Players never have a "free choice"

[Silmenume]

I don't know if this helps or not, but here goes.

In most cases, with the exception of games where there is explicit corporate or communal ownership of characters, e.g., Universalis, individual players do have exclusive ownership of their characters (one to one mapping of player to character).  Even here though the GM does have some input on character.

Upon reflection I see that ownership is a troublesome word.  Unless I am mistaken, ownership in the context of this thread means operationally the exclusive rights to control the character.  Even the word "control" is too strong; perhaps the phrase "to express intent of action or thought" might be more accurate.  As was stated earlier in the thread we have freedom to choose how to act, not freedom to choose the consequences of our act or desires – IOW we can opt to try anything, within the confines of the Social Contract, but that does not mean such efforts will automatically come to fruition.

Hypothetically, given that we are playing a specific game where there is (virtually) exclusive one to one mapping of player to character, the player still has a duty and responsibility to all the players at the table.  While the character may be under the exclusive control of a specific player (ownership), that player has a duty and responsibility to play the character in a way that contributes constructively (in accordance to the strictures laid out in the social contract) to the shared imagined spaced (exploration).

So we have two issues here, one of which is really a red herring; ownership and responsibility to the Shared Imagined Space.  Neither Private nor Corporate "ownership" of a character does not guarantee that said character will be played in such a way as to contribute to the shared experience of all the players.  I agree with Valamir's, "all characters are vehicles for all players," it's just that we are not all drivers of the same vehicle.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Tomas HVM]

Upon reflection I see that ownership is a troublesome word.  ...  Even the word "control" is too strong; perhaps the phrase "to express intent of action or thought" might be more accurate.  

This is interesting. "Intent of action or thought" do not encompass emotions or automatic reactions. The field of emotions and reactions is exactly where I, as a game master, make my "infringement" upon character/player autonomy.

In roleplaying games, as in life, we enjoy some power of choice in how to respond to our surroundings. We even preplan the consequences of our actions, to a certain extent. We may divide our way of relating to the surrounding into "response" (the conscious machinations of the character, player-controlled) and "reaction" (the automatic part of it, controlled by game master).

As for desires; we all have them, and to a varying degree we choose to indulge in them or not. Some of us have no choice; we are ruled by our desires. On the psychosocial level we may divide the way our character functions into "desires" (the chosen goals of the characters, his ideals, and his conscious emotinal apparatus, mostly player-controlled) and "stress" (emotions created by social or mental pressure, mostly controlled by the game master).

I agree with Valamir's, "all characters are vehicles for all players," it's just that we are not all drivers of the same vehicle.

It's not just that. We are also looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character. They relate to us as the friends or companions of our character. our character is the vehicle for us, and no one else is in fact in on our ride. They're only feeding of our actions to create a ride of their own, corresponding with the ride we have in some respects. This parallell imaginary ride help to create what we call the "shared" imaginary space (we do not know to what extent we actually share the same fantasy).

[Valamir]

It's not just that. We are also looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character. They relate to us as the friends or companions of our character. our character is the vehicle for us, and no one else is in fact in on our ride. They're only feeding of our actions to create a ride of their own, corresponding with the ride we have in some respects. This parallell imaginary ride help to create what we call the "shared" imaginary space (we do not know to what extent we actually share the same fantasy).

I think you are missing the crucial role of players as audience to each other's play.

We are not just looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character, we are simultaneously looking at them through our own eyes as well, the eyes of the audience member.

In theater it has long been known that the purpose of the actors on stage is not to entertain themselves but to entertain the audience.  Throughout the years many many techniques have been developed that stretch the borders of character portrayal for purposes of fulfilling the primary goal of meeting the needs of the audience.

Take for example the venerable Soliloquy.  It is generally not "in character" for most people to talk to themselves in grammatically correct sentences in a loud projecting voice.  Yet this technique has long been used to allow the audience inside the characters head, because theatre acknowledges that its real purpose is not the accurate portrayal of character but the delivery of meaning, message, and entertainment to the audience.  Accurate portrayal of character is important only in so far as it fulfills those real goals.

It is not the actors job to just play the character.  It is the actors job to play the character in such a way to inform, enlighten, and entertain the audience.

