their plan all over the players.



Try not to think about pink elephants, okay?

Edit: To be clear, most examples are things that the DM can easily, if they so choose, fit into the game. But explicitly introducing information the PCs cannot know to the players, then telling them 'but your character doesn't know this' (explicitly or implicitly) increases player <--> PC distance.
I disagree here. Filtering out one more bit of background noise does not make it harder for me to roleplay, nor does it make me suddenly act differently. My most recent PC, Errant, does not have time for nuance. I am fully aware that his attitude will chafe with important people, and I am fully aware of what politics he might be ruining. (Many for other players, but we are all cool with it.) I have had no increased problem with Errant saying "no, F you, I do it the straightforward way." So, for instance, while others were fretting about a foreign warlord encroaching on their territory and debating how they should deal with it, Errant gathered a bunch of violent psychopaths and murdered the intruders wholesale. Because screw your politics. Knowing FULL WELL that this would end badly for EVERYONE. (Lots of Errant's men died, he eawas s severely injured, and the warlord was mad) Hell, since it was a first time GM I was even helping him with the prep and knew the full extent of the campaign. And when it was time to play, I put on my Errant hat and said "What would Errant do?"



Also, I don't think player <--> PC knowledge is ever going to be perfectly aligned. But there is a big difference between creating a false problem (the Troll problem), and recognizing the seperation being increased due to something that cannot possibly be known. Or ignoring the distance because story and you don't care, for that matter.
Unless you're defining this separation differently from me, I can't help but feel like these are unrelated phenomena. EDIT: ah yes. The immersion thing. No need to specify further. I'm caught up there.

On Immersion:
Eh. Don't care. I've never felt like I am living my character's life. Hard for me to do that when every few seconds I have to stop, roll dice, look at rules, and/or shove a cheeto in my mouth. (Also because I was perma-gm for 13 straight years, and the immersion thing doesn't work there.) The idea, to me, of getting entirely sucked into the narrative is a thing for other forms of media that are uninterrupted. (For me, pretty much exclusively books. Well written ones, anyways.)
If I know what my character wants, and how they plan to get it, and what part of themselves they tend to follow around, I'm good to go for session 1. By session 10 I have a complicated character.

For Errant, he wants the world to worship his Goddess. (Aka his delusional connection to his dead wife's psychic imprint. It's complicated.)
He plans to do that by showing forth her power through his strength and ability.
He tends to follow his pain around. It drives most of his decisionmaking. (Specifically, he copes with his emotional pain by barfing out physical pain onto others..... he's not particularly well adjusted.)

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 08:19 PM
@ImNotTrevor
Your description of Errant brings another important point about "roleplaying". If you are roleplaying a character with a problematic personality. You should do things that you as a player know to be a bad idea.

If your character is paranoid, he might avoid an opportunity that you as a player know is a good opportunity, and you know he would benefit from it.

If your character is angry and vengeful, he might rush into a situation without thinking; which you as a player know is virtual suicide.

So I would argue that a good roleplayer already has to separate the players knowledge from the characters. Unless you play a character that makes decisions exactly like you... but then you aren't really playing a role. You are just pretending "what would I do"

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-11, 08:32 PM
Ah. That makes much more sense. And it fits the word. I've always seen & used immersion to mean "putting yourself deeply into the character's personality".

And no, I disagree that roleplaying can happen without immersion. If you're not making decisions for the character, you're not roleplaying. And if you're not immersed in this way, you cannot make decisions for the character. Only for things that happen to the character. Which is instead making decisions for the narrative, or story, or whatever. Edit: Actually, I'm wrong. Flat wrong on that. You CAN do that, because it's entirely possible to play it as a game board, keeping player and PC knowledge in sync, and not have a strong sense of immersion. And still be roleplaying, because you're making decisions FOR your character, not ABOUT your character. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.


In that latter part is a distinction separate from the immersion distinction.

But first... if you're making decisions as you think your character would make them based on what the character knows and feels and senses, then you're roleplaying, whether you're in first-person or third-person, and regardless of how much OOC knowledge you're having to segregate. RP can involve and benefit from some acting, but doesn't require it. RP can involve and benefit from immersion, but doesn't require it. RP can involve and benefit from storytelling tools, but doesn't require them.

