a player's loss of freedom and control: a bit of a rant

[Doctor Xero]

I read in many postings various asides complaining about this loss of control or that loss of control as being universally and incontrovertibly abhorrent.  I disagree.  We all surrender freedoms and let go of control much of the time.  It has always annoyed me when students insist that I am infringing upon their freedoms whenever I expect them to use standardized spellings instead of letting them throw in whatever spellings they feel like at the time.

Organized society is possible only with a certain restriction of individual control and freedom, and this often involves an involuntary or reluctant loss of control.  Hell, potty training is an imposition of control and a loss of freedom over one's own bowels -- a far more intimate loss of control and freedom than occurs when I willingly agree to play in a roleplaying game with alignment mechanics.

When someone says, "I don't want some damn alignment telling me what my character would do!", I smile and courteously advise him or her not to join our classic AD-&-D campaign.

When someone says, "I want to experience what it would be like in a magical world in which the gods and cosmology react to me according to which side of a metaphysical war I've taken, the lawful or the chaotic!", I smile and courteously welcome him or her to our classic AD-&-D campaign.

In the real world, if someone dislikes the particular restraints necessary for living in a particular society, she or he has the choice of either working to change that society or leaving that society -- or accepting those restraints as necessary to enjoy the concomitant benefits they provide.

In gaming, the same runs true : in AD-&-D (for example), a player who dislikes the restraints of alignment necessary for a game thematically focused on issues of law versus chaos has the choice of persuading the playing group to accept house rules which modify or ignore alignments or declining to play in that campaign -- or accepting those restraints and enjoying the G/N/S fun they can provide (depending upon how they're handled).

I think we waste time when we reify and fetishize all freedom or all player control as sacrosanct precious resources to be protected at all costs from any and all game master concepts, creative agendae, player stances, or RPG techniques or notions.

If I tell the game master or the GM-less gaming group that I have decided that the major villain has spontaneously turned into a tulip and been swallowed by a goat made from cole slaw, the moment any game master or group consensus tells me otherwise, I have lost some of that precious control, and if they do not let me declare my character to become spontaneously a god, I have lost some of that precious freedom.  But without that loss, gaming is impossible.

So, no, in my humble opinion, there is nothing deprotagonizing nor anything involving force or railroading or any other use of jargon to represent loss of fetishized freedom and control if that loss is requisite to the game which the player wishes to play.  And I think we misuse those terms when we toss them about in the name of that fear.

Doctor Xero

[Kesher]

Doc,

I gotsa agree.  You're bringing up some of the same points I just laid down here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11929

Loss of character control, in context can actually be incredibly protagonizing.  I've seen this happen in flashes in instances of game play over the years, but it wasn't until I read Vance's Dying Earth & the excellent Dying Earth RPG that my eyes were really opened to the possibilites inherent in this.

In the DE novels, characters do things they don't really want to do, while thinking about the fact that they don't want to do them!, because they've been so (contextually possible) expertly conned.  In DE, the golden tongue is a force of Nature, to say the least.  The DERPG captures this extremely well in it's mechanics, which allow furious bidding of limited resources in any sort of contest.  If you lose, however, you lose big; you might try to convince a restraunt owner to give you free dinner but, as a result of your botched bidding & rolling, end up following his suggestion that your dusty boot would really be the zenith of modern cuisine & get down to eating (albeit with a bemused look on your face...)

This creates powerful stories, of course.  Revenge may follow, or personal shame, or the offer to enter a footwear-eating contest, etc.

[Bankuei]

Hi Doc,

I agree.  If we all agree to play by the rules, then there was no loss of control involved.  "You agreed to this", is the reply.  

On the other hand, there are also many places in games where the rules do not cover, and that is often the source of contention.  The usual cop out is the golden rule that, "The GM is God and may freely ignor or revise the rules as they see fit without notifying the players" is a rule that I do not support.  

If players complain about the GM spontaneously controlling or limiting their control over their characters outside of the rules in an implausible fashion, that's a valid concern.  Or if the rule that "0 hp = dead" applies to PCs but not the GM's favorite NPCs, then that is also a valid concern.

Is there some examples or specific cases where folks have been crying wolf about completely reasonable situations that you'd like to point out?

Chris

[Orec]

Wow well said, I couldn't agree more. Without the loss of control imposed by rules, by a judge (GM) and/or by other constraints of freedom an RPG is no longer a game in my opinion. There is a line somewhere of minimal required rules/constraints that if a game crosses it ceases to be an RPG anymore and becomes a group writing or acting session. Likewise there is a line somewhere on the other end of the spectrum where the rules are so controlling and limiting that it ceases to be a RPG and just becomes a game. I can't pinpoint where those lines are for me exactly but I know it when I play an RPG.

