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

[Doctor Xero]

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...

Good Lord, this is brilliant!

In a thread which is not a rant, I would love to see you pursue this mapping of Platonic or Cartesian notions onto the player-PC relationship!

If nothing else, this one thought makes this thread worth the while!

Doctor Xero

[Tomas HVM]

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.

"The contract"?

You, and many members of the Forge, seem to be using this term "social contract" like some magic spell.  I am sorry to say that this term is utterly misleading. The above quote is a good (bad) example of how misleading it may be. It is most "useful" in the propagation of traditionalist views, stamping down on new ways as a break of the "social contract" (nobody expect a new twist, so every other new trick is in violation of the "contract"). As such this term is a millstone around the thinking of many a roleplaying demagogue.

A roleplaying game is not a normal social situation.

And there is no contract involved in it.

The players have expectations, yes, and tradition often tells them what these should be. But these expectations are in fact very flexible , a fact which becomes very obvious if you start to use force on the players and their characters, in the game. As long as you apply the force with a high enough cool-factor, or it's appliance will create curiosity about what happen next, you may bend the rules to very strange shapes. The players will follow. You may even instruct game masters to do this in ways they have never done before, challenging both them and their players to accept a use of force none of them have considered feasible. You may do this, and both the game master and his players will boldly go where none have gone before, and enjoy it!

Please note that FLEXIBLE EXPECTATIONS are far more common than any "contract" which may be broken. Trust may be broken, and the game master of a traditional roleplaying game is certainly in a position to do so, but only if he/she misuse the trust of the players on a personal level. There is miles between the misuse of trust on such a level, and the use of force in a game. What we call "Force" is a vast array of totally acceptable techniques, used to multiply oportunities for great conflicts in the game.

The flexibility of our expectations, in this special instance, will vary with the nature of the applied force. The use of it is not without challenges, but it certainly has some great rewards!

To make good use of it, you should relate to these questions, one way or another:
- What is the idea of it's use?
- How do you apply it?
- In what way will it limit the players?
- What will it produce? What is the benefits?
- What is the correct timing?
- What is the correct GM-stance when using such techniques?
- How do you draw your players into acceptance, and enjoyment of it?
- How do you communicate limited action opportunities?

These are important questions in relation to the use of force. They should be discussed seriously on a site like this. There should be no need to defend the use of force here. The use of force in a roleplaying game, is as natural as the use of dice. Make use of it in your game, or find some other way to play it.

To react to the discussion of force-techniques with forebearance or condescencion, is as misdirected as anything. It may be that the initial postulate of this thread is misrepresenting the RPG-community at large, or in here, but it will still be better to discuss the core of this theme, and leave such misrepresentations to sort themselves out.

To discuss the use of force on this level: Should it, or should it not be done? Well, that is, in my view, a totally antique discussion. There is so much to win by using force in your roleplaying game, and so little to loose, so don't hold back. Explore!

Sidenote: Try to incorporate this term in your thinking; FLEXIBLE EXPECTATIONS, and drag it to the forefront of your brain every time anyone mention the "social contract".

[Callan S.]

I'm surprised.

I'm surprised the more eloquent and more technical in their jargon forge regulars haven't said anything here. Jeez, if 'system doesn't matter' was mention...but 'social contract doesn't exist' and nuttin?

Tomas: I think you've got some missconception about how rigid and legalistic social contract is. You want flexible...social contract is as flexible as the users want it. And its about the users desires, don't jump on me telling me I was stamping out new ways. I was describing someone agreeing to a certain level of restriction. 'Certain level' could be anything, like 'Hey, do anything with my character but never pour icecream on his head'. I'm sorry man, don't give me this flexibility thing...the player says that, then either play abides by that or his contract requirement is broken. Of course we get mid game renegotiation, where the player might see the icecream thing might be cool right now (excuse the pun) and allow it for the moment. That's how flexible it is, renegotiation on the fly.

Let me give a solid example of usually pretty inflexible social contract your using right now. Your group has decided on a system to use when playing and you don't switch systems at all during a session. You might all agree on importing a rule or two, you might twist or skip whatever rules from the system. But you don't switch systems mid session. That is social contract man, and a pretty rigid example. I bet only a few groups in the world switch system mid session on any regular basis...and that's their social contract. It's all about what people agree to.