In an RPG, all of the players around the table are simultaneously both fellow actors and audience.  Your obligation as a player is not just to your own character but to inform, enlighten, and entertain your fellow players.

our character is the vehicle for us, and no one else is in fact in on our ride

I find this statement to be fundamentally incorrect.  We are all very much in each others ride.

Because we are all both actors and audience, we are all both the drivers of our own vehicle and the passengers in everyone elses.

[BPetroff93]

Ralph, can I borrow this:

We are not just looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character, we are simultaneously looking at them through our own eyes as well, the eyes of the audience member....

Take for example the venerable Soliloquy. It is generally not "in character" for most people to talk to themselves in grammatically correct sentences in a loud projecting voice. Yet this technique has long been used to allow the audience inside the characters head, because theatre acknowledges that its real purpose is not the accurate portrayal of character but the delivery of meaning, message, and entertainment to the audience. Accurate portrayal of character is important only in so far as it fulfills those real goals.

It is not the actors job to just play the character. It is the actors job to play the character in such a way to inform, enlighten, and entertain the audience.

In an RPG, all of the players around the table are simultaneously both fellow actors and audience. Your obligation as a player is not just to your own character but to inform, enlighten, and entertain your fellow players

I want to use it as a pre-game handout.  

Also Tomas, do you consider your position essentially unchanged from your inital opinion of has any of the other arguments made any sense to you?

[Tomas HVM]

I am in fact talking about the players as some kind of "audience" when I state that they are "feeding of our actions". The other players observe me and my character, and make my actions into a part of their imaginative space. The links thus created between us, as players in the same game, are many and various, and strong enough to make it meaningful to talk about a "shared imaginary space". I prefer to say that this space is outside the true vehicle of play; our character.

As for arguments derived from theater, I find them weak in this instance; as there is an essential division between the player and the actor. The actor is mainly into mannerism; directed at the audience, with his own enjoyment of the play as a side-effect. The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect. If you shift this focus on part of the players, a lot of them will fail to live up to the demands placed upon them, and certainly a lot of them will stop enjoying the game altogether.

As for creative freedom, and non-realistic techniques, in relation to how you portrait certain events or atmospheres; it is part of roleplaying games in abundance. Look to how we resolve conflicts in most roleplaying games, or how we routinely communicate out of character, in order to relate essential parts of the drama.

I have tried to argue my initial position; players never have a free choice. I don't expect people to agree with me (at least not all of them, or all the time), or to be won over by my feeble attempts at convincing them. However; I honestly do hold this to be a valuable insight.

To accept it as a game designer is wise; you may do things with your designs othervise unthinkable. To accept it as a game master will open up a whole range of effective techniques to you, and some exciting themes to be played. To accept it as a player is beneficial to your understanding of the game, and the understanding of your character.

Try to read it like I do, and see what may come out of it...

[greyorm]

The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect. If you shift this focus on part of the players, a lot of them will fail to live up to the demands placed upon them, and certainly a lot of them will stop enjoying the game altogether.

Which assumes that the player is, in fact, mainly into immersionism, and not into entertaining the other players at the table as the main focus of his efforts.

Your following statement, about how shifting this focus will necessarily cause players to become "lazy" in some fashion, and there will be a loss of enjoyment seems to me to smack of a certain attitude of belief in there being a "correct" method to playing RPGs and an "incorrect" method of playing RPGs -- or perhaps, a "truer"/"purer" way and a "less pure" way.

Part of this indication comes from your decrying Universalis' lack of focus on one-one player-character identification as a "weakness," and your statements that character-centered immersion is this best way to go (ie: "essential").

I was hesitant to say anything before, but given the posts together, I'm confident that I see a pattern in your phrasings that idicate such being a foundational premise about gaming on your part.

It is your cautions and worries about other styles or methods that do not work the way you enjoy or prefer, or gamemastering techniques which open up traditional gamemaster's duties to the players, that worry me in this discussion. There's more than one mode that can be engaged in to achieve a highly successful, fully engaging game.

For example, I have no interest what you described as your mode of gaming, which seems very centered on you as gamemaster, according to your phrasing ("my vision" and "player engaged in my games"). As a player, I have no interest in "your vision" or engaging in "your game." However, if I am reading your statements incorrectly, feel free to clarify.

