Reference Gaming Theory and Philosophy Discussion Thread - Article Open Call!

The Gaming Theory and Philosophy Discussion Thread

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/xany/gtp.jpg]

Introduction

Welcome to the Gaming Theory and Philosophy Discussion Thread! Our purpose is to discuss all things theoretical about the RPFs. If you have an interest in talking about the reasons behind why things are done the way they are, this thread is for you.

This thread is not for the discussion of the practical side of things. While examples that prove theories are welcome, our purpose is not to talk about the day-to-day issues in designing and running a game, or the properties of a good character. What we talk about is everything else - essentially, if it's not to do with playing/running a specific character/game, it's fair game here.


Mission Statement

1. Theories and Philosophy

As the title suggests, this is the place for all things theoretical. This includes game analysis, meta-RPing, board analysis, gaming advice, player theory and any other sort of topic concerning things one would find in the RPF. Some examples of these are those articles currently in the Tips/Advice threads and the entries to the 3rd and 12th Summer Challenges.

Note that posting a theory in this thread does not mean you can't also post it in the Tips/Advice threads, any more than discussing a game opening post in the Game Designers Guild means you can't then run the game. In fact, you're encouraged to post it in one of the Tips/Advice thread after discussing it here (or before, or during), so it doesn't get buried.

2. Discussion of Experiences

Did you learn a valuable lesson in player management, and thus always split them up into groups of four or less? Do you repeat several rules throughout a game OP to make sure people read them? Do you always tell your GM what you have planned for your character? Do you avoid playing a certain archetype? What have you picked up over the months? Why? Tell us what you've learnt.


Membership

This is an open discussion thread - everyone is welcome to come in and post new theories or comment on things. There are no membership requirements other than posting in this thread.

 

Theory Index

Note: All links lead to the first post of the thread the theories are found in. Depending on your posts-per-page setting, you may have to check subsequent pages.

Summer Challenge Entries
Third Challenge:
- The Prince and The General by Winged_Jedi
- GMing Styles by DarthXan318
- Genre in Roleplaying by RachelTyrell
- Sinreverse, or The Relevance of Fanon by DarkLordoftheFins
- A Defense of Large Games by Imperial_Hammer

Twelfth Challenge:
- To Franchise, or to Disenfranchise. That is the question. by Sinrebirth
- the smallest unit called a Game is small by DarkLordoftheFins
- The Narration of Games by RachelTyrell

Etiquette for Creating and Playing RPGs
First Post:
- English As She Is Spoke - An Essay on Our (Potentially) Beautiful Language by AdmiralZaarin
- Why we dont play in your RPG's by Ktala
- Thoughts on Role Playing by Tarison
- What to Post in the First Post by CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
- Fleet and Infantry RPGs by RDG'
Pretendy Fun Time Games by LightWarden
Etiquette for GM's by Ktala
The Importance of Saying Goodbye by Saintheart
The Etiquette of Posting by Ktala
When Joining an RPG by Winged_Jedi
On Post lengths by DarthXan318
So you think you know SITH about Running a Force Users Game? by Ktala
The Cosine Theory Of GMing by DarthXan318
Commitment by Winged_Jedi
Market Theory by Imperial_Hammer

General Role Playing
First Post:
- General Guide to improving your Role Playing experience by LightSide-Apprentice
- Participation in RPGs by LightSide-Apprentice
- Basic Gaming Information by Ktala
- Basic RPing Tips by Zaarin
- Answers to Some Questions by Ktala
Players, Characters, and Knowledge by LightWarden
Character Reflections by DarkEnigma

Character Creation and Development
First Post:
- Character Creation by CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
- Some suggestions for character development by NaboosPrincess
- How to Properly Compose and Further the Nature of an Evil or Villainous Character within a Fictious Work by Yun-Yuuzhan
- Uber-Characters: Or Why Extremely Powerful Characters Are Bad by CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
Some examples of building "characters with character" by LightWarden
A word of advice by LightWarden
Conflict by Saintheart
Generating Memorable Characters by LightWarden
Making memorable characters, the SECRET FORMULA by DarkLordoftheFins

