Players never have a "free choice"

[greyorm]

Hrm, this appears to be a semantic argument over the exact definition of "freedom," where neither party is saying anything different than the other about the limitations inherent in reality and the play of any game. It's "potato" vs. "potatoe."

Both parties are saying the exact same thing from opposite points of view; I see absolutely no disagreement between views here, except in the use of the word "freedom" and each party's personal connotations attached to that word.

On to the other matter: I note, Thomas, that while you are "not interested in debate," despite your statment to the contrary about explaining your position, you are apparently also not interested in providing actual answers to questions about your views.

I did ask, after all, in the spirit of understanding, and recieved a vague personal criticism as a response, as I've already pointed out. That doesn't exactly scream "desire to explain my position."

Also, I don't accept excuses of rudeness with statements saying "I didn't mean it" and no direct apologies. We've seen people play that game here before -- last time I checked, that was considered unacceptable behavior at the Forge.

As well, your decision to "present [opinions] in a piqued manner" (ie: deliberately irritate or arouse anger in) and "provoke readers" -- whatever the ultimate goal of these behaviors -- is similarly an intolerable way to interact here.

Should you wish to engage in these behaviors, there are plenty of other forums and lists which accept, perhaps even tolerate, that method of discourse. This is not one of them, however.

And I simply don't care whether you agree or disagree with that; it's a little piece of the Forge's limitations on your behavior you accept in posting and interacting while here.

Thanks for listening.

[clehrich]

Tomas,

All activity and thought, in every substrate of life, is both free and constrained.  Umberhulk mentions this, as does Jonathan in referring to my discussion of "practice" theory and ritual.  Let's be explicit about it.

On the one hand, the constrained end of things, there are always structures more or less explicit in the situation that limit the possibilities.  Many of these arise from social structures, which is why social contract isn't something that can be set aside, for even an instant, in any consideration of the possibility of action or thought.  Social structures and culture determine further structures, symbols, concepts, and ideas that can be manipulated, and the range of such manipulation.

Within RPGs, only a limited range of activities is permitted as legitimate.  This is determined by the total spectrum of "system," ranging from social contract down to ephemera, to use the Big Model's terminology.  If you don't like that terminology, let me say that it simply means that certain actions are not considered valid when performed by players (including GM) during play.  And a given system and game and group determines these even more sharply.  If you're playing a D&D-style fantasy game, a player cannot suddenly decide to invent laser-guns and aliens; this is outside the accepted range.

On the other hand, the free end, structures can always be manipulated strategically to produce more or less desired ends.  You may be constrained to dress in a limited range of ways at your job, but that limitation still allows considerable variance; this is why not everyone at a given workplace dresses identically.  To take a somewhat silly example, imagine that everyone is required to wear exactly the same uniform suit.  But who's to know if one of the men is wearing ladies' underwear?  That's a choice available to each man, and he need not necessarily make that explicit to others.  To be a little less silly, even if we all have to wear dark suits, I might wear a gray pinstripe and you might wear a blue fine herringbone, and I might wear a red tie and you might wear a blue one.  This is choice within constraint.  Even if you hold a gun to my head and say that I must wear a blue tie, I still have a choice: I can wear a blue tie or I can be shot.  That's choice, however tightly constrained.

Within RPG's, the point is that one can manipulate the structures of the game, its symbols and its history of discourse, to achieve desired ends.  That's why no two games are identical.

Frankly, while I realize that you are deliberately being provocative, I can't see what you think you are provoking.  You have proposed a notion of freedom that is, at base, dependent upon an unstated assumption:

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.

"Meant" by whom?  You seem to have some notion that there is a forceful and dominant intent that ought to control and constrain all activity within gaming.  What makes you think so?  To what do you refer?

As Bob has pointed out, this is why we tend to like precise terminology.  As in the thread about what you call "academic jabberwocky," it is you who are on the offensive here.  You need to convince us that there is something wrong with terminology and purpose, but you fail to define your terms.  That's either hypocritical or deeply confused.

[Rob Carriere]

Tomas,
You started this thread with a statement that you obviously care about.

What are its consequences to you as character player, as GM, as game designer, as game reviewer, as rpg theorist? How do you believe people should live by this word?

