The Forge Archives

Archive => RPG Theory => Topic started by: Callan S. on August 19, 2004, 12:45:28 AM

Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 19, 2004, 12:45:28 AM
I wanted to find out where I am on this in relation to general thought at the forge.

Now say in reality, I'm standing on a balcony where a vase is sitting on the ledge. I push it. The consequence is that it goes over the edge, falls and smashes.

Now same I'm roleplaying. My PC is established as being on a balcony, with a vase on the ledge. I declare my PC pushes the vase.

Is what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?
Title: Re: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Andrew Martin on August 19, 2004, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: NoonI wanted to find out where I am on this in relation to general thought at the forge.

Now say in reality, I'm standing on a balcony where a vase is sitting on the ledge. I push it. The consequence is that it goes over the edge, falls and smashes.

Now same I'm roleplaying. My PC is established as being on a balcony, with a vase on the ledge. I declare my PC pushes the vase.

Is what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?

Consider the context your roleplaying example is in. What if it were a dream sequence? Then the vase could morph into a butterfly and flutter off. Or the players could conclude that they're tired of this game and go to the movies, nothing further happens and the imaginary scene is forgotten by the players. What happens next is really up to the players and their agreements on what happens next in the imaginary space.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Praetor Judis on August 19, 2004, 06:46:14 AM
Warning: Rouge Storyteller interpretations on deck.

From a narrative standpoint, Consequence is what happens after that vase falls to the ground and smashes into pieces.

Was it a priceless vase that belonged to an insanely rich landowner seems unnaturally attached to the vase?

Is the vase ancient and therefore extremely valuable and the character now owes the landowner a vast fortune?

Did the vase contain the ashes of the landowner's great uncle and now the landowner wants the character dead?

Was the great uncle a half-demon and a contract between the great uncle and the landowner was the reason the landowner was insanely rich and now, as the local economy starts crashing and the crime element starts moving in to grab what they can,  the landowner wants the character and all his friends dead and he doesn't care who he has to summon to get the job done?

That's what I refer to as Consequence in my games.  Not so much the immediate physics based results of action, but the social reaction to those actions.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Andrew Morris on August 19, 2004, 10:04:22 AM
Callan,

Unless you are using some specialized definition of consequence with which I am unfamiliar, I would say that of course the vase falling and smashing on the ground was a consequence of the character knocking it off.

Could you explain why you think it might not be a consequence?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: TooManyGoddamnOrcs on August 19, 2004, 10:37:16 AM
of course that assumes that the character is strong enough to push the vase off which, depending on the scale of the game, might not be possible.  I remember a D20 variant where the players played rats, pigeons, squirrels and similar beasties.  

Snark aside, assuming earthlike gravity and proportions have been established in the SIS, and that the vase is less durable than the surface onto which it is pushed, the push of the vase is intended to send it off the balcony just as an attack with a sword is intended to expose what's inside an orc to the light of day.  In other words, it might not be: if you're still in the videogame mindset where damage is abstracted, you might not realize your character is getting orc blood on milady's tapestries nor that the vase is not the trigger of the spinning bookcase.  Is this the kind of discussion you're looking for, Noon?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 11:26:33 AM
Here's what will happen:

All things being standard and assuming the vase falls into a paved parkinglot from at least two stories of height* (by standard, I mean: the world is represented as 'the real one'--there is gravity on this planet, the vase is described as porcelain and pushable, no one intervenes to stop it from falling, etc.)

The vase will fall and break.

How do I know this? I know this (or rather, I expect this) because if I go to a balcony and push a vase off it, I have a resonable expectation that it will break. It might surprise me: the vase (in reality) might turn out to be high-impact plastic and it might bounce--but I have an expectation that it'll break in reality.

That's what happens as an in game consequnce which is what you aksed about.

What happens in the meta-game?

The player(s) responsible for creating effect will narrate the consequence (possibly with the help of printed rules, or dice, or like solicitied input about physics or something). Traditionally the GM is the adjudicator.

The GM as the narrator might decide not to have it break. The GM might ret-con the vase to be indestructable, countermand gravity, or have some other event happen.

When the GM introduces an un-expected result the GM risks taking a role similar to that of an "unreliable narrator" in fiction. This has certain consequences for static writing but has, IME, far, far deeper consequences for RPG's.

Because the GM is all five senses of the characters--because the GM is, in effect, everything else in the world, when the GM becomes unreliable (and this is the perception of the players) then there are, IME, likely to be trust issues.

A potentially non-dysfunctional example:
GM: "It tumbles through the air--and then hits the pavement and BOUNCES! The pavement reverberates like a rubber platform!"
Player: "I knew it! We're in virtual-reality!"

In this case the GM's un-expected result gives the player more context about the world. The Player has confidence that cause-and-effect are still operational and their actions still matter.

Here are two other cases I see as important to examine:

GM "If you break that vase the story will be ruined."
Player: "I push it anyway."
GM: "That'll ruin the game."
Player: "I don't care."
GM: "The vase bounces. You suddenly have a fatal heart attack. Since you're no longer playing, please go get me a coke--and leave it closed."

Possible, sure. Functional? I don't think so.

I consider this equally dysfunctional:

GM: "The vase shatters."
Player: "That just ruined the story!"
GM: "Eh? What did?"
Player: "The vase breaking."
GM: "You pushed it. What did you expect?"
Player: "I expected it to land in the grass and not break."
GM: "It's a seven story fall. People who land in the grass break and people aren't brittle."
Player: "People aren't as hard as porceline."
GM: "Let's try it for real from the second story of the house. We'll use your wife's vase since you're sure it won't break."
Player: "Sod off."

Here I have introduced some plausible uncertainty of the outcome (the vase, perhaps, lands in grass). I've also set the height at 7-stories. If it was tipped off a ground floor window into the grass the question becomes much harder to answer from a 'realistic expectations' standpoint.

But as the gray area becomes bigger (a glass of water falls on the carpet--does it break?) the use of things like randomizers become more prevalent as an 'objectifying' way of making the call.

When there are reasonable expectations in play (and that's a personal judgement call on everyone's part--a personal one--but, I think, a valuable standard nontheless) then a decision not to follow them either needs to be stated up front ("You will NOT derail the plot--the plot force is ultimate in this game") or it's very potentially dysfunctional and, IMO, a bad idea if done for reasons other than precieved cause-and-effect.

One more thing: a player who takes things personally might be a reason to ensure that the events narrated conform to their expectations above those of other players. I recognize that sometimes this may be the best-case for decision making--but I think it's often a dysfunctional case.

-Marco
* If you decide that "ahh, we were on the elemental plane of air--and it's swept away by the wind", then, yes, I agree that's more reasonable. I also consider that an intentionally misleading way of framing the question.
Title: Re: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: simon_hibbs on August 19, 2004, 12:11:31 PM
Quote from: NoonIs what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?

Yes, I think it's a consequence in exactly the same way it is only the mechanisms by which that consequence is reached that is different.

Of course in the game example, it's a fictional vase and what happens is that someone narrates the fact that it broke, and we choose (or don't choose) to narrate further consequences of that. So realy you're asking if you narrating pushing the vase causes the game master to narrate it falling and break, in the same way that actualy pushign a real vase actualy causes it to fall and break.

In both cases a variety of factors affect the final outcome, not just you narrating pushing the vase, or actualy pushig a real one. In the real world those other factors are gravity, the height of the fall, the materials of the vase and floor, whether someone sees it fall and catches it, etc. In the fictional case those factors are whether the game world is agreed to have gravity, whether th Gm decides the vase is made of adamantium and whether anyone bothers to narrate the fate of the vase after the push.

However if he fate of the vase is narrated, the narration of it's fate does follow a sequence of cause and effect that takes place in the real world.


Simon Hibbs
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Alan on August 19, 2004, 12:28:17 PM
Hi,

Consequence implies causal connection.  In the shared imagined space, the players (through system) decide the causal connection.  If they accept that, in the context in which the imaginary vase was dropped it should hit the ground and smash, then it does.

In the shared imagined space, consequence is what the player's accept - it's not inevitable.  What they choose to accept will vary based on their personal investment in the outcome and their creative agendas.  It's perfectly possible for someone to drop a vase, have it declared smashed, then have someone else use system to say "Wait a minute - I catch it before it hits!"  The vase suddenly becomes unsmashed.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: John Kim on August 19, 2004, 12:49:42 PM
Quote from: AlanIn the shared imagined space, consequence is what the player's accept - it's not inevitable.  What they choose to accept will vary based on their personal investment in the outcome and their creative agendas.  It's perfectly possible for someone to drop a vase, have it declared smashed, then have someone else use system to say "Wait a minute - I catch it before it hits!"  The vase suddenly becomes unsmashed.  
In both an RPG and in real life, it is possible for someone to push a vase off of a balcony and not have it smash on the ground (i.e. it was plastic, someone catches it, etc.).  However, in real life the vase smashing is still said to be a "consequence" of my having pushed it off.  For example, after having pushed it, I can't reasonably say "Hey, I didn't break the vase.  It was gravity that broke the vase."  

In an RPG, there is actually a person to hold responsible for gravity -- such as the GM in many games.  Suppose I am a player and I say that my character pushes the vase off.  However, I don't narrate that it falls and smashes -- in the system we're using, it's up to the GM to determine that.  Suppose the GM does so.  Is it a "consequence" of my having pushed it?  I would say so, but that's a matter of individual semantics.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Alan on August 19, 2004, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: John KimIn an RPG, there is actually a person to hold responsible for gravity -- such as the GM in many games.  Suppose I am a player and I say that my character pushes the vase off.  However, I don't narrate that it falls and smashes -- in the system we're using, it's up to the GM to determine that.  Suppose the GM does so.  Is it a "consequence" of my having pushed it?  I would say so, but that's a matter of individual semantics.

Not symantics - assumption.  When we drop a vase in the real world, we call the fall and the shattering a consequnce of the action, but it's really just the end in a chain - it's the consequence of the laws of gravity.  

In an RPG fantasy world, the vase hitting the ground is a direct consequnce of collective decistion-making.  

As a group we don't necessarily have to hold that gravity must work in the fantasy world all the time (though in most cases we do.)  (Nor do we have to hold a single person responsible for "enforcing" the "laws of physics."  Laws of physics only exist in an RPG as much as we want [or assume] them to.)  

Consequence inside the RPG fantasy is the result of how the players assign meaning to the event and interpret it.[/b]  Hence consequence is  formed by creative agenda.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Alan on August 19, 2004, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: AlanConsequence inside the RPG fantasy is the result of how the players assign meaning to the event and interpret it.[/b]  Hence consequence is  formed by creative agenda.

It just struck me that many forms of simulationist play (virtualism, for example) like to keep this real-world fact behind a curtain.  This supports the illusion that things inside the fantasy are happening solely as a result of other things in the fantasy.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: AlanIt just struck me that many forms of simulationist play (virtualism, for example) like to keep this real-world fact behind a curtain.  This supports the illusion that things inside the fantasy are happening solely as a result of other things in the fantasy.

Am I to understand it that in Gamist play vases don't break if pushed off a ledge or that I have no reasonable expectation of things behaving as they do in the real world even on a basic level of letting something go and having it fall?

I doubt that is the case in practice. Rather: I expect that play that doesn't tightly conform to expectations when it comes to the GM's responsiblity for representing physics will be seen as dysfunctional.

Player: "I push the rock down, rolling it into the orks."
GM: "No, that'd be too easy a win. The rock doesn't budge."
Player: "Huh? I'm strong enough to roll it. It better roll."

I don't see a link to expectations of cause-and-effect on a basic level (i.e. the representation of physics) and GNS CA. I'd expect a vase dropped off a balcony to smash in Sorceror as well as in GURPS.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 19, 2004, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: NoonIs what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?
Quote from: John KimIn an RPG, there is actually a person to hold responsible for gravity -- such as the GM in many games.  Suppose I am a player and I say that my character pushes the vase off.  However, I don't narrate that it falls and smashes -- in the system we're using, it's up to the GM to determine that.  Suppose the GM does so.  Is it a "consequence" of my having pushed it?
Yes, it is, because your character pushed the vase off with his/her player fully aware that the authority for determination of what happens to it has already been deferred almost unconditionally to the game master.

In GMed games, game master authority is no more nor less a force which must be intuitively or intellectually taken into account "by" the character than is gravity a force which must be intuitively or intellectually taken into account by the real world player.

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Alan on August 19, 2004, 02:18:24 PM
Quote from: Marco
Quote from: AlanIt just struck me that many forms of simulationist play (virtualism, for example) like to keep this real-world fact behind a curtain.  This supports the illusion that things inside the fantasy are happening solely as a result of other things in the fantasy.

Am I to understand it that in Gamist play vases don't break if pushed off a ledge or that I have no reasonable expectation of things behaving as they do in the real world even on a basic level of letting something go and having it fall?

The vase is merely an example.  It happens to be an example where, most of the time, most RPG players will agree that a certain result occures.  This does not invalidate the fact that the result is decided by the players, not some unstoppable law of consequence.

Now, in fact, it is possible that in gamist play, or in any creative agenda, the vase won't break.  I recall an old school D&D game where some pyromaniac player was throwing around fire bombs - the GMs response was to add a break chance.  If the dice said the glass didn't break, the players accepted that it did not.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: AlanThe vase is merely an example.  It happens to be an example where, most of the time, most RPG players will agree that a certain result occures.  This does not invalidate the fact that the result is decided by the players, not some unstoppable law of consequence.

Now, in fact, it is possible that in gamist play, or in any creative agenda, the vase won't break.  I recall an old school D&D game where some pyromaniac player was throwing around fire bombs - the GMs response was to add a break chance.  If the dice said the glass didn't break, the players accepted that it did not.

No one, even a Virtualist, would assert that the running of gravity is not done by a player or players at the table. And, furthermore, the idea of the creation or maintenance of an "illusion" is related, IMO, more to Immersion rather than to a specific CA.

Perhaps "consequence" is a bad word since it seems to mean different things. If you felt wronged by the breaking of the vase, who would you hold responsible:

a) the player who pushed it?
b) the GM who ruled it broke?
c) both evenly?

