Players never have a "free choice"

[BPetroff93]

I understand Tomas, I was attempting to explain to Hal in very broad strokes.  

No one is going to argue with you that to design a structure requires that there be limitations.  The limitations, in a sense, define the structure.  It is so obvious that we are looking deeper into your argument to discover if there is something we can actually hold a discussion about.  I understand that to be an underlying assumption, on your part, that the driving force behind coherent and functional play is the gamemaster.  And that proper role for a player is as an "actor" inside the gamemaster's world.  It is that assumption that is in contention.

If this is your assumption than the ensuing discussion is correct and unless you care to revise your opinion or entertain other views then we have come full circle and this thread can close.  

If this is not your underlying assumption, and your theory posses different implications, please state them more clearly so we can discuss.  

If you are not advocating anything by your "theory" other than to say that structure requires limitation than we all agree and can happily end this thread.  If this happens to be the case this thread is remarkably similar to a great many of your other threads where you take issue with a certain word do to it's implications.  I think the problem is one of context.  In english, as opposed to Japanese or French, there is no standardization of the language, therefore it is nessesary to define words by context.  We use words like Freedom as relative terms, not absolutes.

[Halzebier]

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.

I was not supporting Tomas' position, but merely contending Pete's specific point, which was worded as an absolute. My comment came out of left field, though, and I apologize for that - I was going off on a tangent, rather than contributing usefully to the topic at hand.

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.  

I think my analogy holds inasmuch as selfish behaviour on the part of all participants may result in satisfaction all around, and not just by accident.

I believe that such a set-up - whether for a first-person shooter or a roleplaying game - does not only have disadvantages (it sure does), but also unique advantages.

In the case of RPGs, a near-autistic style of play will (possibly on top of other measures) reduce OOC and metagame distractions. Whether this reduction is useful or even desirable to you or whether it outweights the drawbacks is a matter of taste.

Ralph, for instance, has made a good case that the drawbacks are rather severe.

But I guess this should be another thread, really. I'll be happy to contribute, but don't expect too much, as unfortunately I have very little time.

Regards,

Hal

[greyorm]

Thomas,

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.

Let's focus for a moment on a concrete example of our disagreements: you have this idea that players cannot (or should not) be actors to an audience of fellow players (because it "doesn't work well").

I don't believe you because some players will suck, suck, suck at the categories you put forth as the "attributes of all roleplayers." Left to do what they do best, they will entertain their fellow players foremost, rather than immerse or identify with their character. Not all players are good at playing their character, or want to -- some of them simply want to smash a sword against a dragon and get XPs (to use a D&D analogy) in pure Pawn stance.

I don't "believe you" because I've seen great games, games that work, where the point is openly made that the other individuals at the table are your audience as a player, and have mechanics that enforce this.

I don't believe you because if players, who are by no means a homogenous group in desires and abilities, are left to indulge in what they each do best individually, incoherence in mode can easily arise and dysfunction follow without everyone knowing what everyone else at the table is there for. Because "pretend" and "play" (again, whatever those actually mean) are not necessarily the things a given player is best at, or even desires in play.

ORX, for example, is simply all about winning. Get the most Loot. Period. Character identification? Nothing doing. It's a set of numbers and mechanics used to 1) win 2) make bad jokes about. It would be like identifying/immersing with the character in a platformer video game (ie: like Mario from Super Mario Bros). Now, that's not the only option I present for play in ORX, but it is the base mode.

The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play...
...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. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend...

Three blanket statements about players, play, and methods, all made authoritatively, all of them highly arguable.

It is these authoritative statements of belief that are causing the difficulty. For example, the first isn't necessarily a true interpretation of a roleplayer's goals; the last is a generalization that does not hold true across sample pools of individual players (not to mention the difficulties of what you mean by the term "play" and, to a lesser extend, "pretend").

Given statements like yours above, do you see why it appears your posts promote your style as the proper and truest method of play? It is things like that which are giving rise to the idea that you are talking about this "roleplaying activity" that happens "this way" and that "that" is "it," regardless that you do not mean it that way.