And that takes us back to the distinction in that first sentence, which is Character vs Story. They're not mutually exclusive or a binary this-that choice, but they are on a bit of a slider and if not zero-sum, at least such that concentrating greatly on one makes it very hard to consider the other. It's the tradeoff between "what makes the best story?" or "what would this character do in this spot?" and it's a narrow path to find the answer that works for both questions -- especially when you add in "what makes the game fun, or at least doesn't make it less fun, for the people I'm doing this thing with?" into the mix.

In my opinion, if we're treating the character like a person who could be real / who feels like they could be real (see that nasty V-word in my signature), then for most characters, they don't care what "makes a good story", they care about getting whatever it is they want, avoiding bad stuff happening to them, taking care of the people and things that matter to them, and so on. I think it's impossible to both roleplay the character and make story-based decisions at the same time all the time, and that eventually one has to chose. And if you're making all your decisions as story-crafting decisions, then I don't think I can call that roleplaying, as much as it can be inflammatory to make exclusionary statements on that basis -- I'd call that storygaming.

It seems to me that RPGs attract writers and actors, and each brings their outside experience and expectations to the activity -- but it's important to remember that an RPG is its own thing, and not inherently an exercise in collaborative authorial fiction, and not inherently an exercise in improv. (I say this as a would-be writer who is not entirely innocent of that error.) One can often tell when reading the text of a game whether those who wrote it had fiction and/or acting backgrounds.

Personally, at the RPG table, I care significantly less about telling a story or acting a part, than I do about digging into that other world and interacting with it through the lens of that character and overcoming some obstacles and so on.




People can make decisions for the character just fine without being immersed in the character. You, personally might not be able to - and I've seen enough discussion about character writing among writers to suspect that this is a major divide with a lot of people on each side - but other people can. A detached assessment of a person is enough to predict their behavior to some degree, and while that's an imperfect method for real people it works just fine for RPG characters under one's personal control. It's the same way that actors can generally act (which is absolutely a form of playing a role) without method acting.


Or somewhat like the distinction between first-person or third-person fiction. Third-person writing doesn't preclude a richly realized and deeply dimensioned character.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 08:55 PM
And that takes us back to the distinction in that first sentence, which is Character vs Story. They're not mutually exclusive or a binary this-that choice, but they are on a bit of a slider and if not zero-sum, at least such that concentrating greatly on one makes it very hard to consider the other. It's the tradeoff between "what makes the best story?" or "what would this character do in this spot?" and it's a narrow path to find the answer that works for both questions -- especially when you add in "what makes the game fun, or at least doesn't make it less fun, for the people I'm doing this thing with?" into the mix.Wow. Well said. This is exactly how I look at character vs story. I just suck at saying it, especially in a non-combative manner.

The rest of what you wrote is similar to my thoughts too, I just didn't want to quote your entire thing to say "I agree!" ;)

-----------------


This takes me back to the question on OoTS. Aliquid Imagine Roy is your character.

Do you say:
"I jump on the undead dragon and attack Xykon!"
Or
"Roy jumps on the stick undead dragon and attacks Xykon!"

Does the DM say:
"You fall off, and splat on the ground."
Or
"Roy falls off, and splats on the ground."

See the difference? That's what I'm talking about.

Aliquid
2017-10-11, 09:47 PM
It's the tradeoff between "what makes the best story?" or "what would this character do in this spot?" and it's a narrow path to find the answer that works for both questions -- especially when you add in "what makes the game fun, or at least doesn't make it less fun, for the people I'm doing this thing with?" into the mix. I would take if from the angle:


There are an infinite number of things my character could do right now
Realistically though, there are a handful of things that my character could do that would be truly "in character"
Out of that handful, lets pick the one that would make the story move forward in the best way



This takes me back to the question on OoTS. Aliquid Imagine Roy is your character.

Do you say:
"I jump on the undead dragon and attack Xykon!"
Or
"Roy jumps on the stick undead dragon and attacks Xykon!"

Does the DM say:
"You fall off, and splat on the ground."
Or
"Roy falls off, and splats on the ground."

See the difference? That's what I'm talking about.I don't think you have to do the latter. The times I have played games that are story based, I still said "I jump on the dragon"

The thing I see as a much bigger issue with OoTS and this style of play is from a more current story.