Quite frankly the rest of your post is riddled with examples of social contract agreements and points of negotiation for it. I think you just want to use different words, though 'flexible expectations' isn't really comprehensive. How flexible it is, is up to users.

Sidenote: Your sidenote is patronising. Keep the word 'peer' in mind.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

First, I'm not sure what everyone's arguing about.  No one is saying there should be no rules, or means of deciding "what happens"... That's lumpley Principle- "How do we figure out what happens?"  

Second, this is ALL about social contract.

Now, to back up Callan here, Tomas; Social Contract is a term used anytime you have 2 or more people interacting.  It can be as simple as, "Don't be a jerk" and when that basic rule is violated, people react in a variety of ways, from leaving, talking trash behind someone's back, verbally or physically confronting them, etc.  Some of these methods of enforcement are more effective and functional than others.  

Some typical social contract rules in gaming:

1)"We follow the rules to the letter, and if we encounter something that the rules don't cover, the GM rules and we go with that"

2)"We follow the rules to the letter, and if we encounter something that the rules don't cover, we collectively discuss options and go with that"

3)"We follow the rules that the GM enforces, and ignor the rest."

4)"We've added our own rules, and we go with that."

5)"The GM decides everything, the rules occasionally apply"

6)"We generally follow the rules, and sometimes we argue.  The person with the most endurance wins, then we move on until the next argument."

And many more options are available.  Notice that even the ones that say the written rules aren't as important then puts authority for deciding what happens in the hands of one or more individuals.  Also, notice that its very possible for a group to change these things.  As Callan is saying, negotiation is based on what people are willing to deal with.

Agreement to follow the rules, or not follow the rules, is a social contract agreement.  And however you actually play as a procedure(following these rules, ignoring those, houserules here, negotiation, etc.) is System in play, as per lumpley Principle.  

How much input should any person(player or GM) have over any given apsect of a game?  That depends on the game and the goals of the game.  Therefore, arguing that System X doesn't allow enough input, or gives too much to any person(again, players or GM), is pretty much empty.  Either it does or doesn't do what you want, and if it doesn't, you ought to either look elsewhere or look into Techniques that will give you what you want.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

I'm surprised the more eloquent and more technical in their jargon forge regulars haven't said anything here. Jeez, if 'system doesn't matter' was mention...but 'social contract doesn't exist' and nuttin?

Hey, cut us a break. There were seventy-nine minutes between his post and yours, and that during rush hour in some parts, and on Friday evening. I get here once a day, six days a week, if all goes well.

Callan and Chris have addressed the Social Contract question quite well. The critical point is that there always exists a social contract between people sharing the same space (even on the subway in New York, where it's usually "don't look at me, don't talk to me, don't touch me if you can help it, and I'll do the same by you"). The terms of that social contract are negotiated between the people. The problem cited isn't whether a particular approach to gaming violates some "absolute" social contract, but whether after those involved thought the social contract had been agreed someone radically changes it. By analogy, if I agreed to have lunch with a cute girl, and then suddenly I find myself strapped to a bed while she's getting out the whips, I think the social contract has been violated: I didn't agree to this.

As to "force", I think the current definition of the word is impeding discussion. As Tomas post shows, everyone thinks they know what it means, and it doesn't mean that in the glossary. For the moment, though, I'll attempt to work within the glossary definitions.

Tomas, according to the provisional glossary, "Force" means negating the ability of narrativist players to make premise-related decisions. It means nothing else. I think that's a bad definition, but given that that's what a lot of people mean when they use the word on this board, it's rather important to recognize the awkward limitations on it.

What you're defending and promoting covers a lot of ground, including primarily what's called illusionist techniques: the sort of sleight of hand that referees can use to control the game without letting the players know that they did so. There are many referees who use these techniques to "railroad" the game, preventing  the players from having any "meaningful" input ("meaningful" in this case meaning related to those things the players would like to control). There is a lot of bad feeling about such play not only here at the Forge but among (at least American) role players generally. However, the Forge is a place where the constructive use of illusionist techniques is promoted. Ron's Moving Clue is an illusionist technique. So is scene framing.