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!

When you make the sorts of strong statements about proper/successful play that you have, and when you use the phrases you have, guesses as to your style are not wrong, nor is anyone wrong in doing so. If you fail to make yourself clear, then you fail to make yourself clear.

Following from that, blanket denials are not responses; they're you saying, "No I'm not." And leaving it at that, which is utterly meaningless as a rebuttal. All we have to go on in these discussions is what we've said to one another; as you've chosen to deny rather than to correct, we still have no other actual data to derive a conclusion from.

You can accept the situation as one of "my phrasing was poor and I didn't get my meaning across to you" or you can complain "you just don't understand what I'm saying!" and avoid the issue completely.

I've noticed you have a habit of the latter, in dodging pertinent questions which might help clarify issues. There's a list of questions I've posed to you in this thread which remain unanswered, and which I hope were not deliberately/selectively ignored.

I note Ralph has also asked questions which have not been answered, and should be if we are all to understand what this thread is ultimately even about and why the subject was broached by you to us specifically, especially when it seems you aren't saying anything we fundamentally disagree with.

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.

This is an argument from authority. No matter how many games you've produced, nor what you say they do, neither has any bearing on this discussion because it lacks substance, actual statements -- design intents and supporting rules -- would need to be included for it to have real value. I'm not saying this to state I don't believe you, just pointing out that it's empty data.

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.

Again, do you understand that you are preaching to the choir when you make statements like this? That the Forge membership accepts these sorts of ideas as very basic to design goals and production of games?

If not, how have you missed it?
If so, why do you insist on repeating these statements as though someone here disagrees with them, when no one has?

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.

For example, it would be impossible for a Forge member to be provoked by the idea that a wide variety of tools and techniques is a bad thing! Or that narrowing the number of techniques employed in a specific game is a bad thing.

How you have missed the fact that everyone here agrees with you is beyond me, and it is THAT which is provoking participants such as myself, not your statements, because it seems, quite frankly, that you're plugging your ears and shouting, apparently in the mistaken belief that no one is listening or only responding with criticism, not hearing that everyone is saying, "Yeah, we're there, too. And?"

I mean, you are saying absolutely nothing new to anyone here. What's the point? Why do you keep pushing it when everyone already agrees with you, and has said so? Do you think you need to say it again so we'll agree with you more than we do already?

That is what is frustrating a number of the posters, not your premise about freedom, techniques or anything else.

[Tomas HVM]

No one is going to argue with you that to design a structure requires that there be limitations.  The limitations, in a sense, define the structure.  

This is obvious, yes, and modern design tend to take into consideration that there should be some guidance on method too, the process of organizing and propelling the game. The grade of guidance may vary, but modern design tend to make more explicit use of it than older games usually did. The reason being, I believe, that in order to make players behave differently in a roleplaying game, a designer will have to give guidance which "counters" the elements of traditional styles of play that are colliding with his intentions, to make his unique game function. I do not expect anyone to be in disagreement with me on this, so please don't imply that I do, merely on the grounds that I say it. It's not like everything you say has to be disagreed upon for it to be worth saying.

I understand that to be an underlying assumption, on your part, that the driving force behind coherent and functional play is the gamemaster.  And that proper role for a player is as an "actor" inside the gamemaster's world.  It is that assumption that is in contention.

I have stated rather strongly that I do not believe in the roleplayer as any kind of actor. Some playeers may be actors, yes, some players may have a talent for acting, yes, and some very few players like to entertain their fellow players without any talent whatsoever in that direction. However; most players are not actors, and would never dream of performing to an audience. If implied that this is in fact what they should be doing in a roleplaying game, I believe a great deal of them will shun the game.

However; to me there is a significant distance between pretending to be a character in a game, and acting as a character at the theater. There is also a significant distance between being an "audience" and being a "fellow player". I will not go further into these differences, but focus on what I consider to be the basics of roleplaying games; pretending and playing. To play and pretend is something all children do, and as adults we have not forgotten the skills attached to these activities. Without these skills we would be utterly helpless in a roleplaying game. Most people are in fact quite able to engage in a game of roleplaying, with a minimum of instructions, focusing on techniques of play, not on techniques of pretending.

