The Forge Archives

Hello Everyone,

It's been a while since I posted.  Most of that is due to the fact that I'm getting married at the end of October and because I have a new, more demanding (and rewarding) job.

I work as a video game programmer and often in the past I've mentioned that I have this dream of creating a narrativist video game.  It was while thinking about this that I had a bit of realization that sort of spans everything from the current state-of-the-art in artificial intelligence, to table-top social contract issues, to gamer culture in general.  So, if any of this wanders into material that is inappropriate for The Forge just say so and I'll understand.

Here's the deal: Ron once said that it seemed like I create whole new cognitive zones just to become confused when reading/analyzing an RPG.  And it's true, I do.  Those zone are created from my training/experience as a video game programmer.  Basically, while reading a new rule set I devide everything into two categories stuff that I think a computer could handle and stuff that requires a human being to arbitrate.

Then I go over all the stuff that I've placed (mentally) in the "requires human arbitration" category and ask myself a series of questions?  Why does this require human aribitration? (This a very interesting question to me as I think it is where the future, if any, of artificial intelligence lies)  Is it "bad" or rather problematic that it requires human arbitration?  Would the game be better served by the insertion of a rule that effecitively moved the issue from "requires human arbitration" to "could be handled by a computer."

By the time I get around to asking my questions here, however, this process isn't really apparent.  In fact, it wasn't even really apparent to me that I was doing this until I recently thought about it.   Here's an example.

When I was reading Ron's Black Fire game it occured to me that the timing of the Playing Up phase might be an important element of strategy.  But as it stands in the alpha-level presentation that came with the Gamism essay it's in the "requires human arbitration" category.  I imagined all kinds of disputes over when and why a Playing Up phase occurs and people exploiting/complaing about it.  So I thought it might be best if it got moved over to the "could be handled by a computer category."  And indeed I came up with this rule: Playing Up happens whenever a Goal is announced, failed or achieved and whenever a monster is killed.  It's simple and removes the potential for strategy driven disputes.

Then I realized that I do this all the time, particularly with games I intend to be playing soon.  I'll be reading a game and come across something that I think is a bit fuzzy and *without an actual play context*, make up a rule and promise myself to stick to it when I get around to running the game.   Sometimes this works and other times it results in disasters.

An example of something I've never been able to "automate" so to speak is the situation where a hostile NPC and PC meet and the PC clearly wants something out of the NPC.  On the one hand I'm thinking, "nah, never in a million years would this NPC give in to that" and on the other I'm thinking, "then what are all those social conflict stat/skills/rules for?"  I don't want to dictate conflict outcomes but I don't want to compromize my NPCs integrity either.

Currently, I'm running a Riddle of Steel game set in Otamarluk with an Arabian Nights flavor.  Three of the PCs are in that place labeled on map as "The Palace of the Seven Djinn."  In my game the Djinn are identicle to The Fey.  They just have a different regional name.  Anyway the Djinn's leader is named Zefir and he's up to no good.  He's at war with one of the PC's father and has kidnapped that same PCs sister.  The other Djinn at the palace are kind of affraid of him and think he's taking things too far but are unwilling to opose him.

But as soon as the PCs get there they start negotiating, intimidating, pleading and presuading their way out of almost every conflict.  Since multiple spiritual attributes are firing failure is rare (when failure DID occur I at least remember to hose them royally) and I'm thinking man, my all-powerful-intimidating djinn king is coming off like a yes-man to the PCs.

However, there came a point in the last session where Zefir discovered the PCs snooping around in his dungeons trying to set free some peasent prisoners.  All I said was, "You know, I really think Zefir is tired of negotiating."  I don't think anyone verbally responded but I could tell from the looks, from the little grunty sounds that they all agreeded.  Even though they all knew that mechanically speaking they could probably talk their way out of it (at this point one PC had 4 out of 5 SAs firing in almost every conflict), they didn't want to.  They were ready to accept Zefir's wrath.  So I just smiled and had Zefir say, "You've abused my hospitality for the last time.  Kill them!  Kill them all!"

