Players never have a "free choice"

[Valamir]

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.

Are you using some special meaning for "audience" Tomas?  Because this section makes little sense.

When a player is currently "active" as you say, are they not: speaking, gesticulating, portraying, using inflection, narrating, describing action (pick any combination)?  Of course the answer is yes.  They are performing.

Are the players who are not "active" (as well as the other players who are) not observing, viewing, hearing, absorbing, processing, appreciating, and being informed by this performance?  Of course again the answer is yes.

The word for people who are observing, viewing, hearing, absorbing, processing, appreciating, and being informed by a performance is "audience".

Ergo, ALL players around the table (save those not paying any attention to play) are simultaneously players and audience to the play of other players.

You obviously understand on a fundamental level that this sort of thing is going on, yet you for some reason insist on incorporating this process under one lump umbrella of "player".  Your reluctance to break down what being a "player" means into its component parts is seriously hindering your ability to understand what is actually going on around a gaming table.


The word "player" is a largely useless term.  Even when we know we are restricting ourselves to specifically talking about "role playing game player" there is a huge range of what this means and what that activity entails.  Lots of people are players, and lots of people have completely different ideas about what a player does, what they're supposed to do, and what rights / duties they have as a player.  Further, there is the traditional dichotomy of player / GM which clouds the issue, because all GMs are also simultaneously players, albiet players who've been given additional duties and priviliges by the others.

Hense use of the word "player" is of exceedingly limited value to describe the action and behavior that is really going on.  It is useful to denote "human being seated at the table with us" and very little beyond that.


In order to understand what goes on around the table, you have to break "player" down into its component parts.  These are (and this list is likely not exhaustive):

Actor: the player as he's actually portraying his character

Author: the player as he's actually making decisions for what his character does.

Director: the player as he's actually making decisions based on timing and presentation and manipulation of elements of the scene.

Gamer: the player as he interacts with the actual rules and mechanics of the game.

Opponent:  the player as he provides challenges and obstacles to and reacts to challenges and obstacles presented to him.

Witness:  the player as he collects processes and stores the input from the game to serve as a living record keeper of the events that occured.

Set Designer:  the player as he uses narration to describe elements of the scenery and environment, and provides flavor and color not strictly within the scope of his character.

Costume Designer:  the player as he uses narration to describe the physical appearance, look and style of his character.

Editor:  the player as he initiates, participates in, follows or appreciates techniques of scene framing that do not show every single detail of every single action but instead skip from action point to action point.

Foley Artist:  The player who provides sound effects around the table, possibly including some mechanical device, but usually limited to mouthing different ambient noices such as clashing swords, kung fu punches, creaking doors, gunshots, etc.

Kibbitzers:  the player who provides out of character commentery and advice to other players at the table even when his character isn't even in the scene.

AND

Audience:  The player as he observes and appreciates players at the table doing any of these things, including when he is simultaneously engaged in doing any of these things himself.  Note this also means: yes, you can be (and in fact always are) an audience to yourself.



A player is ALL of the these things (and likely a few more I left out) at different times during the game.  Each of these are dials that can be set from low to high, and different game styles and different personal play styles will set those dials in different combinations of settings.  In some games Author and Director and Set Designer will be set low, while Actor is set high.  In other games, it will be a different combination.

But Audience is ALWAYS set to a non zero value unless the player has actively tuned the game out to read a book or watch TV or talk on a cell phone or some other distraction.

When Audience is set low, it means the players are not interested in what is going on it the game.  They are not engaged in the actions and performance of their fellow players and are mainly just marking time until its their turn to act and perform again.

When Audience is set high, it means the players are actively engaged in everything that is going on in the game.  Even if their characters are not even present in the scene they are still fully paying attention and appreciating the play of others.  