-Marco
Title: Re: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: aplath on August 19, 2004, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: NoonNow same I'm roleplaying. My PC is established as being on a balcony, with a vase on the ledge. I declare my PC pushes the vase.

Is what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?

I'm not sure if I understood your question but I'll try to answer it with another question.

Whatever happens after your PC has pushed the vase would still happen if he chose a diferent course of action (like not pushing it) ?

For instance, if the vase was meant to fall due to some plot constraint the GM had before you declared your action, something might happen within the game world to make the vase fall even if your PC didn't push it.

In that case, the vase falling after your character pushed it might not be considered a consequence of his action since it would happen anyway (an NPC would come to the balcony and push it or an earthquake might do the job, whatever).

However, if the vase would continue undisturbed if your PC had not pushed it, then I would say the vase falling was a consequence of the act.

In short, in a RPG some things happen as direct consequence of a player's input through his character.

Other stuff happen because they are simply meant to happen even if no player prompts it to happen through a PC's action.

Is that it ?

Andreas
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Alan on August 19, 2004, 03:12:48 PM
Let's modify the thought experiment:

In the shared fantasy, a character throws the vase off the balcony.  Then, before the players can confirm that it falls, the doorbell rings in the real world.  It's the pizza!  Players eat pizza.  One of them has a great idea for a character action.  When the players get back to the game, they forget completely to address the vase and carry on with the new, exciting idea.

What happened to the vase?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Praetor Judis on August 19, 2004, 03:26:09 PM
All right, I completely missed the point of the initial question, it would seem.  I was focusing on the larger issues of narration and didn't focus in enough.  I resolved to watch the thread play out and reserve judgment on the whether it was worthwhile to discuss whether the players are responsible for gravity in a game, or the Storyteller is.

QuoteWhat happened to the vase?

This question however has me in a whirl and produced a myriad of responses which I guess I'll share.

A) There is no vase.  As the vase was a part of the shared space between people easily distracted by pizza, it ceased to exist the moment the doorbell rang and when gameplay resumed, the vase was not, and therefore never really had been, a part of the shared space.

B) The vase will be forever frozen in mid space, awaiting resolution.  As the players and ST/GM co-create this world based on a system of, or not of, their own creation, the system demands resolution of actions within the world and events cannot be resolved without certain procedures being followed.

C) In vase, no one can hear you scream.  Because the session is being run by a ST/GM that is in control of the story and the direction of the session, the reality ultimately belongs to her/him and the vase falls whether the players (or possibly even the GM/ST) are aware of it or not.

In my session, C would be the answer.  I've met groups for whom B would be more accurate and I try and avoid groups where A is the answer.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 19, 2004, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: AlanWhat happened to the vase?

Ah!  So it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.

The discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").

I'm not sure what the applicability of these ideas to the current discussion is, but I see notions of causality, volition, and practical knowledge being intertwined throughout the talk, in really interesting ways.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 19, 2004, 03:52:06 PM
Quote from: Bill_WhiteAh!  So it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.
What a wonderful way to describe RPGs!  I wonder . . .   Maybe the above simple sentence elegantly captures the definition of an RPG, a shared experiencing of communal narrative Schroedinger reality.

Quote from: Bill_WhiteThe discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").
I think those definitely fit RPGs.

(1) relates to those meta-game situations in which the rulesbook is held as the source of the narrative causal responsibility, with the implication that neither players nor game master(s) is culpable for what happened because the reality had to adhere to "the rules".

(2) relates to those in-game situations in which characters argue about "whose fault" something is or decide that certain "villains" deserve imprisonment or death for their behavior but certain other "villains" may become heroes because their actions really weren't their fault -- or to those interesting situations in which a good player-character may act evilly and justify it as the result of possession, alignment control, brain illness, or somesuch.

(3) relates both ways, as player-characters will often reference it but so will players and game master(s), sometimes when explaining why they trust or distrust a specific game master or specific player.

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Andrew Morris on August 19, 2004, 04:33:17 PM
Quote from: Bill_WhiteSo it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.

Yes, absolutely. Just chiming in with my support for this idea. The vase is in a state of non-existence when it is not actively being imagined by the participants.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 05:46:29 PM
What happened to the vase?

Well: it depends on what context you ask from. If an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminency? I doubt it.

If you ask from a game-theory stand-point then one can say that there was no adjudication concerning the vase.

But the quesiton isn't what adjudication was made concering the vase--the question was "what happened to it?" This means that the speaker has already let out the idea that "there is no vase" or that "the vase exists as a static construct to which nothing can truly be said to 'happen.'"--no, we've got the whole question in context with the language (unless the speaker is trying to be misleading).

If I ask what happened to a character in a western you saw get shot and fall off a roof (and you don't think I'm trying to trap you--I ask honestly because I don't remember) most people will answer "he got shot and died."

Well, he didn't. He appeared to get shot and he fell. Maybe he was cowardly and faked taking a hit and jumped and lived on with a broken leg.

Sure, could've happened. But no one thinks about it that way--why? Because we have a shared imaginary space with the movie and assume that what's portrayed, in light of no good reason to think otherwise, is essentially what seemed likely given the internal logic of the narrative.

So when asked "what happened to that guy on the roof" you make some sort of call.

Maybe you don't. Maybe you watch movies and think about nothing but the narrative structure, the actor's expressions, the special effects. Maybe your first reaction to the question would be to tell the guy who saw the movie "Nothing happened to the character--it was indeterminate--you just create this illusion that the events on the screen represented some reality and your question shows that you're trying to preserve that illusion."

But that's, IMO, pretty rare--and fairly extreme (a person who is wnwilling to discuss a fictional narrative in its own context?)

But we're all ready to do it here. I think that's disingunious. I don't think too many people here run games where things suddenly fall upwards for no internal-cause reason.

So I'm gonna say The vase broke. And then I'm gonna amend that: "probably."

Why?

If you are running a detective game and the victim is found with a bullet in him and the revolver is found with three shots fired and the PC asks "are there any other bullet holes in the walls or floor" and you have never considred this--the numbers were just randomly picked--then you have a delimia.

1. If you decided originally that the body was shot and killed in the room it was found and the killer didn't do any other shooting then you have to account for the other two bullets. Although you do create them as an act of will, in order to preserve your internal imaginary world you have little choice in this matter.*

2. If you had no idea where the victim was killed or what happened and simply make up choices as you go along then you run a risk of creating paradoxical situations--and, furthermore, the players, once they catch on, will realize that trying to gain information about the game world from you is pointless--it's all just random.

3. If you decide, at the moment the question is asked, that the body was shot by the PC's best friend somewhere else, moved, and that the clever PC has discovered a vital clue then you have advanced drama--but when the player asks the next question, it had better be internally consistent with your decided upon scenario or you are drifting back into area 2.

So I would say that, the vase is likely broken since I hope the game is being run with enough consistency that my expectation of reality would be validated should someone ever check.

I'd asked an unanswered question about who a poster would hold responsible for pushing the vase off the balcony. I think that's an important area of discussion. Anyone?

-Marco
* arguing that the bullets might be unrecoverable is missing the point as is inventing some clever scenario where the bullets are somehow disposed of. If you are making up background on the fly then you aren't preserving any internal imaginary space.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Christoph Boeckle on August 19, 2004, 07:22:52 PM
I must say that on any other forum on the whole wide internet I'd have taken such a thread as a troll.

I must also say that I'm very impressed.

Sorry for disturbing, I just had to say it!
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 08:17:27 PM
Quote from: Bill_White
The discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").

In the case of a GM enforcing the physics of a player's actions that wrong you there are two things to consider:

1. The GM as a co-conspirator (i.e. "Sure, Joe pushed the vase, but the GM didn't have to have it fall. They're both responsible for wronging me!")
2. The GM as a neutral facilitator (i.e. "Joe intended to smash my character's vase, the GM intended to represent an accurate portrayal of cause-and-effect. Joe intended to wrong me. The GM did not.")

It seems from this thread that (1) is a good deal more prevalent than I would've thought (LP or no).

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Andrew Morris on August 19, 2004, 08:21:35 PM
Quote from: MarcoIf an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminency? I doubt it.

No, of course not. For the character, he or she is free to assume whatever result and answer appropriately. The character's belief is a creation of the player, and only happens when the player imagines it, just the same as the vase (or any other element of the game world) exists only when the players imagine it. I just don't see any problem with something not existing and at the same time having a fictional character believe it exists.

As to who's responsible for the vase falling, it depends who's asking. If a character is asking, then the character who knocked it off is responsible. If a player is aksing, then the player who's character knocked it off is responsible. That's my take anyway.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 19, 2004, 08:22:56 PM
Wow. Okay. Pretty damn varied.

As the original poster, I'm going to extend the question.

In the real world, I do the following:
1. I push the vase.
2.

So what happens in #2? Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome (given all the data present in the real world event)?

Now, in the game...this time I'm going to leave it blank. For simplicities sake, we'll assume it's some physical action (and hopefully such an assumption doesn't have flaws that lead to unproductive posts). Obviously this physical action can include many things.

1. I declare this action.
2.

So what happens in #2? What happens next. Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome?

If you can, what does your principle consist of? Can it be relied upon like the previous real world principle to always apply? And always apply consistantly, like the real world principle will?

If the answer is 'to a certain degree', is it a principle, or belief most people think in a similar way and thus will react in a certain way?

Is RL physical consequence and the idea that people will react in a recurring way, interchangable? And by being interchangable and essentially the same, the game world has consequence that are just like real world consequence?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 19, 2004, 08:58:58 PM
Quote from: Andrew Morris
No, of course not. For the character, he or she is free to assume whatever result and answer appropriately. The character's belief is a creation of the player, and only happens when the player imagines it, just the same as the vase (or any other element of the game world) exists only when the players imagine it. I just don't see any problem with something not existing and at the same time having a fictional character believe it exists.
(Emphasis added)

I agree with all of this--but you're missing the point in the area I hilighted. In the case where your character (in game) saw the vase get pushed off the balcony what would you choose to have your character believe? Would your character believe it broke?

I submit that under the circumstances given the odds would be, "likely, yes" (you might have your character say "I saw it fall--I suppose it broke.").  The reason I think most people would choose this outcome is that it's our expectation of what would happen in reality and I think in the standard (game-world is real world) case that the GM would reasonably be held responsible for making it come out that way unless there was some new information or very lucky break (GM rolls an 01 on breakage check ...)

Quote
As to who's responsible for the vase falling, it depends who's asking. If a character is asking, then the character who knocked it off is responsible. If a player is aksing, then the player who's character knocked it off is responsible. That's my take anyway.

Mine too. But there are posts here that, to my mind, hold the GM responsible for running gravity ("there's no 'real' gravity in the game world") and therefore might, for example, hold the GM responsible for adding to the SiS without acknowledging their input.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 20, 2004, 05:58:15 AM
Quote from: MarcoWell: it depends on what context you ask from. If an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminancy? I doubt it.

Yah.  But notice that I said narrative indeterminancy:  as you suggest, it's the case that there has been no adjudication.  But it doesn't take much for that adjudication to occur.  If we the PCs go around acting as if the vase were smashed ("I can't believe you smashed that vase!  Now I must destroy you!"), and the vase never shows up again, then it might as well be smashed.

But from a narrative perspective, if you haven't seen the body (or the potshards), then the question is still up in the air ("Killer Vase!  But you were smashed!"  "Think again, hero! Nyah hah hah!")

Quote from: MarcoIn the case where your character (in game) saw the vase get pushed off the balcony what would you choose to have your character believe? Would your character believe it broke?

Sure.  But that's not the same thing as what you're trying to convince us of, which seems to be that the vase is really broken.  Listen:  There is no spoon.

Or, to be less flip, our beliefs about the world may or may not correspond to the actual state of the world.  In science, that's the logic of hypothesis testing ("If the vase I smashed, like I think it is, then there should be pieces of it on the ground over here").

The interesting thing about role-playing is that our beliefs about the (game) world are all we have.  It has no separate existence.  This is why I come down on the side of "There is no vase."

But there might as well be one, since we apply our common sense notions of how the world works to situations in the game world.  The vase is broken.  As many posters have pointed out, though, there are ways in which an unsmashed vase becomes a plot point that signals something mysterious or interesting going on.

But if we (as players) forget about the vase entirely, it might as well never have been there.  So in-game consequentiality is entirely a product of player consensus.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2004, 07:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bill_White
Sure.  But that's not the same thing as what you're trying to convince us of, which seems to be that the vase is really broken.  Listen:  There is no spoon.

Bill

No Bill, I'm not trying to convince you that the vase is really broken. I'm saying that a player (and character if you choose to go that way) has a reasonable expectation of the adjudication being that the vase is broken. This is as opposed to saying "Since gravity, physics, and everything else is totally up in the air in this reality I have no expectation of anything."

I'm well aware that the GM could pull a surprise out and have the vase show up intact--but if the GM does it'll probably have to be:

1. An implausible in-genre surprise of exactly the kind you suggest.
2. Or the GM will need to provide a logical reason for it (everything in that house was of hyper-modern materials).

If the vase shows and and the pc's say (with a gasp of shock!) "But--but we saw it thrown from the balcony!!" and the GM goes "Bill, this is an RPG--Gravity doesn't work unless I say it does, you idiot!" I wouldn't think you'd go "yeah, that's true."

(I mean, as a joke--i.e. an in-genre implausibility--yes--but if, say, your character was humilated (in a bad way) and looked foolish in-game (and you didn't dig it) because he'd declared the vase likely broken would you buy it? I think not.)

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 20, 2004, 09:15:28 AM
Marco --

I think I get where you're coming from, and I largely agree.  Specifically:

Quote from: MarcoI'm saying that a player (and character if you choose to go that way) has a reasonable expectation of the adjudication being that the vase is broken. This is as opposed to saying "Since gravity, physics, and everything else is totally up in the air in this reality I have no expectation of anything."

Absolutely.  We have reasonable, common-sense expectations about what will happen if something occurs.  When violations of those expectations occur, we seek explanations that will reconcile seeming anomalies.

Quote from: MarcoIf the vase shows up and and the pc's say (with a gasp of shock!) "we saw it thrown from the balcony!!" and the GM goes "Bill, this is an RPG--Gravity doesn't work unless I say it does, you idiot!" I wouldn't think you'd go "yeah, that's true."