As a designer I try to make the players of my game pretend to be someone else, and to play around with this idea, but I also try to make them do this in ways supporting the overall goals of the game. Currently I'm working on two games which I consider to be quite traditional in essence. It is within the traditional set up of a roleplaying game; with players and a game master, that I try to make affirmative guidance on a more flexible and focused style of play.

When engaging in a traditional game of roleplaying, players tend to focus on their character, and to produce internal images from their characters point of view. This may be named "pretending". As for the "play" part, that has all to do with how we relate to eachother when pretending, playing around with the idea that all of us is someone else, and testing eachothers character to this effect. I see no need to discuss this point. I believe this to be a phenomenon in all roleplaying games, even the most tongue-in-cheek and "superfluos" of them (ORX inclucded, as it is described here). I'm saying that RPGs are games of pretending and playing, and I believe that without the "pretend" part there is no roleplaying game. With that as my basic assumption I maintain that supporting the players ability to pretend, in one way or another, is a basic goal of all roleplaying games.

I hope this clarifies it.

[Silmenume]

I am late coming back to this thread, my apologies – I hope to instill a few insights.

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.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear in this matter, but do I think this to be relevant to this conversation.  By "intent" I mean that by virtue of this activity being a roleplaying game all actions or stated thoughts that enter into the SIS must be validated via a process that is here called the Lumpley Principle.  One may wish to lash out, in character, as an emotive response however just because one wishes do so does not automatically mean it will be validated into the SIS; hence "intent".  Our actions do not automatically become facts; they must first be mediated/negotiated.  By "action or thought" I meant all physical and mental processes, including emotions, as expressed.  This is on a character level.  While the player may feel many things, at this level of play we are referring to Character, the Exploration Process and the Shared Imagined Space.  Shared is the operative word.  This a Character/game process because a player's true emotions are not subject to outside control.

I am confused by you statement about infringement.  Do you mean you "infringe" upon the player's emotional state or the character's emotional state?  The reason I ask is that emotions are probably the most gut level and least controlled of all player actions.  There is a certain "honesty" to emotions and automatic reactions that seem to me the one thing you would like least to "infringe" upon. Do you mean to say "manipulate" as opposed to "infringe" which implies an over-riding of players emotions and automatic reactions with something that you prefer?

We now have a distinction here between the Shared Imagined Space/Character and the player.

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

Several notes on this.

You are correct that no one can truly know what any other particular player is experiencing.  You are also correct, by extension, that such an experience is a unique and nonduplicatable event.  That particular experience is that person's and that person's alone.  However, two things must be said.

First, while a player cannot literally share what they are experiencing (or have experienced) the experience can be expressed and shared with others to a greater or lesser degree.  The imperfection of the sharing process does not render it useless and thus does retain some value.  One can share personal experiences to the enjoyment, elucidation, and benefit of all.  Thus the idea that what an individual player experiences is theirs alone and is not worthwhile or profitable to share is moot.

Second, a personal experiential event or process while the backbone of our ability to create an artificial or synthetic reality, does not automatically mean we are motivated to the enrichment of this process to the exclusion of other people's experiential processes.  IOW just because we can only experience and feel inside our heads does not mean we are indifferent to other people's experiential processes and what goes on in their heads.  Empathy is an expression of that very interest in other persons' internal processes.

Finally why any given player engages in Exploration and expresses a Creative Agenda is unique to that individual.  To make a blanket statement that players are self-directed and regard the other players as merely an afterthought, if at all, is an egregious error.  Roleplay is a communal effort with a Shared Imagined Space – if the communal nature of the game and/or the Shared Imagined Space is to be held in tact then all players must regard all the other players or the game will suffer at best or fall apart at worst.

..."shared imaginary space". I prefer to say that this space is outside the true vehicle of play; our character.