Often one of the easiest ways of cranking up the audience engagement level in your game is to allow Kibbitzing at the table so that all players can participate.  Well done kibbitzing can not only be an asset to play, but demonstrates that the player is actually interested in aspects of the game not directly related to himself. (Which I offer as an example on how these dials are all interrelated)


Hopefully at this point you can see how much more useful it is to discussions like this to realize that "player" as a term is a collection of things, and to really understand what is going on around the table, you have to examine the various components of that collection.

One of those components is indeed irrefutably "the player as audience".

[pete_darby]

And there's still that funny sense going around that any sort of audience is passive in relation to the performers. Perhaps we've got too "civilized recently," but certainly performers still play to the audience, and the audience responds, and the performer reciprocates.

Think less in terms of a well-behaved theatre audience at a "serious" play... think about a music hall crowd, or a British pantomime audience, or an audience in a lively jazz club, or a stand-up clubs audience, or the crowds that faced Shakespeare's first performances even, with William in the wings working out how to make that scene scarier, or that scene funnier...

Now fold that sort of audience back into the group that is also the perfomers... that's what we're on about, not a passive, dispassionate group of observers, but a group of people who, even when not involved directly in the creation of a scene are intimately invested in the development of it.

Ralph missed a great opportunity to bring in the mechanics of Universalis (perhaps out of misplaced modesty): Universalis allows great investment in scenes where you are not controlling any of the characters, because you can affect any scene at a moments notice if you wish. It invites investment of interest by all players at all times, while working from an assumption that the character is not the primary or sole lens of experience of the shared imgainary space for the player.

[Tomas HVM]

Are you using some special meaning for "audience" Tomas?
...
Hopefully at this point you can see how much more useful it is to discussions like this to realize that "player" as a term is a collection of things, and to really understand what is going on around the table, you have to examine the various components of that collection.

One of those components is indeed irrefutably "the player as audience".

I do conceive the term "player" to be a complex one. As you dissect it, however, I'm not sure you gain any extra insight in what a player is. Nothing of what you tell me in your list of what a player is, is new to me. I'll have to say that your dissection of the term may be useful as a way of clearing my/your thoughts on the term, but not as some framework for discussing it. That's my position, and will be, so we'll just leave it at that (me being an old bugger and all...).

No, I'm not using some special meaning for "audience". I'm arguing that the context related to audience differs from the context of the player, to the degree that players can not be considered "audience", even when not contributing actively to the game. I'm making the same point about "actors" and "players".

I do know mine is a subtle point to make. I know it may be construed as juggling with words for a lot of you, but sincerely; I have a point to make which I find essential, in all it's vagueness. So please read the following "clarification" very carefully:

- The player has a mindset closely linked with his participation in a game. His mindset differs from that of a spectator.

- The player indulge in the game for the benefit of himself and his cronies, all of them being active participants in the drama, each and every one of them influencing it, or with the oportunity to influence it. Their level of participation may vary, but they are all players. They do not play for the sake of others.

- The spectator has a mindset closely linked with his observance of a performance. His mindset differs from that of a player, and from that of the performers.

- A spectator takes active part in his own observation of the performance, but he does not influence the flow of drama. He may be activated by performers, or by their performance. He may even be called to the scene as anindividual volunteer, or find himself part of an indicated crowd within the drama, but he does not share the mindset of the performer.

- The performer has a mindset closely linked with his communication of a drama. His mindset differs from that of a spectator.

- The performer indulge in his performance to the benefit of both himself, his co-performers and some spectators. His abilities may vary, but as he enters the stage (or wathever) he is a performer. He is actively participating in the communication of the chosen drama to the public. Although he use his stage character to communicate his part in the drama, his mindset is not the same as that of a roleplayer.

- The differences in context, in spite of many similarities, makes for differences in focus/mindset/stanza. The shift in focus makes for subtle differences in how similar tools are applied. The character play of an actor is not the same as the character play of a player.

