The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

General/Looking For Group
1

I’ve recently been catching up on my reading about RPG theory & practice a bit, and stumbled over this one. I knew the concept of The Impossible Thing before that, but felt this was .) a good summary of it, and .) contained an interesting and potentially productive new approach to the issue.

So, who am I to keep it from you, dear fellow RPGV-ers? :slight_smile:

Enjoy:

[quote]There is an idea floating around the role playing game world that went unchallenged for a very long time. Rule books for many games have described an approach to play that we almost take for granted. Yet if we were to stop and consider what it was we believed, we would almost certainly realize that it was internally contradictory, impossible on its face.

Most readers will agree that in a standard role playing game, the referee, or game master, has complete control over the story, and that the character players have complete control over their characters, who are the main characters in the story.

[…Eventually, someone thought to point this out to everybody…] If one person has full control of the main characters in the story, how can another person control the story? The story is presumably about what the main characters did. If the character players have full control over what the characters do, then the referee cannot have control of the story; conversely, if the referee has full control of the story, then the players don’t really have any control over what the characters do.[/quote]

[quote]Probably this conflict, which has been dubbed “The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast”, does not appear to be a problem to you.
Most gamers respond to the assertion that these texts are in direct conflict by claiming that they are not, because you must understand them in context.

Every gaming group that is functional has found a means of resolving the conflict, and most gamers will happily tell you what the text really means.[/quote]

What do you think of this? Is it an unsolvable conundrum at the heart of the very concept of our hobby? Is it just sloppy writing on the part of game publishers too lazy to re-formulate in order to express what they really mean?

Is this not even an issue to you?

How does the concept of Railroading feature into this? Or the idea of Illusionism?

What means have you and your gaming groups found for resolving this conflict of seemingly contradictory advice towards story-control?

I’m interested in any solutions, from
“my players are happy with me railroading them, so there’s no problem there. Infact, everyone is having great fun most of the time!”
to
“In our group, the GM has to react to how players steer their characters through the game world. If that means he has to run sandboxy campaigns only, and can never actually know where the story is gonna end up going, that’s apparently fine with him!”,
or anything else that might be the case…

:slight_smile:

2

[quote]
Most readers will agree that in a standard role playing game, the referee, or game master, has complete control over the story, and that the character players have complete control over their characters, who are the main characters in the story.[/quote]
I don’t wanna be the party pooper here but I don’t agree on that (of course it says ‘most readers will agree’ so I guess I’m just not part of ‘most’).
a) because I don’t think that there is a ‘standard role playing game’ and b) because I think the GM gives the players options and reacts to their behavior and the other way around: the players react to the GM’s behavior and are giving him options.
This of course highly depends on the game and the system. If there is no leeway for players then the GM controls the story and as a consequence limits the options for the players. Yet he still cannot know which option they’re gonna pick. On the other hand if there is no influene on the story from the GM side the game could hit a dead end at some point (‘reset please!’).

3

[quote=“Thopthes”][quote]
Most readers will agree that in a standard role playing game, the referee, or game master, has complete control over the story, and that the character players have complete control over their characters, who are the main characters in the story.[/quote]
I don’t wanna be the party pooper here but I don’t agree on that (of course it says ‘most readers will agree’ so I guess I’m just not part of ‘most’).
a) because I don’t think that there is a ‘standard role playing game’ and b) because I think the GM gives the players options and reacts to their behavior and the other way around: the players react to the GM’s behavior and are giving him options.
This of course highly depends on the game and the system. If there is no leeway for players then the GM controls the story and subsequently limits the options for the players. Yet he still cannot know which option they’re gonna pick. On the other hand if there is no influene on the story from the GM side the game could hit a dead end at some point (‘reset please!’).[/quote]
this

4

Plus

there is at least one RPG system, NEW FIRE, where a player character could even “challenge” and/or “define” the background story of the mythology of the world.

… this requires a total different approach on how to plan adventures though.

This is, in my opintion, neither better nor worse then the typical “action/reaction” stuff encountered in most RPG games - it is just an different albeit interesting approach.

