Effects of One True Way on roleplaying experience

[Green]

In a lot of online roleplaying communities, the concept of the One True Way to Roleplay gets a lot of criticism, but it's more or less based on the idea that what people do in their own games is their business.  However, what has never been discussed more thoroughly is how the One True Way affects the individual's enjoyment of roleplaying.  What have been your encounters with the One True Way?  How have they influenced your perceptions and experiences with roleplaying?

My own experiences can be found in this thread and this thread.

[Alan]

Hi Green,

What is the One True Way?

[Green]

What is the One True Way?

Put very succintly, it's the belief that in order to be "True Roleplaying," there are certain behaviors and activities that must be present (or absent) in order for it to count as real (or at least meaningful) roleplaying.  IMO, the One True Way often mistakes the tools and structure of particular games for the essence of roleplaying.

This can also apply to particular systems.  For instance, if someone thinks that the only valid way to play D&D is in games where the PCs adhere to the party structure, the focus is on going on adventures, and and PCs get tougher and more skillful based upon how many monsters you fight and kill, then that is holding a One True Way attitude towards D&D.

[Alan]

Hi green,

That's what I suspected you meant.  I think many of us have run into "the one true way" - but each one true way is different.

Ron uses the term "synecdoche" which means mistaking an example for the whole.  If you search "synecdoche" on these forums, you'll find lots of comments about it.

Also check out the provisional glossary in the Articles section.

I think the general consensus of Forge posters is that there is no "one true way."

[Eero Tuovinen]

Alan: I think Green knows that. The question is, although illusionary the notion might be, how does it affect the play experience? Is the player who is gripped by the One True Way happier for it? How about the people who have to play with him?

In my experience, the One True Way can originate from different reasons, and it's results can thus be different as well. Consider:
1) I'm playing as I am and don't like other ways because I'm defending the style I really like, and pressuring others to support my Agenda.
2) I'm playing as I am because I don't know any other way to play. I conceal my ignorance by concervative and intolerant actions, and am socially insecure.

Likewise, there is after all only little difference between synecdoche and preference, and it's important to understand that the One True Way can be a tool of social combat, with no rpg connotations at all. It might be that the player just wants to differentiate himself as a member of rpg elite, or he may feel a need to preserve the style of play he prefers.

Both are fundamentally phenomenons of a social level, and not limited to roleplaying games at all. They will only happen in play surroundings that threaten either the agenda or the identity of the player. Remove that threat by communication and empathy, and you remove the need for the blinders.

[Green]

But the question remains: How does it affect the roleplaying experience both for proponents of the One True Way (past or present) and for those who have to play with him or her?

[Callan S.]

It sounds more like the question is what happens when you run into roleplay dogma.

Were basically talking belief here. Belief is the sort of thing that get's you +2 to hit in D&D because the listener(s) believed in the value of your description (of your attack).

Scale this idea up to not just a to hit roll, but the whole game. What happens when you run into someone with particular beliefs? Especially if they are the GM? And given that, although roleplay revolves around negotiation, you can not negotiate someone out of a dogmatic belief right on the spot (thus play crashes into the immovable dogma).

When it isn't crashing play/negotiation, their belief system is going to affect the reward mechanisms of the game.

This can actually be quite stimulating...when someone deeply believes in something, their belief is almost tangible in the same way that their belief wont change or move. Combine this with the game world and it makes that game world quite tangible and real.

Thus you get GM's who can run compelling games, but can also have the biggest arguements. Ah, that night we were all told we suck...sorry, just engaging nostalgia for a mo.

[greyorm]

But the question remains: How does it affect the roleplaying experience both for proponents of the One True Way (past or present) and for those who have to play with him or her?

I have personal experience with this as a player in a game with another player who believed that "certain things must be..." in roleplaying, that there was no reason not to have them, and without them, the whole experience wasn't (not sure...perhaps "fantasical").

When someone believes games can/should/must only be/contain certain things, it can really cause a rift in a group when you do not agree with that individual and still try to play games with them.