Roy being loyal to Durkon, and assuming that he is still Durkon at heart after being turned into a vampire, when the audience KNOWS that Durkula is evil, and the real Durkon is not in control. That would be some tough OoC knowledge to pretend you don't know when dealing with those character interactions

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 09:55 PM
I didn't mean to say that separation due to player knowledge of story or outside his character means you must use third person. I meant it to demonstrate the way that kind of knowledge makes for separation. IMO it's the same kind of separation, just a matter of degree.

Anyway, you've made it clear that you're okay with a degree of story knowledge (so to speak) for the player. That probably means I'm unnecessarily beating a dead horse at this point. I have to concende to you, and others that objected to my perspective etc ... it's clearly a preference thing. And apologize for my pretty obnoxious characterizations of it as some kind of 'right' way to do things

Quertus
2017-10-11, 10:19 PM
:smallsmile: You two are making a lot of assumptions. I pulled that line from a situation where the characters are modern civilians.


Are you playing a trained adventurer exploring a dangerous dungeon? If so...


I mean, in a modern game, you'd be absolutely right. ... Personally, I use both [hands] interchangeably.

Am I one of the two making assumptions? Is there a better way to express "this situation can have variable outcomes. Under conditions X, ..." than my stated, "if X"?


If that was their response to my "seriously?", then I would know that I have a serious roleplayer on hand. Even if they made that up just to avoid using their dominant hand, I would be happy.

:smallbiggrin:

I can only hope that you'd be equally happy if that was their response to your initial inquiry, too.


Personally, at the RPG table, I care significantly less about telling a story or acting a part, than I do about digging into that other world and interacting with it through the lens of that character and overcoming some obstacles and so on.

First off, let me just say, Kudos on adopting a style that makes it very clear when you are stating opinions.

I don't fully understand this section here. Because past experience says that you won't b.s. me, I'm curious if you can help me understand it by telling me which of those I come off as. Or, if that won't be helpful, if you could explain to me the distinction between story / acting / digging / lense / obstacles that you were attempting to convey.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-11, 10:22 PM
I would take if from the angle:


There are an infinite number of things my character could do right now
Realistically though, there are a handful of things that my character could do that would be truly "in character"
Out of that handful, lets pick the one that would make the story move forward in the best way


I essentially do this, more or less. I tend to narrow down to one thing my character would do, but when there's more than one I then go to "and which one of these expresses his/her true nature? Which one makes things interesting? Which one is unexpected?"

I genuinely prefer characters with a few straightforward wants and needs. I have a character who goes by the nickname Mr. Rattlebones. He's an (apparently) old man who taught law at a university and then became a criminal mastermind. What he wants is fairly straightforward: to become the secret master of the city, to obtain riches, and to maybe get with his assistant/bodyguard. That's about it. The complicating factors and obligations are many, but what people want and are willing to do are fairly straightforward.



To also jump in on the 1st vs 3rd person:
That is 100% irrelevant to how much or how well you are roleplaying. That's a preference thing. Some people just feel awkward using the first person, so they don't.
Some, like me, have GM'd for so long that using the 3rd person is what comes naturally.
Some, also like me, confuse everyone by flipflopping between the two.
Some enjoy the illusion of additional immersion granted by use of the 1st person. (Which isn't in any way berating said illusion. I'm not sure why the word "illusion" has such a negative connotation while we applaud magicians who are good at it. Illusions can be tons of fun!)
Some just prefer using the 1st person because they're used to declaring their own turn in other games.

It has about as much to do with your immersion level as the color of your dice.

Tanarii
2017-10-11, 11:03 PM
Some enjoy the illusion of additional immersion granted by use of the 1st person. (Which isn't in any way berating said illusion. I'm not sure why the word "illusion" has such a negative connotation while we applaud magicians who are good at it. Illusions can be tons of fun!)
Hopefully it's an illusion. If we start taking the illusion of immersion as reality, we got problems. :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-12, 06:01 AM
Hopefully it's an illusion. If we start taking the illusion of immersion as reality, we got problems. :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:

I mean, yes. I guess I'm just stating that people who are way too busy being first time learners of the rules may still use first person. So can people who want to feel like they're more immersed. (They're not, really, but the feeling is what counts)

I'm not referring to the illusion of immersion itself, which yes, is also an illusion. I'm referencing the illusion of somehow being MORE immersed by switching up pronouns as if that matters in any way, shape, or form. :P

Which still isn't a bad thing, but the argument seemed to be implying that unless you're using 1st person your RP and Immersionnare somehow less. Which is like saying that unless you use green dice you aren't roleplaying. They're unrelated.

