Levers, Knobs, Buttons II
by Stephen Jarjoura

In my last article I presented the metaphor of levers, Knobs, and buttons to describe how rules in a game system allowed a player to interact with the game setting. One weakness of this metaphor, as it was described by several commenters, is that it does not describe what role the GM plays. Does the GM simply load up scenarios that the players then interact with? Is that really all the GM is for? Obviously, the answer is no.GM’s do a great deal more then just present scenarios for the players to roll dice at and further, the metaphor as presented does nothing to address those situations that are resolved through role-playing as opposed to or along side any actual skill checks / resolution mechanics.

So, as proud as I am about coming up with that metaphor – especially as I read, examine and think about various game systems – it obviously is incomplete. Further, there was something I was trying to describe, which I find hard to put into words. In cases like this, it’s often more useful to write around the problem, hoping to discover it’s edges and infer it’s shape and then begin taking stabs at what I sense but cannot wholly describe. Or, I can just blog about it and count on those with greater insight to speak up!

The issue I’m trying to describe has to do with the way RPG scenario outcomes feel. If a fighter is hoping for a +3 Sword of Flames, and the GM just announces, “you stumble into the darkness of the empty room and find one at your feet” or the hero’s defeat a horde of undead goblins and find the sword in the pile of detritus collected from their previous victims, the end result is the same. The fighter got the sword he was hoping for. Yet, it doesn’t ‘feel’ the same – at least not to me. Even if the sword was rolled up on some random treasure table, it feels more earned then in the first scenario. It also feels ‘realer’ then a sword suddenly dropped out of the ether by a generous GM.

I’m not just talking about stuff, either. Any challenge resolution has the same problem. If the Shadowrunner is trying to renegotiate with his Mr. Johnson and suddenly Mr. Johnson acquiesces and the characters get exactly what they want, the reward does not ‘feel’ as real and as earned as when they have to drag it out of him with negotiation rolls, bluff checks, and intimidation tactics. Somehow, the easy give makes this whole thing feel more like “make believe” then a game. But, this is a game of make believe! What’s going on here?

One possible area to explore is the Foci of Authority (FoA). Who / what has the final say? Does the GM rule by fiat, dishing out curses and benedictions in the way he may feel is best? Are narration rights shared with the players, with each one acting as co-creators in the story and pushing the plot and props as she thinks would produce the bestnarrativist options? Or, do the rules sit above both the GM and the players as a neutral arbiter, dolling out monsters (via random encounter tables) and treasures (via random treasure tables) and keeping both the GM and the players in check by clearly delineating what happens when, to whom, and how?

Obviously, any real game / group / system / campaign will have some measure of all three (and probably others I have not thought of) to some degree. Saying, “some of each!” is an easy out and does not explore how the amount of power sharing and location of the Foci of Authority changes what feels real and what feels like a cheap and arbitrary give-me. I’ve seen games in which a player picks up a cursed object and tries it on … when the GM springs the surprised curse on him, he’s not mad! No one is. That’s just the nature of the game. Further, there are spells and precautions just for checking on such things. On the other hand, I’ve seen the GM declare a character was cursed by his patron deity for a particularly poor decision. This was taken in a totally different way, by both the affected player and the other players at the table. When the source of the curse (the FoA) was the GM acting in a subjective way, the curse felt much more personal and vindictive then when the player just picked up and tried on that cursed item. [For the record, neither case was my character - I don't have an axe to grind. I was just the observer.]

This leads back to the original concept, how do the players interact with the setting and when do their interactions “feel real” to the players and when do they “feel fake” or just arbitrary? Which does, talking your way past a guard (with no bluff check) count as? How about being an expert in demolitions and botching a skill check because the systems dice mechanic favors extremes at both ends of the curve? To me, these are answered internally, in a felt way. Using the rules and rolls of the game, nearly always feel real to me – except in the case where some poor mechanics seem to lead to a lot of PC failure. RP’ing a scenario feels real when the player really has to try, speaks in character, and all parties involved (NPC’s included!) act in character and the outcome seems reasonably feasible. That’s why, to me, a good system with lots of controls and methods available to the players increases the ‘reality’ of the game experience.

It’s also why I may like Narrativist game systems in theory, but have such a hard time with them in practice. When any fact can be created on the fly, by anyone at the table (within the constraints of the system) then nothing feels real. When character death is only by player consent, then it doesn’t feel real nor threatening.Narrativist games that allow the most imaginative descriptions but boil it down to a single push button effect of “roll your plot control dice pool” are just as limiting and even more ‘unreal’ then a traditional game that lets you describe your attack any way you want but only recognizes the push button effect of “melee attack with sword.”

Let me know what you think of this in the comments below, and describe for me what makes RPG scenario resolution feel ‘real’ to you. Thanks!