Right, I wouldn't.  Because the GM has violated a consensus I thought we shared:  we were going to pretend that things work in the game-world pretty much the way they work in the real one, so that my common-sense understanding of how things work is useful in playing the game.  

This underscores the importance of "consensus" in role-playing, which recurs continually in the concepts employed at the Forge:  Social Contract, Shared Imaginary Space, and the Lumpley Principle, specifically.   If the GM says, "I decided that gravity didn't work right then," then I say, "Hmm.  I think you might be off your rocker."  If he says, "Do you examine the vase?"  I know that there's an answer to the puzzle, if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

But this is taking us far afield.  The point is, it's not just up to the GM!  

Let's see if we can reach agreement by looking at Noon's follow-up question:

Quote from: NoonIn the real world, I do the following:
1. I push the vase.
2.

So what happens in #2? Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome (given all the data present in the real world event)?

Now, in the game...this time I'm going to leave it blank. For simplicities sake, we'll assume it's some physical action (and hopefully such an assumption doesn't have flaws that lead to unproductive posts). Obviously this physical action can include many things.

1. I declare this action.
2.

In the real world:

1.  I push the vase, which is an inanimate object and can't stop me, so...
2.  ...it goes over and since gravity works it...
3.  ...falls some distance which gives it a force with which...
4.  ...it hits the ground, which is probably hard, and...
5.  ...since it's probably made of glass or porcelain...
6.  ...it breaks.

This can be simplified:  "I push the vase, and unless circumstances are other than I believe, it breaks."

In the game world:  "I say my character pushes the vase, and unless somebody objects by saying that circumstances are other than I believe, I can say it breaks and everybody has to accept that."

This basically agrees with your position.  I think we disagree about the extraordinary case in which everybody forgets about the vase, but since it's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which that would actually happen in play, I can't get too worked up about it.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2004, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: Bill_White
This basically agrees with your position.  I think we disagree about the extraordinary case in which everybody forgets about the vase, but since it's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which that would actually happen in play, I can't get too worked up about it.

Bill

Agreed, Bill--except that in the case where everyone forgets about it, I'm still agreeing that one can correctly say "nothing happened--system wasn't invoked" or "there was no adjudication"--but I'm also pointing out that that's a purely academic stance. The reality of the situation is that most people I know don't apply that same rigor to other media wherein they treat the fictional universe as though it were a real world.

Also: I think that in most cases the GM is implicitly tasked with the responsiblity of running a consistent world and doing otherwise would be seen (by me, at least) as a breach of agreement. This is why I expect most players to blame the pusher of the vase rather than the GM who was complicit in having it fall despite the lip-service given to the GM being "responsible" for gravity (i.e. the GM may be tasked with running it but is not held personally culpable for damage incurred by it if the parites agree that his call was reasonable).

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: TonyLB on August 20, 2004, 11:27:17 AM
It seems to me that everyone agrees that when a vase is thrown from the balcony, the SIS must now include either a broken vase, an "exception" of some sort, or an ambiguity that could resolve to either, based on later evidence.  What I'm not sure people agree on is what evidence (for the players) proves or disproves the existence of an exception.

So, follow-up question for people:

If a vase goes over the balcony, then I...
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Praetor Judis on August 20, 2004, 11:40:01 AM
Honestly, I think in the real world, if we're going to make blanket assumptions. we can only assume that the answer will vary depending on the the group's dynamic.

We cannot come up with a definitive answer, as so many factors come to play around the table.  How important to the story is the vase?  How much do the players trust the storyteller?  Who's the biggest influence on the SIS?

I've played with groups where the players work together to generate the SIS, and I just guide them.  I've played with groups where I'm in nearly complete control of the SIS, with players asking questions about the most minute parts of the experience.  And this is all with the same system.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: aplath on August 20, 2004, 11:43:08 AM
Quote from: Noon1. I declare this action.
2.

So what happens in #2? What happens next. Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome?

The simple answer would be that according to the Lumpley Principle the outcome will be determined by System.

Quote from: Forge Glossary
Lumpley Principle

System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

In the end this means that there is no single answer for your question. And that's probably why you got so many diferent answers. :-)

But it also means that the answer to your question is YES, you can apply certain principles to determine the outcome. Basically that's what System is afterall. And given one instance of System in a particular game group, the results would (should) probably be consistent throughout.

Andreas
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 20, 2004, 12:12:26 PM
Now we're getting somewhere.  We use "System" to tell us what happens to the vase...which, if we buy Lumpley's Principle, directly suggests that how we figure out who gets to say what happens in the game world tells us what happens to the vase.  The next question is "Well, how exactly does system do that?"

(And you can't just say "It depends," because it depends on something)

What it depends on, of course, is how the system apportions responsibility in the IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect) cycle.

Let's go back up on the balcony.  Noon is the player, Midnight is his character, and I'm the GM.

Bill:  "There's a vase on the railing of the balcony."
Noon:  "I push it off."
Bill:  "Roll a d20."
Noon:  "I rolled a 1.  What happens to the vase?"

My system will tell me which of these is an appropriate response:

(1) INTERVENTION AT THE LEVEL OF INTENTION

Bill:  "The vase is sitting there on the railing."
Noon:  "Huh?"
Bill:  "It's too beautiful.  Midnight wants to keep it."

(2) INTERVENTION AT THE LEVEL OF INITIATIVE

Bill:  "Before you can move, a Vase Guardian appears and puts you in a full-nelson.  It throws you off the balcony."
Noon:  "If we forget about this, do I ever hit the ground?"

(3)  INTERVENTION AT THE LEVEL OF EXECUTION

Bill:  "You miss.  In fact, you miss so badly you hurl yourself off the balcony by accident."
Noon:  "Well, when I get back up to the balcony, can I try again?"

(4)  INTERVENTION AT THE LEVEL OF EFFECT

Bill:  "The vase falls and hit the ground, but it doesn't break."
Noon:  "Huh?"
Bill:  "It made its save vs. breaking."

My point is that a more precise answer is possible than, "It depends on the group."  We can ask, "How does the system hand out the ability to intervene in the player's IIEE, and to counter other people's interventions?"  And, once we know the answer, we can say (for our particular game), whether or not that's the way we want to do it.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2004, 07:40:17 PM
Quote from: TonyLBSo he is equally responsible for the vase breaking if people commonly assume (b) or (c) but not if they assume (a).

When I asked about responsiblity I meant in terms of being held culpable for a vase being broken (in the sense that I stipulated that another player had his character push the vase and you felt mildly wronged by its loss or potential loss in-game).

Would your ire be equally directed at the GM in the case that he doesn't narrate a crash as the player who had his character push it?

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 20, 2004, 08:16:05 PM
So the current arguement is, is that if I declare I push the vase and then look to my GM for a reaction...

The result is so predictable that the GM's responce is a consequence of that. Or looking at it from further out, the Systems responce is a consequence of that.


Keep in mind I'm not going to say that magic becomes involved, or some mysterious factor comes in. In fact it's all just like the RL world example. In fact, to confirm that lets assume the GM says "The vase falls and breaks on the ground".

This is a consequence of my declaration.


No, that is an illusion, like a magicians trick. A magician can produce 'consequences' from certain actions. They aren't true consequences though. He did perform actions, and the results seen are the consequences of them. But these actions aren't seen by the audience, and the actions he did show to the audience have nothing to do with the consequence produced.

My declaring that I push the vase and the GM declaring it broke? They are not associated in the least. And by association, and be careful to read this part without skimming, I mean associated like pushing a vase in real life and its associated shattering.

Expecting the GM to be plausible? No, that doesn't link the two at all. It's the trigger for a number of hidden actions which aren't anything at all like the actions of a vase tipping and falling.

I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to second guess the following posts question angles, which usually don't cover what I thought they would.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: TonyLB on August 20, 2004, 09:25:52 PM
Marco:  Of my (a), (b) and (c) the only one where the vase can break without direct GM intervention is (a).

So no, I don't equally direct my ire at the GM in the case that the narration happens by default (i.e. if he doesn't specifically create an exception there is a consensus understanding that the logical consequence holds).  It's a sin of omission, not one of commission, and that makes a difference on a social level.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: eef on August 20, 2004, 10:15:43 PM
I've been trying to figure out the context of this thread.  I'm not saying that there isn't a context,  or an invalid one, just that there is an unarticulated context and this lack of articulation is causing confusion.

What I believe the original point to be is that 'causation' is a meaningless concept is RPGs.  RPGs are rituals and the SIS is a convienient fiction that has no existance and hence no grounds for causation.

A classic principle of philopsophy is that theories will often have a version that is trivally true, but the 'trivial trueness'  also makes the theory profoundly uninteresting.  The standard example is Hedonism, the philosophy that everybody acts for their own pleasure.  Hedonism has trouble explaining people that suffer for others, say in wartime.  The 'trivially true' version of Hedonism says that when you take all of their desires and pleasures together, soldiers in wartime still get more pleasure from being in combat than they would being at home.  You can't argue with logic like that; I mean literally, it turn the theory into a tautology and the act of making it true makes it a basically meaningless statement about the human condition.  The interesting version of Hedonism, that people should act for their own pleasure, is probably false but at least worth talking about.

I think we have a similar situation here.  It is trivially true that causation is meaningless in RPGs.  It's also boring.  It's much more interesting to allow for causation to exist in SIS, and agrue about the nature of that causation.

--eef, who is planing on chanting "There is no vase, there is no vase ..." the next time my character needs to do something really crazy.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2004, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: TonyLBMarco:  Of my (a), (b) and (c) the only one where the vase can break without direct GM intervention is (a).

So no, I don't equally direct my ire at the GM in the case that the narration happens by default (i.e. if he doesn't specifically create an exception there is a consensus understanding that the logical consequence holds).  It's a sin of omission, not one of commission, and that makes a difference on a social level.

I'm not sure I fully understand. What about if he narrates the breaking of the vase--then is he complicit with the pusher (in terms of culpability)?

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: M. J. Young on August 20, 2004, 11:12:47 PM
Your character pushes the vase off the third floor balcony toward the lawn. Given the distance and the surface, maybe it wouldn't break, and maybe if it did break you wouldn't know it. I'm the referee; I don't say anything more about the vase, but I'm about to have a non-player character ask you, in a rather angry voice, why you did that--when the doorbell rings.

I pay the pizza guy, we split up the pizza, and then after the usual disruption we get back to the game, but I forget about the interaction over the vase. You do something else, have your character leave the area, and then suddenly you say, "By the way, what happened to the vase?"

I haven't a clue. The fact is, though, that at this moment I don't need to know. There's no way your character can find out what happened to the vase, and no particular reason for me to tell you what happened to the vase, so I don't have to make that decision.

I will probably reply, "How would you know?"

I actually do this all the time when I run games. I do it when I do know the answer to the question, but sometimes I do it when there has been no reason for me to worry about that question.

Next session, a month later real time and a week later game time, you return to the house. One of us remembers that vase. Maybe you say something about it; maybe I just remember it. At that moment, I can roll the dice or use whatever mechanics I think apply to the situation, or I can make the decision--and at that moment it is determined that last month, a week ago in the game world, the vase broke. In one sense, at the moment I made the decision, it broke in the past.

Schroedinger's Cat.

In The Mouse That Roared there is a moment when the Q-bomb, capable of clearing most of Europe if it detonates, starts to make noise, and the person holding it tosses it in the air. We get this silly idea that if it hits the ground it's going to explode. Yet it keeps getting tossed around, making more and more noise, as representatives from governments all around the world in turn catch it, realize it's live, and throw it away (as if not having it in your hands when it destroys all of Europe will save you). Ultimately it is caught by someone from Grand Fenwick, and the designer of the bomb shuts it down.

If you didn't see what happened to the vase, and you didn't hear what happened to the vase, you are assuming it hit the ground and broke. It might have landed in the hedge, or been seen and caught by the gardener, or passed through the leaves of a tree to be slowed and deposited on the grass below.

Until someone with the credibility to determine what happened to the vase makes that determination, the thing has not yet happened in real time; at the moment that determination is made in real time, the thing has happened to the vase at the appropriate moment in game time, and is only now being realized within the shared imaginary space. Whether that fellow who was going to yell at you about the vase does so now, and tells you that it broke (or that you were lucky it didn't break), or whether you swing past the grounds and find shards of the broken vase, or whether you ask what happened to it and apologize for knocking it over, now is the time at which we determine what happened then. Until that determination is made, nothing happened then; once that determination is made, it retroactively defines those past events.

As far as who causes it, I think that the legal concept of intervening cause may apply. No one would say of someone thrown from a third story window that gravity killed him; we would say that the person who threw him killed him. If I shot him before he hit the ground, and he died of the gunshot, then I killed him, because I intervened. If I caught him before he hit the ground, then I intervened and prevented him from being killed. If I could have caught him but I didn't, I'm not responsible for his death--I may have let it happen, but I didn't cause it.

Your action of pushing the vase off the balcony is inherently your request to have system act upon the vase in the expected way. I as referee might try to find a means to prevent the most probable outcome from occurring, but if I fail to adjudicate it according to system I've violated your expectations. You initiated the interaction of system with the objects in the shared imagined space. If it hits the ground and smashes, it's due to your decision to involve that part of system, not due to my failure to derail the outcome.

The player is responsible.

--M. J. Young
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: TonyLB on August 20, 2004, 11:24:08 PM
Marco:  I would say that if the expectation is that things do not happen in the game world unless and until the GM says they happen then yes I would view the GM as more culpable than if he just held veto power over a consensus view of cause and effect.

This is an emotional, not a logical, response.  The GM not acting to save a vase that is globally assumed to be breaking unless otherwise described, and the GM affirming the players intent explicitlyfeel like different situations, to me.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 20, 2004, 11:34:49 PM
Quote from: TonyLBMarco:  I would say that if the expectation is that things do not happen in the game world unless and until the GM says they happen then yes I would view the GM as more culpable than if he just held veto power over a consensus view of cause and effect.

Okay, understood. Which is your actual assumption in general play for traditional games? Does it change from setting to setting? Do you have a standard as a GM and another as a player?