In the example situation, I was talking about running an Arthurian fantasy setting for the next campaign. She mentioned wanting to bring her current character "over" into the world. There's where we hit the snag: while I had no problem with the character as a character, she wanted it to be THAT character, complete with memories, beliefs, homeland, etc.

Basically, she wanted to her Dragonlance character to "somehow end up" in my Arthurian setting. I grimaced at the idea. I've never been much of a fan of setting crossovers, though I've allowed them before. In this case, my concern was more aesthetic regarding the setting's integrity.

When I mentioned that AD&D-standard planar portals and world-hopping simply didn't happen in this setting, since it wasn't part of the myth/lore of medieval Arthurian England, she became incensed, and spent an hour trying to convince me that since this was an RPG, anything could happen, and that you could make anything work, that it could be a "one time thing".

I didn't argue that was false or impossible or wrong, but I did try to explain how the setting's integrity would be compromised by its inclusion -- that it was just out-of-place for the genre and so I did not want to include it. She maintained this was ridiculous, because "you can do anything in a story."

I was also a GM for this individual in a different game, and after this incident, her role-playing "attitude" changed in my game, perhaps she was trying to prove restrictions (or any restrictions) in an RPG were wrong.

It was also difficult to play in the current game with her, and she did her best to make snide comments towards me under the guise of just the usual kidding, though these were always things she knew bothered me (such as calling me by my given name, a sore point long established in this group).

Unsurprisingly, she left the group I ran my game with when we planned to start a new campaign, though she stayed with the other group we were both in as players, which folded later anyways for different reasons (mainly software troubles -- we were trying to switch to play via NWN).

Certainly, the "One True Way" in this example wasn't about rule systems, as it so often is (ie: "The rules HAVE TO differentiate skills!" or "The results HAVE TO model realistic probabilities!"), but I think it is definitely a case of it regarding Color rather than System.

[Bill Cook]

I think each group's One True Way reflects their history. It's the summation of a hundred little refinements of SC and system.

It affects the role-play experience by allowing the group to get into the flow channel and stay there. So that's all good. The downside is loss of flexibility. Also, once the group has mined that meme to its depths, if they continue to hold course, either life changes or having done everything will trend them out of the habit. That's just an is thing, as in, the way it is.

How does it affect those who have to play with him or her? This question presupposes some conflict as to approach.  Maybe the situation is that a new guy has joined the group. Or you're at a con and some guy is saying, "That's not how we do it."

In the first case, the new guy can be like a vitamin B shot and really shake things up. This new influence may even drive out entrenched demagogues. On the other hand, the newbie may have to level (or devolve) to the group. This may involve aspirations for play being squelched, in which case, he has to decide if what he's getting is worth hanging around for.

With the con case, the most you can do is say, "Look left. Look right. Meet the new 'we.'"

Another case worth noting is the guy whose purpose in play is to experience the group evolving. Obviously, this guy is going to have to traffic in groups, because if he keeps refining the same one, he'll wittle down to a nerve and either be excised, or the group will go off like a bomb. If you're this guy, take it from another agitator: go out and meet new people.

I think, in general, good tonic for One True Way is to speak in a forward and plain manner about what you expect--not as entitlement, but rather, as hopes. If no one knows what you're in for, they can at best accomodate you through inference. Give them (and yourself) a chance! Let people know what you're after.

And be open to what's going on. The group you're in may not be best suited for playtesting unpublished indie titles with lots of distributed prep, but they me be great for plot snooping and dramatic IC dialogue.

[Callan S.]

Hi Greyorm,

I didn't argue that was false or impossible or wrong, but I did try to explain how the setting's integrity would be compromised by its inclusion -- that it was just out-of-place for the genre and so I did not want to include it.

I'm curious. Did you say you yourself didn't want to include it? Or did you mostly explain how the settings integrity would be compromised?

[greyorm]

I'm curious. Did you say you yourself didn't want to include it? Or did you mostly explain how the settings integrity would be compromised?