SR
--

[Tomas HVM]

Rob,

I'm a bit occupied at the moment, so I'll have to come back to you (and the others) later this week. I do appreciate your question though, and will try my best to answer it.

[Tomas HVM]

Tomas,
You started this thread with a statement that you obviously care about.

Yes. The reason I care so strongly about this aspect of the game, is that I see players worship "freedom", while they still play their juvenile games. Please understand that this is not a criticism of Forge members. I expect hem to create serious fun, even when indulging in a game of "good, old" hack n'slash.

I'm one for speaking out about the positive aspects of roleplaying games in social settings, arguing the importance of these games, the qualities inherent in these games and lacking in other artform, and the high quality of drama created in small amateur groups all over the world. I'm beyond the social stigma many people experience whit such openness about their hobby.

But, sorry to say; I'm also beyond the false jewelry adoring these games, most of it originating from myths of "freedom"; the "freedom of choice", the idea that "anything may happen in this game", and this strong statement: "the golden rule is that any rule may be changed". I do see the effect such statements has as sales arguments, but at the same time they have some effect on our ideas of what a roleplaying game is.

I'm not criticising players of roleplaying games. I'm criticising a way of bluff thinking about the games, a tendency to use idealistic phrases in our internal discourse on roleplaying games. I'm observing that juvenile thoughts of "freedom" is quite common amongst roleplayers. To a certain extent this kind of thinking stands in the way of a proper understanding. Some game designers has it blocking their ability to see the true potential of their games.

"Freedom" come in many disguises. This is one very captivating one, I dare say.

In the following I have taken the liberty of placing Robs questions apart, to answer them one by one.

What are its consequences to you as character player?

I*m more obliged to the game master than I used to be. I'm more interested in accepting the game environment, and investigating its effect on my character. In a campaign I'm prone to make relations to other people with my character, to bind him by responsibilities for the society he lives in. As a consequence my characters tend to become entangled in social drama when playing campaigns. I'm not saying "social drama" is the only true way of playing. I'm just describing the consequences in my play, as I experience it. The consequences may be others for other players. In single scnenarios I tend to ditch this way of playing, indulging myself in any horrendous act of "freedom"; hack n'slash, super-powers, skewed cynicism, pure evil, any kind of ridiculous behaviour. You may argue that I'm expressing my freedom to choose in these games, but certainly I'm not free within any one of them. I enjoy them the more because I accept the special limitations of each and every game I participate in. The freedom to choose a game to play, is not the freedom to play it any way you want. "System is naught", says many players. I say: they have never really played more than the one game they always play. There is no "freedom" in disregarding the limitations of method and setting.

What are its consequences to you as GM?

I care for feelings amongst the players about "ownership" of their characters, but this care express itself in the way I take ownership away from them. No character is the sole ownership of any one player. It is the sole vehicle of play for the player, and as such it should be used to transport them to any place where drama can sprout beautiful flowers. I am careful, but firm, in respect to how I deal with such notions in a player. If met with protestations I inform the player that true freedom is in giving up control, going with the flow of the drama.

I offer the player a kind of "freedom", yes, and indeed I believe that this is true. You may become "free" from yourself, your personal limitations, in a roleplaying game, but not while clinging to some ownership of your character that is really aimed at protecting it (you) from any influence not controlled by yourself. As a game master I tend to be careful, but firm in this respect. I do not budge, but I do like the player to understand the great possibilities laying in wait for him.

What are its consequences to you as game designer?

I try to make my games playable (I have been known to endulge myself in design of games with no playability too, as an experiment). It may seem a strange point to make, but it is really about not placing too much confidence in the methods of a traditional roleplaying game, these methods being a mesh of inadequate game design and players patching it up as they go. I try to give my games fully functioning methods; clear instruction on how  to play the game, coupled with the careful communication of what kind of drama the gameplay is meant to create.

This is too general a description, I know, but my attitude towards the potential and limitations of a specific game design, pertaining to genre, theme, method and focus, has great effect on how I design my games.

What are its consequences to you as game reviewer?

I'm working as a freelance game consultant for publishers (of ordinary books, mostly), and as a literary and game consultant in an artprogram for youths (inclucing roleplaying games).