The differences, however, are of a general nature. In certain scenes or situations the similarities may override the differences, to the point where a roleplaying game make use of techniques belonging to the theatre, and the theatre making use of gaming-techniques. Still; when applying roleplaying games as an art, or discussing them, these differences are essential. It is of no use to apply the understanding of the theatre (or film, or storytelling) to the roleplaying game. The roleplaying game has it's own particular premises, and can not be understood without considering them.


I am not able to give my point any clearer wording than this. Hopefully you will be able to patch it together, and find what I'm trying to communicate.

[contracycle]

Well we're in 'agree to disagree' territory then.  Your statement that

- A spectator takes active part in his own observation of the performance, but he does not influence the flow of drama. He may be activated by performers, or by their performance. He may even be called to the scene as anindividual volunteer, or find himself part of an indicated crowd within the drama, but he does not share the mindset of the performer.

... seems to me be a perfect description of a non-spotlight player observing the activity of a spotlight player.  The use of Audience describes this perfectly satisfactorily, AFAIAC.

[Silmenume]

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: focusing 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?

There are a couple of ideas that need to be disentangled.  By the way, I am with you on the whole GM coauthorship of Character thingy, but I'll get to that later.

I am not certain if you are up to speed on the Lumpley Principle or not.  On the odd chance that you aren't let me clarify.  As roleplay is a fictional venture that transpires in our heads, there is a need to determine who's statements are validated into the shared imagined space.  Ultimately this boils down to all the players, including the GM, being both subject to and negotiating on these statements for the purpose of apportioning credibility to the or among the various competing statements.  IOW, who's statement makes it into the SIS.  In most games this function appears to belong to the GM alone, but that is not the case.  If the GM makes a bad call, abuses his authority or what not the players can and sometimes will contest, override, or vacate the GM's call.  The written rules may allow for this or not, but that is irrelevant as the players must all ascent to any decision before it enters into play in the SIS.  Any statement must reach consensus among all individuals or the game will grind to a halt until consensus is reestablished.  The reason you don't see it is that most players (which includes the GM) ratify most statements by silent consent – they don't contest.  Some of these ratification duties can be fobbed off onto formalized system - combat rolls, skills rolls, etc.  

As such, the Lumpley Principle is a descriptor, it describes how people do something, it does not tell people how to something.  In regards to your statement "...that the principle may cover the gamemaster intent on Character action too...", of course it does!  It's all covered in the negotiation process of the LP.  Any statement that is headed for the SIS is subject to negotiation, which means the GM can get in there and do what he thinks is fit, which is also subject to negotiation and ratification.  However, that the GM is allowed to muck around with the Characters in such a way is something that needs to be established in the Social Contract before play.  Thus the problem of GM coauthorship of Character is not so much a problem of design as it is a matter of Social Contract.  Is this technique something that players are interested in?

...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...
...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 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 think you already covered how to do it.  The problem is not so much the apparatus as the expectations of the players, which is handled in the Social Contract level of the game.  I play in a game that sounds like it does the exact same thing that you do.  Emotions do sometimes come in from the GM and we are expected to "play with it."  And it does add dimension and all sorts of roleplay possibilities for the Character as well as experiential events for the player.  Are you asking or suggested that there needs or should be some sort of formalized system technique for this process or are you simply bringing up the point that the interjection of emotions and "automatic reactions" into a Character by a GM ought be used more frequently as a game play/story telling tool?

The main focus of the player is himself and his own enjoyment, and it should be.

I believe that this statement is troubling for several reasons.  First, if a player's main focus is himself what would then motivate said player to share any screen time at all and not dominate the game utterly?  Or if said player, focusing on his own enjoyment, enjoyed wrecking other players' enjoyment why is that the way "it should be."  While I understand that you did not say this directly, the implications of your assertion can very easily lead to this Situation.  Roleplay, with its Shared Imagined Space, is a communal effort, and must be so to function, so why should it be that the main focus of the player be upon himself?  What are you really trying to say?  It is understood that we all do recreational things because we, as individuals, reap enjoyment from that activity, but why is it so that it should be that the satisfaction of the self be preeminent?  Sure the feelings of enjoyment are felt/registered within, but it does not follow that we must narcissistically pursue ourselves and our self-satisfying agendas to maximize our internal feelings of enjoyment.

