Players never have a "free choice"

[Tomas HVM]

A "debate", Eero, don't necessarily imply quarreling or trying to win something. That's not my idea of it. I've tried to argue an issue (several, as the debate has evolved). I know for sure that the communication of it has not altogether failed.

The debate on player and audience is not "idiotic". It may seem so to you, Eero, but I've tried to use these words to point at a real difference. I see this difference as quite essential, and as quite illuminating in relation to what a "player" is, and is not. Most of you don't. This may be due to me communicating it badly, or to real disagreement, but it is not a point of semantics, not to me at least.

Eero claim that "it's obvious to most that you are working from some very specific assumptions concerning roleplaying". It should be, as I have implied it very openly in the debate. I will try to clear it up now, commenting on your list, Eero:

- I do talk of a gamemaster, but it is not essential to my argument. I'm not assuming that a gamemaster is present in all roleplaying games. I'm mostly conserned with "the player" (including the gamemaster in relation to most issues). I've had some great games without gamemasters present, but in relation to tabletop roleplaying I'm fairly convinced that the use of a gamemaster/player-setup make for the best games. However: other setups are possible, should be explored, and not every game using a gamemaster is great (!).

- I'm not sure what Eero means by "readymade situation". Is he referring to the social setup of the game, or to the contents of it? I'll make a comment on the assumption that it is the latter. In my own practise as gamemaster, I do not normally make scenarios in the traditional meaning of the word. My scenarios tend to be lists of names (to be used as NPCs are created during play), some general knowledge of the setting (including maps, but not normally dungeon or floor-plans) and the contemplation of one or more conflicts in the character group or in the setting.

- I freely admit to plan my games, but not as rigid as "plot" usually implies. The above text should show as much. Most of my design at the present also make use of a gamemaster, and I strongly advice some preparedness on her part, before play is commenced. A minimum of preparation would be to read my gamebook beforehand, to know what this roleplaying game is all about. My most present game is not about plotting at all. It has an appalling lack of opponents to be challenged and fought. It is almost totally focused on social interaction. As such it has to be played with an open and truly interactive attitude by both gamemaster and players, in order to function at all. "Planning" by the gamemaster in this game, amounts to making up a guestlist for the gathering (for herself and the players), listing popular themes of conversation (for the players), and pondering the various motives to be had for different NPCs (for herself).

- I do assume that players identify with a character in the game. And players do so in the vast majority of roleplaying games. I've presented some argument on this, trying to communicate to what extent I hold this to be done. I do believe that each and every player of a roleplaying game is "immersing" in his character. I maintain that this is a game of "pretend to be someone else". I do not assume that everybody agrees with me in the use of "immersion" in this respect.

- I do not assume that players are passive about the art. I assume that most players don't care about roleplaying games as an artform, and that they don't care about the many challenges a game designer is met with. As a designer I assume that the people buying my books may be quite blank in relation to what a roleplaying game are. But I also assume that these people have qualities that enables a great game to be had, if they can be induced to make the effort. I assume that people, once they have become players, are quite active in the games they play, trying to make the best out of it.

- I do not expect players to be guided to conclusions by the gamemaster. I expect it to happen at times, as part of a game, but I do not consider it a sound overall attitude towards a game of interaction. I do perceive roleplaying games to be interactive, and I consider the fuelling of this interaction in various ways, to be almost unavoidable in the quest for great gameplay.

I hope this clarifies some of the assumptions you have about me, Eero.

As for those of you complainig about the debate in general, or the way I have behaved in it; please hold your tongue. The debate has been interesting and illuminating, under the din of your complaints. I have used a large portion of my time on it lately, because I hold it to be important for me as a designer of roleplaying games. I expect to be taken seriously when claiming that I have insights to communicate.

The issues of this debate may relate to the people visiting the Forge in different ways. Some of you may think they are issues of lesser importance, or issues you have dealt with a long time ago. You may state that "all agree on this", as several of you have. You may be right, or maybe you're not. The fact is; I still make use of the Forge to debate these issues. I find it useful. Some others do to.

I do not answer any and all questions directly. However; my will to discuss the issue is evident in the efforts I have made to communicate. You may deem my communication to be bad, or my cause to be unworthy, but please; grant me the right to express myself.

[Rob Carriere]

I do not answer any and all questions directly. However; my will to discuss the issue is evident in the efforts I have made to communicate. You may deem my communication to be bad, or my cause to be unworthy, but please; grant me the right to express myself.

Tomas,
I had already observed the pattern of non-answers, and so have some others. Here you imply that it is deliberate. I agree with you that your will to discuss is evident, but I am puzzled about your chosen methods. What is your purpose in withholding clarification when people are clearly having trouble reading what you wrote?

No, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.
SR
--

[Tomas HVM]

I'm not saying that I deliberately don't answer questions. I'm saying that they are not answered directly. But my choosen wording is misleading. Please accept this to be what I intended to say: I do not answer all questions directly.

I do not withold clarification. As a rule I make an effort to be clear and communicative. Evidently I have not succeeded here, at least with regards to some of the participants in this debate.

If I try to explain my view, and you still don't get it, it may be due to my skills as a communicator, your skills as a reader, or both. To discuss our skills in this respect is really besides the issue, as well as a bit too personal, so I will not engage in it.

After the last wave of "discussion" of clarity and communication, I will no longer follow up on this debate. If you want to make comments directed to me on such issues, you will have to make it a personal message.