So everyone agrees that there are good and bad uses for what you're calling "force", and that it's valid to explore such uses in new games. They just disagree as to whether that should be called "force".

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

Tomas: I think you've got some missconception about how rigid and legalistic social contract is. ... Of course we get mid game renegotiation, ...

No, I do not have any misconceptions about the legalistic nature of this "contract". As far as it exist, I don't even have any illusions about its rigidity.

But, I perceive that the use of this term create a certain rigidity in thinking, a rigidity which is very often applied in discussions about "Force", or what I normally refer to as "feeding techniques" ("feeding" the drama by making scenes reaching into the phsycosocial realm). This rigidity is evident when there is talk about "breaking the contract", without any translation of the simile.

By pointing out the "renegotiation" you make the simile stronger, of course, but at the same time this makes it harder to focus clearly on the point of actual interaction it is supposed to cover. The term is "catching" in ways you can't imagine.

That's the problem with terms, of course; to a certain extent they direct our thinking.  We should always turn them around, test them, or even abandon them. If there is no will to do this, our thinking will grow rigid.

The more rigid the nature of the term is, the greater chance it has of sprouting rigid thinking. The term "social contract" is so rigid in nature that I do not advice any widespread use of it, not without the obligatory use of theoretical pesticide at the same time :-)

I really don't want to discuss terminology. I just felt it necessary to point this out, in relation to the use of "social contract". I would prefer to discuss the use of Force and Feeding-techniques.

In my book (being a "book") there is a multitude of ways you may "feed" the drama of a roleplaying game. The use of "Force" may be considered a part of these feeding techniques, the more visible and brutal part. I have written in lenght on the positive use of brutality by the game master of a roleplaying game, so don't interpret me to be against the use of Force. I am all for it!

But I find more enjoyment in the use of more subtle feeding techniques, where the applied force is difficult to perceive, but still compells the players, and make them act within the psycho-social settings of their characters.

[Tomas HVM]

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

Good Lord, this is brilliant!

In a thread which is not a rant, I would love to see you pursue this mapping of Platonic or Cartesian notions onto the player-PC relationship!

If nothing else, this one thought makes this thread worth the while!

Thank you!

It's all about enabling the game and the game master to make the psycho-social domain of the characters part of the interaction. How you perceive the player-character relationship is one important part of this.

[Bill C. Cook]

(My post was inspired by M.J.'s comments.)

From Force and Vice:

ONE: FORCE
I'll be as blunt as I can: Force is not, by definition, dysfunctional.

a) It is incompatible with Narrativist play when we're talking about Premise-addressing decisions.

b) It is essential to focused story-creation during Simulationist play.

c) Force is not the same thing as "GM input." One of the things that's very hard to get across is how much input a GM can have - and it can be huge! - without exerting Force. I think so many people have become accustomed to Force that they think, without it, that a GM is practically stricken dumb and cannot contribute at all.

TWO: INPUT-NEGOTIATION
The key to reaching an accord about this during play, among the participants, is to distinguish between "decree" and "approve."

Let's take some Narrativist play. In your graveyard example, I typically say something like, "You're at the graveyard - is that OK?" And the player can tell me then whether we ought to do something else first. Note that I have not said, at all, what is about to happen to him at the graveyard. I need his complicity in being there first, before he knows the consequences of agreeing. The whole point is that I, as GM, have an idea for the crisis the character will face, but I cannot actually play his character to get him there - but we can, together, cut to this scene as long as we're both in on the cut.

[Side issue: if the player consistently uses this opportunity to dodge out of play, as in, "No! I'm not at the graveyard. I'm, uh, driving around." So I cut back to him later and say, "What now?" and he says, "Um, I dunno." I say, Come on, and he says, "Oh, I guess I'll stop for a hamburger." This guy is dodging out of play. At that point, I'll probably say, "Dude, you're wasting our time," and move to the next guy, or carry out some other social techniques that I described in a recent thread.]

By contrast, I might also use some Force and simply take unto myself the privilege of total authority over all such scene-cuts. I play more this way when we're going pretty Simulationist, and the participants (me included) are not as committed to addressing Premise - just to "playing out a story" in a kind of "story is set or at least in the improvisational hands of one person, hence out of our hair." The GM uses Force, the players say "Frame me, baby."