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.

As M. J. Young has pointed out, our entrance into the game is not necessarily via Character only, nor is the fiction brought to life via Character only.  However, as Simulationists, it is true that our primary means of addressing Situation is through Character.  I'll agree with you this much, that in addressing Situation we do become much more absorbed into the fictional world and that said fiction is brought to a much more engaging and vibrant life.  Note however, that only in the Simulationist Creative Agenda is Character prioritized or "focused" upon in the manner in which you speak.  Gamists focus or prioritize on Challenge and Narrativists focus or prioritize on Premise.  In other words Character is to Simulationism as Challenge is to Gamism and Premise is to Narrativism.  So be careful to qualify your sweeping generalizations such as when you assert, "players are focused, by the roleplaying game, on the Character."  This does not mean that players in non Sim CA's can't or don't focus on or enjoy Character, but rather there is another priority that supersedes that focus.

Regarding your ideas about audience –

The distinctions you make between the player, the spectator, and the performer are rather superfluous regarding roleplay.  The idea you put forth about the "mindset" of each category is unsupportable by observation.  How do you know that someone who is "spectating" does not actually wish and desire to affect the drama, but is kept from doing so due to some constraining force?  Just because one cannot affect the flow of the drama does not mean that an individual does not wish to so.  This type of circumstance would clearly put said individual into the same mindset as that of the player; and while an actor cannot address Situation like we do in Roleplay, acting performance is a subset of the process of roleplay of Character.  Even within the restrictions of sticking to a script, an actor is still creating and is not just aping words on a page as part of his performance efforts.  It is said (William James late 1800's) that emotions are simply a readout of the body's physiological state.  That being the case, an effective actor must create certain emotional states within himself to physically portray his performance.  How he gets there is a creative act all his own, but it is certainly something more than just mannerisms.

Your descriptions of the various categories conflate the ideas of ability to affect the flow of drama and the desire to affect the flow of drama.  As one cannot ascertain what is going on in someone's head directly, but can only do so via observation, it is neither worthwhile nor effective to discuss or categorize by desire.  Even if your categorizations and their definitions were solid, it is impossible to know the internal states of people.  One could never effectively apply these category labels in the real world as you define them.  So even if someone were observed to be a passive observer, it would be impossible to tell if someone were just acting the role of the audience, a player who by some constraining circumstance couldn't take action, or that said individual had opportunity to change the flow of the drama, but chose not that path.  All the same observationally and operationally.

So what is your real issue then?  Are you worried about players not participating?  Certainly the idea that at certain points in a game a player may be quite content to be an audience to someone else's unfolding drama can't be at issue.  In fact, it is, to me, vitally important that players do don the role of good audience members when the camera is not on them and thus support the actions and acting of the players for whom the camera is currently fixed.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Tomas HVM]

I am not certain if you are up to speed on the Lumpley Principle or not.  ... Any statement that is headed for the SIS is subject to negotiation, ... Thus the problem of GM coauthorship of Character is not so much a problem of design as it is a matter of Social Contract.  

Seems like I'm not up to date on the Lumpley principle. I've argued on the basis of a misunderstanding of it. Thanks for informing me on it. Up to date now.

So my argument don't relate to the Lumpley principle. It is solely concerned with the historical accident that characters are regarded some sort of autonomous domain of the player, in the game. The character may not be subject to certain kinds of interaction, according to tradition.

The behaviour in mind spring forth from social tradition, and is more often than not "taken for granted", in the meaning that players smoke it out to be some possible way of seeing the game, and jump at it as long as the issue is not handled by the game design. It is certainly a question of design if you're ambition is a game where such attitudes are contrary to your design goals.