It is impossible to disentangle the two, especially when actually playing.  The "shared imaginary space" is the terrain in which you drive your vehicle of play – your Character.  That Shared Imaginary Space helps to define your character – it is the Setting your Character is in and it is the Situation your Character is facing.  While Character typically is the principle means of addressing Situation (the vehicle of play), that act of addressing Situation cannot happen outside the Exploration process and the Shared Imagined Space.  While there is no there, there – there is a there, here in each and every player and great efforts are expended to make sure everyone is on the same page factually.  This is borne out by the Lumpley Principle.  You (your character) cannot attack the dragon unless everyone agrees that there is a dragon there.

The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play ("immersing" himself to a varying extent in the experience of it).

You make a mistake here by conflating process and interest/intent.  While a player can only experience what his faculties allow him to experience, and that experience can only be synthesized within his mind, from both internal and external sources/stimuli, it does not follow that his "focus of play" is on himself.  The internal process is the how, the focus of play is the what and why he is going through the process of imagining and attending to.  We need our eyes to "see" but it is what we are looking at that is what we are focusing on.

Regarding the idea of "freedom of choice," perhaps a better phrase might be that players have "freedom to choose," among the choices laid out before them and within the constraints of character.  That a decision has consequences still does not deny the player the opportunity/freedom to choose though the choices may be hard to make.  That a player has to choose between limited options does not denigrate the decision making process.  The railing against the idea of "freedom of choice" is something of a straw man as has been laid in this thread.  From what I have seen, there is this idea that "freedom of choice" means freedom from any and all constraints and consequences and that any moment any constraint or consequence is introduced freedom has been lost.  This is patently illogical simply because that have to choose means that one cannot have both and that one option is automatically being denied that individual.  That an individual must actually face a "choice" is to remove a freedom inherently.  Thus "freedom of choice" must either have always meant freedom to choose within set choices or have always been a logical conundrum from the beginning.  That there are consequences to a person's choice, and they may all not be to said person's liking or advantage does not deprive said person of the opportunity to choose.  Narrativist games and their Premises are prime examples of that process.  Players actually groove on those tough "choices".

Until all the above issues are cleared up I think it will be difficult to have a coherent conversation.  I am not even certain what you mean by "strengthen game play."  However, I think your concern with player autonomy is a bit misguided.  A player can be completely autonomous and still be totally committed to game and the events transpiring within.  By autonomous I mean free to choose as he sees fit within the parameters set forth within the setting, situation, and his character.  That a player chose to play under a specific set of circumstances means he chooses to face the situations and their limited options of his own autonomous will.  I think you would be better suited interesting the players via the elements of Exploration that they, of their own free will, submit to the situation with all its attendant limitations.

Some thoughts,

Aure Entaluva

[Tomas HVM]

Let's focus for a moment on a concrete example of our disagreements:
...
Three blanket statements about players, play, and methods, all made authoritatively, all of them highly arguable.
...
why do you insist on repeating these statements as though someone here disagrees with them, when no one has?
...
How you have missed the fact that everyone here agrees with you is beyond me,
...
I mean, you are saying absolutely nothing new to anyone here. What's the point? Why do you keep pushing it when everyone already agrees with you, and has said so?

I agree with the part of you which are stating that there is some disagreement here, and that I have made some statements which are arguable.

I will not engage in any further debate on my abilities, or lack of, to communicate my ideas. You will have to content yourself with my brave tries at communicating the ideas themselves.

[BPetroff93]

Hi Tomas, thank you for your response to my post.    I think your statement about more limitations, of whatever kind, being present in newer games as opposed to older games is interesting and would be a topic worth discussing.  However, the current topic seems to still escape my grasp.

I understand that you do not equate RPGers with stage or screen actors.  I was using the term actor metaphorically.  I apologise for any misunderstanding.  

While I agree with you that something does not have to be in contention to be worth saying, a contentionless conversation on one topic can only continue for so long.  This one has been interesting, however, unless we can discuss some underlying issue or implication of your philosophy it seems that it has reached it's natural conclusion.

