Quick question on in game consequence

[aplath]

Now same I'm roleplaying. My PC is established as being on a balcony, with a vase on the ledge. I declare my PC pushes the vase.

Is what happens a consequence of that, just like it was a consequence in the real world example?

I'm not sure if I understood your question but I'll try to answer it with another question.

Whatever happens after your PC has pushed the vase would still happen if he chose a diferent course of action (like not pushing it) ?

For instance, if the vase was meant to fall due to some plot constraint the GM had before you declared your action, something might happen within the game world to make the vase fall even if your PC didn't push it.

In that case, the vase falling after your character pushed it might not be considered a consequence of his action since it would happen anyway (an NPC would come to the balcony and push it or an earthquake might do the job, whatever).

However, if the vase would continue undisturbed if your PC had not pushed it, then I would say the vase falling was a consequence of the act.

In short, in a RPG some things happen as direct consequence of a player's input through his character.

Other stuff happen because they are simply meant to happen even if no player prompts it to happen through a PC's action.

Is that it ?

Andreas

[Alan]

Let's modify the thought experiment:

In the shared fantasy, a character throws the vase off the balcony.  Then, before the players can confirm that it falls, the doorbell rings in the real world.  It's the pizza!  Players eat pizza.  One of them has a great idea for a character action.  When the players get back to the game, they forget completely to address the vase and carry on with the new, exciting idea.

What happened to the vase?

[Praetor Judis]

All right, I completely missed the point of the initial question, it would seem.  I was focusing on the larger issues of narration and didn't focus in enough.  I resolved to watch the thread play out and reserve judgment on the whether it was worthwhile to discuss whether the players are responsible for gravity in a game, or the Storyteller is.

What happened to the vase?

This question however has me in a whirl and produced a myriad of responses which I guess I'll share.

A) There is no vase.  As the vase was a part of the shared space between people easily distracted by pizza, it ceased to exist the moment the doorbell rang and when gameplay resumed, the vase was not, and therefore never really had been, a part of the shared space.

B) The vase will be forever frozen in mid space, awaiting resolution.  As the players and ST/GM co-create this world based on a system of, or not of, their own creation, the system demands resolution of actions within the world and events cannot be resolved without certain procedures being followed.

C) In vase, no one can hear you scream.  Because the session is being run by a ST/GM that is in control of the story and the direction of the session, the reality ultimately belongs to her/him and the vase falls whether the players (or possibly even the GM/ST) are aware of it or not.

In my session, C would be the answer.  I've met groups for whom B would be more accurate and I try and avoid groups where A is the answer.

[Bill_White]

What happened to the vase?

Ah!  So it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.

The discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").

I'm not sure what the applicability of these ideas to the current discussion is, but I see notions of causality, volition, and practical knowledge being intertwined throughout the talk, in really interesting ways.

Bill

[Doctor Xero]

Ah!  So it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.

What a wonderful way to describe RPGs!  I wonder . . .   Maybe the above simple sentence elegantly captures the definition of an RPG, a shared experiencing of communal narrative Schroedinger reality.

The discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").

I think those definitely fit RPGs.

(1) relates to those meta-game situations in which the rulesbook is held as the source of the narrative causal responsibility, with the implication that neither players nor game master(s) is culpable for what happened because the reality had to adhere to "the rules".

(2) relates to those in-game situations in which characters argue about "whose fault" something is or decide that certain "villains" deserve imprisonment or death for their behavior but certain other "villains" may become heroes because their actions really weren't their fault -- or to those interesting situations in which a good player-character may act evilly and justify it as the result of possession, alignment control, brain illness, or somesuch.

(3) relates both ways, as player-characters will often reference it but so will players and game master(s), sometimes when explaining why they trust or distrust a specific game master or specific player.

Doctor Xero

[Andrew Morris]

So it's a case of Schroedinger's vase:  It's in a state of uncertainty (narrative rather than quantum).  The vase is neither broken nor whole until somebody attempts to observe the state of the vase.

Yes, absolutely. Just chiming in with my support for this idea. The vase is in a state of non-existence when it is not actively being imagined by the participants.

[Marco]

What happened to the vase?

Well: it depends on what context you ask from. If an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminency? I doubt it.