Non-Human Characters
First Post:
- Basic Information on the Yuuzhan Vong by KnightHawk
- Answers to Some Questions by KnightHawk
The Imporance of Research in the Development of Alien Characters by Detonating-Rabbit
A lesson on Basic Biology by LightWarden

Force-User Characters
First Post:
- The Amount of Force (using the Force) by Ktala
- Answers to Some Questions by milney
- Answers to Some Questions x2 by Ktala
- Balance! by Ktala
On irritating Jedi characters by Master_Mentat
On paladins by LightWarden
Following the Jedi Code by LightWarden
The Dark Side by LordDarthUmbrus

Space Battles
First Post:
- Space Battles by GrandAdmiralJello
- Responses to Some Questions by GrandAdmiralJel

 

I know I told you I'd have some big article to put up here, Xan, but it wound up being so ridiculously meandering I'll just post a few suggestions in terms of Player Philosophy..

Choose your moments. Drama is cool, at the right moment. Don't hog the spotlight. If you don't think you can post anything terribly awesome or interesting, don't worry about it. Settle for the best you can give at that moment, or wait a day or two.

 

I don´t know, Peng. I think you make good points. I would like to hear more about it.

 

Yeah, let's hear some of that meandering.

And lovely index, Xan!

 

Well, I've still got the file around somewhere, so I'll revise it and fiddle with it.

A few more thoughts before I try posting a big article:

It always gets me when players write something like "If X were to do Y, Z would happen" as a means of ending their post. It essentially makes the last five paragraphs worthless, as you've gone the Russian language route and included the new information at the end of the post. Don't do that. It's a weak means of RPing a scene out.

I try to make the final action of the post, if is an action, a cliffhanger. "He pulled the trigger." "She jumped for her life." Not only is it more interesting to read but you avoid autohitting and godmoding.

I really noticed this in Ramza's "Aria of the Soul." It seemed that the combat became a strange sort of essay-writing in which you attempted to stage the best attack ever by means of reasoning with the GM that your character did X and Y and therefore Z would be the best outcome, despite the fact that Ramza had a hidden, unseen system based around the stats you chose. I started to actively avoid "If all went according to plan" endings for my posts. It's really liberating, really, and a bit truer to a lot of RPing. Think about it: in DND you don't attempt actions, you simply act. The dice is a measure of how effective your action is, not if you actually succeed at slashing the skeleton in front of you.

I don't know if that makes much sense; I do have a lot of this written down because Xan encouraged me after I brought it up, so I'll revise, clean it up, post it here.

 

Funny, that I realized the same in another context recently. Another game having all the mechanics hidden behind the GM curtain was 133 ABY, which is actually basing the characters on Star Wars 2nd Edition sheets and rolls the dices whenever players fought against each other or major NPC´s. When I did my climatic duel with SirakRomar we played it out, first. Then began writing our posts. Our first few posts sucked. We wondered why, but we totally agreed they somehow did not hit it. Then we realized, that we ended them with "if" sentences. We simply cut these ones and they worked fine, suddenly.

I think we were the only ones fully aware of the mechanics of this system, actually. So I guess those unaware did never have that problem. They simply RPed and Fin melted it into statsand dices, bending the rules not to stand in the way of player-freedom actually. A perfect blend of dices and RPing, actually. With a focus on RPing.

On another note, the guys over at Games section playing the Vulture´s Talon seem to tend to make no "what if" posts either. As they are playing it only by the rules with even less RPing then Saint´s group is doing. All in all, dices behind the game´s mechanics are on the rise, I´d say. It might be a good point to enter a discussion how these things are GMed best.

 

Oh hey, yeah. That's one of those things that I used to do automatically - still might, in fact, because it's one of those things you do without thinking if you're used to it. Another method of bets-hedging I've noticed is how players pad their posts with sentences detailing how careful their character is being. I find this infuriating - sure, players want to minimise the risk of the GM springing unpleasant surprises, but unless it's in the character's personality to be super careful, it's unnecessary, smacks of player paranoia and makes for irritating reading.