Does that help at all? In each case, the relationship between suggest and approve is the same. It's just that in the second, blanket approval for the GM's "suggestions" is granted at the outset. It so happens that in doing so, a certain Creative Agenda is hamstrung, but that might be perfectly OK.

THREE: RAILROADING
Railroading literally means the use of Force such that the suggest/approve process, whatever its acceptable form has taken for a particular group, is abused. I think that is about as clearly as I can put it.

This is what I go by. I find it interesting that Ron asserts Force as supportive of Sim play. Even essential.

This is how I bullet point it in my mind:

[*]Force is a non-owner making character decisions.
[*]It is incompatible with Nar play.
[*]It is essential to Sim play.
[*]Railroading is an instance of Force that breaks the Social Contract.
[*]Input Negotiation is a two-step process of suggest and approve; Nar approves per scene; Sim approves per campaign.
[*]Abstaining from the use of Force does not preclude the step to suggest as part of Input Negotiation.
[/list:u]

I think the negative connotation of the term, Force, incites posters to assign their fears to its understanding. I bet you could really spin your wheels trying to define it and all the while be defending your preferred Social Contract.

[Marco]

I think the negative connotation of the term, Force, incites posters to assign their fears to its understanding. I bet you could really spin your wheels trying to define it and all the while be defending your preferred Social Contract.

Bill,
As someone who doesn't much like the present definition of Force, I find the suggestion that I (among others) might be "assiging my fears to its understanding" to be at very least a condescending way to put it if not outright dismissive.

You say that in Sim play Input Negoitation is fixed at start time.

I don't agree with that: the idea that input negoitation is stops for traditional games when the campaign is designed is something I've never observed. Even in the most functional of narrow games (call them what you want--probably Sim, probably railroaded) I've seen and engaged in negoitation throughout play.

If I don't think the in-game situation as stated would legitimately impede me there's no existing social contract anywhere that means I'll put up with being stopped (arbitrarily). No one I've ever met agrees to that. I've never met someone who puts up with being framed if they had stuff to do before the framing. Not Sim. Not Nar. Not ever.

In every case there are gradients of boundaries that are personally set by participants: they may, for instance, agree to allow a starting situation as complex and narrow as the GM wants--I've seen that--I'm even cool with it--but if during play there's a conflict between the GM and me about what outcomes are legitimate, that initial agreement doesn't in any way apply to what's going on in game.

Since I don't clearly identify my play as Nar or Sim, I think your stipulation there doesn't work for *either.*

Am I supposed to read your post and assume that's just "my fear" talking?

-Marco

[Marco]

Quoted instead of edited ...

[Bill C. Cook]

As someone who doesn't much like the present definition of Force, I find the suggestion that I (among others) might be "assiging my fears to its understanding" to be at very least a condescending way to put it if not outright dismissive.

I did not intend to be condescending or dismissive.

You say that in Sim play Input Negoitation is fixed at start time.

I don't agree with that: the idea that input negoitation is stops for traditional games when the campaign is designed is something I've never observed. Even in the most functional of narrow games (call them what you want--probably Sim, probably railroaded) I've seen and engaged in negoitation throughout play.

Maybe it's more of a dial. And the settings I reduce from Ron's comment are the farthest ends.

If I don't think the in-game situation as stated would legitimately impede me there's no existing social contract anywhere that means I'll put up with being stopped (arbitrarily). No one I've ever met agrees to that. I've never met someone who puts up with being framed if they had stuff to do before the framing. Not Sim. Not Nar. Not ever.

There are doubtless exceptions to the per campaign rate of suggestion acceptance in Sim games. The above rates could be thought of as defaults.

Input negotiation as defined above is particular to input coming from the GM. When you say "being stopped," I assume you mean player input, which is then overriden. I don't see the terms as defined addressing this issue, though it's clear that you're describing an SC violation.

. . if during play there's a conflict between the GM and me about what outcomes are legitimate, that initial agreement doesn't in any way apply to what's going on in game.

It sounds like you're focused on player rights in the face of GM rules arbitration. I'm coming at things more from an angle of supporting agenda.

Am I supposed to read your post and assume that's just "my fear" talking?

When behaving, I do not pretend to divine another's state. I take you at your word and value it for that reason.