5

Do people really say this? Who are these “most readers”? I don’t think I’ve ever met them.

Complete control? At times, I’m happy if my players just let me get a word in edgewise!

6

I agree that this apparent contradiction only exists because of the absolute terms in which it is written.

In D&D, if the players trigger a trap, the DM will roll damage and around the characters accordingly, if the characters HP dropped too low or if (in older editions, they botch the save, the charge will die. That’s a pretty drastic thing to happen to a character that comes from the DM…
And of course, the converse is true from the world being affected by the actions of the PCs

And, of course, in classical RPG, a lot is decided not by either the players or the DM but by a roll of the dice, the rules of the game of by common sense (which is applying the rulebook from our reality to the one of the game).

The paradox only appears to exist because of faulty premises…

7

Let’s correct the premise, then.

The DM does not have control of the story. The DM has control of the environment. He or she controls its initial state, and the way it develops if left untouched by the characters.

The players have control over their characters, to the extent that those characters would have control.

Story is what happens when the characters meet and interact with the environment.

Sound fairly reasonable?

8

[quote="-H-"]Let’s correct the premise, then.

The DM does not have control of the story. The DM has control of the environment. He or she controls its initial state, and the way it develops if left untouched by the characters.

The players have control over their characters, to the extent that those characters would have control.

Story is what happens when the characters meet and interact with the environment.

Sound fairly reasonable?[/quote]
jop

9

There is also at least one system where there is no definitive DM, and the players all storytell in each scene.

10

Yes, and many systems where the players do have some control on the environment.
Even in something as mainstream as Mutants and Masterminds, players can spend a hero point to add things to the narrative. “I want to set fire to the chemical, and spend a HP so that there is something explosive there.”

11

alright, thanks for the numerous replies everyone!
I’ll comment on them bit by bit in one of my next posts. Right now, however, let me just make these three observations in an attempt to put things into perspective:

Of course the hobby of RPGing is not in its entirety dysfunctional just because some books have some weird wording in them about how RPGing is “supposed” to work.

Of course people will figure out how to “effectively” (or harmoniously, or non-paradoxically, take your pick) roleplay in practice.

(That said, there are, and always will be, dysfunctional RPG groups, due to various reasons, one of which may or may not be The Impossible Thing. But those need not concern us here. We are far more interested in how functional RPG groups conduct their play. And in doing so, which ways they choose in order to navigate around The Impossible Thing.)

And, last but not least, of course nobody who reads that statement (the “complete control” thing) that the Impossible Thing can be boiled down to, will agree with it. Because that would be nonsense, right?

12

But still, to present you all with some evidence, let me show you a few sources I dragged together:

[quote]Each adventure is a story, and the player characters are its heroes, but with an important distinction: Their actions are not determined by an author, but rather by the players themselves.

[Then later, in the chapter “The Referee”]
… it is a good idea to conduct as many of the event resolution die rolls as possible yourself and then announce the results. This makes the game seem less mechanical to the players and enables you [to] add a secret die roll modifier here or there to make things come out right without anyone being the wiser.[/quote]
[From Space: 1889 (1988, GDW Inc.)]

So it’s the Referee’s job to “make things come out right without anyone being the wiser”. But the players determine the actions of their characters.

This is (combined with the recommendation to keep players away from the dice and the mechanics) prime instruction material for Illusionism.
(Which can be a functional form of gaming, but only (imho) if everyone is on board with what’s happening. Although when that’s the case, its actually called Participationism.)

So yeah, this is probably just bad advice, right? After all, this was written ages ago… but there’s more to come…

[quote]What happens in a game
Characters will have goals they want to attain, and obstacles to overcome. The story that the narrator creates will provide the setting and the plot. In that plot the characters might stumble into adventure accidentally, or become embroiled in international espionage, or choose to seek out fame and fortune as tomb-robbers or pirates. The important point is that the players author the tale through the actions of their characters. [/quote]
[From Maelstrom (1994, Hubris Games)]

Ouch. Now this one is a real mess when you look at it closely. The narrator creates the story. But characters provide goals. Oh, because really, the narrator only provides setting and plot. But, the characters have obstacles to overcome (of their players’ own choosing? How’s that work with a plot made by the narrator?)
Ah, I see it now - the players author the tale!

