Effects of One True Way on roleplaying experience

[greyorm]

Green has asked us to move back on topic, and since Ron and Marco said everything I would have said on the character issue, there's no need for me to start a seperate thread to respond to Xero.

I actually think your discussion of looking at the ramefications and analyzing the real meaning behind a statement (the player is not insane, but instead has valid reasons not to want his character to take a course of action) that, at least, strikes many people as an illogical assertation is a (the?) powerful antidote to one-true-wayism.

We seem to be in full agreement, Marco. So, moving on:

As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.

While that is certainly a good judgement of the situation on another level, the problem was that the situation could not be resolved because of the thread topic: how actual play occurs and what actual play comprises.

I'm not sure if your statement is disagreeing with my calling this OTW, but it seems to be. My reasons for doing so are as follows:

"You can do anything in an RPG," was very much at the heart of the issue, and this is why I called it a "One True Way" problem. Since I was restricting her choices in play by genre convention, I "wasn't playing right" and the game would not, in fact, "be an RPG" because of these restrictions (since RPGs allow you to "do anything" and are "without restriction"). If this was not a case of One True Wayism, I'm not sure what else would qualify as such either.

As noted, this led to problems in later interactions between us, since the player in question now felt justified in treating me as some vile heathen who didn't know how to "play it right". This was exactly the attitude the general gaming populace is taught to respond with to when encountering or dealing with "rules lawyers" and that (<sarcasm> horror-of-horrors) "munchkins", since these types (among others) "don't play right" either. In other words, it was silent justification to the player: since I wasn't playing right, I should be treated as is anyone who "doesn't play right" in gaming culture.

[James Holloway]

For me, the primary problem with OTW in gaming communities is that whatever the group's OTW is becomes a shibboleth. Everybody knows that they like "role-playing not roll-playing," and "character" and "story" (or "realism" or, God help us, "fun" or what have you) and all you have to do for the cool kids to like you is to agree with these statements. This causes a problem, or maybe two problems.

1) OTW replaces thought about gaming experience. There's a right way and a wrong way, so it's very difficult to discuss how to improve games. Any suggestion that Sacred Cow X of the group's OTW is not a good idea leads to being drummed out of the group, even if nobody really likes Sacred Cow X.

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity but typically has no real impact on gameplay, people get very confused. You are told that a game is all about "character exploration" and join it, only to find out that it is all about puzzle-solving, or setting trivia, or fights. All games claim to be about "politics and intrigue," because that's the OTW. The result is that people wind up in games they would never have joined if they knew what they were really about, and game groups now have to deal with mobs of bored-ass players.

I'm speaking here mostly in the context of large groups like LARP campaigns, but I've seen it in sit-down as well. It's very frustrating to me personally, and I've seen at least one game totally destroyed by it in the last couple of months.

[Callan S.]

Example 2: As a GM, I understand the roll of GM to be absolute god. Someone can question the GM quickly, but contesting a point and bringing the game to a screeching halt (especially about a mundane point) is not okay. The theif in the party of a game I was running failed his spot traps check and fell down a trap door. I gave the player a few points of damage and he just flat out REFUSED to take them. After a few minutes of arguing about whether his character really fell down a pit or not I booted the player from my game. I'm a grumpy GM and that was just too much for me.

I really hate your term 'absolute god', when really your example shows what you mean is a social contract entry of 'Give your GM lots of credibility for whatever he says, so we can keep this game rolling'. And that is a fairly reasonable social contract entry (and very common, I believe). I have to wonder if 'absolute god' is so crazy a way of putting it that your thief player rejected it as an implausible part of the social contract and thus didn't follow it. Certainly I'd reject it and assume you meant what I wrote.

For the threads purpose, just noting a possible example of how OTW can be an over the top way of showing a resonable desire for something.

James:

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity

Yeah, I think that's a strong cause too. Gaming groups develop these small pockets of culture, which are very much a group contruct and thus intimately tied with the friendship bonds of that group. Without a seperation between technique (which should be open to change) and friendship (which should have loyalty to those in the group), ya got problems mate!

[Mortaneus]

As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.

While that is certainly a good judgement of the situation on another level, the problem was that the situation could not be resolved because of the thread topic: how actual play occurs and what actual play comprises.

I'm not sure if your statement is disagreeing with my calling this OTW, but it seems to be.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on this, as I don't have any information regarding either of your past predilections towards such things. As such, I judged the situation on the only level I was able to.