Aran nu tasar
2017-10-12, 09:01 AM
Some, like me, have GM'd for so long that using the 3rd person is what comes naturally.
Some, also like me, confuse everyone by flipflopping between the two.

This is exactly how I play.

With regards to immersion, it really is a trade-off. Playing games with meta-knowledge (like the cutscenes, or not keeping secrets from other players) sacrifice immersion, games with meta-decision making (eg. Fate) even more so. And if immersion is something you really value, then it is going to be a loss that isn't worth it. But the loss of immersion usually gives you other benefits - dramatic irony, creating a specific tone or atmosphere for the players (even if their characters wouldn't necessarily be feeling it), and in the case of meta-decision making, control over shaping the story into something more satisfying. For me, that's worth the loss of immersion. For a lot of people, it isn't.

A really interesting example of this is the story game Ten Candles (http://cavalrygames.com/ten-candles/), which is on my mind because I'm going to be running it later today. Ten Candles pretty much throws immersion to the winds, but is extremely heavy on atmosphere. It's a tragic horror* game played in complete darkness by the light of ten candles which go out one by one as the game progresses, until the PCs die and the last candle goes out. So that right there is player knowledge the characters don't have - the characters are trying their hardest to survive, but the players know they are doomed. This enforces a really strong tone and mood. But at the same time, the players get a lot of narrative control. There are a lot of points where players get to straight up narrate what happens, or to declare a fact to be true in the world. And there is nothing stopping them from saying "and then we find a rocket launcher and a plasma cannon" or similar. If the players use this narrative control as a way to advocate for their characters or to try to save them, the game falls flat. Because baked into the mechanics of the game is the fact that the players will inevitably die, so all introducing plasma cannons does is ruin the tone. It runs best when the players vigorously advocate for their characters when making in-character decisions, and then work to make a satisfying story when making meta decisions. The game completely sacrifices immersion -if you play it trying to be completely immersed in your character, not only will you have a bad time, but the whole game will suffer. But it trades immersion for a really strong atmosphere and tone, which I think is worth the loss.

Anyway, the point is (like everybody has been saying) that immersion is valuable but not the be-all and end-all of roleplaying. Games or playstyles that prevent immersion usually have other things going for them, and it's really a matter of taste which you prefer.

Then there's also the whole playing to win thing in some OSR-style games, where using player knowledge about the weakness of the troll (or tarrasque, or demon, or whatever) is not only totally permissible, but considered good play. And in that case, immersion is sacrificed for a game that's not about story but about overcoming (or failing to overcome) challenges. Which is the same idea, that losing immersion is a trade-off, coming from a completely different direction.

*It's like survival horror, except nobody survives.

Tinkerer
2017-10-12, 09:48 AM
Am I one of the two making assumptions? Is there a better way to express "this situation can have variable outcomes. Under conditions X, ..." than my stated, "if X"?


Indeed but judging from your response I misread the tone in your statement. The "I'm sorry" immediately before it made me think the question was rhetorical rather than an actual question.

My example was simply one of if you are not sure if the players can handle the important OOC information responsibly then ask them to handle some unimportant OOC information first, but make them think it's important. Nothing more.


Hopefully it's an illusion. If we start taking the illusion of immersion as reality, we got problems.

Well yeah. Sometimes you get roleplayers who you don't want to give too much immersion to for exactly this reason. They get too into it and you gotta pull them back. Well that or kick them out. I'm not spending another gaming night taking one of the players too the hospital... Anyways that's also a great time to break out the atmosphere enhancing but immersion breaking tools.

Tanarii
2017-10-12, 10:26 AM
I'm not referring to the illusion of immersion itself, which yes, is also an illusion. I'm referencing the illusion of somehow being MORE immersed by switching up pronouns as if that matters in any way, shape, or form. :P depends what we mean by immersion. Remember, I objected to the term at first.

Possible things we can mean by immersion, off the top of my head:
1) generally being more aware of character personality when making choices
2) increasing your identity with character, method acting, including being more aware of personality
3) reducing player <-> character knowledge separation
4) more like living and less like a story, driven by actions and consequences, as opposed to some underlying plot / narrative

The first and second are always what I think of as immersion. That's why I objected to the term being applied to the 3rd and 4th initially. But Knaight was appling it to them anyway. The first two can make the last two happen, but they are not required for it.