What I intended to ask you, through my actor reference, is if the underlying assumption behind your theory is that the GM is the driving force behind the adventure in a manner SIMILAR to, but not identical to, a director and actors.  I am not trying to imply that acting and roleplaying are similar mediums, just that the heirarchy of authority, or story control, appears to be similar in your theory.

Is this correct?  If not, are there any implications to your theory for actual design, other than the fact that limitations of some kind must be built into the system?  If not, do you feel this conversation has fullfilled your original intent and can be closed?

[Tomas HVM]

Brendan:

apologies; I misread your metaphore. I must warn you though; the apparent similarity between theater and roleplaying games may fool people into believeing that a roleplayer and an actor are the same. Due to this the use of it as a metaphore has it's hasards.

As for my "philosophy", I am afraid that no logical and consistent work has been made of it, so it may not be termed a philosophy yet. It's my thoughts and experiences, and I would like to make some coherent work out of it. I am indeed collecting all my thoughts, as expressed here, in my games, and in other forums, with the intent of collecting them in one theoretical work on roleplaying games. Such a work is long overdue for me, but I have not had the time to compel it yet. Sorry.

I will have to come back to the posting of Aure Entaluva.

[greyorm]

Thomas,

The questions of mine you quoted were not directed towards your ability (or lack thereof) to debate, but to the point of this thread -- the reason you brought the topic up in the first place, to us, specifically. Something Ralph had also asked about.

I don't think anyone can judge whether or not the discussion has been of help to you unless we're clear on what, exactly, you were trying to get help with. Frankly, I'm content on letting this thread die and trying the subject again at a later time, though I admit that result is frustrating because it means this thread was ultimately a lot of wasted time for everyone.

[Tomas HVM]

By "action or thought" I meant all physical and mental processes, including emotions, as expressed.  This is on a character level.  While the player may feel many things, at this level of play we are referring to Character, the Exploration Process and the Shared Imagined Space.  Shared is the operative word.  This a Character/game process because a player's true emotions are not subject to outside control.

I misread you. But however much you meant to include emotions in your statement, they seldom are included in the actual roleplaying game. The techniques for introducing and handling them are not present. The "Lumpley principle" is not enough in the way it is usually applied: focussing on how to handle player intent on character action. However; if you realize that the principle may cover the gamemaster intent on character action too, and you make the game reflect this by opening a true avenue for gamemaster coauthorship of character, you have a principle that will function in regards to automatic reactions and emotions.

My point is simple: we are not in total control of our real character, so why should we be in total control of our fictional one?

You may state that games don't have to be realistic, and that is quite correct, but it is also besides the point.

I am confused by you statement about infringement.  Do you mean you "infringe" upon the player's emotional state or the character's emotional state?  The reason I ask is that emotions are probably the most gut level and least controlled of all player actions.  There is a certain "honesty" to emotions and automatic reactions that seem to me the one thing you would like least to "infringe" upon.

I'm sorry. I used the word "infringement" because this is what most roleplayers label it, when discussing such techniques. What I mean to say is that I, as a gamemaster, am feeding parts of character play in ways outside the norm, and often said to be inside the perceived autonomy of the character/player. However; this is all maintained in discussions on the issue. When confronted with it in play, most players accept it without question, and those questioning it are usually convinced by the simple statement: This is one way of feeding you stuff to play with. You're still the one expected to play with it.

The gamemaster may force reactions and emotions on the characters, and still leave the players to deal with these in a way they choose to be relevant for their character. Anyone may experience bouts of jealousy. The way we deal with these parts of our personality, is an essential way of defining us as individual men or women. By making players accept techniques to this effect, at times forcing the characters to have realistic and "unauthored" reactions, you have got yourself the beginning of an apparatus for making the game more realistic, deep or interesting.

The apparatus as such is not suited for any and all roleplaying games. I can't think of any one technique which are. The point is that roleplaying games as such lend themselves to this kind of play, and by that reason there should be some exploration of the possibilities within it.

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

First, while a player cannot literally share what they are experiencing (or have experienced) the experience can be expressed and shared with others to a greater or lesser degree.  