If you ask from a game-theory stand-point then one can say that there was no adjudication concerning the vase.

But the quesiton isn't what adjudication was made concering the vase--the question was "what happened to it?" This means that the speaker has already let out the idea that "there is no vase" or that "the vase exists as a static construct to which nothing can truly be said to 'happen.'"--no, we've got the whole question in context with the language (unless the speaker is trying to be misleading).

If I ask what happened to a character in a western you saw get shot and fall off a roof (and you don't think I'm trying to trap you--I ask honestly because I don't remember) most people will answer "he got shot and died."

Well, he didn't. He appeared to get shot and he fell. Maybe he was cowardly and faked taking a hit and jumped and lived on with a broken leg.

Sure, could've happened. But no one thinks about it that way--why? Because we have a shared imaginary space with the movie and assume that what's portrayed, in light of no good reason to think otherwise, is essentially what seemed likely given the internal logic of the narrative.

So when asked "what happened to that guy on the roof" you make some sort of call.

Maybe you don't. Maybe you watch movies and think about nothing but the narrative structure, the actor's expressions, the special effects. Maybe your first reaction to the question would be to tell the guy who saw the movie "Nothing happened to the character--it was indeterminate--you just create this illusion that the events on the screen represented some reality and your question shows that you're trying to preserve that illusion."

But that's, IMO, pretty rare--and fairly extreme (a person who is wnwilling to discuss a fictional narrative in its own context?)

But we're all ready to do it here. I think that's disingunious. I don't think too many people here run games where things suddenly fall upwards for no internal-cause reason.

So I'm gonna say The vase broke. And then I'm gonna amend that: "probably."

Why?

If you are running a detective game and the victim is found with a bullet in him and the revolver is found with three shots fired and the PC asks "are there any other bullet holes in the walls or floor" and you have never considred this--the numbers were just randomly picked--then you have a delimia.

1. If you decided originally that the body was shot and killed in the room it was found and the killer didn't do any other shooting then you have to account for the other two bullets. Although you do create them as an act of will, in order to preserve your internal imaginary world you have little choice in this matter.*

2. If you had no idea where the victim was killed or what happened and simply make up choices as you go along then you run a risk of creating paradoxical situations--and, furthermore, the players, once they catch on, will realize that trying to gain information about the game world from you is pointless--it's all just random.

3. If you decide, at the moment the question is asked, that the body was shot by the PC's best friend somewhere else, moved, and that the clever PC has discovered a vital clue then you have advanced drama--but when the player asks the next question, it had better be internally consistent with your decided upon scenario or you are drifting back into area 2.

So I would say that, the vase is likely broken since I hope the game is being run with enough consistency that my expectation of reality would be validated should someone ever check.

I'd asked an unanswered question about who a poster would hold responsible for pushing the vase off the balcony. I think that's an important area of discussion. Anyone?

-Marco
* arguing that the bullets might be unrecoverable is missing the point as is inventing some clever scenario where the bullets are somehow disposed of. If you are making up background on the fly then you aren't preserving any internal imaginary space.

[Christoph Boeckle]

I must say that on any other forum on the whole wide internet I'd have taken such a thread as a troll.

I must also say that I'm very impressed.

Sorry for disturbing, I just had to say it!

[Marco]

The discussion of "consequence" here has invoked the concept of responsibility; oddly enough, I once co-wrote a paper about something called "relational responsibility."  We noted that "responsibility" as a concept includes notions of (1) causal responsibility, in which volition is less important than law-like behavior ("The vase got smashed because nothing was holding it up anymore"); (2) moral responsibility or legal accountability, in which volition matters ("You'll pay for that vase you smashed!" -- "But it was an accident!"); and (3) practical responsibility, which suggests an awareness of the link between individual behavior and the potential consequences ("He wouldn't smash a vase; he's a responsible person").

In the case of a GM enforcing the physics of a player's actions that wrong you there are two things to consider:

1. The GM as a co-conspirator (i.e. "Sure, Joe pushed the vase, but the GM didn't have to have it fall. They're both responsible for wronging me!")
2. The GM as a neutral facilitator (i.e. "Joe intended to smash my character's vase, the GM intended to represent an accurate portrayal of cause-and-effect. Joe intended to wrong me. The GM did not.")