The first and third do not require 1st vs 3rd. The second and fourth are both is enhanced by 1st. Although it's merely a incidental effect on the fourth.

So yeah, I guess I more or less agree with you. Unless we're talking about method acting or making thing more like living and less story, 1st vs 3rd person isn't required. And even for living vs story it's not a deal breaker.

Edit: I admit I conflate the concepts myself. Which is why I'm spelling them out.

Knaight
2017-10-12, 10:41 AM
depends what we mean by immersion. Remember, I objected to the term at first.

Possible things we can mean by immersion, off the top of my head:
1) generally being more aware of character personality when making choices
2) increasing your identity with character, method acting, including being more aware of personality
3) reducing player <-> character knowledge separation
4) more like living and less like a story, driven by actions and consequences, as opposed to some underlying plot / narrative

The first and second are always what I think of as immersion. That's why I objected to the term being applied to the 3rd and 4th initially. But Knaight was appling it to them anyway. The first two can make the last two happen, but they are not required for it.

I wouldn't consider the first immersion at all - awareness of character personality is easily managed from highly detached author stance positions. As for the fourth, the actual driving structure doesn't get changed in any way by telling the players what other characters taking actions and experiences consequences are doing, leaving only the second and third.

Tanarii
2017-10-12, 10:56 AM
As for the fourth, the actual driving structure doesn't get changed in any way by telling the players what other characters taking actions and experiences consequences are doing, leaving only the second and third.then why, when I explained my position as the fourth, did you say?: that's what I mean by immersion right here.

Edit: okay looking back at the post you responded to, I can see where you might have thought I meant the second. Especially since I was tying in 1st person to it, which (as I've said) actually isn't a deal breaker for the fourth.

Knaight
2017-10-12, 11:41 AM
then why, when I explained my position as the fourth, did you say?: that's what I mean by immersion right here.

Edit: okay looking back at the post you responded to, I can see where you might have thought I meant the second. Especially since I was tying in 1st person to it, which (as I've said) actually isn't a deal breaker for the fourth.

The fourth as described is about the structure of the game - how it gets there is irrelevant, and could be reached from complete and utter detachment on all sides. Wanting to feel as if you're playing a character in a world is a distinct concept from that.

First and third person pronouns are largely irrelevant, but a better way of looking at it is narrator perspective. There's plenty of stories that come out of organic character decisions written in third person omniscient. The feel described seems to only fit a limited perspective, regardless of whether it's first or third person limited.

Tanarii
2017-10-12, 12:23 PM
The fourth as described is about the structure of the game - how it gets there is irrelevant, and could be reached from complete and utter detachment on all sides. Wanting to feel as if you're playing a character in a world is a distinct concept from that.no. The fourth is about living not being stories. Living is about actions and consequences. Stories are about narrative causality.

Knaight
2017-10-12, 01:14 PM
no. The fourth is about living not being stories. Living is about actions and consequences. Stories are about narrative causality.

There's nothing about a wider perspective somehow preventing the action-consequence structure though, and plenty of stories aren't necessarily about narrative causality - starting with nonfiction.

Tanarii
2017-10-12, 01:42 PM
There's nothing about a wider perspective somehow preventing the action-consequence structure though, and plenty of stories aren't necessarily about narrative causality - starting with nonfiction.
Most non-fiction is the editing of existing events, tying it together with an underlying theme / plot / moral. Its rarely a collection of events without the tie-together.

Living is different. Its literally thingd that happen as consequences, events. Nothing underlying it other than that.

Aliquid
2017-10-12, 02:06 PM
Most non-fiction is the editing of existing events, tying it together with an underlying theme / plot / moral. Its rarely a collection of events without the tie-together.

Living is different. Its literally thingd that happen as consequences, events. Nothing underlying it other than that.Living is boring though... even when something interesting happens, people typically tweak aspects when telling a story about it afterwards, to make it more interesting.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-12, 02:30 PM
First off, let me just say, Kudos on adopting a style that makes it very clear when you are stating opinions.


To me it feels like overdoing it to the point of risking coming across as sarcastic, but more subtle measures have failed.