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doug Ruff on August 21, 2004, 03:26:02 AM
Quote from: TonyLBMarco:  I would say that if the expectation is that things do not happen in the game world unless and until the GM says they happen then yes I would view the GM as more culpable than if he just held veto power over a consensus view of cause and effect.

Hmmm... the GM may be responsible for the breaking of the vase, but (in this example) the players have previously agreed (Contracted, even?) to give the GM that power.

IMHO, the players therefore have to share the 'culpability'.

Compare this to a setting where the players exert more responsibility for resolving events:

Player: "I push the priceless vase off of the railing; it tumbles to the ground, smashing into a thousand pieces. That will teach him to insult my honour!"

In this example, the player is responsible, but if the GM has given 'permission' for this style of play - guess what? Culpability is still shared.

If you buy this concept, the only time someone is to blame is when they 'break' the accepted pattern by narrating (or failing to narrate) the effect that follows their action.

BTW, how does this fit in with G/N/S, CA, Social Contract etc? Please help the newbie!

Doug
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 21, 2004, 12:30:44 PM
Quote from: NoonSo the current argument is, is that if I declare I push the vase and then look to my GM for a reaction...[snip]...lets assume the GM says "The vase falls and breaks on the ground".  This is a consequence of my declaration.

This is not exactly what I was arguing.  I was trying to say that "consequences" (i.e., "outcomes") emerged as a joint production of, in this case, player and GM.  This production is mediated (i.e., shaped and constrained) by system, and indexed to common-sense, real-world expectations.  This is a little more subtle than "Player proposes, GM disposes."

Quote from: NoonNo, that is an illusion, like a magician's trick. A magician can produce 'consequences' from certain actions. They aren't true consequences though. He did perform actions, and the results seen are the consequences of them. But these actions aren't seen by the audience, and the actions he did show to the audience have nothing to do with the consequence produced.

What you're tweaking to here is that, by our native theory of language, we use words to represent reality.  When we face the conundrum of no actual reality against which to compare our verbal representations, our native theory has a hard time guiding us.

But that's no more (and no less) illusory than the rest of our language use, which relies on our ability to manipulate symbols, not real things.

Let me put it this way:  Imagine we're sitting at a table, and I ask you to pass the salt, and you do it.  In what sense is your salt passage not a consequence of my request?  And how is that different from, in a game, you telling me that you're going to push the vase off the balcony?

You have to remember what Plato once said:  Language isn't magic.  Asking you to pass the salt isn't like casting a "create salt" spell.  In the latter, I get the salt because I say the words correctly.  It's only because there is a social context in which saying "Pass the salt, please" has meaning and a common-sense reaction that I can expect it to be more-or-less effective.

Similarly, saying "I push the vase" is consequential in exactly the same way:  The effects are jointly constructed by participants, mediated by "system" (rules for manipulating language) and indexed to common-sense expectations about how the world works.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 21, 2004, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: IBill: "There's a vase on the railing of the balcony."
Noon: "I push it off."
Bill: "Roll a d20."
Noon: "I rolled a 1. What happens to the vase?"

My system will tell me which of these is an appropriate response:

I forgot one, but Doug (Tetsuki) reminded me:

(5) NO INTERVENTION
Bill:  "What do you think happens to the vase?"
Noon:  "It falls to ground and shatters into a million pieces?"
Bill:  "Okay."

This is the case that exemplifies how it's not just "Player declares, GM decides."

Quote from: TetsukiBTW, how does this fit in with G/N/S, CA, Social Contract etc? Please help the newbie!

This is all at the meta-level, I think:  obviously, it relates to the notion of "Social Contract" in the sense that it answers "What are we doing, and how will we do it?"  Beyond that, I'm not sure there's any reason to worry if narrativist consequentiality works differently than simulationist consequentiality.  The differences emerge further in.

But I'm not sufficiently conversant with the nuances of Forge theory to speak to this.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 22, 2004, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Bill_White
You have to remember what Plato once said:  Language isn't magic.  Asking you to pass the salt isn't like casting a "create salt" spell.  In the latter, I get the salt because I say the words correctly.  It's only because there is a social context in which saying "Pass the salt, please" has meaning and a common-sense reaction that I can expect it to be more-or-less effective.

Similarly, saying "I push the vase" is consequential in exactly the same way:  The effects are jointly constructed by participants, mediated by "system" (rules for manipulating language) and indexed to common-sense expectations about how the world works.

Bill

This is very well stated. I would be surprised at a player who actually, emotionally, held the GM equally at fault for the vase's breakage. That's why, I expect that despite acknowledging that the GM in a traditional game was responsible for the handling of system to break the vase (running gravity) they would not be held culpable in the same way the pusher would.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 22, 2004, 09:59:40 PM
Like most threads, this is twisting away from the original focus.

There seems to be an expectation that other people will share one's way of thought. So much so, in fact, it'll be just like a real world principle, which is the same wherever you go.

People want to just assume the synchronisation occurs and thus they can move on to assuming it is now essentially the same as a consequence.

The thing is, the RL salt passing example is where readers should be able to see this:

QuoteLet me put it this way: Imagine we're sitting at a table, and I ask you to pass the salt, and you do it. In what sense is your salt passage not a consequence of my request? And how is that different from, in a game, you telling me that you're going to push the vase off the balcony?
"Get the salt yourself, you slacker!"
"Salts pretty unhealthy, shouldn't you cut down?"
"Here you go", doesn't look up, passes pepper by mistake.
"What?"
"Okay...oh, Jims passed it since he's closer"
(Ignores request as if not hearing, doesn't like you)

All these are just as valid responces to the request.

Passing the salt is not a consequence because if I push the vase in RL, it will always fall down. It will not occasionally fail to fall and instead say "Don't muck around, get on with something important". Which is exactly what most GM's would say if you keep spending whole sessions pushing vases.

The real life vase falls as a consequence.
The game world vase might fall because a descision was made.

Why is it an important distinction? Because you can't just rely on someone else's descision making process to be syncronised with yours to the extent it can be considered a consequence. Indeed, even if you picture in your head, by yourself, a vase being pushed and then falling, the kind of consequence of pushing a vase in RL is not occuring in your own mind.


Still, you might ask, why is that important? In terms of playing the game or in terms of designing one? If you believe consequence rather than descision is involved? That you will engage with someone else who shares the same sort of system as you?

I'd like to find out where I am on this in relation to general thought at the forge.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 23, 2004, 12:36:25 AM
Quote from: Noon
Like most threads, this is twisting away from the original focus.

I don't think this is twisting away. I think it's absolutely dead on when it comes to the question of how most people in gaming see the difference between consequence and decision: if you felt wronged by the breaking of the vase, who would you be mad at? The pusher? The GM? Both? Neither?

That's important because it illustrates the difference between theory and practice. I expect that the practice is that very few people in traditional games would blame the GM, even though, in theory, the GM has an equal or prerhaps even greater hand in breaking the vase.*

-Marco
* This isn't really theory and practice--it's a matter of context and perspective, IMO.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 23, 2004, 02:44:37 AM
No, it's twisting away. It's pursuing the idea that the GM or other user wouldn't say something silly, they'd never do that thus an assertion will have a reliable consequence in much the same way it does in reality. The twist then comes when posters decide this is established, deciding to move on and work out the details of this idea that's been presented.

However, this 'reliable consequence' relies on blame for a bad call or such, to weed out nonsense and that means your left with something that makes sense.

Which is supposed to make the consequence as consistant as the governing blame (or whatever weeding method suggested).

Blame or responsibilty...these are just more decisions people make in what they assert (about what someone else did), just as others choice of what to narrate for a consequence is another descision. Arbitrary descisions (blame) governing arbitrary descisions (consequence), doesn't create a concrete mechanism for the vase always falling and smashing. If the vase is falling and smashing it isn't because "it'd be stupid if it didn't". That "It'd be stupid" is just one assertion among many. It isn't a mechanism that's used to produce the smashed vase result, it's just one of many inputs to another mechanism entirely.

But were twisting away from that, establishing 'common sense' and blame as the control mechanism and then moving on to work out the problems. I think there are problems because it's a false assumption.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Andrew Martin on August 23, 2004, 05:22:00 AM
Quote from: NoonThe real life vase falls as a consequence.
The game world vase might fall because a descision was made.

No. In real life, there's only the one vase on a balcony, one vase pusher, one force of gravity and so on.

In the game, there's an imaginary vase in each player's imagination, so in the example, there's two imaginary vases, one in the player's imagination, the other in the ref's imagination. When the player states, "I push the vase off the balcony." that's the communication from the player to the other players in the group that ecourages the other players to update their own copy of the vase using the group's agreed upon system. If the system is designed well and understoond by the players, then each player will know how to change their own imagination of the vase, the player character, the balcony and so on. Using the system will effectively impart "time" to the distributed imaginary space, and (usually) allows the other players opportunity to take action (or not).

What happens next is described or encoded in the rules the players are using. That could be an implicit assumption in the rules that the balcony no longer supports the vase because the vase is now over empty space. Or it could be any other assumptions, like a dream sequence rule that states "all pushed vases morph into butterflies and flutter away", or the vase grows legs and arms and hangs on for dear life (cartoon fantasy movie).

Just like Valamir's recent post of offers, implicit acceptances, counter-offers, rejects and so on. Which is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12181

Does that help make things clearer?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Bill_White on August 23, 2004, 06:44:52 AM
Quote from: NoonNo, it's twisting away. It's pursuing the idea that the GM or other user wouldn't say something silly, they'd never do that thus an assertion will have a reliable consequence in much the same way it does in reality.

Oh.  No, that isn't really what been's going on here:  you absolutely misunderstand.  Notice that your set of possible responses to a request for the salt corresponds to my list of possible interventions to a statement by a player that his character's pushing a vase.  In both cases, the mechanism that shapes the "consequence" is not like the cause-and-effect of one billiard ball smacking into another.  It's more like the please-and-thank-you of conversation.

Aside to Tetsuki:  I've been thinking about your question, and it seems to me that the paradigms of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism in this context serve as orientations that help establish the appropriate response to a particular declaration, in the sense that each points to the features that are salient to attend to in the situation.  So:  "I push the vase."  Gamist Response:  "It misses."  Narrativist Response:  "How does that make your character feel?"  Simulationist Response:  "It smashes into 2d100 pieces."  

The fact that this system of utterances and responses is different from how physics in the real world operates is something that we're all agreed on.  What, then, is being argued?

Quote from: NoonBut we're twisting away from that, establishing 'common sense' and blame as the control mechanism and then moving on to work out the problems. I think there are problems because it's a false assumption.

Let's see:  We've agreed that, whatever else is going on, it's not like real world physics.  We've both shown that a major difference is the possibility of contestation, from intention all the way to effect.  Andrew's post supports this as well.  So the argument at this point must have to do with the nature of the "control mechanism" that shapes the outcome or "consequences" of in-game events.  I've suggested it's like any other language use:  our utterances are propositions that map onto to a cognitive model of "the world" (real- or game-) and which are "adjudicated" through a set of rules for symbolic manipulation ("language" or System).

Where is the problem with this approach?  That is, how is role-playing different from using language more generally?  I don't think you'll say it is, so where's the problem?  

In re-reading your posts above, I think maybe the issue you're getting at is, "But how can we be certain the vase will fall every time just like in the real world?"  And the answer is, well, obviously we can't.  What we can be sure of is that if there's a consensus that the fall of a vase is something we need to be worried about, we'll worry about it.  I think that's the best you can do.

Bill
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 23, 2004, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: NoonNo, it's twisting away. It's pursuing the idea that the GM or other user wouldn't say something silly, they'd never do that thus an assertion will have a reliable consequence in much the same way it does in reality. The twist then comes when posters decide this is established, deciding to move on and work out the details of this idea that's been presented.

However, this 'reliable consequence' relies on blame for a bad call or such, to weed out nonsense and that means your left with something that makes sense.


The problem I see with this is that you picked the vase example. Maybe you wanted to illustrate a gray-area where the GM and the players reach consensus through discussion and mutual input. You can look at my sample dialogue in your previous thread about a group deciding on the time to repair a starship engine.

But here you picked a pretty black-and-white case to try to illustrate that all action is collaberative.

Well, it is, in an academic sense.

But it's not in an actual-play rubber-meets-the-road sense where the GM faciliates a black-and-white handling of the laws of physics and the players pretty much expect/require him or her to do exactly that.

This is clearly seen by the way one would assign fault in such a situation. When people behave as we ask and expect them to (and in a competent fashion) we rarely fault them--and in the conditions where we do most people agree that that the responsiblity lies with the asker and not the person who responded as asked (some legalities like hiring a hitman aside).

If you want to start another thread with a serious gray area and ask "how long does it take to fix the starship engine" then you'll have a different mechanic--one that can show different techniques for decision making.

But in this case, I think the answers show that in simple cases a traditional GM is not held as a co-conspirator to PC's actions.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: M. J. Young on August 23, 2004, 02:27:01 PM
Given that we have agreed to a real-world physics governing shared imagined space object interactions:

I see the vase sitting on the stone railing of the balcony, and strike it with my ten pound war hammer.

If the vase breaks, it is my fault; I initiated the action which calls system into play resulting in breakage of the vase.

If the vase does not break, it is the referee's fault; he interrupted the natural flow of system with some added action or information which prevented the strike of the hammer from breaking the vase.

Caveat: this has been simplified by removing the questions of whether I must roll to hit the vase and whether the vase may save versus crushing blow if I succeed.

If I hit the vase, I am not responsible if it does not break, because I did what I could to break it. If the referee does not prevent it from breaking, he is not responsible for it having broken, because he did not call the system into play to bring the change in state to the vase.

Responsibility is divided precisely because we've agreed in advance to certain functions of the system within the shared imagined space, and if someone acts to put those functions in play they are responsible for having done so. The system will then be engaged by the agreement of all players together in the destruction of the vase, unless one of them, such as the referee, intervenes in some way. That intervention is a distinct action which initiates system in a new way to save the vase.

The final condition of the vase is consequent to the action of system upon it. The individual who initiated the action of system is responsible for that consequence.

--M. J. Young
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 23, 2004, 02:42:12 PM
After reading all this, I would have to suggest that the question of what real world social/interactive/creative mechanisms are "responsible" for the consequences of pushing a vase becomes overtly relevant only in games which do not attempt to mimic real world physics in easily examined situations.