Considering the situation on a less technical level, I can see three possibilities leading to her side of the argument:

1. One True Way-ism - Her argument was forthright, and was truly her belief.  She considered the idea of disallowing a character based on setting assumptions to be breaking the supposed rule of "It's a story, so it can happen"

2. Game-drift - She understood that you wanted to run Arthurian Fantasy, but wasn't interested, and attempted to get you to change the nature of the game to something closer to what she wanted to play in by attempting to bring in a deviant character design, with "It's a story, so it can happen" as an excuse for her desires.  

3. Lazyness/Character Attachment - She didn't want to have to come up with a new character, and saw no reason why she should stop playing a character she was already fond of just because you wanted to run Arthurian Fantasy, so decided that was what she wanted to play, and attempted to justify that decision to you through the argument "It's a story, so it can happen"


Which of these really occured I cannot determine from your post. As such, whether or not it's a case of OTW-ism I can't tell.  You would be the best judge of that.  The resolution to such a problem depends on which of the above situations was the rational behind her arguement.


ps.  Sorry if I come across sounding a bit harsh.  I've been programming, that that tends to flavor my writing style with an overabundance of technical pickyness. I really am interested in understanding her side of that arguement.

[James Holloway]

James:

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity

Yeah, I think that's a strong cause too. Gaming groups develop these small pockets of culture, which are very much a group contruct and thus intimately tied with the friendship bonds of that group. Without a seperation between technique (which should be open to change) and friendship (which should have loyalty to those in the group), ya got problems mate!

Yeah, tell me about it. But I think that this is true of a lot of things believed by groups: "System X is the best system." "Y is the One True Way to play." I've suffered through so many groups who play Vampire LARP using disastrous, unbalanced homebrew systems, and they all share this almost religious faith that no matter how bad it is, it's better than MET, which they maintain is a total trainwreck of a game.

It's not that great, IMHO, but believing it's the Ishtar of systems is a touchstone for those groups.

Mind you, that's not always a bad thing. Take Silmenume, for example. His group are all deeply committed to a particular style of play, and its perceived good features (particularly "intensity") form the basis, it seems, for a feeling of camaraderie. They don't force their preference on anybody, and they all seem to be enjoying their game.

But sometimes the lack of separation leads to game enjoyment being subordinated to "fitting in" (and I genuinely think people don't understand why they aren't having fun -- I know I was baffled about it when I was younger; I was doing everything right, I was playing my character, I was sticking to IC knowledge, so why did the game suck so much?) and that leads to no fun for some people, which is the very definition of dysfunction.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Even after a supposed move back on topic, I am confused.

By "one true way," are we discussing the mere observation that a given group has arrived a particular way to play?

Or are we discussing the dogmatic insistence that other ways to play are somehow inadequate?

Clearly the former is a no-brainer, yay for that group.

Clearly the latter is a meaningless claim used as an isolating mechanism from other folks, or perhaps as a weapon to suppress dissent within a group.

Is there actually a topic here worth discussing? I'm certainly not seeing one. Green, please clarify.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Sorry to step in before Green, but I'm going to be at a con all weekend so I'm not going to be able to get into this thread again for a while.

My understanding of the initial question is that we're examining what effects the notion of "One True Way" has on gamers and gaming groups, both positive and negative; it has to be recognized that the "One True Way" is something believed by individuals, which may be in harmony or conflict with a specific group.

From a designer's perspective, the problem I see in it is that individuals are unwilling to try new approaches, because they "aren't right". I noticed a blurb for a review of a game I recognized (I'm afraid I don't recall which game) in which the reviewer commented that he wasn't certain it was really a "role playing game" as opposed to a "story telling game", which suggested to my mind that this person (whoever he was) has a narrow definition of what is necessary for a game to count as "role playing". The problem for the designer, then, is that anything that is truly innovative runs the risk of being rejected by a large number of gamers for whom that's just "wrong", but the lack of innovation can only mean honing existing rules concepts to attempt to achieve a slight improvement on what's already been done so many times before--thus, so many fantasy heartbreakers each attempting to stay within the parameters of how these things are done while at the same time making them work better.

Of course, homogenous One True Way groups have most of their social contract in place before they ever begin to play, so that's certainly an advantage. On the other hand, One True Way means that there are non-negotiable elements in the social contract expectations of at least one participant, and if these are not shared through the entire group, they're a time bomb waiting to detonate.