If I tell the game master or the GM-less gaming group that I have decided that the major villain has spontaneously turned into a tulip and been swallowed by a goat made from cole slaw, the moment any game master or group consensus tells me otherwise, I have lost some of that precious control, and if they do not let me declare my character to become spontaneously a god, I have lost some of that precious freedom. But without that loss, gaming is impossible.

As you clearly point out here rules limiting freedom and control, even if unwritten, do and must exist in an RPG. To view them in a purely negative light is to ignore their value. I suppose with the Forge having a heavy Narrativist presence the desire for a lack of constraints is understandable. The line between Narrativist RPG play and simply a group writing/roleplaying session can be very blurry sometimes, especially in some of the more extreme cases. Still rules and constraints, no matter how minimal, remain a necessity and should in fact be desirable if they are to retain the "G" in RPG. Afterall isn't that what this site is for?

[Paul Watson]

In a post in an earlier thread, I mentioned a handful of games with different mechanics that restrict character action to one degree or another.

On a general note, I have yet to see a half-way convincing argument that these mechanics are objectively good or bad, or that the absence or presence of them is "real roleplaying" (whatever that is).

I think My Life with Master is an excellent example. The characters start with pretty much no chance of resisting their Master's orders, no matter how heinous. They are also more generally restricted even when not carrying out their Master's orders. For example, they can't just hop on the next train out of town. And yet, this is a very brilliant game which can result in some very intense roleplaying moments, not in spite of the mechanics which limit player character action and choice (and can altogether remove choice) but because of those very mechanics.

[greyorm]

Xero,

I can't help but see this post as reactionary -- and a reaction to a strawman. No one on the Forge, and certainly not the terminology itself, claims that complete freedom or complete control over all aspects of play, without boundaries, limitations or constraints is a worthwhile goal or ideal of play.

The Social Contract groups form which is heavily discussed here is a form of boundary creation, and the use of Scene Framing by Narrativists is another form of control over the game (and usually performed by the GM); that both of these are techniques whose praises are enumerated here seems highly at odds with any claim that the Forge or its main luminaries are in any way opposed to any loss of control, that boundaries are universally abhorent, or that limitations or restrictions are despised, or that complete player freedom is fetishized.

As such, if you believe anyone is making an argument against limitations or controls over characters, then I believe you have seriously misunderstood what Railroading and Force refer to, and the behaviors they entail, and the context of why those things specifically are disliked.

As I understand this is a rant on your part, there doesn't seem to be much here to discuss; even specific examples where you have seen the behavior or attitude you are opposed to occur here on the Forge are really not worthy of discussion -- no productive discussion could be produced from anyone defending their statements from your perception of them.

So, you're preaching to the choir -- it is fully agreed that ules and restrictions are requisite to playing any game in which the player wishes to participate. Given that, where do we go from here with this subject?

I suppose with the Forge having a heavy Narrativist presence the desire for a lack of constraints is understandable. The line between Narrativist RPG play and simply a group writing/roleplaying session can be very blurry sometimes

Orec, welcome to the Forge!
However, I'd ask that you please read the Narrativism essay to get up to speed on the nature and function of the mode.

The short version is that Narrativism has nothing to do with "a lack of constraints" nor is it any different from regular role-playing, or closer to a group writing session. Narrativism has nothing to do with freeform or rules-light play, or cooperative storytelling: what it has to do with is Premise, and making the addressing of Premise central to play in the moment.

Sorcerer, arguably the touchstone Narrativist game for most, is the best example of an RPG I can think of that shows this quite well (that Nar games play just like other RPGs, have crunchy mechanics, and so forth).

[Orec]

The short version is that Narrativism has nothing to do with "a lack of constraints" nor is it any different from regular role-playing, or closer to a group writing session. Narrativism has nothing to do with freeform or rules-light play, or cooperative storytelling: what it has to do with is Premise, and making the addressing of Premise central to play in the moment.

Sorcerer, arguably the touchstone Narrativist game for most, is the best example of an RPG I can think of that shows this quite well (that Nar games play just like other RPGs, have crunchy mechanics, and so forth).

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that all Narrativism is necessarily freeform or rules-light. I know it can go completely across the spectrum from one extreme to the other, just as the other two styles can. It's just my own personal belief that of the three forms/styles fans of Narrativism play are probably the most likely to embrace that "end" of the spectrum due to the room for creativity the extra freedom affords them. That doesn't mean I think all fans of Narrativism enjoy this end of the spectrum nor do I think those that do can't enjoy games at the other end as well... Just that of the three fans they are probably more likely than the others to desire a limitation of rules.

Maybe I'm way off base though.