In a game which attempts to mimic real world physics, if I want to argue with my game master that a vase will fall if I push it, I can push a plastic vase from the table.  We all watch it fall; we all know that the physics of  the real world and the physics of the game world are supposed to be as identical as we can manage within gaming; so we know it will fall.  Since the "question" is so easily resolved in this specific situation, it becomes moot.

However, if my character pushes a vase off a ledge in a near-zero-gravity situation in an SF campaign, even if the SF campaign is intended to mimic real world physics, we can't easily test out the effects.  So it becomes a matter of discussion.  In some groups, it becomes a matter of some players googling up zero-G experiments while the local physics pimp pulls out his old grad school physics textbooks and the game master pulls out her hair strand by strand while waiting for the game to restart.

(Of course, if no one can imagine any reason why anyone should care about the consequences of that particular vase being pushed at that particular time by that particular character, then the question becomes irrelevant, and any player who wants to pursue it is usually asked to save his onanism for his alone times so that the rest of us can get on with the game.)

In a surreal game, such as when the player characters are adventuring through a dream reality of erratic physics, or when everyone is playing high level WoD mages whose subconscious impulses have begun shaping reality around them, the question of what and/or who determines the consequences of a player's character pushing a vase off a ledge becomes relevant.

In such cases, it is usually the game master : we hold the game master responsible for the verisimilitudinous continuity and regularity of the imagined reality into which he or she has invited us, and if he or she continually fails to enable us to suspend disbelief, we usually find a new game master.

Of course, the important thing to remember is that the player's character pushes that imagined vase off that imagined ledge; the player can never push that vase off because there is no vase in the real world (except in LARPs, sometimes)!

EDIT:
Quote from: M. J. YoungIf I hit the vase, I am not responsible if it does not break, because I did what I could to break it. If the referee does not prevent it from breaking, he is not responsible for it having broken, because he did not call the system into play to bring the change in state to the vase.

Responsibility is divided precisely because we've agreed in advance to certain functions of the system within the shared imagined space, and if someone acts to put those functions in play they are responsible for having done so. The system will then be engaged by the agreement of all players together in the destruction of the vase, unless one of them, such as the referee, intervenes in some way. That intervention is a distinct action which initiates system in a new way to save the vase.

The final condition of the vase is consequent to the action of system upon it. The individual who initiated the action of system is responsible for that consequence.
Actually, I really like the way M. J. Young put it!

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: ErrathofKosh on August 23, 2004, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: Doctor Xero...verisimilitudinous continuity...

Wow!  :)
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 23, 2004, 08:29:51 PM
QuoteLet me put it this way: Imagine we're sitting at a table, and I ask you to pass the salt, and you do it. In what sense is your salt passage not a consequence of my request? And how is that different from, in a game, you telling me that you're going to push the vase off the balcony?

Hi Bill

If you don't mean consequence like a billiard ball smacking off another, you'll have to be clearer since I've been using 'consequence' in association with the real life pushing of a vase and it's (consequential) fall.

Even in the way you ment 'consequence' I still don't agree. Someone else made a descision to pass it to you, that's what was to be understood from the variable responces (to the request) I listed. It's so it can be understood it's a descision on the other persons part. It's not something you did, it's something they did. They may have made a descision based on something you said (your request), but that's no reason to frame it as a consequence of what you did.

What were looking at here is the illusion we use in every day life for practical purposes. For example, if I buy some milk and hand over some money, I expect change. I take it for granted that it WILL be handed over.

But the thing is, it's still a descision on the other persons part. They aren't a robot...there is no 'It WILL happen' involved. But we all pretend there is, so we don't have to get ready to draw swords to get our change...we can concentrate on the bigger things instead of this tiny stuff. We also hope everyone else operates on this principle...usually they do, because in real life there are certain rewards for sticking to such a system.

Yes, weve agreed it's not real world physics. But the 'I WILL get my change' illusion from above is being asserted as a working principle. It's not, people in real life stick to that system because it has rewards (they expect change at some point as well, for example). Now, in a roleplay game, WHY are they going to share this same system (PS: Not talking about System)? How can you assert that they always will use it? Even for something as obvious as a vase falling? Well, they will likely use the same system as the asserter if there is a reward (even if the reward is just to avoid the sillyness of a vase not smashing).

But sometimes there isn't going to be a reward in it for them, even if it's a bleeding obvious outcome like the vase should have (that's why I chose the vase example, because even though its obvious it's flawed to say the same systems will be used between users). It's going to matter to design and play, because you will have drop outs in how people will intereact. Because system rewards matter. Because system matters.

QuoteI've suggested it's like any other language use: our utterances are propositions that map onto to a cognitive model of "the world" (real- or game-) and which are "adjudicated" through a set of rules for symbolic manipulation ("language" or System).
(emphasis mine)

I suppose I'm a bit Ron like here in emphasising the word 'are'. It's a pivotal word, because why are they going to use the same set of rules as you? Is there always going to be a reward for doing so? More to the point, is the reward always going to be more than any other reward desires a player or GM might have in relation to the assertion. Ie, if the GM's actually written a whole lot of material on this very specific vase and doesn't want it lost...which reward outweighs the other, the reward of non sillyness of a vase breaking as expected, or the reward of not having to flush all that work?

I didn't put this concern in my first post in this thread, but really only a few responces actually accomidated this sort of issue. Many others almost did then took a right turn with just a few words (like the word 'are' from above). The issue should always be accomidated I think and I wanted to see how out of sync the forge and I were (especially since my 'it must make sense' thread) without triggering hand waved 'of course, varying factors might change things' which doesn't say anything.

I guess in the end, like SIS consists of many little IS (one per user), System (yeah, the lumpley type) consists of many little systems (one per user). Whether people will use the same system as each other/syncronise depends on their reward for it. And a synced System can still actually introduce rewards that encourage loosing sync. By loosing sync, I mean things like the vase not shattering, will happen.


Hi Marco,

No, 'finding fault' is just a reward method...well, punishment system (lack of reward). It's just one punishment along side many other punishments and rewards being employed.

As I said above and basically by the example itself, I wanted an example with a clear cut result. Because it's to identify that the causality that sense suggests, isn't actually present. It's because people use the same method of thought/system to figure out what happened, because there is either a reward for doing so or punishment for not doing so. This is like what your saying, but your just mentioning one type of punishment (making the game silly), and isn't automatically bigger than any other punishment or reward that may come into play.

An example might be the old D&D jump off a 100 foot cliff to avoid the killer bad guy. Quite silly, but you live rather than die at the bad guys hands which = big reward. Bigger than the punishment stick for sillyness.

If you assume fault or sillyness is the biggest punishment, then you might find what you've designed to produce perverse results in someone elses hands, because of your blind spot. The blind spot being the thought that they will think not being silly is enough of a reward to outrank being killed.

Responsibility, etc? They're just more sticks and carrots. They wont tell you what happens to the vase...by themselves. Once all sticks and carrots present are added up (by whatever means), that will tell you what happens.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 23, 2004, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: Noon
Hi Marco,

No, 'finding fault' is just a reward method...well, punishment system (lack of reward). It's just one punishment along side many other punishments and rewards being employed.

As I said above and basically by the example itself, I wanted an example with a clear cut result. Because it's to identify that the causality that sense suggests, isn't actually present. It's because people use the same method of thought/system to figure out what happened, because there is either a reward for doing so or punishment for not doing so. This is like what your saying, but your just mentioning one type of punishment (making the game silly), and isn't automatically bigger than any other punishment or reward that may come into play.

An example might be the old D&D jump off a 100 foot cliff to avoid the killer bad guy. Quite silly, but you live rather than die at the bad guys hands which = big reward. Bigger than the punishment stick for sillyness.

If you assume fault or sillyness is the biggest punishment, then you might find what you've designed to produce perverse results in someone elses hands, because of your blind spot. The blind spot being the thought that they will think not being silly is enough of a reward to outrank being killed.

Responsibility, etc? They're just more sticks and carrots. They wont tell you what happens to the vase...by themselves. Once all sticks and carrots present are added up (by whatever means), that will tell you what happens.

I have to admit that I don't exactly get this. My suggestion of an examination of  "fault" was in the case where the vase fell and broke--how is there some sort of silliness there? Where does reward or punishment factor in?

The reason I suggested you look at fault was because it shows you what is materially important when it comes to looking at the interaction of the three people involved (you, the pusher, the GM).

If you (and I suspect every gamer will) hold the pusher and not the GM responsible then it suggests you (IMO, rightly) see the pusher as kind of like his character and the GM as kind of like gravity.

As I've said this several times, I don't expect you to suddenly understand what I'm trying to convey--but my question (and posed situation) has nothing to do with adjudication or invocation of system (i.e. silly outcomes). It has to do with the preception of roles and responsibilities of the GM.

If you try answering the question* for yourself (let's say you decide you'd hold the GM responsible for your--as a player--anger since the GM was the one who adjudicated gravity and broke the vase, then we see a different implicit dynamic than I think is the common one).

-Marco
* And, yes, in this situation I'm stipulating what happened to the vase--I realize that--but I'm using "assignment of blame" as a tool for illuminating the psychology that I think commonly exists in traditional role-playing to suggest that there's a reasonable answer in your example from an immersed player perspective.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: John Kim on August 23, 2004, 10:30:16 PM
Quote from: Noon
QuoteLet me put it this way: Imagine we're sitting at a table, and I ask you to pass the salt, and you do it. In what sense is your salt passage not a consequence of my request? And how is that different from, in a game, you telling me that you're going to push the vase off the balcony?
Even in the way you ment 'consequence' I still don't agree. Someone else made a descision to pass it to you, that's what was to be understood from the variable responces (to the request) I listed. It's so it can be understood it's a descision on the other persons part. It's not something you did, it's something they did. They may have made a descision based on something you said (your request), but that's no reason to frame it as a consequence of what you did.

What were looking at here is the illusion we use in every day life for practical purposes. For example, if I buy some milk and hand over some money, I expect change. I take it for granted that it WILL be handed over.
OK, I agree that it is an everyday expectation.  I don't agree that it is an illusion.  I don't think that a person is inescapably forced to hand me the salt or to give me change.  I don't think any normal person does.  In other words, there is no illusion here.  By the same token, I don't think anyone is disagreeing about what happens in game.  i.e. No one thinks that the GM is physically compelled to say that the vase breaks.  

I think this is simple difference in terminology.  You only consider something to be a "consequence" if it is physically absolutely certain that the result will happen.  Other people use the term to mean things like getting change -- i.e. a likely result, but not a 100% physical certainty.  I think we just need to use terms which distinguish these two.
Title: vase consequence
Post by: keithn on August 23, 2004, 11:23:42 PM
I have to address the issue from the POV of how it would happen in a game if I were GM. IF a player pushed the vase off the balcony and I said "it bounces back up again, it was a rubber vase" then I might expect the player to respond saying "Oh, I won't do it then" and there might be an exchange along the lines of "..but you didn't know it was rubber" and then there might be some agreement about how accurately a rubber vase ight represent a ceramic one and some agreement would be reached on that. THEN, the players would be wanting to know why the vase was rubber, was it normal in this galaxy, if it were normal it would not have been pushed, and so on as I guess what we call the imaginary space is shared between the participants. So questions from the players to establish an agreed reality but also, less immediately, a GM response depending on the situation. To me, as GM, it would be impossible for a player to have his character push a vase off a balcony for no reason. The reason might be crazy (he might be a crackpot!) but it must make some sort of sense. The most Gamist one might be to test out the effect of gravity, or see how much damage a vase does, or how accurately it can be pushed. From a Narrative angle, as GM the vase does not get pushed without narrative consequence, just as a gun in scene 1 of a play will inevitably get used later on in a play. The consequence will be a story: whether vengeance of the vase-makers, a hidden treasure discovered,  the death of a passerby crushed by a deadly vase, or just a large bill from the hotel balcony owner.

I wandered off my point a bit, which was that the result is less clear cut, and if there is a dispute on the how and whys of the event they are agreed upon by mutual consent.

Keith Nellist
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: DannyK on August 24, 2004, 03:55:51 AM
Quote from: M. J. Young
Next session, a month later real time and a week later game time, you return to the house. One of us remembers that vase. Maybe you say something about it; maybe I just remember it. At that moment, I can roll the dice or use whatever mechanics I think apply to the situation, or I can make the decision--and at that moment it is determined that last month, a week ago in the game world, the vase broke. In one sense, at the moment I made the decision, it broke in the past.

Schroedinger's Cat.

See, this is the answer which seems to have most relevance to actual gaming, rather than philosophy or physics. If the vase hasn't been shown to be broken (by a crashing sound or someone seeing the broken pieces), then it's in a state of narrativew indeterminacy.  If the PC returns to the same house with the balcony a month later, as the GM I could:
--have the owner complain about him breaking the vase
--have the same vase there, crudely glued together from the fragments
--have the same vase there, intact, and use this as a clue to suggest the presence of Jeeves, the telekinetic butler
--have the vase there, intact, and have the owner explain that it is shatter-proof due to his remarkable invention.  

See?  I could do any of those things as a GM, and it would be valid in most any gaming agenda.

As for who is at fault -- well, I can see two levels where "fault" and "causation" operate: in character, the PC is responsible for throwing the vase off the balcony.  OOC, the player is ultimately responsible for everything he says, including his character's actions.  In my philosophy of gaming, the GM is not there to preserve or destroy nonexistent vases.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: contracycle on August 24, 2004, 04:46:40 AM
Quote from: Noon
Still, you might ask, why is that important? In terms of playing the game or in terms of designing one? If you believe consequence rather than descision is involved? That you will engage with someone else who shares the same sort of system as you?

I'd like to find out where I am on this in relation to general thought at the forge.

Yes.  The instruction for character action is a proposed change to the SIS which is then implemented by whatever has authority over that SIS.  That authority is essentially distributed by system.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 24, 2004, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: DannyK
As for who is at fault -- well, I can see two levels where "fault" and "causation" operate: in character, the PC is responsible for throwing the vase off the balcony.  OOC, the player is ultimately responsible for everything he says, including his character's actions.  In my philosophy of gaming, the GM is not there to preserve or destroy nonexistent vases.