From the phrasing, it sounds as though you are advocating play which focuses on a GM-produced-and-centered story, with the players only functioning as cogs in the overall machine, to produce a work of fiction. That the player's goal in your games is to be the best character they can be...provide the most color and in-character behavior, followed to their logical and interesting conclusions. Is that right?

To me, role-playing as an activity is and can be far more than (to put it harshly) dicking around with acting -- that's just one way to play the game. And, by all means, if that's the style you prefer, great! But it isn't the "best" style, by any means.

Thus, I'm curious, can you not see Universalis' lack of player-to-character mapping as a strength of the game for the purposes of producing dramatic and colorful fiction?

From your statements about weaknesses in design, essential methods of play, and so forth it seems as though you failed take away one of GNS theory's main points: there are numerous ways to game, and no one way is superior to any other; only when considering your personal goals in play can any one way be better at achieving that goal than another.

Finally, your question at the end of your last post about the "freedom" issue. I admit I am still confused about what specifically you are getting at regarding what you term "freedom" -- I'm still convinced you are not saying anything different about boundaries than has not already been said many times by others on the Forge, something mentioned a couple times in this thread already.

What, specifically, has anyone here said about "freedom" or it's lack that you disagree with -- not merely semantically over the use of the word freedom and its connotations? Because you're talking about boundaries, they're talking about boundaries...what's the difference between the boundaries you're detailing and the ones others are detailing?

[M. J. Young]

It's a good night, Rev, as I seem to be agreeing with you quite a bit. I was thinking very much along the same lines as you when I read

The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect.

The word that came to my mind at this instant--and I'm surprised you didn't use it--was synechdoche.

Tomas, you seem to be fixed on describing one valid type of role playing and then claiming that because this is a valid type it must be the valid type, and anything that works against this kind of role play is a bad thing.

I almost responded to another thread tonight in which someone worried about players becoming too deeply immersed in their characters, and wanted to know how to prevent it. (I find his fears misplaced, but at that moment I decided to await comment from others before I responded.) There are people who think that immersion makes the game less enjoyable--Ralph Mazza and John Kim seem to be arguing that on another thread this week. To that I say sometimes it's fun to strongly identify with your character and sometimes it's fun to play him as a role in a drama without any real identification whatsoever and sometimes it's fun to use him as a cardboard cutout to run around the game world doing things that you want to see done that otherwise make no sense whatsoever from any perspective. Don't get hung up into thinking that immersion is the best thing, let alone the only thing. Accept that it's a good thing that most of us enjoy some of the time and some of us enjoy most of the time, but that there are a lot of other ways to play that are enjoyable.

I recall a thread from some years back in which it was discussed whether the characters in Jared Sorensen's Squeam game were protagonists. He popped on the thread long enough to say they were not protagonists; they were cannon fodder. That's a role playing game in which the fun of the game is getting this idiot who is your character killed. In an entirely different vein, Kill Puppies for Satan invites you to sit in judgment over your character, who is a disgusting pig whom you could never like, and discover whether you can really hate him. (Caveat: I have  not played either game, and am trying to express impressions I have from discussions about them.) Not all games work by immersion; some positively oppose it, and very effectively.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

I'd like to clarify: I'm not talking about one particular way of playing roleplaying games when comparing theatrical "mannerism" and roleplaying "immersionism". These were the words I found practical at the moment, to describe what I see as essential differences between theater and roleplaying games.

To put it another way: the actor has the audience as the main focus of his acting (using his manners to "impress" them in some way). The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play ("immersing" himself to a varying extent in the experience of it). I believe that "immersionism" is something all players are into, to a varying extent. To me it is another way of saying that we identify with our characters. Please understand that the use of "immersionism" in this context, in no way imply that I advocate one kind of play before another.

And I do not advocate the use of acting techniques in roleplaying games, quite the contrary. I stated that any shift in focus on the player part (leaving the focus on identifying with your character), would cause players to fail in the game. I might as well state that it would cause the game to fail (and it would certainly be a failing of the game). If forced into some actor-audience relationship, the players would be expected to use abilities they don't possess. It would not be due to some "lazyness", only lack of ability. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend. Most of us lack the ability to manipulate an audience in any conscious way, like an actor do. Please believe this; if the players are left to endulge in what they do best, and are supported in this, they will give their fellow players the best experience possible, them being the happenstance "audience" to their actions.