I don't fully understand this section here. Because past experience says that you won't b.s. me, I'm curious if you can help me understand it by telling me which of those I come off as. Or, if that won't be helpful, if you could explain to me the distinction between story / acting / digging / lense / obstacles that you were attempting to convey.


Sorry, I was trying to not be too verbose there, and may have over-corrected.

Story -- in this context I'm talking about decisions made for narrative reasons rather than character reasons; the player stepping back and making out of character choices for purposes of narrative flow, structure, whatever. Referred to by some as "director stance".

Acting a part -- two things. First, I've very little use if any for archetypes, niches, character tropes, predefined roles, etc, they just don't interest me and feel like the literary version of character classes or paint by number... no thank you. Second, I'm not interested in acting out predetermined scenes where the entire outcome has already been decided, or reading from someone else's script.

Digging into the world -- I'm a setting junky. Worldbuilding is my drug. I love richly detailed settings with breadth and depth, and it disappoints me greatly when an interesting-looking setting turns out to be paper-thin and based on nothing but the narrative needs of the moment. Geography, architecture, food, clothing, art, history, it all matters... and how my character is affected by and interacts with it all, seeing that world through the character's eyes, matters a great deal too.

Obstacles -- I find solving mysteries, tracking down secret plots, thwarting enemies, winning fights, etc, far far more engaging than dragged-out "drama" and endless wangst.




no. The fourth is about living not being stories. Living is about actions and consequences. Stories are about narrative causality.


I think I know where you're going with this, and it's similar to where I draw the distinction between a game being character, setting, and cause-effect-cycle driven on one hand, or being narrative-driven on the other hand.

For example:



My favorite is from a game that was set to evolve into a Mecha vs. Steam Mecha vs. Kaiju game, set in modern times.

There was a monster (smaller than most kaiju, the increase in size was part of the ongoing story) near a town. The PCs had gathered the townsfolk into a school gym to try to get them to support their plans for getting everyone safe. Then they decided it would be a *super* idea to lock the doors.

A few botched rolls later, the townsfolk are getting angry, so they kill the lights. Which turns it into a riot. Competent and capable aside, they were in real danger from the mob. So a player flips me a Fate Point and says "So, since there's a monster rampaging around, wouldn't it make sense that it would attack the gym right now?"

Last they had seen, this "kaiju" (most were Pokemon-sized) was about the size of a gorilla or something.

"Why yes, yes it would. All of a sudden, sunlight streams in from the hole in the ceiling where the kaiju has ripped it open. You notice it's a lot bigger now."


Monster attacks because it's the most dramatic/ironic/comedic/whatever moment for it to attack. A little of this handled deftly in authorial fiction can be great (see, some of the back-and-forth cuts in The Fifth Element), but too much becomes coincidence pileup and eyeroll worthy.

In an RPG... no. Please, please, please, no. Do much of this, and my character is going to do the logical thing and start looking for the underlying cause of all those coincidences, because to the character, this isn't a story, it's their life.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-12, 02:50 PM
No, however it will reduce the need. There are many, many, many, players who have enough of a problem separating IC and OoC knowledge and it's definitely worth keeping that in mind. Bear in mind, and this is something that I should probably add to my sig, NOT ALL PLAYERS ARE GOOD ROLEPLAYERS. Therefore if you are acting as a GM for people who do have an issue separating IC and OoC knowledge then I'd say yeah, using this technique would probably be a mistake. If you are a GM who regularly GMs for new people it may introduce some elements that you should keep an eye on. Heck that was one of the reasons why I stopped using this technique years ago and switch to my debriefing style. Not to mention that it breaks one of the fundamental guidelines by stopping the action.


Instead of framing this as "good roleplayers vs bad roleplayers", perhaps instead ponder whether there are some players who are perfectly capable of segregating large amounts of OOC knowledge, but who find constantly doing so makes the game less enjoyable for them.

Tinkerer
2017-10-12, 03:21 PM
Instead of framing this as "good roleplayers vs bad roleplayers", perhaps instead ponder whether there are some players who are perfectly capable of segregating large amounts of OOC knowledge, but who find constantly doing so makes the game less enjoyable for them.

My comment was in response to a specific phrase from Nifft where they mention that

A good roleplayer is acting in-character in spite of out-of-character knowledge all the time, even if you try to limit the quantity.
I am aware that there are many other types of player who utilize many styles.