As a consultant I tend to give sharp critic to any tendency of the gamesmith to lick up to popular notions of freedom. Statements like this: "You may do whatever you want", or this: "These rules are but a guidance. Feel free to change and skip them at will", meet with little understanding by me. It is alright within a game designed to do this, and with the tools to do it (like Universalis, I think), but it is void in an ordinary roleplaying game. A game should be designed to do what it does in a great way, and with rules that really are meant to be adhered to. Mostly I take such improper relativism as a sign of lax attitudes  on the part of the designer, being a cowardly or lazy designer, and I tell them so. "Get your act together", I tell them, "and decide what game you're going to make"!

What are its consequences to you as rpg theorist?

I like to make theories on a level understandable to most players, working to kill such phantasmagorical darlings as "total freedom" and the likes of it. Such puerile fantasies is a hindrance to play, to the play of my games!

How do you believe people should live by this word?

I do not believe in people living by any word. Please believe me when I say that the strong reactions to my writings is something I truly welcome. People should think for themselves, not accepting anything as gospel.

And people shold listen to the gospel; there's much wisdom in the gospel of older men, in the gospel of the church and the alternative movement, and the gospel of science. Thruth is to found in various sources, and it pertains to us in ways we may not tell. Do listen, and think for yourself.

:)

[Rob Carriere]

Tomas,
Thanks for the answer, and you're welcome to the liberty. :-)

I think it would help me digest your post if you could address two points,[list=1]
[*] (Testing my understanding here) Am I summarizing your position on freedom correctly when I say that you want games designed with specific goals for the mode and subject of play; that you want players stick to those goals and not claim that `if we happen to like it today' inserting space aliens into a Middle Earth game would be cool?
[*] (Clarification sought) You state that you see the character as the sole vehicle of play for the character players, yet they do not `own' their character. From your words, I think I see you arguing for the player being obliged to address the game in mode and subjet and not just wander off in some solipsistic dream. Is that correct? If so, is that the extent of your intention, or should I read more into this non-ownership?
[/list:o]

SR
--

[Tomas HVM]

[/b]Testing my understanding here) Am I summarizing your position on freedom correctly when I say that you want games designed with specific goals for the mode and subject of play; that you want players stick to those goals and not claim that `if we happen to like it today' inserting space aliens into a Middle Earth game would be cool?--

I want games designed with their particular purpose in mind, not with some wishy-washy "feel free"-labels not corresponding with their actual design goals.

Whatever the players choose to do with the games, are fine with me. I'm not one for killing the joy in combining Middle Earth with Paranoia, or something as crazy!

[/b]Clarification sought) You state that you see the character as the sole vehicle of play for the character players, yet they do not `own' their character. From your words, I think I see you arguing for the player being obliged to address the game in mode and subjet and not just wander off in some solipsistic dream. Is that correct? If so, is that the extent of your intention, or should I read more into this non-ownership?

The sole vehicle of play is made for the sake of argument, pertaining to the way the character is handled, not as a general attitude towards roleplaying games. I would not dream of speaking against the liberty of gamesmiths to make games where players get to influence the drama in new ways (player authorship, etc.). I'm talking about a general attitude towards the handling of character, by player and game master, making it possible to create more powerful and dynamic gameplay within the confines of a traditional roleplaying game.

I don't know if this clarifies it. Please ask more, if it's still unclear. I'm off to play with my favourite game group!

[simon_hibbs]

Note- I have read the discussion up to the present, so I have read Tomas' expansions on his thesis here.

Without limits the game is naught. "Free choice" is an illusion. Characters free from the machinations of the fictional world, are dead characters.

Limitation of action is not the same as limitation by consequence. Suppose I decide my character is willing to die in order to take a certain course of action? Clearly that course of action is still available as a 'free choice'.

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.

True, but these factors don't have to be rigid, inflexible barriers to action. Rather thay can establish a framework of plastic resistance and consequence that shape the drama and yet also adapt to it.


Simon Hibbs

[Valamir]

Hey Tomas,

Could I ask for some clarification on who you're targeting with this.

When you say:

I see players worship "freedom", while they still play their juvenile games.

Who do you mean?

"I see players..." is about as over generalized as "Some people say...", or "Leading experts claim..."  

Which players, which games, and which actual behaviors are you critiquing when you say:

a tendency to use idealistic phrases in our internal discourse on roleplaying games

I'm observing that juvenile thoughts of "freedom" is quite common amongst roleplayers.