Oh, Raven--you should tell that girl that she'd really enjoy Multiverser. That's one of the core concepts of the game--her character can appear in any universe.

--M. J. Young

[Green]

I now know why Mensa will never rule the world.  Guys, you're really making this way too complicated.  I didn't start out with a hypothesis to prove or a point to make.  I was simply looking for raw data from which to begin about an experience that seems common enough to coin a phrase for it yet never seems to be openly talked about.  I'm trying to set up something of an experiment, not a debate.  If the data of your personal experiences has common threads in it, then I'll start debating with what's really going on with the One True Way, what can/should be done about it, etc..  Only four people have actually answered the initial question.  All of them, except for MJ's most recent post, are on the first page.  Here's a brief dramatization of what I see happening:

Me: Could you tell me about how the One True Way has impacted your roleplaying experiences and your perceptions of roleplaying?
First few posters: (answer the question)
Everybody else: (talk about strong identification with character, insanity, One True Way as group dynamics, and other things besides the initial question)
Me: Please get back on topic.
Everybody else: What were we talking about?  Oh, the One True Way thing.  Yeah, I think the One True Way does this and that and the other thing.
Another poster: This seems pointless.  Is there even a topic for discussion?
Me: ????

Now, to reiterate, this is what I was asking:  What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

On second thought, this thread might be better served in Actual Play to avoid further confusion.

[simon_hibbs]

"You can do anything in an RPG," was very much at the heart of the issue, and this is why I called it a "One True Way" problem. Since I was restricting her choices in play by genre convention, I "wasn't playing right" and the game would not, in fact, "be an RPG" because of these restrictions (since RPGs allow you to "do anything" and are "without restriction"). If this was not a case of One True Wayism, I'm not sure what else would qualify as such either.

Suppose you came across a GM wo insisted that his game setting must retain it's genre purity, and couldn't be sullied by elements not orriginal to a narrow interpretation of the genre. Wouldn't that be One True Wayism? Surely ther are other valid ways to approach the genre.

Aren't you being a bit One True Way-ist yourself? I cite 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' as evidence for the prosecution. If Mark Twain can do it, why can't your Dragonlance fan?


Simon Hibbs

[Mortaneus]

"You can do anything in an RPG," was very much at the heart of the issue, and this is why I called it a "One True Way" problem. Since I was restricting her choices in play by genre convention, I "wasn't playing right" and the game would not, in fact, "be an RPG" because of these restrictions (since RPGs allow you to "do anything" and are "without restriction"). If this was not a case of One True Wayism, I'm not sure what else would qualify as such either.

Suppose you came across a GM wo insisted that his game setting must retain it's genre purity, and couldn't be sullied by elements not orriginal to a narrow interpretation of the genre. Wouldn't that be One True Wayism? Surely ther are other valid ways to approach the genre.

Aren't you being a bit One True Way-ist yourself? I cite 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' as evidence for the prosecution. If Mark Twain can do it, why can't your Dragonlance fan?


Simon Hibbs

The difference, I think, is that OTWism is a more across-the-board rule, for all games played by a specific group.  I can understand imposing rules like 'No Dragonlance in Camelot' for a specific game, in order to achieve something.  OTW is when you impose rules like that across ALL games you run, because you feel that is the way things should be done.

Here's another example of a OTW. The idea that 'there must be a chance for failure, because it's realistic'.  Hoboy....that one alone has made getting Nobilis players a nightmare.

[simon_hibbs]

The difference, I think, is that OTWism is a more across-the-board rule, for all games played by a specific group.  I can understand imposing rules like 'No Dragonlance in Camelot' for a specific game, in order to achieve something.  OTW is when you impose rules like that across ALL games you run, because you feel that is the way things should be done.

Well, yes. I suppose I was just trying to be a bit misscheivous!

Simon Hibbs

[Halzebier]

What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

I have encountered the OTW attitude many times. In my experience, pointing out that it is a fallacy does not work very well. I would explain theory and give examples all day -- but the best remedy turned out to be demonstrating (i.e. playing) a functioning, but radically different game.

After I ran a diceless game for a couple of friends, subsequent experiments became much easier.

I had been running unusual one-shots for some time, but I often had to overcome my players doubts before play (even though several experiments really caught on and were in fact run by others afterwards).