I agree with this--but since, in the case where it shatters, the GM is actually the "player at the table" who "described the vase breaking" then this illustrates that the GM is seen as a facilitator of the world (i.e. gravity) rather than as an interested party who desires things like broken vases.

In short, if it doesn't make sense to be mad at the GM that's because the GM, despite being the person who's words broke the imaginary vase, is not held at fault for doing so in the process of running physics.

For that reason, I think it makes sense to see the smashing as a consequence in the RPG context the same way that smashing is seen as a consequence when we imagine the same event in reality.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: M. J. Young on August 24, 2004, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Quoting, I think, Bill, Callan
QuoteLet me put it this way: Imagine we're sitting at a table, and I ask you to pass the salt, and you do it. In what sense is your salt passage not a consequence of my request? And how is that different from, in a game, you telling me that you're going to push the vase off the balcony?

...Even in the way you ment 'consequence' I still don't agree. Someone else made a descision to pass it to you, that's what was to be understood from the variable responces (to the request) I listed. It's so it can be understood it's a descision on the other persons part. It's not something you did, it's something they did. They may have made a descision based on something you said (your request), but that's no reason to frame it as a consequence of what you did.

I see what you're after.

Sometimes at dinner one of my sons will make a particularly bad joke, and once I get it I'll sometimes say to whichever brother is nearest him, "Hit him for me." I mention it because they never do. Usually they laugh. However, it is almost always the case that the person who made the joke will raise a defensive hand against the possibility that he would be hit, thus indicating that there is that uncertainty.

If there was a physical strike in that situation, we could argue significantly whether the boy who did it was responsible, since in one sense he just did as he was told. On a larger scale, we could argue whether executioners are responsible for the deaths of their prisoners, or whether the responsibility lies with the authority who gave the order.

These are important questions in law and morality.

Now, maybe one could design some sort of game which examined the premise of who is responsible for the consequences of actions by eliminating that aspect of system which placed the handling of seemingly automatic consequences on one specific player; I'm not sure how you'd do that. I'm also not certain it's entirely relevant to anything under discussion here. I have several times addressed what I saw as the significant points in the matter, including the aspect of whether the referee chooses to abrogate the usual consequences of any action.

The new point I see is whether there is any reward for the referee to use the same system as the player; that is, to what degree is agreement regarding system rewarded or penalized during play? The answer that has not been made yet is that agreement regarding system is rewarded by the ability to continue play. The shared imagined space relies on all participants imagining the same thing.

So the player character has pushed the vase off the thirty-story balcony toward the street below. I know that there's not a chance that the vase would survive impact with the street--what am I going to do, have it collide with three flocks of birds which slow its descent? It is absurd to think that the vase would not break. The player is now imagining that the vase is broken. The other players similarly imagine that the vase is broken. However, for no reason other than that I don't want the vase to break, I decide that the vase falls thirty stories, hits the pavement, and doesn't break. So there, I think. You thought you could break the vase, but really you're powerless to change anything in my world without my approval, and this vase proves it.

Now, whether or not that vase is broken is a discontinuity in the shared imagined space, but it may not be an important one. It may be that no one ever mentions the vase again. I'll continue imagining that it was picked up by someone and sold at a pawn shop somewhere, and the rest of you will continue imagining that it shattered into a million fragments which got swept or washed into the storm sewers. Maybe it never matters.

Conversely, I might bring it back to rub your faces in it: the vase isn't broken, because you can't break this vase, because I said so.

Either way, we've got a problem. We've got a disagreement about how the system works, and a referee who is unwilling to negotiate on that point. What are the players going to do? Accede to the idea that the vase can't be broken, along with anything else I've decided they can't change in my world? Ignore the vase and continue to play as if it weren't there, despite my assertions that it is there and is important in some way? Pretend that the vase is a replacement vase, and that anyone in the game world who says otherwise is either lying or crazy?

In the end, the players are going to pack up and go home. If the referee is going to discount any efforts they make to alter the shared imagined space which they expect to have honored, they're going to find someone else to run their games so that they can have real input into what happens.

Of course, there are acceptable uses of illusionist techniques, up to and including participationism; but in this case, the question is whether the players expected to have credibility to make that kind of change in the shared imagined space. If the players expected that they would have the credibility to push the vase off the balcony and have it break, and the referee cancelled that without a valid basis within the system, then the contract has been broken.

In essence the social contract says that we have agreed to a unified system for determining the contents of the shared imagined space. If we don't have that unified system, the game breaks down.

That means that agreement on system is rewarded by the ability to play the game. Disagreement on system is penalized by the inability to play the game, and if the disagreement cannot be amended, the game ends.

--M. J. Young
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 24, 2004, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: ErrathofKosh
Quote from: Doctor Xero...verisimilitudinous continuity...

Wow!  :)
Just don't expect me to be able to say that three times fast!

*grin*

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 24, 2004, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: NoonWhat were looking at here is the illusion we use in every day life for practical purposes. For example, if I buy some milk and hand over some money, I expect change. I take it for granted that it WILL be handed over.

But the thing is, it's still a descision on the other persons part. They aren't a robot...there is no 'It WILL happen' involved. But we all pretend there is, so we don't have to get ready to draw swords to get our change...we can concentrate on the bigger things instead of this tiny stuff. We also hope everyone else operates on this principle...usually they do, because in real life there are certain rewards for sticking to such a system.
Side note: And those individuals who violate such assumptions usually evoke surprise and/or fear -- the unpredictability factor is one of the causes of fear of the mentally ill, or so I have read.  (Or they are simply considered rude and therefore untrustworthy, even if they are operating legitimately within the paradigms of a different culture.)

Quote from: M. J. YoungSo the player character has pushed the vase off the thirty-story balcony toward the street below. I know that there's not a chance that the vase would survive impact with the street--what am I going to do, have it collide with three flocks of birds which slow its descent? It is absurd to think that the vase would not break.
---snip!--
If the referee is going to discount any efforts they make to alter the shared imagined space which they expect to have honored, they're going to find someone else to run their games so that they can have real input into what happens.
This is why trust is such a vital issue in game-mastering.  If the players believe that the game master discounts the effort to break the vase for a legitimate reason -- AND the game master lives up to their trust! -- the failure of the vase to break becomes one more clue in the ways in which this game reality does not map exactly to real life.

Apropos both the above quotes: A game master can delight and freak out her or his players by having certain laws of physics malfunction as well, in effect telling them that the game reality character, not just any old non-player character, might be "mad".  Hehn hehn.

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 24, 2004, 10:10:06 PM
Hi Marco,

QuoteI have to admit that I don't exactly get this. My suggestion of an examination of "fault" was in the case where the vase fell and broke--how is there some sort of silliness there? Where does reward or punishment factor in?

I was refering to if it didn't break (I'll cover the fault for if it did break in a moment). If I'm your GM and your a player and you say you push the vase, how will it look if I say it doesn't break? It will look silly to you and everyone else, most likely. It'll be a minor (not major) humiliation if I don't follow up with what everyone pretty much expects. The threat of a small amount of humiliation is a punishment. Here I'm covering what I thought I read in your posts from earlier pages.

If it does break and someone asserts some sort of blame toward someone else over that, it's really just the same. Someones decided there is blame/minor humiliation/punishment for what's been said, and asserts it. People might decide to take up this idea and assert their own ideas on the matter.

QuoteIf you (and I suspect every gamer will) hold the pusher and not the GM responsible then it suggests you (IMO, rightly) see the pusher as kind of like his character and the GM as kind of like gravity.

As I've said this several times, I don't expect you to suddenly understand what I'm trying to convey--but my question (and posed situation) has nothing to do with adjudication or invocation of system (i.e. silly outcomes). It has to do with the preception of roles and responsibilities of the GM.

Focusing on that last line, that's my point. The role and responsibilities of any user(player/GM) are not static and nailed down. Just like someone will give me change when I buy milk, they perform this responsiblity because they are rewarded for it. It isn't something they will always do regardless of everything else.

On users being like their character and GM's being like gravity, these occur if they are rewarded. The actual perception of roles, by every user present, will shape the flow of reward (or punishment).

Perhaps I've missread your previous posts, but from the first page
QuoteWhen the GM introduces an un-expected result the GM risks taking a role similar to that of an "unreliable narrator" in fiction. This has certain consequences for static writing but has, IME, far, far deeper consequences for RPG's.

Because the GM is all five senses of the characters--because the GM is, in effect, everything else in the world, when the GM becomes unreliable (and this is the perception of the players) then there are, IME, likely to be trust issues.

'unreliable' and 'trust issues'. These are punishments the GM faces for giving a silly result. I can't help but read your post as if this punishment will aways outweigh any reward a different narration might give (like the vase not breaking). I keep reading your posts as if your suggesting that becoming unreliable or creating trust issues is enough of a punishment to ensure a concrete foundation to the question "What happens when I say I push the vase?" and that there is no (significant) risk of any other rewards/punishments forcing another result. Was I reading incorrectly?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 24, 2004, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: John Kim
OK, I agree that it is an everyday expectation.  I don't agree that it is an illusion.  I don't think that a person is inescapably forced to hand me the salt or to give me change.  I don't think any normal person does.  In other words, there is no illusion here.  By the same token, I don't think anyone is disagreeing about what happens in game.  i.e. No one thinks that the GM is physically compelled to say that the vase breaks.  

I think this is simple difference in terminology.  You only consider something to be a "consequence" if it is physically absolutely certain that the result will happen.  Other people use the term to mean things like getting change -- i.e. a likely result, but not a 100% physical certainty.  I think we just need to use terms which distinguish these two.

Heya John,

It's not just terminology, it's method. If you design a game where it rewards you for jumping off a 100 foot cliff rather than face your lethal foe, but have the expectation that users will handle it the way you would expect to handle it (not jump), you will be quite divergent from the users of your game.

If you have an expectation as a designer (or even a GM...or even a player), but don't fill in the rewards and punishments to forfil that expectation, it isn't going to happen the way you'd like to expect, even if that's how it always happens in reality (and reality is why you expect it to happen that particular way).
Title: The Closet People
Post by: Lisa Padol on August 24, 2004, 10:34:37 PM
Quote from: AlanIn the shared fantasy, a character throws the vase off the balcony.  Then, before the players can confirm that it falls, the doorbell rings in the real world.  It's the pizza!  Players eat pizza.  One of them has a great idea for a character action.  When the players get back to the game, they forget completely to address the vase and carry on with the new, exciting idea.

What happened to the vase?

A variant of that used to happen in my Cthulhupunk campaign. The PCs would capture a person or three who were trying to kill them, usually in a hotel room. The PCs would then tie up the thugs and lock them in the closet. Players and GM would forget about this for weeks.

So, did the closet people die an agonizing death of starvation and dehydration? Were they found by the maids at the hotel? Did they learn to travel extradimensionally, hopping from closet to closet without crossing the spaces between?

Probably we just invoke a retcon, and we say that the closet people were turned over to the appropriate authorities. Less amusing, but more logical and playable for us.

-Lisa
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 24, 2004, 10:41:16 PM
Quote from: NoonHi Marco,
I was refering to if it didn't break (I'll cover the fault for if it did break in a moment). If I'm your GM and your a player and you say you push the vase, how will it look if I say it doesn't break? It will look silly to you and everyone else, most likely. It'll be a minor (not major) humiliation if I don't follow up with what everyone pretty much expects. The threat of a small amount of humiliation is a punishment. Here I'm covering what I thought I read in your posts from earlier pages.
I can certainly imagine circumstances where the vase not-breaking will appear silly--but in most of them, that's not the case. I'm wondering why you're going there.

Marco: "I push the vase."
Noon: "It falls, spinning, and hits the ground. Whack."
Marco: "It ... doesn't shatter?"
Noon: "Nope."
Marco: "Why not? Was it porcelain?"
Noon: "Looked like it."
Marco: "Hunnh." (ponders)

I mean--the event is kinda senseless--but not humiliating. If I then go off on a boring and misguided attempt to discover what's going on, you might regret having done that--but if you were covert about your feelings of regret, I'd never know.

Quote
If it does break and someone asserts some sort of blame toward someone else over that, it's really just the same. Someones decided there is blame/minor humiliation/punishment for what's been said, and asserts it. People might decide to take up this idea and assert their own ideas on the matter.
No--I don't think you still understand. Try answering the question for yourself. Imagine that I pushed the vase, Joe the GM ruled it broke, and you were pissed about your imaginary vase being broken. Who are you mad at?

I know you think it's pointless and unrelated--but ask yourself: who would you blame?

Quote
Focusing on that last line, that's my point. The role and responsibilities of any user(player/GM) are not static and nailed down. Just like someone will give me change when I buy milk, they perform this responsiblity because they are rewarded for it. It isn't something they will always do regardless of everything else.

On users being like their character and GM's being like gravity, these occur if they are rewarded. The actual perception of roles, by every user present, will shape the flow of reward (or punishment).

You say that, I think, because you're focusing on the last line. Would you blame the GM for the vase breaking? Or me? Or yourself? If you can give me an answer to the question, I think we can go somewhere from there (and I may well be wrong)--but until you consider that, I can't explain what I'm thinking without putting words in your mouth even moreso than I've already done.

Quote
'unreliable' and 'trust issues'. These are punishments the GM faces for giving a silly result. I can't help but read your post as if this punishment will aways outweigh any reward a different narration might give (like the vase not breaking). I keep reading your posts as if your suggesting that becoming unreliable or creating trust issues is enough of a punishment to ensure a concrete foundation to the question "What happens when I say I push the vase?" and that there is no (significant) risk of any other rewards/punishments forcing another result. Was I reading incorrectly?

You're definitely reading some judgment stuff into it that wasn't there for me. I think that if the GM is arbitrary with physical laws in what is meant to be a "realistic game" that the experience will suffer--but not in terms of social approbation in many cases.

For example: You tell the players you are trying an RPG experiment. They agree to play in it without knowing what it is. You create a locked-room murder mystery and don't have any explanation as to how the bizarre seemingly impossible killing was done--but you have the PC's investigate it and toss out random clues, hoping that it'll all come together and the PC's will "solve it themselves" (i.e. take the random clues and proffer a reasonable explanation that you'll adopt).