And that moment was the first time I'd ever been consciously aware of social contract and creative agenda happening.  And you can't automate that moment.  Hell, you can't even theorize about or predict that moment which is why Actual Play context for discussions is so important.

It further occured to me that a lot of the games produced here on the forge take that for granted.  They focus purely on what the games are about and what's needed to shape and focus the game but assume that the people playing them can handle everything else.  This is why so many of the games produced here when given to long standing game groups actually "cause" (reveal is more appropriate) problems.  They make ZERO effort to patch over Social Contract issues with system.  And indeed when these games break down for a given group the players are quick to criticise the game as flawed.

This finally, brings me to how I think this effects gamer culture as a whole.  A lot of gamers (of a specific type) really really do want system to encompass social contract.  I think it's the entire drive behind things like the "living" campaigns.  The idea of being able to play with anyone, anywhere, anytime because the system is just that solid is one held onto by many many gamers.  And I think it's an idea that is actively catered to by many of the "non-indie" companies and especially by D&D.

I don't think I'm saying anything particularly new but I do think I'm saying it differently.  In any event, it's the first time I've been able to articulate it clearly myself and I just thought I'd share.

Jesse

Jesse,

You know, I read the first couple of paragraphs of this post and thought, "Oh, god, there's just no way we're ever going to agree about anything," because I thought the point was that you were automating everything that I would tend to think of as most interesting about RPGs.

Then I got to the end and was thinking, "I love this!  Wonderful!"

I have only one teeny question.  What is a "living campaign"?  You mention it in your second-to-last paragraph, where you start discussing a hypothetical ideal proposed by certain kinds of gaming that would encompass Social Contract.

Encore!

Hi Chris:

I think what Jesse means by a "living campaign" is these organizations through which gamer groups scattered all over the country/world agree to play in one shared world with all sorts of articulated rules about how they can affect that world. There was a description of 'Living Greyhawk' at the 20x20 Room a few weeks ago.

Rob

Wow, nice thread!

For a start I share the same mindset...I go through rules and can see stuff that doesn't tell me what to do, but it phrases it as if it is telling me what to do. Alignment rules come to mind. I started a thread awhile ago called 'rules that backsource' I think (sorry not to provide a link). I think there should be more like us around here! :)

And I find it interesting where you go after establishing this:

QuoteHowever, there came a point in the last session where Zefir discovered the PCs snooping around in his dungeons trying to set free some peasent prisoners. All I said was, "You know, I really think Zefir is tired of negotiating." I don't think anyone verbally responded but I could tell from the looks, from the little grunty sounds that they all agreeded. Even though they all knew that mechanically speaking they could probably talk their way out of it (at this point one PC had 4 out of 5 SAs firing in almost every conflict), they didn't want to. They were ready to accept Zefir's wrath. So I just smiled and had Zefir say, "You've abused my hospitality for the last time. Kill them! Kill them all!"

And that moment was the first time I'd ever been consciously aware of social contract and creative agenda happening. And you can't automate that moment. Hell, you can't even theorize about or predict that moment which is why Actual Play context for discussions is so important.

Recently, I've come to think of it this way. Say you have a concern about something in the real world...some issue, it could be a mugger aproaching you in an alley, or parents who will not let life saving surgery happen to thier kids. You approach a group of friends to talk about it and ask...

What to do here?

"Well, I'd talk to those parents until they see sense!" someone in the group says. Horay, an answer!

Bullshit! The discussion has gone no where, we have learnt nothing...not even a vaguely useful way of handling the situation if we met it in real life.

Sensing this pointless waste of time, one person might grab some bits of plastic and say "No...roll...um...these dice to form percentile. I bet that'd only work 1% of the time. If it doesn't, were going to have to work something else out. We haven't figured this out yet!"

You could see this evolving into some mechanic. It's something that eliminates the easy answer so we can actually get something out of this discussion..cough, sorry, I meant to say roleplay session.

But it can also work the other way.

"If an evil dude finds you trying to free his prisoners, what would you do?"
"Oh, we'd just be real diplomatic about and get away". Horay, an answer!

Bullshit! Your players sensed the use of the rules would result in something no one would learn anything from. Thus, with your words that help ease the way out of using the diplomacy rules (because you made it clear there would be no shame in not using resources to the max/not stepping up), they moved on to something which they can learn from.