[Bankuei]

Hi Orec,

Rules light or freeform gaming usually isn't any more helpful to Nar play than any other type of system, necessarily.  Effectively, if you don't have a system that promotes Nar play, whether you have a lot of rules or few, then you still have to drift it to make things that ARE promoting Nar play.

And, to bring that in line with the thread; any CA can be promoted with appropriate behavioral mechanics, any CA can be blocked with inappropriate ones.

Chris

[Doctor Xero]

I can't help but see this post as reactionary -- and a reaction to a strawman.

{amicable laughter>What part of "a rant" didn't you understand?

Seriously, greyworm, this isn't "reactionary" and doesn't involve "strawmen" -- or strawwomen! -- as I'll mention in a moment.

So, you're preaching to the choir -- it is fully agreed that rules and restrictions are requisite to playing any game in which the player wishes to participate. Given that, where do we go from here with this subject?

Maybe it's the combination of my training as a social scientist and culture scholar with my life as an activist and idealist, but I am fascinated and confused by how often I read posts arguing seemingly defensively in a fear of control.

You can find such posts in Filing Edges: GM as Author, the value or uselessness of a game master, Mmm, I think I'll roleplay some roleplay, How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?, Narrativism & Force, Clueless about Bangs, Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character, PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it, to name some of the more recent ones.

Where do we go from here?  Well, first of all, if it's even possible, perhaps we should consider why, if I've "preached to the choir", there is still such as misapplication of terms such as deprotagonizing, force, and railroading.

Second of all, if there are indeed people who react defensively to anything which comes close to suggesting an unwanted loss of control and/or freedom, how does this impact our understanding of our games, our design of games, and/or our packaging of games?

What does it tell us about the psyche of gamers that we recognize the importance of restrictions and yet a number of us react with angry defense against anything which seems to restrict us?  And more relevantly to this forum, how can we utilize in our game design what our consideration of this reaction tells us?

Doctor Xero

[Callan S.]

Whoa, its a rant, but even still it misses the point by a margin.

The control issue isn't about dodging all restraint. It's about agreeing to a certain level of restraint as part of the social contract...and then having even more restraint applied, thus breaking the contract.

Usually one cause of it is the unspoken contract, where X assumes one level of restraint and Y another. They thought they both agreed to the same thing and those with less experience might go on to argue just how much restraint is the one true way (ie, which of them is right in the eyes of a god of roleplay or something).

A second cause is the hypersensitising of concern about loosing control. People who have had their social contract broken, didn't really realise that and miss apply their energy to protecting their freedom. And there's the opposing side to this, which I'd say I'm hearing here, where 'oh, restraint is vital and important, you must have it!'. No, agreement is important, not restraint. Agreement may lead to restraint, but its not the same as I may very well want to agree to coleslaw goats and insta-godhood.

A third cause is the BS design. For example, people might say they don't want a damn alignment system controlling them. What they mean is that they don't want to agree to a system that revolves around GM interpretation and gives him the power to overtake input they agreed would be entirely up to the player (eg, what their character actually thinks). The rule presents its self as just another rule, like how you don't decide if you hit an orc, the rules do. However, look at it closer and you realise if you agree to it, you'll be agreeing to more than you would have thought at first. It's a 'fine print' issue.

Edit: Also, as the author of 'PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it' I can tell you it was hardly about agreeing to let the GM decide what ones character is motivated about, and then getting pissed off about him going on to decide it (through session design). And I'm not really sure what you got from the other post you mentioned that was by me.

[Bankuei]

Hi Doc,

Everyone who posts here comes with a different headspace.  Some people have read everything, some haven't read anything.  Everyone is at a different level of understanding.  About every 3 to 6 months we get a couple of people who are intensely interested in GNS, and they go through many of the same mental cognition issues in trying to understand it.  Likewise with any other idea out here.

10 years from now, there will still be people misusing concepts originated here at the Forge.  That's just life.

Ultimately each person either is interested enough to try to understand the ideas here(whether they end up agreeing with them or not), or else they aren't.  The best this community can do is try to help those who are interested in getting to the level of understanding they're happy at being at.  Stressing out about the fact that A) some folks haven't digested everything yet or B) some folks don't care, and will actively misuse anything really isn't worth the effort.

And if the issue is about irrationality and the defensiveness of the ego, that issue plays out in much bigger arenas than simply gaming... I think its one of the biggest issues for mankind, and isn't a problem that can be dealt with on the level of games or discussing games.

But, to point to something we CAN do, which is to show how system(that limitation of rules you're talking about) is best used to promote all types of play, and how those limitations can serve as structure to build what players want, instead of hindering them.

Chris

[MR. Analytical]

Speaking as someone that does have serious problems with losing control of his character I agree with Noon's 3 criteria here but would add that There's an element of cost-benefit analysis too.