As to why frame it as good roleplayers and bad roleplayers (not really vs) it's because so many pieces of gaming advice (particularly in forums) fail to recognize their existence. I've got some horrible role players who show up on time, actually try, and are just pleasant to have at the table. Those people are good as gold in my book compared to a fantastic roleplayer who brings drama, shows up late if at all, and is a self absorbed **** head. Bear in mind that a new roleplayer doesn't have the library of OOC materials floating around in their head that veterans do so it is actually creating a fresh problem rather than adding a few grains of sand onto a beach. Although... come to think of it one could also view it as a good primer on how to treat OOC material... might have to give that a try some time.

Oh but on the pondering thing I know that there are people like that. So not much point in pondering.

Nifft
2017-10-12, 03:53 PM
Instead of framing this as "good roleplayers vs bad roleplayers", perhaps instead ponder whether there are some players who are perfectly capable of segregating large amounts of OOC knowledge, but who find constantly doing so makes the game less enjoyable for them.


My comment was in response to a specific phrase from Nifft where they mention that

I am aware that there are many other types of player who utilize many styles.

The funny thing is that what I'm saying is almost exactly the same thing that Max_Killjoy is saying.

I'm spelling out that any "good" roleplaying which you've seen happened in spite of a mountain of OoC information.

Therefore, the assertion that one more piece of OoC information would be somehow instantly lethal to roleplaying is strongly contra-indicated.

kyoryu
2017-10-12, 04:06 PM
In an RPG... no. Please, please, please, no. Do much of this, and my character is going to do the logical thing and start looking for the underlying cause of all those coincidences, because to the character, this isn't a story, it's their life.

It doesn't work for you. Cool.

It worked for me, and for my group. Also cool.

I also wouldn't do that in every game.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-12, 04:23 PM
It doesn't work for you. Cool.

It worked for me, and for my group. Also cool.

I also wouldn't do that in every game.

Just speaking for myself and those who might be of similar mind, not making a universal statement.

Trying to find an example I could ground the point in -- the point being that for the character, it's not a story, it's their life.

Tinkerer
2017-10-12, 05:05 PM
The funny thing is that what I'm saying is almost exactly the same thing that Max_Killjoy is saying.

I'm spelling out that any "good" roleplaying which you've seen happened in spite of a mountain of OoC information.

Therefore, the assertion that one more piece of OoC information would be somehow instantly lethal to roleplaying is strongly contra-indicated.

Oh indeed, I'm quite in agreement with the both of you on that. Well not in agreement that any good roleplaying happened in spite of a mountain of OOC information as I've seen several specific cases where that wasn't the case but those are fringe exceptions (small children, complete newbies who are talented actors, etc...). Rather that this one piece of OOC information is not instantly lethal to roleplaying.

That having been said there is the fact that this type of OOC information is of a different nature than the others, I don't quite think comparing it to knowing monsters from the MM is equivalent. I think that there are some pretty strong drawbacks to using it but some pretty hefty gains as well. You call it a tool, I call it a stylistic choice, whatever. It's like the question of when you send a party member scouting if you should leave the room with them (I know the general consensus has been reached as no on that one but it's a roughly similar question).

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-12, 05:44 PM
Oh indeed, I'm quite in agreement with the both of you on that. Well not in agreement that any good roleplaying happened in spite of a mountain of OOC information as I've seen several specific cases where that wasn't the case but those are fringe exceptions (small children, complete newbies who are talented actors, etc...). Rather that this one piece of OOC information is not instantly lethal to roleplaying.

That having been said there is the fact that this type of OOC information is of a different nature than the others, I don't quite think comparing it to knowing monsters from the MM is equivalent. I think that there are some pretty strong drawbacks to using it but some pretty hefty gains as well. You call it a tool, I call it a stylistic choice, whatever. It's like the question of when you send a party member scouting if you should leave the room with them (I know the general consensus has been reached as no on that one but it's a roughly similar question).

Yeah, I'd lean towards "not all OOC knowledge is equivalent".

Knowing the stats and abilities of general monsters isn't the same as knowing the details of the antagonist's plot to the last minutia from session 0 onwards.

Knowing that the enemy has set their plan in motion isn't the same as knowing what that plan is.


"Any OOC knowledge is the same as all OOC knowledge" simply isn't a true statement.