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

[Doctor Xero]

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

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.

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).

I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics.
---snip!--
So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really

Yep, you provide ideal examples in your posts here specifically because you both defensively invent comments about GM annexation of player's character when there was no mention anywhere of such a thing in the original post to which you attribute it!

Re-read my original post, and you will notice that nowhere will you find any reference at any point to "letting the GM decide what ones character is motivated about" nor any reference at any point to "invasive behaviour mechanics".  Yet, defensively, you chose to attribute such ersatz comments and then attack these phantoms.

Such responses are the precise reason I argue that such defensiveness is destructive to communication in this forum -- the defensive parties respond not to what the other person had written but to what their own defensiveness constructed in place of what the other person had written.  And then precious time is wasted with the original poster writing "But I didn't say that . . . " while the original point becomes buried in the clamor.

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

I specifically made reference to a far rarer style of playing AD-&-D only because I knew alignment systems would be close to universally familiar to United States gamers.  In the positive example, I specifically pointed out that the alignments in this case referenced divine reaction to player-characters; in the negative, I stated only what the defensive player shouted without his even taking the effort to find out whether his defensive interpretation of alignments were true for the specific campaign.  Furthermore, in the majority of AD-&-D 2nd edition play, alignment was a player aid not a game master tool except in the case of clerics, magic items, and deities.  That is why the alignment change penalties are all but vanished in 3E.

If a restriction of any nature is requisite to the sort of campaign in which the player wishes to play, for that player there is no issue about agreeing to let the game master decide what a player's character is motivated about nor any  invasive behaviour mechanics.  There is only what the player wants.  And to invent such issues when discussing such a situation is to argue against phantoms, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).

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?

There are two sorts of AD-&-D games I've played in which involve alignments.

In one, the alignment system is used primarily as a player aid, not as a game master truncheon.  Players treat the character's alignment as his/her historical default approach to life, and therefore they love scenarios in which the character has to choose whether to adhere to that default approach or to vary from it -- some of our best roleplaying has come from player-characters later agonizing because their stated ideals are lawful but, in the heat of the moment, they acted chaotically.  And if a player realizes he or she can't play a certain alignment, we simply change it to one the player likes -- no penalty.  Or, if the alignment is part-and-parcel of the campaign history, player and game master (and maybe other players as well, if the player so wishes) work up a scenario giving the character a reason to change alignment radically -- often a fun bit o' gaming!

What our social contract expects is that the player maintain our suspension of disbelief, i.e. that the player's character vary from alignment for dramatic or interesting reasons and not for meta-game reasons of player caprice or experience point accumulation or such.  Players all knew this fully before coming in, so in no way does anyone feel deprotagonized or misled by the expectation that they approach character generally as an actor.  We have other games going on all the time for those who prefer dungeon-crawls and a Hackmaster campaign for people who want to treat alignments as one more thing over which to try to outwit the hackmaster.  No one should play in a game they won't enjoy, in our collective opinion.

In the second, alignment has been used as the judgement system of the gods.  In other words, whether a god or other supernatural will help a character during a quest or such will be determined by how well he or she hewed closely to a specific alignment.  Player-characters with zero interest in interaction with and/or aid from the gods and other supernaturals have no reason to worry about fidelity to alignment outside of the usual character conception issues (although such campaigns tend to be rife with gods and supernaturals, and all the players know this going in).  I knew one player whose male character used a veddy veddy powerful wish to ensure that anything less powerful than a god would perceive his alignment as whatever alignment would be most opportune for the character!

As for punishment : well, maybe if I had somehow been roped into running 12 year old kids, or maybe if I were running a convention one-shot, I might use punishment tactics, but I game with friends, and the social contract and the primary focus on both having fun and helping everyone else have fun pretty much take care of most of those problems.

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.

Good points, Chris!

I think Ron Edwards did a good job pointing out the need for system.  I think we also do well to remember that, if there are several combat stats, combat should be a major part of the game, but if there is only one combat stat and virtually no combat system, combat should be almost non-existent.

I wonder, also, whether one should take into consideration the defensiveness of those who have been burned by dysfunctional dictator game masters when designing a game.

Doctor Xero

[Callan S.]