Then again, I do understand the reasoning behind it and why it's come about - it comes from those free-form games where if you're not super careful and hedge your bets, the GM will come up with some novel way to destroy you. You learn to do that in those games because character lifespans are short otherwise. However, it doesn't have much place outside those Player-vs-GM-style games (which IMO are a subset freeform games, not all of them, and probably include some dice-based games too).

Peng - do post your article! No theory is complete until it's posted, and most are ridiculously meandering anyway.

Wing - Thanks. I actually started out with the vision of linking to individual posts rather than threads (my reasoning being that people had different ppp settings, so I couldn't link to pages, so I should link to posts directly) but well, I quickly realised that would be waaaay too time-consuming to produce.

 

There's a certain sort of bravery in avoiding hedge-betting (bet-hedging?) in posts.

I prefer incorporating a personality directly into the play style and using small details to flesh out a post.

I want to say more right now, but I'll save it and the examples I have for the article. For now, I'll leave it with the idea of organic RPing....as pretentious as that may sound.

 

on the 'If' posts!

That's an eye opener for me. I don't know if I've done it, but I think I might have

So I'm definitely going to watch out for it, because I think you're totally right there, Penguinator.

 

Of course, there's something to be said about playing a character who's intentionally paranoid - you're not going to see a mere "if" post, you're (ideally) going to see that character addressing the most absurd, totally unlikely events as well. Whereas a normal "If" post might address what happens if they miss, a paranoid character would probably address a miss, a near-miss, a counter attack, sudden reinforcements, random falling objects, the target suddenly turning out to be a polymorphed dragon, a second shooter behind the grassy knoll, etc.

So either avoid the if post or make it so ridiculously over-the-top that it's awesome.

 

Gaming Philosophy

Ahh, RPF philosophies...we have quite a few, don't we? We've got market theory, Codex stuff, and many other concepts floating about. Sinre and Light have been known to ruminate upon games at great length; indeed, many of us do this. The topic, it is safe to say, has been covered and covered by the best.

But what about players?

Players have been sort of relegated to being a factor in a game, a variable that can be handled one way or another; a precious commodity, if you will. The thing is, players aren't exactly the currency GMs believe them to be.

I believe Light hit the nail on the head when he said that as long as there is one player, the game can still run. Lea Monde is a perfect example of this; for one reason or another the majority of players were forced to drop out or take extended leaves of absence, leaving only Xany to craft her own story.

And that brings me to my next point: storytelling.

Okay, so we're not the fanfic forums - that's a given. But we are of a similar breed: fanfics are narratives with a single author, our games are narratives with multiple authors. We play a game, but we write a story as we do so. In a sense, we're more like actors than anything else because we are playing a role. My general approach to the whole thing is fairly newly formed in my mind, and isn't exactly as refined as many other theories, but I'll try to expand on it.

The first step in this very fun process is the character. It doesn't matter how much detail you have or don't have, provided those details matter. What information you include must be relevant to your character in some way. A few notes about how they look, things they like, what they don't like - small stuff. KISS - Keep it Simple, Stupid! Don't go too crazy with this. In the end no one will really care about your lightsaber hilt or method of dress; it's the effect your little details create that will be remembered.

Keeping a few details around can ground the character and prevent you from getting bogged down in description. The character should come alive not from how you make them look but from how they act.

In a sense, then, we're closer to actors, except we make up the script as we go. Collaboration in an RPG comes from player-player or player-GM interactions. This can simply be playing (er, writing) off of one another's posts, or actively discussing things with other players and plotting out your own stories and events. Sometimes your plans won't mesh with another player's or the GM's plans - that's okay. (If you're trying to jump the tracks of the railroad, though, be careful on how you go about it, but I digress)

RPing blind always seems to lead to failure, in my experience. So once you've got a few events in mind, a good image of the character, start giving them a concept or a destination; if they're going to get to the point where they write themselves, make sure they've got a motivation to be a key character in the game. This is probably the hardest bit in the entire process, but try VERY hard. It pays off, in the end.