Some game designers has it blocking their ability to see the true potential of their games.

Who are you observing?



Most of the comments in your last post to Rob, I think the majority of us here already agree with.

The freedom to choose a game to play, is not the freedom to play it any way you want. "System is naught", says many players. I say: they have never really played more than the one game they always play. There is no "freedom" in disregarding the limitations of method and setting.

"System Matters" is one of the oldest articles here.

No character is the sole ownership of any one player.

I would agree with this part anyway.  Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

It is the sole vehicle of play for the player,

This part I wouldn't agree with, but I think perhaps you don't mean exactly what is written here.  In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I try to give my games fully functioning methods; clear instruction on how  to play the game, coupled with the careful communication of what kind of drama the gameplay is meant to create.

Thats also one of my rallying cries, and is for most of us here, I think.

I know I'm trying to get this point across in my current project, Robots & Rapiers.

Statements like this: "You may do whatever you want", or this: "These rules are but a guidance. Feel free to change and skip them at will", meet with little understanding by me.

Those have long been held as being a cop out by many of us.

A game should be designed to do what it does in a great way, and with rules that really are meant to be adhered to. Mostly I take such improper relativism as a sign of lax attitudes  on the part of the designer, being a cowardly or lazy designer, and I tell them so. "Get your act together", I tell them, "and decide what game you're going to make"!

Another rallying cry around here, particularly in the Indie Design forum where Mike Holmes can frequently be seen fighting the good fight in that regard.



So, are we all on the same page here, or are their certain areas that require additional hashing out?

[Seth L. Blumberg]

We seem to be getting into a quote-box frenzy here, and it's making my eyes hurt. I'd like to remind everyone, before this thread gets any harder to read, that the usual Forge style is to keep quote boxes to a minimum. This isn't email--you can always scroll back up to see the messages to which people are replying.

[greyorm]

Ralph beat me to the punch. So..."what he said" -- pretty much everything Thomas has said would seem to have been long ago accepted by the Forge as fundamental points, and thus Thomas appears to be preaching to the choir.

There's something to be said for "saying it for yourself" but that seems not to be the main point of Thomas' posting. So, I'll ask the same question of Thomas as Ralph did, anything else you need to say, have you meant something else than we've gathered by your statements, or is this thread over?

[Rob Carriere]

Tomas,
As for your answer to my first question, fair enough. I allowed a poorly chosen example to stand when mr. Gates interrupted reality. From your answer it is clear that you meant what I thought you meant, so all is well anyhow. I believe that, as several others have already stated, you should find that you are among like-minded people here.

As to the second question, clearly I latched on to the wrong phrase with the `sole vehicle' thing, but this leaves me unsure of your exact intention. Are you speaking of Credibility or of emotional investment or something else entirely? Could you perhaps provide an concrete example of this handling of character?

SR
--

[Tomas HVM]

I wrote: No character is the sole ownership of any one player. And "Valamir" agreed to this.

Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

I'm not against immersion in character.  Labeling immersion as "selfish" is, in my eyes, a very misspelled way of understanding what I try to say. I'm all for using your character in play. Any use of character in interaction with the drama at hand, and the other characters, is fine with me (making an exception for disruptive play, of course). I will not support any theory set to give players bad conscience for using their characters. Immersion is a great way of being possessed by your character and the drama. And as far as I can tell; when immersed in your character, you are also immersed in the drama.

In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I don not agree with you at all. This is a severe misconception of the character/player relationship!

The point of the character being "the vehicle of play" for the player, is to be understood as the player identifying with the character during the course of play, and use this identification to imagine the drama from his characters point of view. The drama comes alive by this relationship! In my view this is one of the basics of roleplaying games, and one of it's greatest powers. I'm not on a quest to make all roleplaying games play like Universalis.

Sidenote: I have not played Universalis, so I must apologize if I've misunderstood it. I read in a review that Universalis function the way "Valamir" describes; with all characters being used by all players (correct me if I'm wrong). I expect this feature to be a weakness of the game, but I am ready to believe that it may have other benefits to it.

Basicly I'm on a quest to make my vision come alive as a dynamic and colorful fiction in the mind of each and every player engaged in my games. A strong character/player relationship is essential to this goal.