DX: Personally I think if someone brings out the 'defensive' stamp, they're not looking to learn about something, they want to teach someone else something in relation to that stamp. Despite this preference I'll continue:

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.

To my responce and MR. Analytical, you wrote:

Yep, you provide ideal examples in your posts here specifically because you both defensively invent comments about GM annexation of player's character when there was no mention anywhere of such a thing in the original post to which you attribute it!

For myself, I think my point was that the problem you have identified isn't from the source you think its from. I tried to identify the correct source in my post and the quote you made from my post is in context with my identification, but isn't in context with what you believe is the source of the problem. I'll recomend a re-read as well, because I identified the source of the problem a need for making agreement and restriction is only tied to that, but not a part of it enough to say that one simply must have restriction.

In light of that, I can tell you the post of mine mentioned isn't about trying to shrug of restriction. Yes, I mentioned character motivation and who's authors that, but simply because it was in the orginal post, not because it was part of the point. Poor support sources are about as useful as those on the defensive.

If a restriction of any nature is requisite to the sort of campaign in which the player wishes to play, for that player there is no issue about agreeing to let the game master decide what a player's character is motivated about nor any invasive behaviour mechanics. There is only what the player wants. And to invent such issues when discussing such a situation is to argue against phantoms, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).

It is a phantom as much as that's not my point at any rate. My point starts with the vital 'If' at the start of this quote. Where someone agree's to something 'if' that restriction is part of the deal. BUT, as I said with my three causes, 'fine print' issues, or hypersensitisation (from prior GM's who broke social contract) means issues can come up even though the agreement is cut and dried, and it isn't anything to do with people not being able to cope with a little tiny bit of restriction.

As with the hypersensitising, they can missidentify the problem as being a control and freedom issue and to have a good game they must have these things (rather than have an intact social contract) or else. And equally, my point is that someone else can missdiagnose them for it as being defensive about freedom unnessersarily...and that's it. The defensive bit, good diagnosis. The 'and that's it' bit? That gets the gong from me, as this is just an identified symptom, not the problem itself.

[MR. Analytical]

Doc,

I'm not sure what it is you're actually complaining about.  apparently it's people who want to play in games with invasive behaviour mechanics but then complain about said mechanics but this is kind of a trite point... yes the irrational ARE annnoying :-)

I didn't invent anything about GMs deciding upon motivations.  So no invention there... my problem is that while I can see the theoretical justification for these mechanics, I've NEVER seen them do what the theory says and I've never seen them really improve a game.  So if the point you're making is that people are overly defensive about surrendering authorial control over their character's inner lives then I'm probably the target of your rant.  I don't see the pay off, and I didn't invent any straw men.  My objections are quite broad and general to this kind of mechanic.

[Doctor Xero]

I didn't invent anything about GMs deciding upon motivations.

Actually, you have invented your claims, through the tactic of language choice.

The majority of gaming texts (of the sort to which you refer) advocate the game master moderate and enforce the player's chosen motivations.  To reword this such as to allege that such texts advocate the game master take over player choice is to mislead through  misrepresentation.  There is a world of difference between being a judge and being a dictator and  between being a moderator and being the scriptwriter, and in the same fashion there is a world of difference between what gaming texts ask of the game master and how you describe the game master.

my problem is that while I can see the theoretical justification for these mechanics, I've NEVER seen them do what the theory says and I've never seen them really improve a game.

That is why anecdotal evidence is insufficient.

I believe you, Jonathan, when you claim that you have never personally witnessed a non-dysfunctional use of the game master's duties when it comes to motivation mechanics.  This is why I say you should take a look at not only what you've seen but at what others have seen, in both gaming enthusiast articles and scholarly articles about gaming ; do this, and you will find a large body of evidence describing quite functional and healthy uses of such mechanics in a fashion which improves the game for all concerned and avoids any level of game master dictatorship or coercion (except by the most paranoid definitions, i.e. the subject of my rant).

I don't see the pay off, and I didn't invent any straw men.  My objections are quite broad and general to this kind of mechanic.

Your objections may not involve any sort of "straw men" or faux antagonists in more general threads on common types of dysfunctional game masters, for example, and I encourage you to initiate such a topic if you wish.