So that's storytelling. Sort of.

In terms of actual play style, I've glossed over a lot of what I do. I'm going to use Man Cubs, as I'm most comfortable playing those games. Yes, the character I play as in that game is archetypal and laden with a few a tropes. Yes, there are a few contrivances. I don't care. They are fun to write for and fun to RP as, which is why they make themselves easy examples.

So, Man Cubs.

I joined because it looked a lot like The Seven Orphans of Ossus, a game that was far too much fun and one that sadly ended far too early for unforeseen reasons. These things happen. Man Cubs instantly garnered a lot of interest because of Winged's name being attached to it; I was lucky enough to be approved. We chose our respective deities - I wanted Ares, because Ares' Roman counterpart was Mars, the deity I had chosen in Ossus. Of course, I wound up with Hephaestus, a choice that wound up being much more interesting and fun.

Essentially, that decision shaped the rest of the game for me.

 

Good article Peng!

The point about players being like actors is a good one, I think, and one that should be kept in mind. If you think of a character as a just a role to bring to life - I nearly said 'a role to play', ha ha - then a lot of that stuff about protecting your character, trying to get superpowers, whatever, all falls to the wayside because a character is no longer a possession. It's just a character. You can't get mad when bad things happen to your character if you think of it that way - rather, it becomes a way to show off your RPing/acting chops, just like it is for real life actors.


As for Man Cubs ... funnily enough, I didn't get my first choice either. I wanted Apollo because, you know, sun god, but Nick beat me to it by a few minutes. So I picked the one with my favourite colour (Poseidon) and that turned out to be a fantastic choice.

 

Nice work Peng.

Its good to see some player-based theory! Its definitely underdone.

I wonder what else lies in that area of inquiry?

Also, a small little thing from me. Felt like contributing.

---

[b][u]On Sociality[/u][/b]

While good GMs work to make their games of high quality and high popularity, one thing that tends to be ignored is the element of one's relationship with other users, and with the board at large. Roleplaying is by definition a social exercise. Unlike fanfiction, which is usually orchestrated by one user, RPing [u]requires[/u] the cooperation and work of at the very least one other person. Without this relationship, games cannot happen. One most therefore take great care to maintain this capacity to be worked with. If a GM becomes a social pariah, that GM might find his/her RPing career seriously hindered and/or cut short.

What are the characteristics of a pariah GM? This of course varies from player to player, but it seems there are a few basic similarities that largely coincide with general beliefs of courteous behavior. GMs that are hostile, arrogant, petty, insulting, stand-offish, stubborn, etc. will find it difficult to build a group of players interested in joining his or her game. While game quality can smooth out some of these differences, socially negative elements are noticed, noted, and will sway people. If a person doesn't want to hang out with a potential pariah GM in real life, it makes no sense that this same player would wish to hang out with the potential pariah here online. While players need to write for someone, the market allows for them to actively reject pariah GMs and gravitate towards more pleasant ones. This is one of the many mechanisms available to the player to hold GMs accountable for their behaviors.

The ramifications of bad behavior can be dire indeed. Not only does ones readers (lurkers and players) see any less than friendly behavior, but gossip can and does occur across the mediums of PM and IM. If a pariah GM misbehaves consistently enough, grudges may be formed and a social stigma may become attached to the pariah's username. These things are unfortunate, but are also natural consequences of interactions between human beings. Luckily, like real life again, reputations are dynamic, and can be reversed with a long enough period of good behavior.

The inverse of this all, of course, is also true. If a GM is simply nice, in or outside of the game, that GM will find his/her prospects improved in attracting players. People who are pleasant to be around will have others looking to be around them. A very easy way to cultivate a following of interested players is to be out there and establishing social contacts. Once one cultivates good friends, both parties can enjoy the benefit of favors and altruistic behavior, as well as the happy psychological/spiritual satisfaction of traditional friendship.