It seems from this thread that (1) is a good deal more prevalent than I would've thought (LP or no).

-Marco

[Andrew Morris]

If an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminency? I doubt it.

No, of course not. For the character, he or she is free to assume whatever result and answer appropriately. The character's belief is a creation of the player, and only happens when the player imagines it, just the same as the vase (or any other element of the game world) exists only when the players imagine it. I just don't see any problem with something not existing and at the same time having a fictional character believe it exists.

As to who's responsible for the vase falling, it depends who's asking. If a character is asking, then the character who knocked it off is responsible. If a player is aksing, then the player who's character knocked it off is responsible. That's my take anyway.

[Callan S.]

Wow. Okay. Pretty damn varied.

As the original poster, I'm going to extend the question.

In the real world, I do the following:
1. I push the vase.
2.

So what happens in #2? Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome (given all the data present in the real world event)?

Now, in the game...this time I'm going to leave it blank. For simplicities sake, we'll assume it's some physical action (and hopefully such an assumption doesn't have flaws that lead to unproductive posts). Obviously this physical action can include many things.

1. I declare this action.
2.

So what happens in #2? What happens next. Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome?

If you can, what does your principle consist of? Can it be relied upon like the previous real world principle to always apply? And always apply consistantly, like the real world principle will?

If the answer is 'to a certain degree', is it a principle, or belief most people think in a similar way and thus will react in a certain way?

Is RL physical consequence and the idea that people will react in a recurring way, interchangable? And by being interchangable and essentially the same, the game world has consequence that are just like real world consequence?

[Marco]

No, of course not. For the character, he or she is free to assume whatever result and answer appropriately. The character's belief is a creation of the player, and only happens when the player imagines it, just the same as the vase (or any other element of the game world) exists only when the players imagine it. I just don't see any problem with something not existing and at the same time having a fictional character believe it exists.

(Emphasis added)

I agree with all of this--but you're missing the point in the area I hilighted. In the case where your character (in game) saw the vase get pushed off the balcony what would you choose to have your character believe? Would your character believe it broke?

I submit that under the circumstances given the odds would be, "likely, yes" (you might have your character say "I saw it fall--I suppose it broke.").  The reason I think most people would choose this outcome is that it's our expectation of what would happen in reality and I think in the standard (game-world is real world) case that the GM would reasonably be held responsible for making it come out that way unless there was some new information or very lucky break (GM rolls an 01 on breakage check ...)

As to who's responsible for the vase falling, it depends who's asking. If a character is asking, then the character who knocked it off is responsible. If a player is aksing, then the player who's character knocked it off is responsible. That's my take anyway.

Mine too. But there are posts here that, to my mind, hold the GM responsible for running gravity ("there's no 'real' gravity in the game world") and therefore might, for example, hold the GM responsible for adding to the SiS without acknowledging their input.

-Marco

[Bill_White]

Well: it depends on what context you ask from. If an NPC asks your PC in game whether their vase is in one piece or not, will your character honestly answer that they have no idea--that it's some kind of quantum indeterminancy? I doubt it.

Yah.  But notice that I said narrative indeterminancy:  as you suggest, it's the case that there has been no adjudication.  But it doesn't take much for that adjudication to occur.  If we the PCs go around acting as if the vase were smashed ("I can't believe you smashed that vase!  Now I must destroy you!"), and the vase never shows up again, then it might as well be smashed.

But from a narrative perspective, if you haven't seen the body (or the potshards), then the question is still up in the air ("Killer Vase!  But you were smashed!"  "Think again, hero! Nyah hah hah!")

In the case where your character (in game) saw the vase get pushed off the balcony what would you choose to have your character believe? Would your character believe it broke?

Sure.  But that's not the same thing as what you're trying to convince us of, which seems to be that the vase is really broken.  Listen:  There is no spoon.

Or, to be less flip, our beliefs about the world may or may not correspond to the actual state of the world.  In science, that's the logic of hypothesis testing ("If the vase I smashed, like I think it is, then there should be pieces of it on the ground over here").

The interesting thing about role-playing is that our beliefs about the (game) world are all we have.  It has no separate existence.  This is why I come down on the side of "There is no vase."