As for the distinction between different modes of play; I acknowledge it, but I do not feel compelled to choose one mode of play at the cost of another. I want my games to be fleeting experiences, changing seamlessly between different modes of play, according to the needs presented by the game, the genre, the particular scene, the characters, and the players.

People guessing on what style of play I prefer, are wrong in doing so. This is especially true for those trying to "conclude" that I'm into some GM-ruled player-manipulative non-interaction style of play. Please refrain from such guesswork! I've made my share of roleplaying games the last fiftheen years, five of them being published, and they vary a great deal in what designer goals they adhere to.

When I'm advocating techniques on how to influence characters to strenghten gameplay (at the cost of player autonomy), it has to do with me perceiving these techniques to be sorely misrepresented in roleplaying games of today. I sincerely believe that this is a weakness in many game groups, and that part of the remedy is to be found in more explicit design on the particular field of game methods. The strong player autonomy which is maintained in many roleplaying groups, is mainly due to some historical accidents, vague design on methods being one of them.

[pete_darby]

Tomas:

Please recognize, you are still presenting solipsistic immersion on the part of the player as an inevitable improvement on other forms of play.

While asking others not to interpret how you run your games from your own descriptions of them, I respectfully ask you not to tell me the following:

If forced into some actor-audience relationship, the players would be expected to use abilities they don't possess. It would not be due to some "lazyness", only lack of ability. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend. Most of us lack the ability to manipulate an audience in any conscious way, like an actor do.

I can only answer this with "your players, even yourself, maybe." Actually, I find that most of us have an ability to recognise what would be an enjoyable development in play for themselves, and possibly the other players. That ability gets reinforced as we recognise the preferences of ourselves and our fellow players.

And, as an amateur actor, I can say that this happens on the stage as well: even during one performance, your performance get nuanced by feedback telling you what the audience appreciate. Take that for whatever value you can get out of it.

Consider this: however much you may dislike it, all players around the table, are, by their presence, writer, actor and audience. To claim just one of these roles as the defining one, the important one for enjoying the game, is to deny the enjoyment that comes from the others.

Please, please recognise that a group consisting of players that define their enjoyment of a game purely in terms of their own gratification can only function as a socially cohesive group by happy accident. Please also consider that a group that acts towards the happiness of all the members of the group will, by definition, be a more socially cohesive, and in terms of even individual members' long term satisfaction, happier group.

Otherwise, why are they playing RPG's at all? Why not write a novel, or play a computer game, where you don't need to care one jot for anyone else's enjoyment?

But where I feel we're all getting hung up on is, once again, probably simply vocabulary. Where you're talking about "removal of freedom", I would talk about the dichotomy of definition of SiS and freedom of expression, and that the dichotomy is false. Meaningful freedom of expression in an RPG can only occur in a sufficiently defined, and therefore constrained, shared imaginary space.

And some of the most fun I've had in RPG's has been in settings where the freedom of PC's action is tightly curtailed (Paranoia, Pendragon, MLwM if I ever get to play it), while players are encouraged to go hog wild over freedom of expression within tightly defined limits.

But how this is getting tied to immersion is, I feel, somewhat spurious. Inconventional RPG's, it's often an unwritten assumption that the player-character is the only tool of exploration available to the player, that they are the lens through which all experience of the SiS must be passed.

Frankly, that's a load of rubbish. It's one way of playing, but one which closes the player to experiencing all sorts of modalities and subtleties of play. For example, it makes play of classic tragedy virtually impossible, or at least only enjoyable for the GM, not the player.

[Halzebier]

[R]ecognise that a group consisting of players that define their enjoyment of a game purely in terms of their own gratification can only function as a socially cohesive group by happy accident.

What about playing _Quake_ online? Most players do not care for the other players' enjoyment, yet within the framework provided by the game, they will consistently and predictably have fun together and even share a sense of community.

