The Forge Archives

Players are often said to have a "free choice" of action in roleplaying games, or at least much more free than in any other game. This is not true.

The range of choices may vary, to a much greater extent than in any other game, as the roleplaying game evolves, but at any one time in the game, it seldom exceeds the choices awailable in a normal board game. the strenght of roleplaying games is not in freedom, but in dynamics.

Players are, and should always be, limited in choice. Limitations is the colour of the game, the natural laws of the fictional environment, the limitiations experienced within a certain character, the skeleton by wich we climb to the very peak of involvement in the drama.

Without limits the game is naught. "Free choice" is an illusion. Characters free from the machinations of the fictional world, are dead characters. Characters should be exposed to any and all manipulations, emotions and handicaps. Players should be expected to act within the confines of any cell they are placed in.

Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

And mind you; this is a designers statement; I consider game masters to be players too, in respect to this.

Chris Lehrich talks about this a bit in his article on "Ritual in RPGs," which is in the Forge articles section.  In his analysis of roleplaying as ritual, he makes in clear that rituals include a limited set of actions which are supported by the ritual system/structure.  You have a range of freedom within those choices, but it's still a closed set.  However, through theory, it's possible to make arguments for including new choices or removing old choices from the system.

I'm not explaining this especially well, but maybe he'll show up and address this.

Thomas,

QuotePlayers should be expected to act within the confines of any cell they are placed in. Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

Let me try to get where you're coming from, here.

I understand the limitations imposed upon players via Social Contract in curbing their choices as to what actions they might undertake, or elements they might add to a scenario, but it sounds like you might be arguing something else here, too.

I can't tell, so I want to be sure.

Are you talking about what is commonly referred to as the metagame?

Such as the ability to alter the environment of the game world?
Let me give an example: I'm playing some swashbuckling game that allows Author stance, and I declare, "I leap onto the chandelier and swing down upon my enemies, slashing with my sword!" The key point is that no chandelier existed before I said so. Now it exists, at my (the player's) option.

I'm playing some traditional fantasy game, and am hired by the mayor of a small burg to clear out the mines of their goblin infestation. I tell the mayor to get bent, and go looking for whores on the docks, instead. The key point being that I had the freedom to ignore the "adventure scenario" as presented. This seems to be what you would consider "ok freedom"...since the character is acting within the "cell."

So, what do you mean by "freedom"? Freedom to do what, specifically?

An overly strong statement and I'm sure you will get much disagreement.   My initial reaction was to disagree though I think I've changed my mind, with the proviso that I'm reading you right.  

Limitations really do define a large part of what a roleplaying game is about.  When the mighty warrior comes up against the nasty villain and we have a system to determine the outcome of their duel then that is acting as a limitation on the players freedom.  Whereas if we say the mighty warrior is superior to the villain and will automatically win the battle then we have to find something else to challenge him or else their is no game.  

Typically in rpg's physical aspects like strength and combat skills are described in order to face challenges based on them.  Thing that are not defined like bravery are never addressed, the player is free to choose whether his character is brave or a coward but it is never tested in play.
Having said that it is possible to make his bravery or cowardice part of the play by adding the limitation of dealing with the consequence.

So in a sense players have freedom to choose but that freedom will be met by the limitations necessary to keep the game flowing.  What really defines a game is where you set the limitations.

Quote from: Tomas HVMPlayers should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

I think this needs some clarification.  What constitutes the game being started?  Sitting down at the table to play?  Deciding which rules to use?  Deciding which rules in the game we don't like and want to remove or alter?  Where is this line that you are drawing that beyond which there is no freedom?

Second, define "no freedom", please.  No freedom to make any choices at all?  Surely not.  No freedom to make any choices outside of the published rules of the game?  The house rules of the group?  The Social Contract?  What exactly?

This is a rather sweeping statement that I could agree with on one hand or consider completely bogus on the other, depending on what meaning you intended.  Could you clarify your position please?

Andrew

I don't think it is clear exactly what you mean by "free."  If what you mean is that freedom must be infinite in order to qualify as freedom, then I think most people would agree.  Your choices are never completely free in that they are constrained.