Now should it be this way? It depends how ones viewpoint. A meritocratic viewpoint says this situation is unfair... that outside contacts shouldn't matter and everything in RPing should be based on how well thought out one's ideas, first post, and GMing are. However, there are benefits to this social reality as well. It actively works to isolate and weed out socially agitating elements, maximizing overall cohesion within the community. This makes the forum internally strong, and keeps people tied in to the activity. It also allows for the creation of extra rewards for RPing here, above and beyond the satisfaction of writing.

The above ideas apply most of all to newer users. When the community is trying to develop their opinions of a new user, it is important to put ones best face forward. First impressions are as important here as they are in real life.

In short, a focus on social relationships with regards to role-playing may yield fascinating and helpful revelations. Think about your position within the Role Playing Community here. Are there people you would like to reach out to for friendship, help, or otherwise? There may very well be a wealth of riches out t

 

Is it bad behaviour if one strives for a certain level or directs things a certain way because that is their vision?

 

Is it a player or is it a GM Peng? I think it depends on how far it limits others. Some players are known to do this and thereby even sacrifice their own importance. In that case I think even if unwanted, it might ge done in a good spirit.

For a GM it depends a lot on how things are done in the game. I think I shall write about linearity, soon.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing in principle, but in practice it can be taken too far. It's fine to strive for it and try to work things out a certain way, but not good if one starts browbeating others into conforming to said vision. Sometimes things just don't work out the way we want them to.

 

Particularly if there's a mismatch between the level of freedom you believe you have in an RPG and the freedom that the GM prefers you to have .

Or as one of my motivational posters once said, "GM Fiat: Don't worry, your actions don't actually change anything."

 

Saint's post raises something that's been a concern of mine - is it a faux pax to make "Choo choo" noises when you're being railroaded?

For that matter (And on a far more 'Serious Business' line of thinking ), is "railroading" necessarily a bad thing? And if a player is being railroaded, should they talk to their GM or try to find an in-game solution?

 

On the first point, which is to say forum etiquette, the problem is one can see where calling a GM on railroading is going to end up. Player points out in-thread that "Hey, I just put more firepower into that Corellian Corvette than an ISD would. Doesn't it, well, explode?" GM's response (if not handled deftly, which is the tricky part) basically comes down to "It.hada.shield." Player gets cranky and says "What shield? There's just nothing you can fit on a Corvette in the GFFA that actually would take a blast like that! I mean, c'mon, yeah, Princess Leia's on that Corvette which might make it a bit inconvenient for your plotline, but how about fidelity to realism here?" GM's blunt response: "Sorry, that's my ruling, live with it."

And the problem is that the exchange then remains there, glaring, and either players line up on either side of the debate, or everyone just stays in a cringing, awkward silence until they move onto the next topic.

Me personally, I take the point of view that it's not terribly helpful to make either the GM or another player overtly look like a complete fool by pointing out egregious breaks with reality in public. First, it's not nice. Second, it's unlikely to be helpful, because you're most likely going to then invest the transgressor's ego in the issue. So, me, always via PM if it's something like that.

Is it worth making "Choo choo" noises when in the process of clickety-clacking down the track? I can't speak for others, but I find it just, well, whilst not 'bad', just a party pooper thing to do -- like barging in on an April Fools' Day joke and flatly saying "Haven't you checked the date, dummy?" It's destructive to suspension of disbelief, it's kind of ruining the fun.

Is railroading a bad thing? I contend that in all but the most expansive sandboxes there will be railroading of some kind no matter what ... except some GMs are more subtle about it than others. That is: some GMs know how to leave breadcrumbs for the players which just happen to follow those big train tracks. I think only in the most grotesque deviations from an RPG's plotline will a GM be forced to start pulling "Rocks fall, your tangential plotline dies" tricks.