(Problems arise due to cheaters and people who seek vastly different goals such as aggravating as many people as possible - but by and large, the system works.)

Hence, a roleplaying game which consistently satisfies a group of entirely selfish players should be feasible.

(IF the framework is suitable and adhered to AND everyone shares roughly the same selfish goals. Kinda like a free market economy.)

Might not deep immersionist games fit the bill?
And should this really be labelled with a negative word such as 'selfish'?

Regards,

Hal

[BPetroff93]

I'll go out on a limb Hal and answer for myself as well as some of the other posters.  Nobody is arguing with Tomas that such type of play isn't possible or even entertaining, rather that it is not the only way to play.  Computer games, like Quake, are not the same as table top RPGs, and  1st ed AD&D is not Universalis.  Different artistic mediums require different techniques.  For example, deep Immersion is the only option in a computer game, you literally have no choice, that is not true in pen and paper RPG's.  We are arguing that more satisfying pen and paper RPG play may arise from other techniques.

[Tomas HVM]

I'm not arguing any "deep immersion" kind of play. I'm not an "immersionist". I'm not arguing one particular mode of play at all. Neither am I trying to insult any advocate of any mode of play.

I'm talking about what I perceive to be the basics of roleplaying games, and how the games may be played to it's best potentiality. Choices made by the players are central to roleplaying games, and I'm trying to convey the great benefits to be had if the ideal of "free choice" is chucked overboard. In my view players should be bound byt he characters they have chosen to play, and their characters should be bound by the cultural setting. Due to this every single choice made by the players in the game, on behalf of the characters, should be considered to be anything but free.

Although I talk about this in general, as if all games where the same, I know that this is not the case, so this idea of mine will have a varying degree of validity in different games. Still I choose to talk about it in general, as I experience the "freedom-paradigm" to be a general tendency within roleplaying games. Much can be said about it, but I am mainly concerned with the limitations it places upon the gameplay of many roleplayers, first and foremost these are limitations in their mindset when engaging in roleplaying games.

I believe that any choice to be had in a roleplaying game, should have some strings attached to it, and that such "limitations" in choice in fact present great possibilities for individual and exciting gameplay. I believe this to be the case in most successful roleplaying games of today. I believe that many gamesessions come short of their potential due to the restraining effects of some misconceptions of "freedom".

To give the players resistance in their desicion-making, through their characters, is one great way of involving them in the drama, deepening it for all parties, and making the intensity of interaction soar to the skies. As you experience resistance in the decision-making of the character, and you conquer the doubts in your character, you will discover that this interactive process is making it into more of a real choice, and worth while to make. That's the crux of my idea.

At the same time I don't have to do this every time I play, or in every game I make, or in every conflict. It is true to a varying degree in my own games, as I expect it to be in other games. although I place it before you very strongly, my position is that this is one great way of doing it. I believe most roleplayers, and certainly most designers, need to reflect upon this way of doing it, in order to broaden the scope of their games.

My experiences are mainly done within traditional fantasy roleplaying, by the use of a traditional resolution system, and with players of all ages and differing levels of "roleplaying expertice". I find that most players are in possession of two great abilities; the ability to play and to pretend. I have tried to support these abilities with all my might, both as a gamesmith and as a game master, to release any potential within the players at hand. I think all of you here may agree with me that the potential is great!

This discussion is about one way of releasing the potential. My premiss for initiating the discussion is not to preach this as the one way. It is not. My premiss is that the players of a roleplaying game need a broad array of techniques and tools to release their true potential within the game. So I'm talking of a kind of thinking commonly seen amongst roleplayers, which I perceive to be narrowing the array of techniques available.

Some of the participants here seem to be somewhat provoked by this. It is not intended as personal in any respect. It is not intended as provokation  or disparagement of any group of players. It is a statement based on my play and talks of roleplaying games, and it is solely placed before you with the intent of evoking thoughts on an important issue.

[Valamir]

Choices made by the players are central to roleplaying games, and I'm trying to convey the great benefits to be had if the ideal of "free choice" is chucked overboard.

Convey to who?

I asked this before in this thread and you never answered.  You are obviously on some personal mission to persuade the masses about this...but you're preaching to the choir here.