In practice, I submit that the chances of this working are extremely low. If you try this and it leads to a night of low energy frustrating gaming and at the end, the stumped and puzzled players say "so what did happen?"

And you go "I don't know either. This was an experiment. I'm sorry it didn't work out, that's why I asked up front." If the players are really mad, it's certainly their problems (and next time they'll rightfully ask the nature of the experiment!) but it's just a failed trial.

What's your imagined scenario where arbitrary decision making that interfers with basic physical reality and expectations pays off in a serious, real-world setting?

Humor Gaming? It's expected. In a silly game if the vase bounces, that's fine. But I stipulated serious.

Protecting someone's feelings? Acceptable--but if you have the vase bounce to protect Sally's feelings and negate Sid's actions, I think you're just playing favorites. It'd be better to call the game off when the players start getting mad at each other if you feel inclined to take sides.

To prove you can? We knew you could. We hoped you wouldn't. If there was a good in-game reason or powerful within-social-contract explanation then, yeah, fine--if the vase is necessary to defeat the big-bad at the end and you have to preserve it, and a player is determined to smash it, I think a discussion with the group is a better idea than simple edict. Something has gone wrong there.

To show that in this world physics are different? Okay--but then it probably needs to be germane to the plot.

I'm sure I'm missing something--but what's the upside? What are you imagining?

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 24, 2004, 11:51:05 PM
QuoteNo--I don't think you still understand. Try answering the question for yourself. Imagine that I pushed the vase, Joe the GM ruled it broke, and you were pissed about your imaginary vase being broken. Who are you mad at?

I know you think it's pointless and unrelated--but ask yourself: who would you blame?
Are you asking to establish some sense of blame being apportioned generally in a consistant way, or another reason?

Depending on what the other reason is (and I'm hoping it's another reason), I may answer this.

QuoteYou're definitely reading some judgment stuff into it that wasn't there for me. I think that if the GM is arbitrary with physical laws in what is meant to be a "realistic game" that the experience will suffer--but not in terms of social approbation in many cases.
Not in many cases? Social approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.

I think weve found the sticking point here. There is nothing else but social feedback of reward/punishment. Give some examples of how the experience would suffer in different ways (as you mention in your quote)  and I'll break it down as how it is still just social feedback.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 25, 2004, 07:18:10 AM
Quote from: Noon
Are you asking to establish some sense of blame being apportioned generally in a consistant way, or another reason?

Depending on what the other reason is (and I'm hoping it's another reason), I may answer this.
There is another reason: how you answer will explain to me how you see the dynamic. If you blame the GM and pusher equally I can ask you some quesions about what you would do when some of the positions are reversed.

Quote
Not in many cases? Social approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.

I think weve found the sticking point here. There is nothing else but social feedback of reward/punishment. Give some examples of how the experience would suffer in different ways (as you mention in your quote)  and I'll break it down as how it is still just social feedback.

Well, we certainly have found one sticking point. There have been times in my RPG history when I've done something other players didn't especially like (pursuing a sub-plot *I* was interested in) simply because I liked it. I have seen others do the same (with functional results).

In that case my experience of the game outweighted social approbation. In those cases breaking the game--causing play to come to a halt--would've been counter to my aims so there is clearly a limit to how far I'd push that--but it points out that the social dimension is not the sole one.*

As a GM, I find that my responsibility is different simply because my role is that of a facilitator. I've seen GMs who I felt acted in a selfish way--and I've seen that deteroriate into power-struggle (something I don't like in my gaming from either side of the GM-screen).

But still, rather than purely the social there's an element of craftsmanship and an element of personal commitment and, IMO, a very real social commitment to the group (if I'm going to play wonky with the laws of physicis in our imagined reality, I think I owe it to the very real people who've taken time out of their day to tell them I plan on bending or breaking what I see as a very common pilar of the social contract).

-Marco
* Really, IME, that's pretty common. I have always been leery of social-reinforcement vs. personal satisfaction. I'm not sure where Gamism now stands, exactly, but if everyone goes "That's Joe (sigh), goin' after the orks again ..." but Joe really digs the battle, I'm not sure it qualifies as Gamism since he doesn't get social cred for his step-on-up but since the group (IMO, rightly to a degree) tolerates it--and Joe tolerates their preferences--then it isn't dysfunctional.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: John Kim on August 25, 2004, 11:14:41 AM
Quote from: Noon
Quote from: John KimI think this is simple difference in terminology.  You only consider something to be a "consequence" if it is physically absolutely certain that the result will happen.  Other people use the term to mean things like getting change -- i.e. a likely result, but not a 100% physical certainty.  I think we just need to use terms which distinguish these two.
It's not just terminology, it's method. If you design a game where it rewards you for jumping off a 100 foot cliff rather than face your lethal foe, but have the expectation that users will handle it the way you would expect to handle it (not jump), you will be quite divergent from the users of your game.
OK, where is the disagreement over method?  I agree that if you (as game designer) expect that a jump off a 100 foot cliff should be avoided, then you should include rules that make the fall produce the results that you expect.  I'm looking for people who are arguing the opposite, and I'm just not seeing them.  Maybe you could give me some names?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 25, 2004, 11:18:51 PM
Hiya Marco,

Okay, I still don't like the question. I don't see what I want as anything but what, after life experiences, I've decided. In pratical terms it could be considered arbitrary, so I can't see the point of balancing any arguement on it. That's what I think now, what do you think?

QuoteWell, we certainly have found one sticking point. There have been times in my RPG history when I've done something other players didn't especially like (pursuing a sub-plot *I* was interested in) simply because I liked it. I have seen others do the same (with functional results).

In that case my experience of the game outweighted social approbation. In those cases breaking the game--causing play to come to a halt--would've been counter to my aims so there is clearly a limit to how far I'd push that--but it points out that the social dimension is not the sole one.*

I think we can get somewhere now. Nope, it's still social feedback. You've simply decided how much negative feedback you are willing to soak. You may have decided you can and will soak a few sighs, but if the other players start throwing dice/the game breaks, this is too much negative social feedback.

When these guys walk off or start throwing dice at you, they're denying you further play. That's punishment, and it's delivered by social means.

By pursuing your own thing which would just result in some sighs, you were guessing that they wouldn't walk out on you for doing so. Their sighs are an attempt to stop that or communicate how close they are to walking out on you.

There is only social feedback, even if your willing and able to ignore amounts of the feedback given (like we all are), that doesn't negate the principle. Ignoring some feedback is like giving feeback yourself 'this is important to me'.

QuoteBut still, rather than purely the social there's an element of craftsmanship and an element of personal commitment and, IMO, a very real social commitment to the group (if I'm going to play wonky with the laws of physicis in our imagined reality, I think I owe it to the very real people who've taken time out of their day to tell them I plan on bending or breaking what I see as a very common pilar of the social contract).
What's the main effect of lack of craftsmanship, or lack of personal commitement or lack of social commitment?

Is it a meteor from outer space falling on your head? Does the magic truncheon of justice appear and wack you (damn I've wished for this to happen to some people on public transport...scuse my humour).

Or does someone show how pissed off they are at you? And/or withdraw co-operation to some extent?
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 25, 2004, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: John Kim
OK, where is the disagreement over method?  I agree that if you (as game designer) expect that a jump off a 100 foot cliff should be avoided, then you should include rules that make the fall produce the results that you expect.  I'm looking for people who are arguing the opposite, and I'm just not seeing them.  Maybe you could give me some names?

Gary Gygax (sp?) and Kevin Siembieda come to mind.

The 100 foot cliff is a glaring example. For the forge, it's more in terms of smaller things. I mean the cliff is a pretty obvious fix...but you can fix something without understanding the problem (and thus not recognise or fix the same problem encountered latter). Can you word the problem with the cliff, in context of this thread?

And as I brought up in my 'It must make sense' thread, in play, you might see the cliff working one way, but if someone's rewarded for doing otherwise any reliance on 'just do whatever makes sense' is not a fix at all. It's just rewarding people to have conflicting views then, as one poster in that thread said, leaving them to fight.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: M. J. Young on August 26, 2004, 01:11:17 AM
It seems to me that in the movie Rambo the hero did jump off the cliff and took the damage from the fall into the trees rather than face the guns of the enemy. Although I never saw it, I'm pretty sure that in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid they jumped off a cliff, expecting to survive when they hit the water at the bottom. That sort of heroic fantasy may be exactly why the cliff survival thing is possible. It may be that the intent was to make that an option, even though it's a rough one.

On Marco's question of who gets blamed, I have an actual play example of sorts.

Years ago, when we were still playtesting Multiverser, I did a rough interface with Metamorphosis Alpha and versed Ed into it. He played for a while, and started playing with a pack of intelligent mutant wolves in an effort to get control of them for his own private army. Then he versed out, but he had some hope of returning.

My playtesting expanded, and I had Chris, Bill, and Tristan playing regularly. I decided I'd try running a gather with all three of them in Metamorphosis Alpha, so I versed Chris into the place. I mentioned it to Ed.

"If he messes with my wolves," Ed said, "I'll kill him."

This is particularly interesting to me because I'd sort of decided that these other guys weren't on the same world he'd visited, but in an identical one. I'd pretty much reset everything to where it was before he'd arrived and dropped them into it afresh. Thus in a very real sense I, as referee, had prevented Chris from doing anything at all to Ed's wolves. That clearly demonstrates that I had the power to save the wolves. However, even without anything having happened to the wolves, Ed was ready to blame Chris for whatever might happen to them springing from Chris' play. (Since Chris ultimately managed to destroy the entire habitat, Ed's fears were not entirely unjustified, but that's another issue.)

Thus it seems clear to me that players I've known perceive that the referee-adjudicated and implemented consequences of player character actions are the fault of the players whose characters performed the priming action.

Now, it would be completely different if I as the referee am controlling your non-player character sidekick, and you say, "Break that vase for me, would you?" At that point, I have to decide whether the sidekick is going to break the vase. At that point, the waters get very murky. If I break it, is it because my read of the system is that your sidekick would do this, no questions asked? If I don't break it, is it because my read is that the sidekick would balk at this? Or did I make the decision based on what I want? Is the action of your sidekick the consequence of the action of system which you initiated, or is it based on my initiation of system?

That's a much more difficult question.

However, if a player has his own character perform an action in the shared imagined space which has clear probable consequences, most players will hold that player responsible for those consequences. That indicates that most players believe the consequences spring from the initiation of system by the player, not from the resolution of system by the referee.

--M. J. Young
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 26, 2004, 04:04:51 AM
Quote*snip*That sort of heroic fantasy may be exactly why the cliff survival thing is possible. It may be that the intent was to make that an option, even though it's a rough one.

From my design example, were not trying to read the rules and guess the authors intention from that. For the sake of example, let's say the authors intention is that you die from falling off a 100 foot cliff but he doesn't write rules that support that intention.

As for the blame question, until I get further info I'm not touching that as much as I'm not touching a question about which side of the road I'd drive on. I'd prefer the thread didn't bend to cover it, because right now (until convinced otherwise) I'm pretty sure it's going to obfuscate the issue. But that's just what I'd like.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 26, 2004, 07:51:06 AM
Callan,
I think you are not really addressing your thread's content.

You say this:
Quote from: Noon
I think we can get somewhere now. Nope, it's still social feedback. You've simply decided how much negative feedback you are willing to soak. You may have decided you can and will soak a few sighs, but if the other players start throwing dice/the game breaks, this is too much negative social feedback.

Remember, you also said this:
Quote
Social approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.
(Emphasis added)

The example I gave you showed me doing something for internal rewards that were greater than the negative social feedback.

In other words: despite your assertion above, the social dimension isn't all there is to the value of a an experience (where does social feedback apply to me eating ice cream or day dreaming?).

I think you are avoiding looking at some fairly common dynamics here ("I like envisioning my character kicking ass").

Same with the blame thing: I don't know why you're avoiding it--but I suggest you examine the possibility that it's because it'll throw the issue into sharp relief, not because it will obfsucate the issue. I find MJ's example illustrative, for example.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 26, 2004, 02:21:22 PM
Quote from: M. J. YoungYears ago, when we were still playtesting Multiverser, I did a rough interface with Metamorphosis Alpha and versed Ed into it. He played for a while, and started playing with a pack of intelligent mutant wolves in an effort to get control of them for his own private army. Then he versed out, but he had some hope of returning.

My playtesting expanded, and I had Chris, Bill, and Tristan playing regularly. I decided I'd try running a gather with all three of them in Metamorphosis Alpha, so I versed Chris into the place. I mentioned it to Ed.

"If he messes with my wolves," Ed said, "I'll kill him."
---snip!--
Thus it seems clear to me that players I've known perceive that the referee-adjudicated and implemented consequences of player character actions are the fault of the players whose characters performed the priming action.
I have to agree.

However, I've seen situations like your example except that the player, after reacting as Ed did apropos Chris, would then add to the game master, "And you had better not pull any deus ex machina or coincidences to keep this from happening!"

So there is also a recognition, at least in fantastical campaigns, that the game master can enforce a different will by way of the gods or other metaphysical entities or through earthly NPCs of power in the campaign world(s).

The unspoken rule is that the game master must run his or her NPCs, human or divine, within the continuity of the campaign.  Capricious coincidences and meaningless acts of deus ex machina elicit distrust in the game master, and pretty soon, the game master has no players who will trust him or her enough to participate in any of his or her campaigns.  (This fits in with Noon's assertions about the ultimate power of social approbation -- regardless of whether social approbation is an immanent or ubiquitous force, an idea which Marco disputes.)

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 26, 2004, 04:45:10 PM
Quote from: Doctor Xero
The unspoken rule is that the game master must run his or her NPCs, human or divine, within the continuity of the campaign.  Capricious coincidences and meaningless acts of deus ex machina elicit distrust in the game master, and pretty soon, the game master has no players who will trust him or her enough to participate in any of his or her campaigns.  (This fits in with Noon's assertions about the ultimate power of social approbation -- regardless of whether social approbation is an immanent or ubiquitous force, an idea which Marco disputes.)

Doctor Xero

Although perhaps unspoken, I think that if you put the question to people they'll speak fairly clearly on this. And to be clear, I certainly wouldn't ignore the social dimension--a very important part of any RPG activity (amongst many others).