None of this makes any sense. I am of course aware that not everybody has managed to stay awake during their Literature 101 classes (or even been to any), but come on… When you’re making a roleplaying game, and wanna talk about story, plot and authoting in it - at least get your terms straight, would you?! :mrgreen:

[quote]The Players
Like a novel author or an actor in a drama, each player in a role-playing game creates a persona, or character, to portray in the game … the player responds to the situation of the adventure as it unfolds, deciding what the character would say or do in that situation. They don’t just watch the character, they choose the character’s options.
The Referee
Management of the game is performed by a special player known as the referee. … Like the director of a movie, the referee judges what can and cannot be accomplished in a particular scene. [/quote]
[From Traveller (1996, Imperium Games Inc.)]

This one starts out fine (player responds to situation, deciding what the character would do…), but stumbles not even halfway through.
Are we seriously supposed to believe that a player “chooses the character’s options”? While at the same time the referee judges “what can and cannot be accomplished”?

This is plain contradictory. But hey, maybe that was just the spirit of the times, eh?
Here’s another one from the same year:

[quote]Tsyk is not about players versus the GM. It is about the cooperative weaving of a tale that everybody can enjoy. It does not make sense to use the powers of gamemastery to try and dominate the personas, or to be spiteful over their successes in the game.
Though it is the job of the GM to guide the characters through the adventure, it is always the decisions of the players that dictate the actions of the personas.
[/quote]
[From Tsyk (1996, Propaganda Publishing)]

First two sentences, no quibbles for me there. But then it jumps right back and expects me to believe (let alone understand) how the players’ decisions can dictate the actions of the personas, while the GM guides the characters through an adventure.

I mean, sure, we all know what they really mean, dont we? Or at least, I think everyone thinks he or she knows what they really must have meant.

Obviously, there is a grey area here - some sort of compromise, or back-and-forth of “story control” or whatever you wanna call it.
I just think it’s astonishing that so many of these game texts use formulations that include “control”, “dictate”, “choose”, “judge” etc. (which make you think of, well, having control over something).

And none of them manages to adress the necessary, essential, ever-present “sharing of narrative responsibilities and prerogatives”, the back-and-forth, the compromises… that make up a huge bulk of all roleplaying in practice.

This constitutes, at the very least, a grave case of false advertising if you ask me :wink:

[quote]ADVICE TO THE EG
The role of the Eminence Grise [The GM in this game] is crucial. He is the balance-keeper of the game. He must prepare - and often create from scratch - thrilling plots and describe the settings and their inhabitants … In short, he enables the players to live a good heroic-fantasy adventure. He must create a tale in which the players’ characters have the lead roles, in which they can, through their actions, bring the story to one end or another.
In our world, the EG would be called a director or storyteller. Indeed, he is simultaneously writer, director, and actor in a play or movie, which improvises itself as hours of gameplay fly by.[/quote]
[From Agone (2001, Multisim Publishing)]

Again - starts out fine and good, deteriorates from there. “He must create a tale”, but the players “have the lead roles”. That would be Participationism (in which you are basically “along for the ride” as a player, content in the fact that mostly, you just get told an awesome story and get to make some minor decisions along the way) so far. Potentially functional, so yeah.

But wait. The last sentence suddenly turns to focus on the EG only, and not only does it give him no less than three jobs that all but scream “story control!” (director, storyteller, writer), no, the sentence then goes on to claim that the game (which is likened to a “play or movie”) “improvises itself”… somehow…

I stand astounded.

13

I can only assume that such “how to roleplay” sections as the ones we have seen so far are the result of a profound lack of reflection about what is actually going on during a typical game session.
Note the almost complete lack of concrete procedural advice, combined with these eery contradictions.

I get the feeling that the authors of these descriptions seem to just start to write something that seems to make sense to them, only to catch themselves going into unintended directions (making it sound like players had way too much power and control perhaps?) - and then make a 180° turn into the complete other direction (asserting that really the GM is who controls everything).