Yes. I totally agree with you. The main focus of the player is himself and his own enjoyment, and it should be. However; this is said to emphasize this point; the players are (and should always be considered to be) players, not actors. The point is not made to undermine the fine and creative relationship between players. I fully acknowledge this relationship, and it's importance in play.

In a roleplaying game we pretend to be someone else. Our engagement in the character goes to various dephts, depending on ourselves, our game environment, and the game itself. But to some extent the roleplaying game always include the "pretend"-part. this is what I meant by the players being into "immersion" (focussed on his own experience, and the character he pretends to be), and the actor being into "mannerism" (focussed on the experience of the audience, making them believe in the actions of the character). I admit that the distinction is fine, but nevertheless it is there, and it has quite important ramifications. Some of the ramifications are the ones that makes great players out of people that would be truly helpless as actors.

... the idea that what an individual player experiences is theirs alone and is not worthwhile or profitable to share is moot.

I totally agree with you. It is profitable and worthwhile to discuss the relationship between players, and the way they feed eachothers imagination in the game. It is however; not constructive to talk about an audience in roleplaying games. There is no actor -> audience relationship in the game. We may simile the game with an actor -> actor relationship, as it is in an improvisation, and there may be some drama-theories that has something to teach us all in this respect.

... just because we can only experience and feel inside our heads does not mean we are indifferent to other people's experiential processes and what goes on in their heads.  

Totally in agreement with you on this.

To make a blanket statement that players are self-directed and regard the other players as merely an afterthought, if at all, is an egregious error.

If I did so, I would stand ashamed. I have not. I maintain that players have their main focus on their own character. In no way have I implied that this is done, or should be done, to the exclusion of their empathy for other players and their characters. I have never said anything to the effect that players should not communicate, that they should stop participating in the game, or that they should immerse so deeply in the character that they stop contributing to the gameplay.

Players do have empathy. In a roleplaying game they communicate, participate and contribute. They all relate to eachother, while they all maintain a focus on their own character. It is a communal effort, as well as an individual one.

The internal process is the how, the focus of play is the what and why he is going through the process of imagining and attending to.  We need our eyes to "see" but it is what we are looking at that is what we are focusing on.

Maybe I should formulate my idea in another way, to make it clear: the player are focussed, by the roleplaying game, on the character. The character is the main entrance to the fictional world of the game, for the player. Through the character the fiction is brought to life.

It is also possible to argue that without the character, the game is without most of it's qualities on the personal level. But that is only a thought on the side of my arguments.

Regarding the idea of "freedom of choice," perhaps a better phrase might be that players have "freedom to choose," among the choices laid out before them and within the constraints of character.

Good thinking! This certainly reflects what I'm trying to say. But "freedom" as a word come with so many and strong implications, and is so commonly misused, that I try to refrain from it's use (or to battle it's misuse, as the case is here).[/quote]

[M. J. Young]

The character is the main entrance to the fictional world of the game, for the player. Through the character the fiction is brought to life.

Although I agree that "the character is the main entrance to the fictional world", in the context it appears that you are making more of this than I can accept.

I'm recalling a game many years ago in which "party structure" was somewhat amorphous. Early in play a non-player character had offered my character a job, and my character gathered the several other player characters together for the purpose of completing this job, in essence hiring them on clearly defined terms. When the job was over, everyone was paid as agreed, and there was some scheduled "down time" for training, reorganization, and similar things.

My character had gained the most experience from the venture; as party leader, he was frequently on point, and frequently the other players expected me to handle situations (I had been running games for most of a decade; they had been playing for a couple of years).

One of the other players decided that he would like to run an adventure. His character started contacting any other player characters who were not too busy to join him, outlined what he intended, and headed out to do it. I was present at the table, involved in other things; I had no character on that adventure and no official input into what they did there--but it was still very involving. I was audience in a very real way to that adventure.

In that game, it frequently happened that one or a few players would have their characters involved in something that held our interest even while the rest of us were involved in our own affairs, which also held the interest of everyone at the table.