A diceless game was the most radical departure and after I demonstrated that this (a) is functional and (b) has unique advantages, they were ready to believe other things as well. They were still hesitant at times, but at least they never again dismissed a wacky concept out of hand.

(Also, I should note that I've been a rabid OTW'er myself. RGFA cured me of that as several posters _politely_ _explained_ diceless gaming to me --even after I had ridiculed the idea as insane.)

It may sound arrogant, but I'd actually use the term 'enlightened' in connection with this. It doesn't matter how many games or how much theory you know - the key is accepting that there is no OTW and to keep an open mind.

Regards,

Hal

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Green,

One True Way stopped my enjoyment of roleplaying.

I hooked up with a bunch of guys. Bright, creative guys. For them RPGs was all about simulating genre. We used a lot of Hero, tweaking it for whatever Genre was at hand.  In-Character knowledge for PCs was a point of honor and craft. Lots of character voices (to limit -- I see now -- Player input from other stances.)  Props were given for getting genre details "right".

Investment on thematic issues was almost nill.  Emotional investment was a liability.

There was no sense that there was anything to discuss (as has been the case about different taste in other groups). This was an issue of aesthetics. If you couldn't hack it, if you didn't talk IC, if you got the genre element wrong (Doc Savage Pulp, Star Wars, CoC, whatever....) there was a real looking down the nose.  

There was no sense that any of these stories might really be attached to the real world -- concerns about issues that mattered to the players.  On occassion the GM's plot would contain some conundrum that seem drawn from a freshman year ethics class -- we'd be put, as players, in a hard place.  But I have to say, it was seldom MY hard place. It was an exercise in debate.  Again, the issues was addressing the debate clearly as presented, not running off with something I (or anyone else) might care about. Caring might break the aesthetic experience.  

The idea was to create -- using cliches, tropes, and pop culture artifacts -- a "miniature" version of things these guys had read and loved. Or, in some cases, had heard about and assumed they would love.  I ran Pendragon for a while and it didn't click -- and was stunned to realize that their ONLY reference for the matieral was Boorman's Exacalibur and the musical Camelot.  My fault on that one.  But this is important. Without a template to follow, the game ground to a halt. The rules of Pendragon themselves had led to me and my fellow players to have hugely fun, imaginative and emotionally engaging play several times at conventions (a weird reversal of the convention norm, I know). Because we all "got" and loved the system, we let ourselves get carried away by what the rules offered at those con sessions. However, for the group I'm talking about, the rules weren't there to lead to unexpected place of story, theme or emotion. The rules this group used was to keep a tight, Noh-theater ritualistic lid on the events, recreating in diminished form what had come before. That was the prize.

It was reinforced. Snobbish comments were made about "other" players, "inexeperienced" and the need to "break in" new players.

The effect on me: I tried to get it right. I had been working as a freelance RPG writer and so much of the material I worked on, and so many of the peopel I dealt with were focused on, getting properties and genres "right". DC Heroes. Star Wars. CoC. High Fantasy vs. Al Qdim vs. Dark Sun...

The idea of most published was to give the consumer diminished versions of things they loved.  Though I didn't understand how, exactly, to play the way these guys played and like it at the same time, I could see that might, in fact, be the point.  So I went along.

And slowly got bored and frustrated out of my mind.  It ultimately was a bunch of narrative posing.  "See! Here's this correct bit!"

At the time, I thought these guys had found where games were supposed to reach for. I didn't like what I found. So, I got out of the hobby.

Christopher

[Callan S.]

Now, to reiterate, this is what I was asking:  What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

On second thought, this thread might be better served in Actual Play to avoid further confusion.

To help clarifly what's going on from this poster viewpoint: Your not going to get OTW examples in a neat space. They would show up in entirely too long and verbatim play accounts, but otherwise they have to be identified. This way you get people picking out what they think is OTW behaviour and since their already thinking about it, it's too late to ask them to just give a police report and leave you to tie the pieces together. I'd suggest just doing some research yourself (now that I get your goal). Go through actual play accounts, pick out a few that show what you want to discuss then post about that, giving links to the accounts.

[clehrich]

Hey Green,

Was Christopher K.'s post, about the group that wanted to simulate certain texts very exactly, what you were looking for?  That's what I thought this thread was about; if that isn't what you want, I'm lost.  But if it is, there's your answer to Callan.