Both is (as has been pointed out by several of you guys) of course nonsense. Why then are apparently so many game texts out there so evidently incapable of finding a different set of definitions for what they must really mean??

I’ll give you one more source, that showcases this textual nonsense in almost painful clarity.
Then we’ll move on to some game texts that are blissfully a bit more sensible, promise! :wink:

[quote]Guiding Your Adventures
Let the players control their own fate. Although it is your story, you must follow the whims of the characters. It is, after all, their lives they are playing out. The characters must have the freedom to choose their own fates, not just do what the AG tells them to do. It is your job, however, to guide the characters through the story you have created.
[/quote]
[From Undiscovered (2001, Eilfin Publishing)]

I really have nothing more to say to this at this point.

On to some newer games. I’ll leave these uncommented for now. Perhaps there is interesting discussion to be had from them…

[quote]In a roleplaying game, the players make up an imaginary person called a character.Then they direct the actions of this character as he interacts with other imaginary characters. Through the actions of their imaginary characters the players are like actors in the legendary world.
[…]
The gamemaster in a roleplaying game directs the flow of the game while the players control the actions of the characters. As the gamemaster describes what is going on, you can go ahead and change parts you are unhappy with; where they are, and other details of the plot, the players choose actions for their characters, thus cooperating with him in creating the adventure.[/quote]
[From: Pendragon, reprinted 4th edition (1999, Green Knight Publishing) – the text has however been kept the same verbatim since the game’s 3rd edition in 1990(!)]

[quote]You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters.
[…]
The DM creates adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players. The DM makes D&D infinitely flexible – he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected.
The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters
that you and your friends create are the stars of the story. The DM sets the scene, but no one knows what’s going to happen until the characters do something – and then anything can happen![/quote]
[From D&D, 4th edition PHB 1 (2008, Wizards of the Coast)]

[quote]In a roleplaying game, the players control their characters’ actions and respond to the events of the plot. I the player does not want his or her character to go through the door, the character will not. If the player thinks the character can talk him- or herself out of a tight situation rather than resorting to that trusty pistol, he or she can talk away. The script, or plot, of a roleplaying game is flexible, always changing based on the decisions the players make as characters.
The gamemaster controls the story. He or she keeps track of what is supposed to happen when, describes events as they occur so that the players can react to them, [controls NPCS,] and resolves attempts to take action using the game system.[/quote]
[From Shadowrun, 20th Anniversary Edition (2009, Catalyst Game Labs)]

[quote]In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends).
[…]
One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its [sic] hazards and decide which parts to explore.
[…]
Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.[/quote]
[From D&D 5, Basic Rules 0.1 open download pdf (2014, WotC)]

[quote]Role-playing games (RPGs) are stories in which you create one of the main characters and the story around that character. The rest of the players create stories around their own characters. The “referee” (or more simply “ref”) brings those stories together. The referee can be thought of as the “director” of the story.
In most RPGs, the referee will - with input from you, if you desire to give any - describe a world or setting. You and your friends will play the protagonist and characters in this world, guiding your characters through the story that you and your friends create.
…
You imagine what the referee describes. Then you imagine your character’s response to that situation, and describe that to the ref and the other players.[/quote]
[From Blade of the Iron Throne (2013, Iron Throne Publishing)]

[From Witchcraft (2000, Eden Studios)]

14

Ah, so now you’re the one casting a summoning spell … :mrgreen:

(Actually, I was immune since you used only new-fangled games as spell components, but I figured I’d drop in anyway.)

In any case, I’m reading these quotes a bit differently, which I suppose proves your point about lack of clarity. For example, I don’t think Maelstrom is actually telling you who provides the goals or chooses the obstacles. Similarly, I interpret the Traveller quote as saying that players choose which options their characters choose, not which options they have available.

So yeah, agreed about the importance of clear writing, but I’m still not seeing a paradox here. (Then again, this wouldn’t be the first time I overlook the forest because of all those stupid trees.)