However, such a strict definition of freedom doesn't seem useful to me.  I think freedom is more useful if you look at it as a relative term as a degree of freedom.  If you look at freedom this way, I would disagree that RPGs offer no more freedom than board games or, for that matter, most video game RPGs.  I can't imagine a board game that gives you more choice than even a typical RPG like D&D, much less a more avant garde game like Universalis.

Tomas, at the end of your post, you seem to switch from a descriptive to a normative mode.  At the beginning you are saying that players do not, in fact, have free choice.  At the end, you say that, once the game has started, players SHOULD not be ALLOWED any freedom.  This presupposes that freedom is in fact possible (which appears to contradict your claim that freedom is an illusion), but that it is not desirable.  I must admit that I find this claim quite puzzling.  Why would I want to play a game in which I am completely lacking in any power?  If I'm going to do that, I may as well just watch a movie or read a book.

Tomas,

Could you offer concret examples from an instance of play illustrating what you mean by "freedom" and "limits"?  As it stands, I know you think limits are good for the creative act -- which is all well and good -- but no one here really knows what you're talking about.

Thanks,

Christopher

"greyorm":
You seem to be far too occupied with the "social contract". Try to toss it aside from time to time.

I'm talking about the choices made by players, on behalf of their characters, in the course of play. These choices are never free. They were never meant to be. All choices in a roleplaying game are meant to be bound by character, setting and drama.

By the way; I do not know what others mean by "freedom". It is not in my use as a designer of roleplaying games, nor as a game master. If you wonder what it may mean; ask those who praise it so highly.

Quote from: HenriWhy would I want to play a game in which I am completely lacking in any power?

Freedom is not the only power, Henri.

Bind yourself to the character. Limit yourself to the setting. Tailor your impulses to the drama. Your interaction is not based on freedom, it is based on submission to the special forces at play in the game.

In roleplaying games freedom has no power.

Quote from: Tomas HVMYou seem to be far too occupied with the "social contract". Try to toss it aside from time to time.

Interesting. On what data do you base this supposed preoccupation of mine?

You realize I did ask a question about your statement in an attempt to help my understanding of what you were getting at...and you respond by criticising me with vague advice instead? Excuse me?

And then, in your response/rebuttal to others below that, you tell those who asked that you aren't going to tell us what you mean by "freedom" (or it's lack) and we should go ask someone else. How incredibly annoying and anti-constructive.

You aren't presenting yourself very well, here; in fact, I would call your responses downright rude. I'm sorry that I wasted my time here with you trying to come to some sort of understanding of what you were getting at. Perhaps you would care to revise your response to me, and others, so we can better understand what your statements mean and how they apply in practice?

Interesting enough to me...

This thread is exactly the reason the the Forge has adopted strict academic-style terminology.

It becomes a long exercise in "What do you mean?"

If we didn't have some strictly defined terms for major role-playing concepts all we would every do, in thread after thread is go "What?" "How are you using the word ____?"( My group called it x. Or if you mean y we called it z)

Playing games like the Pool and Universalis changes remarkably the amount of freedom given to all Players...compared to the old standbys.

Tomas, with this reasoning, people in the real world have no freedom either.  We always have our actions constrained by the physical world (physics), governmental laws, social obligations, genetics, etc, etc.  I would venture to say, in relative degree that characters in RPGs have quite a bit more freedom than the players themselves.  But I really don't think that constraint on choice is a lack of freedom.  Coercion (railroading in RPGs) creates a lack of freedom, because the choice is directed by someone else.  The fact is that the players get to make choices for their characters, but much like in real life the characters have to deal with the consequences of those actions.  Are consequences a constraint to freedom?  I don't think so.

To everyone other than Tomas:

I think I have observed a tendency for Tomas to use hyperbole in his efforts to make his points and stir discussion. He will often post something harsh and objectionable, and later backpedal to something a bit more moderate--something like trying to negotiate for a position by taking a more extreme position than he wants, and then compromising to what he actually wants.