I said both, actually: I didn't want to include it because the setting integrity would be compromised; that I wouldn't enjoy GMing the setting in such a situation (as I specifically wanted to do Arthurian fantasy), and thus I wouldn't do so.

I also asked if she thought a 50-ton warmech straight out of Battletech would be out of place in a traditional Arthurian fantasy setting, and she replied it would not, because it was an RPG and "anything can happen."

I then tried to explain it from the perspective of writing a book: if you are creating a story, you tend to stick to a certain theme in the work, there are certain restrictions placed on setting and events in order to produce a particular type of "mood" or "atmosphere"; for example, how constant slapstick comedy would be out-of-place in a gothic horror setting, such as Ravenloft.

Her response was that RPGs weren't books, which was both a correct assessment, yet so completely missed the point I was making with the comparison (which had nothing to do with whether or not it was or was not a book). It was at that point I felt she was entrenched and simply not interested in understanding the "why" and I don't recall if she left with some flippant comment about my stance, or if I simply gave up trying to explain my position to her at that point.

This discussion, BTW, happened in full view of the rest of the group shortly after one of our sessions had ended. The GM of the game messaged me to tell me he agreed with the position I had taken, after she had left, and we had a short discussion about it.

I don't know if it makes a difference, but the player in question was the sort who presented herself as the "bad girl" of the group, with occasional displays of the "too cool for you" attitude that goes with such territory; and other than those occasional displays she was an alright person. I wonder if OTW is more common with such personality types?

Hope that answers your curiousity, Callan!

[Marco]

I then tried to explain it from the perspective of writing a book: if you are creating a story, you tend to stick to a certain theme in the work, there are certain restrictions placed on setting and events in order to produce a particular type of "mood" or "atmosphere"; for example, how constant slapstick comedy would be out-of-place in a gothic horror setting, such as Ravenloft.

I read this and I wondered if you were one of the people who understood a player protesting "My character wouldn't do that!" (which some people here think is a completely legitimate/logical way of communicating) or if you were one of the people here who I'd read as saying they didn't understand that sentiment or thought it was an illogical statement.

I think there are two types of one-true-way-ism.

The first is that role-playing *has* to 'be' a certain way. A player recently told his wife "Now! now! No meta-gaming."--and I stepped in and explained that using ooc knowledge wasn't necessarily a problem (for me, as the GM) and that I endorsed it in this sense (she wanted to get her character and his character to share information).

He thought about that and agreed with me. It was, basically, a paradigm shift in the making. The effects of it are some judgments that can be quickly reversed a new perspective is successfully presented.

The second is that "my way is best" (or the 'one true way') when it is taken from a standpoint of innate or 'objective' superiority. This is where we see people talk about how they like 'sophisticated' games or describe D&D as 'hack and slash' or declare that rules-lite games are better for 'story creation' or that Narrativist gaming is the real eye-opener that most of gamerdom doesn't get.

I think mostly this is color for communication rather than content.

-Marco

[Doctor Xero]

The biggest problem I have with One True Way gamers occurs when they have an underlying or even unconscious faith in a One True Way but don't realize it or don't want to believe it of themselves (out of some desire to believe they have a pure, unbiased, "objective" perspective).

(For example, I have learned to avoid most Narrativism / Simulationism discussions on The Forge because too many posters while claiming objectivity operate from an unconscious One True Way bias while valorizes Narrativism as "more mature" (as one poster told me) and stereotypes Simulationism as onanistically empty, but they will never concede to it and become angry when I quote examples of such bias.)

I prefer people who try to recognize that everyone has his or her default One True Way biases, and in recognizing them, each of us can decide which ones are non-negotiable for personal reasons and which ones ought be challenged.

Early in my game mastering career, I sat down with friends to discern and list my own unconscious One True Way habits of game-mastering.  I then decided which ones were habits which I really didn't want to let go of, such as my dislike of the idea of the use of torture by capital-G Good characters or my loathing of racism and sexism and homophobia in real life (I see no reason I should have to treat any of those as Divine Virtues in a campaign I run).  It is my way of recognizing my own human predilections.