Whether railroading is bad I think depends on the sort of RPG you're running. If you like your players going completely off the rails -- because they're having fun doing it -- then railroading is a tool to be used only when the tangent is failing miserably and the players simply aren't able to find any further fun for themselves. If, on the other hand (and it's just as valid a viewpoint, I contend) you aren't capable of ad libbing entire cities of characters with about five seconds' preparation, then railroading is a legitimate tool to keep available. Again, railroading is not per se bad if you have a particular storyline you, as the GM, want to pursue. Players (accursed creatures they are ) are as creative as GMs, and sometimes the heroes are going to start setting themselves up as the rulers of the local village when you only needed them in town to get a teleportation spell from the local magician.

The trick with railroading, I think, is how subtle as a GM you are at it. Visible railroading is like showing the audience how the magician's trick works: it destroys the most precious asset of an RPG, which is suspension of disbelief. Invisible railroading makes the players actually think they got themselves on track, which is potentially an enhancement of their characters and the storyline.

As a player, I think before pinging off the angry PM to the GM about an accusation of railroading, one should probably step back and appreciate the GM's goals a bit better. When it comes to big sandboxes I tend to be accustomed to a rule of "you can have your head so long as it was in the thread", kind of a tacit rule from IBOP which basically says if you're Crazy Prepared like, say, GrandAdmiralJello and you set up the foundations for your total victory via careful thought, offline research, and strategic p

 

I am a relative new arrival here. But this discussion is something I find very, very interesting. Railroading, or linear storytelling, as some might call it is a curse and blessing, isn´t it? I find my answer to it is simply: It always depends on how it is done. Actually. Skillfully railroaded you are happy with it. If not, you feel yourself pushed.

I am not sure about the policy of quoting other threads and what is considered right or wrong here, so I thought it might be better to simply point out . . . there was an interesting discussion about the "GMs final word" in the ABYverse thread not too long ago. I think some good points were made there . . .

 

Just wanted to contribute a fascinating article that I detected whilst wandering the wilds of the Internet. (All right, I was on GITP and I came across it.) Having said that, even on first impression it is perhaps the most insightful article I've ever seen about the creation of online gaming generally and things one needs to think about in designing it - specifically, competitive play versus social gaming, and how these two types of gaming are affected by friends playing it as opposed to strangers. Most importantly, it speaks to retention of a playerbase ... so, for many people, it will make for interesting reading, I think: This is the link.

One of these days I'll get round to reproducing it here, but I kid you not: it's essential reading for a game designer.

 

And so "Fun Theory" bursts onto the RPR stage.

Its a very good article, in this there is no denying!

I will most certainly keep some of those points in mind.

-I_J

 

Someone really should write about Horror-Games. They seem to be a breed of their own. When I lately went to flight I took a few games as hardcopies with me and I read through them. Mostly I was drawn to the darker, scarier games around here and I realized there are some working excellent. While others seem to be nice and entetaining but fail in the thrill/scary part totally. It might be interesting to see how "scaring" players work . . . because I think it is rather complex. Although my own hands are not competent enough to craft such an article, I am willing to give my support I love to be scared.

 

Actually I found it so far a rare occurence, that games could really frighten players on post-by-post. I tried to go down that route from time to time, but even when I won that famous scary-GM award, I thought it was more for the potential to scare, rather than have anyone really got scared. The ultra-violent route does not work here, because of the PG limitations and the plot-scares usually don´t work because people have too much time to think about it. Shock moments can only be used in a limited fashion. Which leaves only one scary element to work with, atmospheric scare. We saw a few of them. I think the rescent Asylum had it´s scary moments, as did the darker moment of Dark Odyssey. RachelTyrell´s Beyond died young, but was pretty scary in it´ds first moments (the painter was kind of creepy, as was the serial killer in the intro). That´s the ones I read and remember. As you can see, we´re talking about less than a hand full of games. Demon Room tried to achieve that, but was probably too comic for it.

But I hope for the future. I really do. And hope that someone takes thuis challenge and enters new territory, with a full blown scary game.