The idea that it's the only thing an RPG has to offer seems very Forge-esque to me (Gamist is all about gettin' cred with your buddies--what if I just like the thrill of victory and my buddies lightly disapprove my step-on-up actions--am I Sim?)

So, yes: the GM can do anything--but if the GM does unexpected things with basic physics for reasons that have no obvious cause, and no real reason than 'because I say so' then I can't really imagine that being especially functional.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 26, 2004, 08:40:49 PM
QuoteSocial approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.

I'll write the indulgently long version of the sentence:

Social apphrobation (or feedback, I'd prefer to call it) is all you can assert in responce to any other persons assertion, in terms of what influences a good or bad session (to any individuals perception).

Read through it carefully. I know I'm being cheap in not answering your question, but this is basically the reason why I'm not answering it.

QuoteThe example I gave you showed me doing something for internal rewards that were greater than the negative social feedback.

In other words: despite your assertion above, the social dimension isn't all there is to the value of a an experience (where does social feedback apply to me eating ice cream or day dreaming?).

No, I mean the social dimension is all there is available to influence someone else. Your example of ignoring someone elses feedback doesn't change that...it just means that whatever social influence was there wasn't sufficient to influence you. In your above post for example, you talk about certain play not being functional. I don't get how you read such play as being non functional without identifying this from social feedback. I mean, what else are you identifying it from...there's no scientific measurement of functional...you judge it from social feedback (unless you ignore that and then your removing yourself from the activity by doing so).

Yes, I agree, most people would groan at the vase not breaking...thus you can consider it non functional if you want. But look at what really happened...people groaned. That's it...that's what I mean by 'social feedback is all you can have'. All you can have in responce, to be precise. If someone pushes a vase in RL, its goes through a series of reactions. If it's pushed in an SIS, the only responce is people groaning or whatever way they react. Plenty of people here have cooked up all sorts of ideas as to what happens to the vase, especially if play stops or whatever. The answer is, there is no vase, there is only the following assertions/social feedback.

I must be shit at describing this, so I'm going to fall back on the forge glossary:
Quote"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."
At the very least, it's clear this doesn't include the vase breaking as a 'must have to be functional play'. In any individual case the people involved may have a system of assertions that leads to the vase breaking. But the lumpley principle does not include the vase falling, in and of itself. You'd think it would, since the vase falling is so straight forward a reaction. It doesn't, and that's the basics of what I'm getting at.

Which leads me to your question and my avoidance. Who would I blame? I don't want to answer because what I'm trying to describe here, is like the lumpley principle. And you can't ask the lumpley principle who it would blame, it isn't about defining that. To answer it is to go off topic.

Probably what I'm talking about is the details of the lumpley principle. How they interact with each and how that forms a System. What an assertion of vase pushing would create or who would be blamed doesn't tell you anything about the idea...the idea is like a container and the vase push and the blame are just possible contents. I'm not interested in the contents though, I'm interested in the container.

Perhaps it was kind of poor of me to start the thread by refering to a contents example to see if others at the forge grasped a similar container idea. But I thought it would be similar to asking 'Do I have to have stats like STR and DEX in my RPG...or even stats at all?', which is a container question too (different container, keep in mind). And STR/DEX aren't nessersary parts of that container. Nor is the vase smashing a nessasary part of the container I refer to.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 26, 2004, 10:13:32 PM
Callan,

That's a much better post--and it's a good deal clearer with you being explicit. I take issue with you being "indulgent." Adding multi-word bolded blocks that make all sorts of changes to the original statement strikes me as being clear--not indulgent.

But aside from that:
Quote
In your above post for example, you talk about certain play not being functional. I don't get how you read such play as being non functional without identifying this from social feedback. I mean, what else are you identifying it from...there's no scientific measurement of functional...you judge it from social feedback (unless you ignore that and then your removing yourself from the activity by doing so).

Here is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversiation will be non-functional?

I believe that on the microcosom, cause-and-effect scale you have specified where someone is trying to interact with you in a conversation and your answers are all nonsequitors, the dialog will break down.

But, ultimately, who cares?

If we agree that the vase is a groaner, where does your realization get us? And I'm not being snarky here--I'm serious: what does the fact that the GM can ... and might, do anything, even the random-and-unexpected get us?

I think maybe it gets us somewhere--but I'm not sure where. If that's the core of your statement, I agree with it.

Also: Yes--I think anything that's a traditional RPG where the PC's play standard corporeal human beings who can take physical actions must have STR and DEX. Since you asked* :)

-Marco
* Meaning that there has to be some piece of system that will adjudicate a PC trying to pick up a mountain range or a paper cup (that's STR) or perform some impossibly incredible stunt or tie his shoes (that's DEX) and once you resolve those issues, you have "STR and DEX."
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Walt Freitag on August 27, 2004, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: CallanAt the very least, it's clear [the Lumpley Principle] doesn't include the vase breaking as a 'must have to be functional play'.

This all becomes pretty clear when you think of the vase in terms of participant expectations, rather than physical laws.

One or more particpants expects the vase to break, and yet when system is applied and consequences are narrated into the shared imagined space, it turns out the vase didn't break. To say that this is necessarily dysfunctional would be to logically imply that all expectations must always be met in order to have functional play. Which is fundamentally incompatible with role playing itself.

There are only three reasons to involve other people in shared imagining: as an audience, as passive assistants helping to work the levers of mechanical system and/or keep track of data, or as participants in creating the shared imagined space. The third of these is absolutely required for role-playing as the Forge defines it; that is, role-playing with a Creative Agenda. There is no creative participation without the freedom to affect the shared imagined space in ways that other participants don't expect, whether that's describing a character action that other players feel is "out of character" or ruling as a GM that a vase doesn't break even though the known situation leads others to predict that it will. If you're doing only what's expected, your participation is superfluous (except as audience or assistant).

We tend to think of unexpected decisions as going against the prevailing Creative Agenda. And of course they often are. But they cannot always be so, or there could be no Creative Agenda in the first place.

Is this at all relevant to the point you were making, Callan? I have to admit I've been somewhat in doubt of my ability to decipher what this thread is actually about.

- Walt
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 27, 2004, 02:19:19 PM
Quote from: MarcoSo, yes: the GM can do anything--but if the GM does unexpected things with basic physics for reasons that have no obvious cause, and no real reason than 'because I say so' then I can't really imagine that being especially functional.
Agreed!

(Unless, of course, it is one of those antagonist-game master types of gamist campaigns, such as some interpretations of Hackmaster, in which part of the fun comes from the  game master being arbitrary except where explicitly and specifically constrained by the rules books.)

Quote from: MarcoHere is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversation will be non-functional?
I think Noon is working from the idea that roleplaying gaming is social whereas the conversation may involve information transmission or such.  If two people who don't speak the same language are trying to bond, such as when a man who speaks only English is trying to bond with his brother-in-law who speaks only Spanish, the issue of social functionality becomes relevant -- but only insofar as a shared tongue is necessary to sociality (I've been able to enjoy social time with people who barely spoke any language which I spoke).

Quote from: NoonNo, I mean the social dimension is all there is available to influence someone else.
I would have to disagree with you here, Noon.

There are also the aesthetic and inspirational dimensions.

Someone may not like me but still be influenced by a moment of eloquence when I argue for an issue or by an artistic vision I maintain while I game or by the way I inspire her or his characters by the actions of my own in the game.

I think it would be stretching it a bit to encompass oratory, sermons, theatre, artistry, and inspiration under the umbrella of social influence.

And, yes, I have been involved with gaming groups wherein a disliked player was still influential because he or she had such wonderful ideas.

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Marco on August 27, 2004, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: Doctor Xero
I think Noon is working from the idea that roleplaying gaming is social whereas the conversation may involve information transmission or such.  If two people who don't speak the same language are trying to bond, such as when a man who speaks only English is trying to bond with his brother-in-law who speaks only Spanish, the issue of social functionality becomes relevant -- but only insofar as a shared tongue is necessary to sociality (I've been able to enjoy social time with people who barely spoke any language which I spoke).

Understood--but that's not exactly what I was getting at. I wasn't being that literal.

Player-GM interaction is in some ways like a conversation. I say "Hello" and if you say "Empire State Building" I don't know what to say next. I respond "Huh? Didn't get you." and you go "Taco salad."

We're not getting anywhere.

If the GM responds with non-sequitors in terms of handling SiS (a series of arbitrary rulings that follow neither from the internal nor meta-game situations) then the 'dialog of play'--the player's ability to interact with the GM in the context of the game, and thus the GM's ability to interact with the player, breaks down.

I think Noon is looking at this in terms of approval and disapproval ("after it breaks down, there'll be hard feelings or lack of trust.") This is true--but the breakdown occurs first--and that's what I'm suggesting people interested in having an RPG try to prevent.

-Marco
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 27, 2004, 06:48:16 PM
QuoteHere is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversiation will be non-functional?

I believe that on the microcosom, cause-and-effect scale you have specified where someone is trying to interact with you in a conversation and your answers are all nonsequitors, the dialog will break down.

Interesting idea, in terms of the telephone. Your example has two people who don't have any synchronised knowledge between them, in terms of the knowledge (language) they must use to communicate through the rather limmited media of a telephone line.

Which your comparing with someone who says something which makes it apparent were not sharing the same knowledge base. I don't think we should bring the idea of random non sequitors into this...the guy speaking chinese isn't talking rubbish, after all.

Likewise, the GM's 'no, it doesn't break' responce isn't an issue of him spouting random crap. Just like the person speaking chinese, he was (or atleast lets now establish this clearly) working from his own knowledge base. I can think of a few reasons he might...for example, did you know you can sit a car on top of four china cups (one per wheel) without the cups breaking? Yeah, the cups can take the pressure...blame ripleys believe it or not for that factoid. So maybe the GM imagines the vase lands perfectly on its base and can takes its own weight just fine.

The issue is, that they aren't syncronised in knowledge base. How will the situation be sorted out (if at all possible)? Social feedback is the only mechanism to sort it out (even though it can be ignored).

That's sort of my point in the 'it must make sense' thread. Saying it must make sense is like saying it must make my kind of sense. In the language example, it's like trying to say 'We MUST speak my language, not yours!' as if one language is the only language to use.

QuoteBut, ultimately, who cares?
Ouch.
Quote

If we agree that the vase is a groaner, where does your realization get us? And I'm not being snarky here--I'm serious: what does the fact that the GM can ... and might, do anything, even the random-and-unexpected get us?
The starting posts point was about the idea that no matter how clear cut the apparent outcome, whatever outcome is narrated is only influuenced  by social feedback. The most logical outcome (by anyones opinion) will not get used just because its the most logical...social feedback determines if what gets used.

This also flows through to the following: Whats important to address here is how you've mentioned the GM saying non sequeteurs or random and unexpected stuff. It's not...were not talking about a nutter GM, were always going to find this other person has some message he's trying to get across. I'm talking about the idea that at any point a user could fail to share a syncronised knowledge base with another user.

If you approach that failure to synchronise with a 'how it works is that the most logical idea gets through' attitude rather than 'okay, social feedback is my only influence on this...X is important to me so I'm going to give feedback on it', your headed for a fight.

It also has implications for designers but I can't go into that now because RL calls right now (sorry to other posters I'd like to reply to). Anyway, I believe its a fine distinction but an an important one in its implications.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: DannyK on August 27, 2004, 07:08:09 PM
OK, so this thread (which has baffled me) is really about a sort of a social constructivist theory of gaming.  That's an interesting idea, and I'm sorry it took me 6 pages to figure this out.  

Honestly, I think it's maybe worth starting a new thread to think through this: I don't think the vase example is going to get us there.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Doctor Xero on August 27, 2004, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: NoonThe issue is, that they aren't syncronised in knowledge base. How will the situation be sorted out (if at all possible)? Social feedback is the only mechanism to sort it out (even though it can be ignored).
I still have to amend you somewhat here.

If the game master states that the vase didn't shatter in a fashion which elicits admiration for the eloquence and/or artistry with which she stated it, or if the game master has the aura of a game imagination maestro, the players will still go along with it regardless of social feedback.  You might argue that they have become audience, but in a game, when I am not the one playing or game mastering, as I watch the other players, I am their audience!

Doctor Xero
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 27, 2004, 09:21:34 PM
Quote from: DannyKOK, so this thread (which has baffled me) is really about a sort of a social constructivist theory of gaming.  That's an interesting idea, and I'm sorry it took me 6 pages to figure this out.  

Honestly, I think it's maybe worth starting a new thread to think through this: I don't think the vase example is going to get us there.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. My prefered method of thought on the matter is probably quite nihilistic. In order to get it across though though I found I needed to connect it to established lines of thought, like the lumpley princple. This transition took a few pages. Sorry for Ron for the six pages, too, if I could get accross my message neatly without the refining process I would.

Yes, I'll start a new thread (I'll edit this post to link to it in a moment) and cover the posts of people that I haven't tried to cover yet.
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Callan S. on August 27, 2004, 11:13:26 PM
Here's the link (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=133697#133697)
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: M. J. Young on August 28, 2004, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: NoonThe starting posts point was about the idea that no matter how clear cut the apparent outcome, whatever outcome is narrated is only influuenced  by social feedback. The most logical outcome (by anyones opinion) will not get used just because its the most logical...social feedback determines if what gets used.
Ah-HAH! The light comes on.

The point is that "system" ultimately isn't going to be what logic dictates, nor what rules dictate, nor what one participant dictates, but what is generally agreed by everyone? That ultimately nothing else controls the shared imagined space other than personal interactions, social reinforcement or chastisement, negotiation, and ultimate agreement? Thus, it doesn't matter whether we can prove a vase would have broken, it matters whether we believe the vase would have broken?

Well, O.K.; but does that give us something new, really?

--M. J. Young
Title: Quick question on in game consequence
Post by: Ron Edwards on August 28, 2004, 02:50:55 AM
Lumpley Principle all over again.

Guys, give yourselves and the rest of us a break. Take a while to review the thread, think of sub-topics or new starting points or whatever, and let's just call this one done.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm being too arbitrary, so let me know if you simply must post again, must must must, but otherwise, thanks & g'night.

Best,
ron