Now, when I bring in a new player, I warn him or her of my own biases which I can not avoid reflecting in my game mastering style.  We discuss it, and on occasion a player has convinced me to bypass them.  This keeps me from having a player construct a paladin who rapes evil races and then cries "foul!" if I respond with something less than applause.  Those times I try something I really don't feel comfortable game-mastering, I warn players that I don't know whether I am up to it, and we work on it as a group from there.

I have found this works out quite well overall.

Doctor Xero

[Callan S.]

Hi greyorm,

Did it ever come down purely to that it would make you unhappy to run that? Or did it keep getting guided away to what a setting should have Vs what an RPG is capable of?

I don't know about one true wayism there. I think niether of you had a leg to stand on in terms of what a setting should contain or what an RPG can do. The bottom line is that you weren't happy to do it (And not that it matters, but I pretty much agree with you) and would not enjoy running it. I mean, even if it somehow suddenly suited the setting (she shows you an otherwise unseen passage in a book about Arthurian legend which suggests this sort of thing is part of the mythology), would it suddenly suiting make you happy to have that? Would it force you to be happy to have it? I doubt it. So the setting's integrity isn't important and is not something that an arguement can rest on. However, what you enjoy can carry a strong argument (you are NOT going to do something unpleasant, that is far more certain than what a setting can/can not contain). Setting is attached to that enjoyment, but it isn't the crux of it. She's in exactly the same position with her arguement.

Err, that said, I really only could see you deciding not to play together. But it would have been nicer on the whole coming to that descision.

Much of observed 'one true way'ism could fit into that though...arguments discussed at the wrong level. BTW, scuse any spelling or grammer probs, as they are always part of my posts.

[greyorm]

I read this and I wondered if you were one of the people who understood a player protesting "My character wouldn't do that!" (which some people here think is a completely legitimate/logical way of communicating) or if you were one of the people here who I'd read as saying they didn't understand that sentiment or thought it was an illogical statement.

Honestly, Marco, I see the "My character wouldn't do that!" statement as shorthand for "I wouldn't have my character do that!" However, not everyone who uses the former statement realizes that it actually means the latter (or rather, the full implications thereof), which is why it is also illogical (or amusing).

Did it ever come down purely to that it would make you unhappy to run that? Or did it keep getting guided away to what a setting should have Vs what an RPG is capable of?

It was a very short discussion, and consisted everything I've put above. There wasn't much more meat to it, so it didn't come down to either. Simply, I had an idea in my head about the Setting: Arthurian fantasy (at least what most people would consider such). Showing me a passage in a book, for example, would not change that common conception of what Arthurian fantasy meant, or the boundaries of the Setting as envisioned.

I explained, quite simply, "Hey, this world doesn't have portals to other planes. Other planes don't exist at all, as far as this world is concerned. This is pseudo-medieval Earth, and the cosmology just isn't that way." That's a set fact about the Setting, so it was about Setting violation, not simply "personal preference" -- unless one wishes to argue that my personal preference was to stick within the Setting's boundaries (which it was), but that's some dim-looking territory to venture into.

So the setting's integrity isn't important and is not something that an arguement can rest on.

See, I don't agree. Consider the Ravenloft example above: ceaseless slapstick comedy is not a part of the gothic genre. It is an issue of the setting's integrity, not merely personal preference, because if I say, "I want to run a gothic horror game," then there's more going on than just me being unhappy if it didn't go down that way.

Arguing, "It's an RPG, so anything can happen, even if it is gothic horror," just makes no sense whatsoever to me, because it is a throwing to the wind of the boundaries and limitations we put upon ourselves in order to play: our contract of play.

I think niether of you had a leg to stand on in terms of what a setting should contain or what an RPG can do.

Really? Then why does System matter? I don't mean to be snarky, I'm serious here. That's right at the heart of the matter. If Setting doesn't matter, does System?

I think this site has been fighting for years to get gamers to recognize that good games are not those which with "you can do anything" but are strongly focused by the designer's vision of play. This translates right down from System, to Characters and Setting, etc. in my opinion.