The problem is not so much the apparatus as the expectations of the players, which is handled in the Social Contract level of the game.  

Expectations of players, when picking up a new game, is often formed by the content of the game. If you communicate your vision in a good way, it will exite the players, and they will "accept the quest".

You may call the endgoal of this negotiation an accepted "social contract". However; techniques or modes of play on the fringes of tradition, are often met with arguments like: "this violates the social contract", showing that the frequent use of "social contract" and the attitudes commonly connected with it, makes it a problematic term. It is necessary to underline the importance of renegotiating this "contract" for each and every game, and the need for spontaneus negotiations of it during play. It is also necessary to see that not every decision on this level of play is in the hands of the players; with some games the players have to accept other venues of play than the ones they have grown used to, in order to play that specific game at all.

Are you asking or suggested that there needs or should be some sort of formalized system technique for this process or are you simply bringing up the point that the interjection of emotions and "automatic reactions" into a Character by a GM ought be used more frequently as a game play/story telling tool?

Your question is strange... if I were to expect a gamemaster to use emotions/automatic reactions more, I would certainly give him the techniques and tools to do so. I've developed some techniques and tools to do so myself, and have related these techniques to gamemasters in the design of several games, by open lectures for gamemasters, and through tournament-instructions for gamemasters at game conventions.

I do suggest that this is a valid, viable and valuable technique to use in roleplaying games. How it is used by other designers, or not, must be up to them. I can only argue the benefits to be had in using it.

I wrote: The main focus of the player is himself and his own enjoyment, and it should be.

I believe that this statement is troubling for several reasons.  First, if a player's main focus is himself what would then motivate said player to share any screen time at all and not dominate the game utterly?

He will get evicted by the other players. An ordinary player would not enjoy being evicted from the game. He'll be cut off from the inspiration of other players, and their actions in the game. This makes most players motivated to make room for other players.

Or if said player, focusing on his own enjoyment, enjoyed wrecking other players' enjoyment why is that the way "it should be."

If said player, focusing in any way you could think of, were wrecking the enjoyment of the game; the enjoyment would soon cease. Your example is one of extreeme social behaviour, and not very interesting to argue.

Roleplay, with its Shared Imagined Space, is a communal effort, and must be so to function, so why should it be that the main focus of the player be upon himself?

Roleplay is a communal effort, yes, but it is ROLEplay. Whatever you say, the players use of a role, and commonly his creation of it, will be at the core of this activity. The players focus on their own character is not a simulationist trait, it is a trait central to all gameplay. The focus is not to the exclusion of all other considerations.

why is it so that it should be that the satisfaction of the self be preeminent?

It is sound to place your own enjoyment first. If you don't enjoy the game, you will find little comfort in others enjoying it. I'm not arguing egotistical or narcissistical behaviour. I believe I'm tracking an elusive, but inherent, ability of roleplaying games; to focus each and every player on his own enjoyment, through the use of the character as his vehicle in play. I believe this focus is true for all roleplayers, whatever level of immersion or simulationism they are at. And I hold it to be a very sound approach.

...
Regarding your ideas about audience –

The distinctions you make between the player, the spectator, and the performer are rather superfluous regarding roleplay.

I'm sorry to hear you say that. I'll rest my case.

As for my real issue;
- Players are bound by their characters.
- They are bound by the setting.
- The genre is binding them.
- Players are bound by method.
- The very interactive nature of roleplaying games is binding them.

By realising this as a player, as a gamemaster and as a designer you will release great creative powers. As you realise this your ability to use these powers will also sharpen, to the benefit of all players.

So players never have a free choice, and never should they ask for one; it is too limiting!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Unless I'm mis-reading, Tomas, what you've just written is synonymous with my points:

1. Exploration is composed of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. Creative Agenda concerns the aesthetic standards for this activity.