E. R. Jones ran that game. I mention that now because multiple staging was one of the core concepts of Multiverser when he brought the concept to me, and this D&D variant game in which I'd played was a wonderful example of the technique. In Multiverser, I am frequently "on the sidelines" watching a fascinating adventure in which I have absolutely  no part at all beyond that of spectator. I have my own stories and adventures that are being created, and I'm enjoying them and relating to them through  my character; but the rest of the people at the table are probably relating to my stories as audience, just as I am relating to their stories as audience.

I think you exaggerate the degree to which we are limited to our characters' perspectives. The fiction is brought to life through the other participants as much as or more than through our own participation. To some degree, what the other players are doing is more interesting to me than what I am doing, because I don't surprise myself half as often as any one of them surprises me.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

First I'd like to say that I enjoyed this last posting by M.J.Young immensely. It is always good to see some fresh thoughts brought forward (fresh to me at least).

I do not deny that our roleplaying may have, and usually do have, qualities to be appreciated by fellow players. What you refer to is proof good enough for me, and my own experience support it.

However; it may be that your example is about a fellow player, not an "audience" as such. Your example describes a viewer who is still part of the game. As a player he may be said to share mindset with the rest of the players. It is possible that this mindset is a prerequisite for his appreciation of the game. It is also possible that prior knowledge of the characters in action, is essential to any shared enjoyment of the drama.

Would it be fair to say that the game you describes as "very involving", probably would be as dull to watch for a true outsider, and as involving, as a traditional roleplaying game usually are?

Do you (or others) have experiences contradicting such a dependency of a shared mindset? If not; do you think it is possible to create it in "true outsiders" to the game? What kind of techniques would it require? How would it influence gameplay? Could any such techniques (if such techniques exist) be used to market roleplaying games more effectively?

[M. J. Young]

Would it be fair to say that the game you describes as "very involving", probably would be as dull to watch for a true outsider, and as involving, as a traditional roleplaying game usually are?

I think this may be missing a point somewhere.

I very much enjoyed Blake's 7; I think, though, that the last season (I'm guessing on seasons; I have fifty-two episodes on tape, and there's a point at which Blake is no longer a main character, which seems to be the beginning of the final season) is fascinating mostly for those of us who have seen all the episodes preceding it. We know the characters, we know their histories, their motivations, their memories, their fears.

The last episode in particular is telling in this regard. Nothing about it makes sense except from the perspective of the psychology of these characters who have fifty-one stories behind them. In the end, it proves to be an incredibly powerful end. However, it would make no sense whatsoever to someone walking in on that episode.

I know that the television series Friends is very popular in this country, at least. I don't know enough about it to know who the characters are. I have from time to time stumbled on it, but I can't follow it because I don't know who anyone is.

So I think that in any medium in which a continuing story develops around continuing characters, there is this degree to which you need an "insiders" perspective to really appreciate it. Even comic books have the problem that it's difficult to pick up one and know what's happening at the same level that the insiders know it.

I also don't think that it's absolutely necessary to have that insider's perspective to appreciate what's happening with the other characters in a Multiverser game. I've had players move from one group to another, such that the other people at the table know nothing about their past play, and everyone becomes involved fairly quickly. You have the new player phenomenon as well--bringing in someone as a starting character, who in Multiverser will probably be entirely on his own, watching the other players in their adventures between those moments when he advances in his. This is not as much an issue of whether the players have an insider mindset, but whether the stories being created are interesting. If they are, they'll draw in spectators (they sometimes do so at convention and store demo games). If they aren't, they probably aren't all that interesting to the players involved, either, and it's time to move forward to things that are.

So I think that game play can draw in an audience of persons who understand the medium. That's an important point. Some people can't get into comic books because they seem to shallow. I myself have a difficult time with dance (particularly ballet, but numerous other forms)--I find it an opaque medium, which doesn't communicate anything to me at all in most cases. Mime fascinates some people, while others find it complete nonsense. I don't think it's at all surprising that people who play RPGs can be an RPG audience, and people unfamiliar with the medium don't get it. That happens in many art forms.