But there might as well be one, since we apply our common sense notions of how the world works to situations in the game world.  The vase is broken.  As many posters have pointed out, though, there are ways in which an unsmashed vase becomes a plot point that signals something mysterious or interesting going on.

But if we (as players) forget about the vase entirely, it might as well never have been there.  So in-game consequentiality is entirely a product of player consensus.

Bill

[Marco]

Sure.  But that's not the same thing as what you're trying to convince us of, which seems to be that the vase is really broken.  Listen:  There is no spoon.

Bill

No Bill, I'm not trying to convince you that the vase is really broken. I'm saying that a player (and character if you choose to go that way) has a reasonable expectation of the adjudication being that the vase is broken. This is as opposed to saying "Since gravity, physics, and everything else is totally up in the air in this reality I have no expectation of anything."

I'm well aware that the GM could pull a surprise out and have the vase show up intact--but if the GM does it'll probably have to be:

1. An implausible in-genre surprise of exactly the kind you suggest.
2. Or the GM will need to provide a logical reason for it (everything in that house was of hyper-modern materials).

If the vase shows and and the pc's say (with a gasp of shock!) "But--but we saw it thrown from the balcony!!" and the GM goes "Bill, this is an RPG--Gravity doesn't work unless I say it does, you idiot!" I wouldn't think you'd go "yeah, that's true."

(I mean, as a joke--i.e. an in-genre implausibility--yes--but if, say, your character was humilated (in a bad way) and looked foolish in-game (and you didn't dig it) because he'd declared the vase likely broken would you buy it? I think not.)

-Marco

[Bill_White]

Marco --

I think I get where you're coming from, and I largely agree.  Specifically:

I'm saying that a player (and character if you choose to go that way) has a reasonable expectation of the adjudication being that the vase is broken. This is as opposed to saying "Since gravity, physics, and everything else is totally up in the air in this reality I have no expectation of anything."

Absolutely.  We have reasonable, common-sense expectations about what will happen if something occurs.  When violations of those expectations occur, we seek explanations that will reconcile seeming anomalies.

If the vase shows up and and the pc's say (with a gasp of shock!) "we saw it thrown from the balcony!!" and the GM goes "Bill, this is an RPG--Gravity doesn't work unless I say it does, you idiot!" I wouldn't think you'd go "yeah, that's true."

Right, I wouldn't.  Because the GM has violated a consensus I thought we shared:  we were going to pretend that things work in the game-world pretty much the way they work in the real one, so that my common-sense understanding of how things work is useful in playing the game.  

This underscores the importance of "consensus" in role-playing, which recurs continually in the concepts employed at the Forge:  Social Contract, Shared Imaginary Space, and the Lumpley Principle, specifically.   If the GM says, "I decided that gravity didn't work right then," then I say, "Hmm.  I think you might be off your rocker."  If he says, "Do you examine the vase?"  I know that there's an answer to the puzzle, if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

But this is taking us far afield.  The point is, it's not just up to the GM!  

Let's see if we can reach agreement by looking at Noon's follow-up question:

In the real world, I do the following:
1. I push the vase.
2.

So what happens in #2? Can you apply certain principles to determine the outcome (given all the data present in the real world event)?

Now, in the game...this time I'm going to leave it blank. For simplicities sake, we'll assume it's some physical action (and hopefully such an assumption doesn't have flaws that lead to unproductive posts). Obviously this physical action can include many things.

1. I declare this action.
2.

In the real world:

1.  I push the vase, which is an inanimate object and can't stop me, so...
2.  ...it goes over and since gravity works it...
3.  ...falls some distance which gives it a force with which...
4.  ...it hits the ground, which is probably hard, and...
5.  ...since it's probably made of glass or porcelain...
6.  ...it breaks.

This can be simplified:  "I push the vase, and unless circumstances are other than I believe, it breaks."

In the game world:  "I say my character pushes the vase, and unless somebody objects by saying that circumstances are other than I believe, I can say it breaks and everybody has to accept that."

This basically agrees with your position.  I think we disagree about the extraordinary case in which everybody forgets about the vase, but since it's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which that would actually happen in play, I can't get too worked up about it.

Bill