So please; understand that I'm arguing that players should not maintain any ideas of sole ownership over their character. At the same time I'm advocating a strong relationship between player and character. Bring these two together, and you get the character as "the sole vehicle of play" for the player.

[Valamir]

I think we're having a communications difficulty, because the impression you got from my words was not was I wanted to say at all.  So I'll try again.

I wrote: No character is the sole ownership of any one player. And "Valamir" agreed to this.

Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

I'm not against immersion in character.  Labeling immersion as "selfish" is, in my eyes, a very misspelled way of understanding what I try to say. I'm all for using your character in play. Any use of character in interaction with the drama at hand, and the other characters, is fine with me (making an exception for disruptive play, of course). I will not support any theory set to give players bad conscience for using their characters. Immersion is a great way of being possessed by your character and the drama. And as far as I can tell; when immersed in your character, you are also immersed in the drama.

I draw a distinction between Immersion and Deep Immersion, which is why I used "Deep Immersion" above.  I'm in no way shape or form against the idea of playing in character or of identifying with your character.  (Personally I think the word Immersion means...or should mean...substantially more than just simply being "in character")

What I am against is using this as an excuse to not engage with the other players at the table and to not recognize that much of their enjoyment is going to depend on their ability to engage with you and identify with your character.

I had thought this was what you meant by saying that no character is the sole ownership of one player.  That every player has a vested share of the interest in every character.

In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I don not agree with you at all. This is a severe misconception of the character/player relationship!

The point of the character being "the vehicle of play" for the player, is to be understood as the player identifying with the character during the course of play, and use this identification to imagine the drama from his characters point of view. The drama comes alive by this relationship! In my view this is one of the basics of roleplaying games, and one of it's greatest powers. I'm not on a quest to make all roleplaying games play like Universalis.

I'm not saying that at all.  

Consider you say "imagine the drama from his characters point of view".

Quite right.

But is not part of the fun of playing with other people (and not just daydreaming inside your own head) to also imagine the drama from my characters point of view also.  And to also imagine how I'm imagining the drama from your characters point of view.

You are not the only person at the table enjoying the performance of your character.  I'm also enjoying the drama of observing your character.  

You say that the character "should be used to transport them to any place where drama can sprout beautiful flowers"

However I say that observing you portray your character is helping to transport me to that same place.  And I expect that my portrayal of my character is helping transport you.

This is what I mean when I say that all players have a vested interest in all of the characters at the table.

If you are playing your character in such a way, that I can be a witness to the best parts of your play (because you're keeping the play mostly or completely internal to your self), than I consider that fundamentally selfish play.  You may be enjoying your portrayal of the character, but if you're keeping that portrayal internal rather than external where I can enjoy it as well, than you are robbing me of that enjoyment.  You are enjoying your character at the expense of my enjoyment of your character...hense, what I consider to be selfish play.

So please; understand that I'm arguing that players should not maintain any ideas of sole ownership over their character. At the same time I'm advocating a strong relationship between player and character. Bring these two together, and you get the character as "the sole vehicle of play" fo the player.

Your last statement does not follow logically from your first two, which may be a problem of language rather than concept.  Basically I agree fully with your first two statements but based on them, your last statement is impossible.

You are correct that I am not the sole owner of my character.  You are a partial owner of my character as well.  Just as you are not the sole owner of your character.  I am a partial owner of your character as well.  That doesn't mean I control your character or that you control mine.  I'm not advocating any sort of Universalis style of play here at all.  

Think of a character like a corporation.  You are the majority shareholder and thus have a controling interest in your character.  However, all of us at the table are also shareholders in your character.  When your character "does well" (by which I mean takes us to that garden with the flowers of drama) then we ALL benefit from it.

Thus my character is NOT the sole vehicle of play for me.  Your character serves as a vehicle for me as well, as does every other character in the game, as does mine to you.  I can be transported to that place with flowering genre as much by witnessing your play of your character as by playing my own character.  Hense, all characters are vehicles for all players.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm alerting everyone that I'm considering closing this thread. What will keep it open is this:

Make an effort to understand what the other person is saying. Ralph (Valamir), you're doing this. Tomas, it's not clear to me that you are, at all.

It should be understood by everyone here that reaching maximal mutual understanding is the top priority.

Best,
Ron