However, if you are willing to do so, I think you can now see that, for the purposes of this particular thread, you are indeed inventing "straw men" and ersatz objectionables with which to attempt to counter my points.

I'm not sure what it is you're actually complaining about.
---snip!--
So if the point you're making is that people are overly defensive about surrendering authorial control over their character's inner lives then I'm probably the target of your rant.

What I object to is the destructive confusion which occurs when people choose to misread all restrictions and direction as game master or game system coercion and as annexation of the player's inalienable rights as a player.  As soon as an individual chooses to engage in such a misreading, he or she has chosen to "miss the point" when it comes to game master and game system functions and through his or her comments may become disruptive towards those who are attempting to design games which recognize the necessity of restriction and direction in creative endeavors.  I don't imagine you will be confused as to why such a concern is pertinent in a forum devoted in large part to nurturing the art/craft of game design.

Doctor Xero

[Valamir]

Hey Doc.  I'm not going to say that "you're wrong, nothing like that goes on here".

But I am going to say that making statements like:

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.

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

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.

Don't do anything to support your arguement.

Granted, this is a rant, but if you want it to be something more than just blowing off steam, you're going to have to provide some actual evidence of this phenomenon you're railing against.

So far, all I see is assertions that this is going on, and vague references to multi page threads where maybe if we went and looked somewhere buried in there we might see what you're saying.

So far, everything you've said in this thread amounts to proclaiming "People act this way and its bad".

Which is fine for a rant...but if you want to make this an actual discussion...your going to need to provide some evidence as to which people you've seen act this way, and when.  What was said and what was the context in which it was said that make you conclude the person is advocating anarchy at the gaming table?

I haven't seen anyone advocating anarchy at the gaming table (which is precisely what absolute freedom without limits is)...so if you have...show me.

[M. J. Young]

Actually, Ralph, I'm beginning to see what Doc is saying. I regularly read posts here and elsewhere in which OAD&D's alignment system is dissed as if everyone knew it had been conclusively demonstrated to be poorly designed and unworkable. I have played that game for years, and never found alignment to be either poorly designed or unworkable; I devoted several of the Game Ideas Unlimited columns to explaining how and why it works. It fails for many gamers, I think, because (as someone just said in another thread) many of them don't take the time to figure out what it is that a system is trying to do and how it's supposed to work. Thinking that they know already what it means, they then declare it unworkable because they didn't do it the way the book says.

So I do see those comments here and there. I don't think they're as pervasive as Doc suggests, but they do appear.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

Awhile back, I wrote a post about 'rules that backsource'. It was about rules that say they do something, but really they get the user to do it. And I think alignment is one of the biggest examples, because it relies so much on user interpretation.

Here's an example of a made up rule that has a high (user) interpretation requirement:

If the action would make a little girl cry, you loose ten honour points.

Now, I'm damn certain there are a lot of people out there who would see this as a cut and dried rule. They think 'Ah, it's clear to me what would make a little girl cry therefore this rule is straight forward'.

Typically this certainty comes from the fact they've never sat down and realised the diversity of human opinion. That what they think would make a little girl cry isn't an opinion that is shared by the vast majority of humans and only a few people who live in the hills would disagree. Opinions do tend to make themselves appear as if they are part of some grand consensus, to the persons mind.

So what happens when people game together, having formed a social contract that includes using this rule. Exactly what have they agreed on contract wise, if both of them have far differing views on the little girl issue and it comes up?

Really, the amount of restriction (and being burned by honour for certain acts will restrict people from doing them) is not clearly agreed upon.

I agree a lot of people strive for tons of freedom as if it is damn well nessersary. But as I said, I think hypersensitising from poorly defined social contracts has made them missplace sensitivity to the freedom issue, when it should be contract integrity they focus on.

That said, I don't think most alignment rules are firm enough to let users really work on maintaining contract integrity.

[Mike Holmes]

Doc, if and when people are actually saying that GM control must always be a bad thing, then they're wrong. I'll go to bat for you on that. But I agree with others here that what you're railing against is not a widely held position, if at all. What is probably true is that many of the people making the statements that you're thinking about use biased language because they have a preference of play that involves removing the particular form of GM control in question. Which does display their preference, which, yes, is not a rational argument about the thing in question. But the point is that if you asked those same people if it was OK for players to play in the mode that includes that control in question, they'd say that if the players wanted it, that it was fine.