I don't mean to impugn his motives for doing so; it is a style of discourse that a lot of people use. We don't see much of it here, as we have a tendency to start by trying to say exactly what we mean.

Tomas believes in a very high level of illusionist technique and referee credibility in play; he also believes in an even higher level of credibility to the game designer, whom he suggests should define and control all play of his games.

To Tomas:

Certainly all character choices are to some degree limited. They are limited by characterization (that is, the personality ascribed to the character by the player); by game physics; by setting elements; by genre expectations; by many other things. However, they almost always wind up with choices that the players have to make.

Illusionism can be a great deal of fun, as long as the character players don't see the man behind the curtain--the moment we realize that we've been taken for a ride, we want our money back. Participationism can be a lot of fun without this problem, but in this case no one is suffering any illusions that their character choices are meaningful in the context of play.

A while back someone was trying to work up a game system that was thoroughly illusionist--the referee would control all outcomes. I actually wrote a Game Ideas Unlimited article on the subject at the time, because I saw a significant flaw in it. Illusionism only works as long as either the players are unaware of it, or being aware of it they accept it (turning it to participationism). If you publish rules for a game which states up front that the referee is going to control the outcome of everything and the player choices will have no impact on this, the players will read the rules--or if they don't, they'll read about the rules in reviews at RPGnet, forums at The Forge, and elsewhere. They will know that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that you don't need them to tell your story. Yes, some people like participationist play. Most people find it offensive--we didn't come to be part of your adventure story; we came to have our own adventure.

I could debate for years whether people, real, living people, ever have free choice. My conclusion is that we do and we don't--we do, in the sense that there are usually thousands of options which confront us at any moment which we theoretically could choose, and we don't in the sense that our choice, based as it is on who we are, what we know, how we think, and where we place our values, is ultimately inevitable. In that sense, our role playing characters are exactly the same as we are--they are completely free to choose from thousands of options at any moment, and are completely constrained by who we define them to be.

I see no profit in debating whether or not such characters--or such people--really are free. I agree that good illusionist techniques can take advantage of these constraints on choice by steering the player to make the "right" choice. I don't agree that it's always--or never--good to play that way.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungI think I have observed a tendency for Tomas to use hyperbole in his efforts to make his points and stir discussion.

I do admit to have this tendency, yes. It a tendency though, not some general excuse for you to overlook the insights presented.

Quote from: M. J. YoungHe will often post something harsh and objectionable, and later backpedal to something a bit more moderate--something like trying to negotiate for a position by taking a more extreme position than he wants, and then compromising to what he actually wants.

Not quite. I have my own insights, as an artist in the field of roleplaying games since 1986. Some of them are contrary to common belief or opinions. Sometimes I choose to present them in a piqued manner, not to compromise later, but to go thoroughly into it when questioned. Sometimes I choose to provoce readers into new thoughts on some issue, not really interesting in a debate long since taken by me and my companions. I must of course excuse what is seen as rude behaviour, and "snide" remarks, none of it intended to be taken on a personal level.

Quote from: M. J. Young... we have a tendency to start by trying to say exactly what we mean.

So do I, mr. Young. What I never do, is to explain the motives of other individuals than myself to others. A can tolerate it in this instance, as I perceive it to be a benign effort and respect your integrity, but don't make a habit out of it.

Quote from: M. J. YoungTomas believes in a very high level of illusionist technique and referee credibility in play;

No! I have argued the effective and benign use of railroading, as one of the set of tools you may apply in your gaming. My discussions on this issue, and my way of game mastering, are two very different things. I do not "believe in" any high level of any one particular technique in roleplaying games, or the preference of any level of referee credibility. You are making assumptions based on a very limited experience with my philosophy on roleplaying games. If i may offer a very limited description of my own philosophy; it is a philosophy of balance, both in relation to game design, and game mastering.

Quote from: M. J. Younghe also believes in an even higher level of credibility to the game designer, whom he suggests should define and control all play of his games.