2. System Does Matter in realizing Creative Agenda, individually and in terms of the group.

Can anyone explain whether I'm misunderstanding? And if I'm understanding correctly, could everyone reflect on why it took five pages to arrive at a simple identity of conclusions?

Best,
Ron

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Ron!

The discussion in itself has been thoroughly knocked about already. So I hope your post is an effort of constructive participation.

I'm quite comfortable with five pages of discussion. The discussion has it's own value in my eyes. It has dealt with issues related to the first statement made by me. To me this discussion has been both complex and challenging. I do not perceive it to be "simple" in any way. I do not perceive any of it to be "synonymous" with the list of elements in your post.

I propose for you to explain it yourself; how you think the issue at hand interact with your set of terms, and in what way those terms affect the thinking on "player freedom".

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Tomas,

I've got two questions for you.

1) Are you saying that players can't decide to do any damned thing at the table because their creative choices are bound by:

- characters.
- setting.
- genre
- method
- and the interactive nature of roleplaying games

2) Thus, you're defining "freedom" as the choice of behaviors that would ignore one or more of the boundries listed above.

Thanks,

Christopher

[Tomas HVM]

As all players are "bound" by lots of things (or limited in choice), it is obvious that they still may do a lot of things, decide for themselves what course of action to take, behave within scenes in various ways.

Many players believe the character should be "free" of social boundaries. Many are convinced that for a game to be amusing, it has to be played out with a group of characters totally "free" from human emotions. I do sympathize with the urge to do so in a juvenile player, and hold it to be escapism of the best kind. As such I have catered for it both in design and in gamemastering. But in adult players, or as something close to a philosophy of roleplaying games, it is abhorrant. As a visible attitude within the roleplaying community, and in the games, it makes roleplaying games less interesting to engage in for ordinary, adult people. It also lends weight to any claims of "roleplaying games being escapism". It certainly is, for a lot of people.

I'm not "defining" freedom as such. I'm trying to adress some misuse of the concept.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Tomas,

Thanks for the reply.

Like you, I agree that the best creative work is contained with bounds and limits.  

I said as much back on page one of this thread when I wrote, "As it stands, I know you think limits are good for the creative act -- which is all well and good."

I don't think anyone here would argue with this point of view.  And like Ron, I'm amazed you've somehow jiggled this conversation enough to keep people going this long.

Your saying playing without boundries is immature.  I would say useless.  It's like playing tennis without a net.

Despite my requests for you to define "freedom," you have refused -- even though it is the point of your arguement.  But your last post in reply to my questions, it seems to boil down to this:

"The ability of any player to decide -- against the face of previously established rules of character, setting,  characters, method, and the interactive nature of roleplaying games -- to do anything they want willy-nilly."  

Because it's clear from the answer you just gave me (players have "limited choice"), that they do have freeom.  Limited freedom, but indeed free within the bounds.

So they do have "free choice."

So the title of the thread should have been, "Players Don't Have Absolute Freedom."  Becuase that's what you're saying.

Okay.

And...  So what?  

Is this really news?

To anyone?

I mean, apparently it's news to Tomas, who I can only assume has been pelted with players all these years who actually expect Absolute Freedom in a game.  But anyone else?  Certainly he hasn't read anything on these boards that would suggest people expect that around here.

If this is the case, then I'm glad Tomas got to talk through this thread and find that everyone already agrees with him.

Right?

Christopher

[Tomas HVM]

Christopher,

I've raised a debate, and I have responded in earnest to those questioning my statements. Your sarcasm and rethorical constructions are neither justified, nor very pleasant. If the debate don't interest you, or if you are unable to participate in a civilized manner, please leave it.

As it is, your arguments are mixed with elements that are way out of bounds.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I've raised a debate, and I have responded in earnest to those questioning my statements. Your sarcasm and rethorical constructions are neither justified, nor very pleasant. If the debate don't interest you, or if you are unable to participate in a civilized manner, please leave it.