So players as audience is a valid concept, and non-participant audience is also a valid concept, provided they comprehend the nature of the medium.

--M. J. Young

[Walt Freitag]

In LARPs I encountered the phenomenon of players -- that is, people who signed up to play, made costumes, paid their travel expenses, read the rules, got into character -- who then proceeded to drift through the game, doing very little, regardless of the urgent agendas outlined on the character sheets.

People dissatisfied with their character roles, or confused by the game, perhaps? But no. For one thing, they kept coming back. For another, there were more of them over the course of successive games.

We realized, eventually, that they were spectating. And decided, after our initial surprise, why not? They were paying their way, they were contributing color and richness to play (like extras in a movie), they weren't complaining. Cool with us. (Perhaps, sometime in a previous century, a team playing a little-known esoteric game called "baseball" wondered, why would anyone bother to come to a game just to watch?) Unlike baseball fans, these participants would spectate using all the media of play itself: interacting in character with the other player-characters, using their individual character powers and privileges (such as membership in factions) when applicable, participating in rituals, and often acting as gophers and assistants to other player-characters.

Players of other LARP styles and MMORPG players report similar phenomena in their respective media.

You cannot draw a hard line between players and audience. You can (sometimes, as with the LARP participants I just described) identify individuals who are currently behaving as audience rather than playing, but you cannot fix any particular level of involvement with play as signifying that the participant is no longer audience. For instance, I've been reading this thread for many days. By any reasonable definition, I've been part of the audience for the thread. Now I've posted to the thread. Am I now no longer part of the audience? If not, then when did that happen -- when I started thinking about this post, or when I started writing it, or when I posted it, or have I somehow made myself not-audience retroractively back in time to the start of the discussion? None of those possibilities make any sense to me. It seems far more reasonable to say, I was and still am an audience member, and I am now additionally a participant.

- Walt

[Tomas HVM]

How a player participate, and at what level he engage himself in the gameplay, is not essential to this issue. He's still a player. I've had my fair share of players never taking any initiative. Whatever tricks I use to get them into active participation, they will maintain the seemingly inactive stanca, and still they come back to play my campaigns year after year. As an argument in this discussion, this goes to underline my point that the character, and it's life in the inner sanctum of our imagination, is the one true vehicle of play for the player.

I've run tabletop roleplaying game sessions with a non-participating audience (kind of five persons playing and fifty watching), and I've seen the audience enjoying the game at such sessions. So I do know that this may be done, and how it may be done good. However; I have only once seen non-participating viewers of a game enjoy it, when the game itself was not played to their amusement. At all other occasions I have seen viewers grow bored and leave, if they don't involve themselves in some out-of-game conversation with the players. They may be termed "audience", but it's a pretty bad show.

As a general issue of roleplaying games though, such audiences don't interest me. I prefer to focus my thoughts and creative powers on the five playing members of the game. These players are usually present through the whole game session, but they are not active all the time. Gameplay flow from one to another, from activating the whole group to activating an individual. In a traditional roleplaying game one or more players are routinely left inactive from time to time. My point is that even when inactive they are players, not audience. They will view the play of the others as a fellow player. As a fellow player you have special insights in the game, relations to the characters at play (thorugh your own character) and you are invested with an interest in the game, pertaining to elements that may be useful or important for your character.

To argue it in the same way you do: if a player who is not directly involved in a scene, should be considered audience, then a goalkeeper at the soccerfield should be considered audience too, whenever his side were attacking. Why don't he sit down? Looks silly standing there, pretending to be part of the game!

It is a part of playing the game to be left inactive at times.

To argue that players are audience at any stage in the game, have no great meaning to me, at least not in relation to a traditional roleplaying game. To me the term "audience" is used on spectators having no individual influence on the game. They are not expected to have a go at playing out any situation before or after the scene they view.

To maintain that true outsiders may enjoy the game, is of relevance to the game itself only if it's to be used in some kind of recruitment-scheme. We could of course discuss the ways of doing this, but it is far outside the field of this thread. And I'm afraid that I would have little to contribute with, being that it interest me a lot less now than it did before.