Ask them if you don't think so.

Anyhow, again, the general consensus here, in reality, is that everyone agrees that there are lots of ways to play some of which involve differing amounts of GM control. And, in fact, that agreeing to certain limitations is indeed the defining line between "freeform" play and "tabletop" play (And even freeform is a valid way to play, it just doesn't have much to argue about in terms of system design).

So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting what I'm going to guess is your prefered style of play. You indeed seem just as defensive to us as apparenly we seem to you. So, I guess we'll all have to agree to look at each other's arguments on the merits and move on. In any case you can be secure in two things: one, the majority of people playing RPGs are right there with you supporting the idea of lots of GM controls, and two, we agree with you that it's a valid form of play if not that prefered by all of us.

Actually I think that you ought to check out what play of some of the games we play looks like, because I think that you might be surprised at how "normal" it really looks. In the end it's probably not nearly as radical as some people think. Especially given that it's certainly not as lacking in controls as freeform is. I think that one would have to agree that less GM control is a valid way to play given the vast amounts of play that occur with almost no controls at all. Just as it's obvious to me that more control is valid right up to the point that someone is relating events and everyone else is just audience with no input at all. It's called storytelling, and quite entertaining.

RPGs tend to be somewhere in between these, but where is just a subject for the particular design.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

What is probably true is that many of the people making the statements that you're thinking about use biased language because they have a preference of play that involves removing the particular form of GM control in question. Which does display their preference, which, yes, is not a rational argument about the thing in question.

Exactly.

And, no, I don't think this defensiveness is all-pervasive, nor have I ever attempted in this thread to argue that this is all-pervasive -- I have attempted to argue only that it occurs enough to be worthy of the notice of a rant.  Not the notice of a serious dialogue, perhaps, or of an article in the Articles section of The Forge, merely of a rant.  Which is what I have posted here.

What has annoyed me most have been those few who have responded defensively even to something clearly labelled as a "rant".  Call me an idealist if you wish, but I expect enough of human nature that if, in a crowd of a thousand people, twenty of them behave irrationally, the fact that twenty of them chose to do so annoys me regardless of the 980 people who behaved without defensiveness nor cynic misassumptions about me or others.  I would want better.  I should hope that everyone would want better.

So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting what I'm going to guess is your prefered style of play. You indeed seem just as defensive to us as apparenly we seem to you.
---snip!--
Actually I think that you ought to check out what play of some of the games we play looks like, because I think that you might be surprised at how "normal" it really looks. In the end it's probably not nearly as radical as some people think.

Mike, the above set of comments is the other thing that really annoys me.  I freely admit here that you have pushed my buttons.  I have a pet peeve against any suggestion that people are motivated predominantly selfishly and that reasonable people do not strive to operate from their ideals whenever possible.

Why would you assume I personally support a position merely because I object to irrational attacks against that position?  Why would you assume that I would only defend something because it's my preferred style of play?

I am pro-choice, but when I have seen someone who is rabidly anti-abortion being bullied, I have come to his rescue intellectually and physically.  I fall more into the social progressive camp, but when I hear a social conservative being drowned out when she tries to talk, I have argued that she deserves equal time to be heard as well.  I believe in a merciful deity, but I have defended from bullying legal tactics a fundamentalist fire-n-brimstone preacher on our campus even though he had told me personally that I was hellbound.

What kind of a person must you assume me to be if you would think that I would only defend the rights of those who play in my preferred style?

When I witness someone obfuscating another person's points as a result of an unthinking defensiveness, I respond on the basis of what's fair and not on the basis of whether or not I share the opinion of the victim of the defensive postings.  What kind of a person wouldn't stand up for the rights even of those they disagree with?  You don't know me from a stranger, Mike, but if we socialized together in Real Life, I would expect an apology from you for such aspersions.  But you don't know me, and this is only online, so I don't expect such a thing.