Show me one person in this thread who's disagreed with the idea that choices made by the players are central to roleplaying games?  Show me one person here whose argued against placing constraints on the players.

I mean we already hold games like My Life With Master, and Troll Babe in high esteem here.  Games where player choice is extremely curtailed relative to the "do anything" sort of game.

So I ask again...who are you trying to convince.  Everyone here already agrees with you.

I believe that any choice to be had in a roleplaying game, should have some strings attached to it, and that such "limitations" in choice in fact present great possibilities for individual and exciting gameplay. As you experience resistance in the decision-making of the character, and you overcome it's second thoughts and doubts, you will discover that this interactive process is making it into more of a real choice, and worth while to make. That's the crux of my idea.

Right, again.  No one is argueing this.

I find it very telling that the principle disagreements that have arisen on this thread is not with your central tenet that "limiting player choices is a productive thing".  Instead the disagreement comes from some of your choices of how you're phrasing your ideas (the whole ownership thing).

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Ralph,

maybe we could leave the discussion, and push on to talk about some related issues:

- different ways to make character choices worth while.
- how to make use of social tenets in character handling.
- what kind of techniques may be used, by the game master and/or the players, to strenghten the intensity of drama and interaction in a traditional roleplaying game.

[Eero Tuovinen]

(Obviously crossposted with Tomas; he's saying what I am with much fewer words.)

I'm finding this conversation surpassingly strange; it's like Tomas and others were using the same words but having different discussions. What makes it strange for me is that I've been in Tomas's discussion, I think. The issues, terminology and opinions all ring familiar. The context it's familiar from is the majority of Finnish roleplaying game depates I've participated in, especially with the more theoretical types. I've told you some times how the immersionist, GM-as-auteur school of thought dominates the field in Finland as far as theory goes? Well, this discussion right here Tomas is having is the very same one that tends to surface. Not the freedom thing (about which everyone agrees), but the one about players as tools of GM vision and stuff.

Tomas, are you sure that you are addressing the issues the other posters have lately raised? AfaI understand they have tried to ascertain whether you might have some underlying assumptions about the nature of roleplaying that make it hard to understand your position. You have written that you are emphatically not writing about a certain kind of game, but of all games in general. Despite this you didn't comment on the issues others had with your formulation in your last post, so it's left vague what you then consider the roleplaying you are talking about.

On the other hand, as has been repeatedly pointed out, if f.ex. Ralph's interpretation about your freedom-point is valid, then the discussion is already done. We all agree that games do limit player choice and what's more, they should. There are a multitude of reasons for conciderated limitations starting from the Vision of Interaction DoctorXero outlined a little while ago, goiing through all kinds of player auctoring questions and ending up with the thematic focus of a given game. Look at the IGC competition from last week, which captures Forge ethos in a particular way; many of those games go to great lenghts to produce different play experiences through limiting player options. As far as you aren't arguing some extreme of no choice at all as the highest pinnacle of play, there's nothing more to discuss if you wouldn't like to go forward and tell us how the principle of limiting freedom works in practice.

So, everyone; don't you find that this thread has run it's course? The general discussion about the nature of roleplaying with Tomas should maybe be in another thread, though I suggest someone gets Tomas to play some MLwM or something in the 'net before continuing. I've found here in Finland that it's most efficient to confront this discussion with presenting the proof for why someone might be needlessly limiting his conception of roleplaying. I've talked to exhaustion with people absolutely convinced that anything without a GM and player characters isn't a roleplaying game, only to find out that they've never even heard of Once Upon a Time. I'm not suggesting this about Tomas, but I'd like to be absolutely sure he realizes the stratum of experience people here are working from. The discussion simply doesn't concern itself with the same issues it does here in Finland (or in Norway, presumably), because nobody can keep to those particular preconseptions after playing the Pool or having twenty people tell himself that yes, indeed, there is other games than GM-auteur in town. The general strengths and weaknesses are so different that Tomas is arguing against imaginary disagreement; most likely any Finnish roleplayer can relate to his opinion simply because they see the connections about what the heck he's talking about, but until further deconstruction and care from Tomas it's hard for the others here to do so.

Then again, I might be mistaken in seeing what I see. If so, apologies.