Rules can help remove easy answers, but they can also make easy answers too. What will anyone get out of an easy answer? Zero.

QuoteThis is why so many of the games produced here when given to long standing game groups actually "cause" (reveal is more appropriate) problems. They make ZERO effort to patch over Social Contract issues with system. And indeed when these games break down for a given group the players are quick to criticise the game as flawed.

This finally, brings me to how I think this effects gamer culture as a whole. A lot of gamers (of a specific type) really really do want system to encompass social contract. I think it's the entire drive behind things like the "living" campaigns. The idea of being able to play with anyone, anywhere, anytime because the system is just that solid is one held onto by many many gamers. And I think it's an idea that is actively catered to by many of the "non-indie" companies and especially by D&D.

Their motive may be the same as above though. They see social contract as an 'easy out'. If someones just deciding something, it's either an easy answer or they'll learn nothing about that situation because it's just what someone decided, not what would really happen/something which isn't just one dudes opinion.

Quite frankly, they have a point. Most enjoyable GM'ing I've seen/read about involves a GM who reads the group and makes his judgements based around how he read the group. Basically he stops it from just being his opinion to being an amalgamation of the groups opinion on the matter. The group opinion is more valuable to learn than what one dudge feels.

Further, the application/non application of rules to weed out easy answers is usually by the same process. Your case is an example.

If you have flaky/lazy/don't understand what to push for individuals in the group who will urge for the easy answer, this goes down the plug hole. They want more system, because humans are so very fallable. Indeed, its because we are fallable that we have topics like the parents not allowing their kids lives to be saved, or the mugger in the alley. Ironic, eh?

I was indeed talking about things like "living greyhawk" in which player's have an official registered character or set of characters with a central organization.  Then those characters can play in any official "living" event run anywhere in the country.  The central organization then tracks the progress/impact that character has had on the game world.

Callan,

I think you may have misunderstood me.  My point was that it turned out the player's weren't really taking advantage of anything with all their diplomacy because when the crunch came it was pretty obvious they agreed with me that the times for words had passed and that everything before was genuinely how they wanted to deal with the situations given.

But you do raise a good point.  I think after system a lot of gamers lay Social Contract at the feet of the GM.   It's as if the GM is expected to play babysitter as well as game leader to insure that "everyone gets along."  In some extreme cases it's as if the group isn't really playing together at all.  Each player is playing alone with the GM and the GM acts as creative relay between players.

Jesse

QuoteI think you may have misunderstood me. My point was that it turned out the player's weren't really taking advantage of anything with all their diplomacy because when the crunch came it was pretty obvious they agreed with me that the times for words had passed and that everything before was genuinely how they wanted to deal with the situations given.

No, no, I didn't think that. I think before your players were interested in using diplomacy but when it got to that point with the prisoners they felt that they'd learnt enough from using diplomacy and that, although the rules would get them out of this by diplomacy, they really wouldn't learn/get anything from that as its too simplistic/easy an answer. So you can't automate a process which always choose just what they'll like...sometimes they need to choose that. And doing that in a group requires social contract as you said.

And (if I see it right) the problem your outline is, just like you can't automate a process which chooses just what the group will like, nor can the GM in a closed off sort of way, run any such process in his own mind. I think I've seen many posts by players who think their GM does do this ("and that's how it should be, the GM should not be doing whatever we want. That's weak!" they often say), but reading between the lines you can see the GM is taking their input in and certainly isn't closing himself off from it.

But in other cases, players will expect the GM to magically read their mind instead of having their having to engage the social contract fully. And often the GM is basically of the same mind set, that they don't have to engage social contract either. Damn, they make spark filled posts!

Actually, I'll just look again at what I typed "So you can't automate a process which always choose just what they'll like...sometimes they need to choose that."
Here's where a major clash in roleplay probably comes from. The 'must enter deeply into state of disbelief' myth. Which of course clashes with any such meta game choice like this...a choice the players much make for themselves, it can't be automated/can't be left to the rules while being immersed in the game world. It's interesting to see the RPG culture tearing at itself, eh?