This rant really said nothing more than controversial than my sharing my concern that some posters react too defensively to anything into which they can somehow manage to read even a minor threat to freedom.

And look at the defensive responses I've received from some people (as well as thoughtful posts from others)!

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

your going to need to provide some evidence as to which people you've seen act this way, and when.  What was said and what was the context in which it was said that make you conclude the person is advocating anarchy at the gaming table?

Actually, I claimed they were being defensive.  My rant has focused all along on the destructiveness of fearful or defensive postings in this forum.  Why would you extend my words beyond that?

your going to need to provide some evidence as to which people you've seen act this way, and when.

Here is some evidence directly from this very thread :

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).

I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics.
---snip!--
So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really

Yep, you provide ideal examples in your posts here specifically because you both defensively invent comments about GM annexation of player's character when there was no mention anywhere of such a thing in the original post to which you attribute it!

Here is a reminder of my original post :

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.

And here are some of my thoughts apropos this topic's relevance to RPG theory :

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?

I hope this helps clarify things.

Doctor Xero

[Mike Holmes]

Why would you assume I personally support a position merely because I object to irrational attacks against that position?  Why would you assume that I would only defend something because it's my preferred style of play?

I don't assume that. You didn't read me very carefully. I was merely saying that our perceptions, probably flawed, like all perception is the same as yours - that you seem to be acting defensively. I'm trying to get you to sympathize with us here as we're trying to sympathize with you.

Instead this is starting to sound like that old Martin Short routine, on SNL.

"I"m not being definsive, you're being defensive."

Mike

[MR. Analytical]

I believe you, Jonathan, when you claim that you have never personally witnessed a non-dysfunctional use of the game master's duties when it comes to motivation mechanics.  This is why I say you should take a look at not only what you've seen but at what others have seen, in both gaming enthusiast articles and scholarly articles about gaming ; do this, and you will find a large body of evidence describing quite functional and healthy uses of such mechanics in a fashion which improves the game for all concerned and avoids any level of game master dictatorship or coercion (except by the most paranoid definitions, i.e. the subject of my rant).

That's not what I said.  I've seen theoretical justifications for invasive mechanics (and sure, it is biased language) and I've seen people talk about how the systems work.  

I didn't say I've never seen non-disfunctional play.  I categorically do not see all behaviour mechanics as sticks with which GM's can beat players.  

I said I've never seen a behaviour mechanic that actually justified its existence.  I've seen them work not too catastrophically and I've seen groups use them happily (Cthulhu for example) but I've never seen a mechanic which made me think that it added value to the game.

So if you're coming from a narrativist point of view (for example) you might think they're great as they make sure that players care about this stuff that you care about.  That might not necessarily be the case (I don't think the case is made for behaviour mechanics being things that make people car about those behaviours) but it can't hurt right?

My point of view is that an RPG can exist quite happily without these kinds of mechanics and any mechanic has to make its case for inclusion.  I've never seen a behaviour mechanic that satisfied me that it needed to be there or even that a game was better of for having it there.


Sure my point of view's no more valid than any other... it's just personal preference but I am not a fan of these mechanics and my motivation is not paranoia.  So I don't think the people you're ranting about are that widespread

[Tomas HVM]

I'm all for control of my character...

- but where are the boundaries between my character and the world? Is my soul the only free aspect of my character there is, since my body can get ill or damaged? Or must the existence of madness and mental manipulations make my soul a part of the world to, and subject to loss of control?

If both body and soul is subject to loss of control; what's left? The spirit? Could the spirit of the character in a roleplaying game be identified with the player? Could it be that I am a kind of guardian spirit of my character? Does that make me the only free aspect of my character in the game?

I am the guardian spirit, but I am not at all able to cope with all evils that befall my character...

Sounds promising!

[Doctor Xero]

What annoyed me was your phrase "So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting" which had no use of "seems" nor any similar proviso.

That said, I know this is a personal pet peeve, which is why I apologized for reacting with frustration to it.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

So I don't think the people you're ranting about are that widespread

Perhaps not, but they don't have to be numerous to be disruptive.

No, I haven't identified a swarm of defensive folk, but a wild wolf or two is still inconvenient regardless of the small number.

Doctor Xero