As it is, your arguments are mixed with elements that are way out of bounds.

On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with Christopher's questions and statements. Do you understand that what he's saying was first implicated on page one of this thread, and on page two the question was clearly stated. Have you anything else to say apart from the fact that limitations generate art?

This thread has been going on far too long, and I for one haven't frankly seen any progress. If you read the thread so far, most of it doesn't even concern itself with your opening statement, but with some idiotic debate about the difference between player and audience. It's idiotic because there's thousands of words there about simple misunderstandings flowing from your insistence of not trying to formulate your argument clearly.

It's obvious to most that you are working from some very specific assumptions concerning roleplaying. You assume a GM. You assume a readymade situation. You assume GM prepared plot. You assume players immersing in character, or at least simulating character. You assume players being passive about the art, to be guided to conclusions by the GM. These are all common here in Finland, too, and indeed the mark of high roleplaying of the best style. They are hardly that in Forge.

Most of your arguments are insupportable or self-evident to people here, as they don't share your preconseptions about what roleplaying is or should be. When you insist in confronting the discussion on your own terms we generate these monstrous five-page threads with the conclusion that "yes, you need a net to play tennis sensibly".

In the future, formulate your argument to say "The players are all limited by the structures of play they have agreed to, and these structures make roleplaying something far more interesting than simple wish-fulfillment." I expect nobody to disagree, and there's no need to try to get the meaning out of you in vain.

As for debate; it's not a value in itself, and I see nothing good in keeping it up purposefully. It won't make you look any more intelligent. Most people here aren't debating you, but instead trying to find out your opinion and tell you about their's. It's no wonder this drags on if you persist in seeing it as debate instead of communication.

Frustation is the name of the game as far as I'm concerned; this thread has been singular waste of time compared to the common fare. For the last three pages there has been nothing to discuss at all, not after the common realization that you are arguing the need of limitations, not an in-built impossibility for choice.

[Andrew Norris]

As for debate; it's not a value in itself, and I see nothing good in keeping it up purposefully. It won't make you look any more intelligent. Most people here aren't debating you, but instead trying to find out your opinion and tell you about their's. It's no wonder this drags on if you persist in seeing it as debate instead of communication.

I am really glad that this was said.

Tomas, to the extent that you may have felt people were being contentious with you in this thread, it's not really that they were trying to argue with you. Rather, looking back on the thread I see some fairly mild social pressure exerted to "get to the point", a pressure which increased as pages and frustrations mounted up.

People on The Forge don't debate for the sake of debate, and they don't dodge requests for clarification. That's not a hard and fast rule, but it's how the culture of this particular online community has formed. And as a result, I find that threads here are much more pleasant to read than they are on a number of other online forums.

If you look at other threads on similar topics posted recently, and then look at this one for comparison, I think you'll see the difference. Most discussions here I enjoy reading; this one gave me a headache.

So I'm not trying to be rude, and forgive me in advance if you take offense at this. But if you truly believe that five pages of going back and forth debating terms and trying to define the question is productive and pleasant, you might think about whether or not this is where you want to have this kind of discussion. For example, if you'd posted this thread on RPG.net, you'd probably have several hundred responses by now, with people jumping in to argue back and forth about this and that point. Us? We didn't even know it was a debate. If that's what it really is, you're likely to see responses drop to nothing.

[joshua neff]

Another thing to consider, Tomas: one of the reasons there's an urgency to "get to the point" of threads & not go on & on & on is that the Forge doesn't have unlimited hosting capacity. There is limited space here, & none of us outside of the people who run the Forge are paying for it. Since we're getting this service for free, it behooves us all to save as much space as possible. It's good to have a lengthy discussion, if the discussion warrants length. But if the length is taken up with a lot of arguing over terms when everyone posting pretty much agrees with the central premise, the length isn't necessarily warranted.