I place value on controlling my character... making decisions.  I also place value on resolving emotional or psychological problems myself, "roleplaying them out" as it were.  In order for me to be comfortable with a rules system that removes things I value from the gaming experience it has to pay me back with something.  This isn't just about social contract within the group it's also about attraction to the game... regardless of the group relations, why should I play a game that is less enjoyable than other games?   I've seen lots of behaviour mechanics, some invasive, others not.  

I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics.  I understand the arguments about premise and protagonisation but I've neve3r seen it in practice.  I've seen Behaviour rules that people accept and rules that they don't... I've yet to see invasive behaviour rules that I've seen people say "Wow... that rules makes this game MUCH better".  

It's like Hobbes, as I see it in playing those games I'm surrendering certain authorial rights as a player (control of my character's mental state) and in order for me to be willing to surrender those rights I've got to begetting something good back otherwise it's not clear what the benefit of my surrendering those rights is.


So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really and I think we have a point :-)

[NN]

Doctor Xero, what do you do in your AD&D game when a player wants to act "out of alignment"? - and they arent one of the classes (clerics, paladins, maybe rangers) who can be reasonably "punished" for it in-game?

[TooManyGoddamnOrcs]

I've been lurking here for quite awhile and posting maybe a couple times a year but this rant ties back to an early post on the forge I remember vividly but cannot seem to find.  It was, if I recall correctly, about various fallacies and misapplications of play (something that's pretty rare here despite what some of this forum's critics might say) and one of the players mentioned that he'd been playing Call of Cthulhu with a newbie and the newbie, not entirely versed in proper roleplaying technique, when asked "OK, what do you do," responded with "I see a man."  This derailed play, of course, and at the time I was just as discombobulated (smugly thinking, "at least I know enough not to do that."  Now I'm not so certain. Perhaps the newbie had mistaken the amount of author stance the social contract allowed.

This, it seems to me, is the issue the good Doctor has: certain interpretations of Ron's essays would seem to threaten the style of play he mentions.  The Doc front-loaded (if I use the term correctly) his hypothetical campaign with a metaphysical element to explore which was, to my recollection, only tacitly (if at all) mentioned in the original rules for D&D (and indeed sounds more like the Warhammer or Elric cosmology).  This made the game completely different from a different, equally hypothetical (or possibly more if Dr. X actually has such a campaign) campaign that's about what the characters will do to defend their country and involves descriptors different from the two Gygaxian axes (law<->chaos/good<->evil).  

The question is not whether alignment mechanics (or any such limitations) are intrinsically good or bad, it's WHETHER THE LIMITATIONS JIBE OR CONFLICT WITH THE GOALS OF THE PLAYERS AND THE CAMPAIGN (sorry for the caps, I'll try not to do it again).  In this way I'll agree that Xero's fighting a straw man because a third player who wishes to join his campaign and says "I want my character torn between the worship of two chaotic good gods, one who condones torture but forbids killing and another with opposing strictures" would not have as conclusive a result on the litmus test.

In games like Sorcerer (or at least in certain instances of play which are well-facilited by the use of Sorcerer's system and less-well facilitated by, say, Rolemaster), the player has a great deal of freedom to say "I see a man" provided the act of seeing the man (or the specific man the player sees or the presence of a man rather than a woman or one of a thousand other things) is part of a kicker or similar story-pumping action.  In other instances of play that are better facilitated by differently-restrictive systems, the player is breaking the social contract by snapping out of actor/pawn stance.  

In conclusion, I shut up now and hope that there's something of relevance, or at least entertainment value, in the preceding morass.

[Doctor Xero]

a third player who wishes to join his campaign and says "I want my character torn between the worship of two chaotic good gods, one who condones torture but forbids killing and another with opposing strictures" would not have as conclusive a result on the litmus test.

Litmus test?  No, the point stands, and stands well, if perceived without a defensive filter : the player would be welcome if she or he wanted to play in the sort of campaign being offered and would be welcome to stay away from the specific campaign if he or she were not interested in playing in such a campaign.

If you want me to include a straw man, I suppose I could point out that a truly defensive player would say, "I want my character torn between the worship and I don't want no damn game master to include bad consequences for this -- I want complete control over how the gods react to this quandary even though no other player wants it because it goes against the sort of game everyone else wants to play."  Admittedly, from some of the posts I've read in this and other threads, I get the impression that there are those who would actually make such a demand, though less overtly.

Most anyone else would ask, instead, if this would be okay, ask what the repercussions would be, negotiate, and then decide whether he or she wanted to play with those repercussions.  If he or she still wanted to play : welcome!  If he or she did not wish to, or made demands for special treatment, we would bid the player adieu for that campaign and look forward to playing with him or her in other campaigns instead.

This seems somewhat obvious to me.

Doctor Xero