** ** **

In general, I think the proper use of Force is to create story. I see the source of input as being a key issue. I've played in lots of games where I introduced tons of ideas and was made to feel like orc #27 making suggestions to Peter Jackson for shooting battle scenes at Helm's Deep. I've run a lot of games where players feverishly detail their actions with qualifiers while fiercely guarding their intentions, as though I couldn't be trusted to feed their dog when they're out of town.

I made a lot of headway towards being a better GM when I read Story Engine and learned to listen for the concept and refuse to argue over implementation. I'm still frustrated as a player with a mad stream of input that just gets wasted. I've read good things about Universalis, though. Could be the system for me.

Input's got to come from somewhere or you end up with characters getting drunk and scoring with the bar maid. Technically, it's role-play. You could argue that it's functional. I don't find this kind of play satisfying, personally. And I think using Force can be an appropriate remedy.

[*]GM: Ok. How about this: you all sign on as security for a merchant caravan that's travelling to the capitol.
[*]Player: No, my guy stays here. Is there anyone here I can steal something from?
[*]GM: Do you want there to be?
[*]Player: I don't know.  I'm asking you.
[*]GM: (Rubs forehead.) Sure, there's . . . a party of three at the table next to you. They look like farmers.
[*]Player: I try to pick their pockets!
[*]GM: You're caught! The bartender calls for the constable.
[*]Player: You never said there was a constable! I take it back. I want to go somewhere where I won't get caught.
[/list:u]

Actually, these two probably shouldn't role-play together.

[Doctor Xero]

Well, this has been an interesting level of impassioned and/or thoughtful responses to something that was never intended to be much more than a rant.  I honestly had expected my first post to be the only one on this thread.

I admit I had the tangential daydream that sharing my frustration might inspire some changes in that fervent minority of posters who react with snarky defensive outrage at anything which comes within a two-mile radius of the suggestion that restriction/structure is not always intrinsically foul.   I didn't expect it, though, and I made it clear that I recognized my own subjectivity by my using the label of "rant" from the start.

As it is, that daydream evaporated as one or three of those defensive posters responded with defensive posts in which they claimed they never write defensive posts.

I had a few posters choose to "put words in my mouth", such as claiming that I had stated that this minority of posters were commonplace or the norm, then disputing me for these things I hadn't even said, and then ignoring my corrections only to continue their choice of misreading what I had written.

I had a few posters tell me personally that they agreed with me but declined to agree with me publically on The Forge.  That is their privilege.

And I had some posters write some enjoyably insightful posts.  Some of them agreed with me and some of them disagreed with me, but either way, they wrote intelligent and provocative posts, better than I expected for something labelled a "rant".

What I have learned from reading the various responses to this thread has very little to do with roleplaying game theory, G/N/S models, or indie game design.  What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

But I didn't want a lesson in the sociology of Forge reactions, and I can see this rant continuing to mutate in ways which have little to do with my simple notion that we might want to avoid jargon-tossing or defensiveness but instead consider listening to another -- not just the majority of us listening but ideally all of us listening, with courteous impatience for the minority who refuse to listen.

So I request that this thread be closed now, and I encourage people who want to pursue some of the tangents brought up in this thread to create new threads of their own.

Thank you to everyone who participated.  I appreciate what I learned from everyone, whether you were earnest or defensive or both, whether you agreed with me or disagreed with me, whether you disagreed with what I wrote or rewrote my words and then disagreed with that.  No matter what, thank you for participating.

Doctor Xero

[Tomas HVM]

What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

Hmm... I like this. Makes me think there is humans doing the discussion here, with personalities, and some of them very subjective. Nice!

I'm all for humans, by the way, but I don't think they have complete control over themselves... ;-)

[Doctor Xero]

What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

Hmm... I like this. Makes me think there is humans doing the discussion here, with personalities, and some of them very subjective. Nice!

I'm all for humans, by the way, but I don't think they have complete control over themselves... ;-)

*grin and laughter*

Doctor Xero

[Valamir]

For the record, its generally considered bad form to take parting shots at "some posters" and then call for the thread to close, thereby cutting off any chance of response.

In the future if you're going to close a thread you've started, please just ask for it to close without the concluding dramatics.