I believe that game designers are virtually invicible in the general discussions of roleplaying games, and I believe this to be very strange, they being the ones producing the premises for most of the games we play. Their impact on the games should be far more focused, and discussed, in my view.

I do not suggest that the game designer "should define and control all play of his games". I suggest a stronger control of game methods, yes, as one way of developing your design. My own design has been developing for years, in several directions.

I reckon mr. Young has smoked me out now, thoroughly, with his vile statements on my "motives" and "beliefs".
:)

Let me return to the point made by mr. Young on the issue at hand:

Quote from: M. J. YoungCertainly all character choices are to some degree limited. They are limited by characterization (that is, the personality ascribed to the character by the player); by game physics; by setting elements; by genre expectations; by many other things. However, they almost always wind up with choices that the players have to make.

We are in agreement on this. It is difficult not to be.

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf you publish rules for a game which states up front that the referee is going to control the outcome of everything and the player choices will have no impact on this, ... They will know that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that you don't need them to tell your story.

This is taking it too far, as an issue on roleplaying games.

Quote from: M. J. YoungMy conclusion is that we do and we don't--we do, in the sense that there are usually thousands of options which confront us at any moment which we theoretically could choose, and we don't in the sense that our choice, based as it is on who we are, what we know, how we think, and where we place our values, is ultimately inevitable.

So, you believe "free choice" is but a theoretical possibility, not something the player (or real person) actually possess? I do agree, and that is my point; any believeable and interesting roleplaying game will have these limitations in choices, forcing the players to accept the limitations of his character, enjoying the special landscape drawn up before him. "Free choice" exist only where no coordinates are given, and as a roleplaying game such an empty void is utterly lame.

The illusion of character, setting and drama, is given to make your choices interesting. Your choices are interesting because they are made within a context. The very nature of any context, is limiting your range of effective choice.

The interaction of a roleplaying game is not based on freedom, it is based on acceptance of a context, and submission to the powers at play within it.

However; you may argue that some "freedom" may be found in roleplaying games, in the sense that the game make it possible for you to escape the clutches of your daily social life, and "freely" investigate any hidden parts of your personality, or parts of society normally hedden to you. I hold this to be possible, and desirable. And it may be perceived to be a kind of freedom.

By the way; I believe myself to be far from free. My choices are mine to make, but they are not free. They are made under the restrictions of relations, responsibilities, etichs, aspirations, etc. I find it very comforting that I am able to make good choices in my life, supporting my wife, my family and my friends, and my self, taking all this into consideration.

All I can do when I look at a post like this is shrug and say "you obviously haven't been playing the same sort of games that I have."

You obviously haven't been playing the same sort of games that I have.

I would like the question, however, your use of "freedom."  You seem to think that it means "can do anything, at all, ever."  I would use freedom to mean "has choice."

So you have freedom in a text adventure game.  When the GM says "left or right," that's freedom (perhaps meaningless freedom, but still freedom.)  You have freedom in nearly any endeavor at all.  *some measure of freedom*

Further, I think that RPGs are characterized by a limited, infinite freedom on behalf of all players (including GM.)  Let me explain what I mean by that.

By "freedom" I simply mean "choice" or "the ability to make a choice," as I talk about above.

By "infinite" I mean that your choices are infinite in number -- you cannot list them.

By "limited" I mean that there are a signifigant (also infinite) number of invalid choices, or that your choices are restricted by social contract, system resources, and setting decisions.

To draw an example, I believe that formal poetry writing has a similar sort of limited infinite freedom.  Take, for example, a sonnet.  The sonnet has a definite rhythm and rhyme structure that cannot be violated if the poet still wants to write a sonnet (actually, it's a little more flexible than that, but let's take formal sonnets for now.)  However, within this structure, they have a nearly-infinite (as close to infinite as makes no odds) choice of topic, word choice, etc.  A poet could write sonnets, the same sonnet-structures, all his life and never get the same one twice.

Role-playing games are the same.  At any point, the player can make an infinite amount of reasonable character decisions that are in line with characterization, system, setting, etc.  This is still a heck of a lot of freedom.

Thoughts?

yrs--
--Ben