OTW: Definitions

[greyorm]

I thought it was open to question whether it was a fault or instead a possible failure of communication on her part/both parties. It's not going to do much to work from what may well be a failure of communication

That's what I'm desperately trying to figure out, here, Callan: how, given the definition of OTWism, could she not be comitting OTW? How could it simply be a failure of communication?

This is what I am attempting to understand, because that viewpoint isn't clicking for me. Why or how could it be viewed as not-OTW and just communicative failure?

I'm not interested that it could happen or could be so, I'm interested in an argument explaining how it could, or this thread is more-or-less meaningless.

This is the third time I've asked this question directly; please do me the courtesy of providing me with an answer to it.


PS : Once again, Marco has stated what I was trying to say more clearly than I was able to. Thanks, Marco!

Collary: if Raven, Gareth, and I all agree on somthing the universe is clearly getting ready to collapse into a signularity and I advise people to jump clear!

Hah! No kidding!!

[M. J. Young]

I'm not interested that it could happen or could be so, I'm interested in an argument explaining how it could, or this thread is more-or-less meaningless.

I'm sorry, Raven; I'm not entirely certain that I understand the question. However, I am going to attempt to provide something of an answer.

I also have trouble with your statement last week that intent has nothing to do with it; but that will probably come out through this.

You wanted to play in an Arthurian setting; she wanted to incorporate her Dragonlance character within it. You said no, then it would not be an Arthurian setting; she said it should be possible to incorporate a Dragonlance character in an Arthurian setting, because this is a role playing game, and all things should be possible.

We really only have this through your eyes; we don't have her understanding of what happened at all, and can only guess and extrapolate to get there. However, from your eyes, the exchange sounds like this:

I wanted to play a pure Arthurian game, but she wanted to bring in a Dragonlance character. I pointed out that it was impossible to have a Dragonlance character in a pure Arthurian setting, because they can't exist there. She said that since it's a role playing game it should be possible to have a Dragonlance character or even a Vulcan from Star Trek in the game, because all role playing games should allow all kinds of characters. She was stuck on this idea that all games should always allow all kinds of characters, a sort of "one true way" of role playing games, and couldn't understand that you could play a game pure to genre that would disallow this.[/list:u]O.K., that's what we think you're saying. We don't know what she is saying; but

maybe she's saying this.

He wanted to play a game set in Camelot. I thought that was a great idea, and that it would be really cool to bring my Dragonlance character into Camelot, but he wouldn't go for it. He seemed to think that an Arthurian game couldn't possibly have someone from Dragonlance ported in by magic or something. It's not like I wanted to bring in a Vulcan--the two settings have a lot in common, and my character would have fit really well. He was just too rigid, and couldn't see that it's perfectly possible in role playing games to mix things up in new and interesting ways. He had this "one true way" idea about playing Arthurian legend that didn't allow for any really interesting variations on the theme.[/list:u]Admittedly, I don't know that this is what she was thinking. Maybe you have some proof that she was not thinking this. On the other hand, since I can only see her point of view through yours, I can't really know whether she was being entirely unreasonable or merely failing to communicate her position and understand yours.

So that's "how it could have been", as far as I can see.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

I thought it was open to question whether it was a fault or instead a possible failure of communication on her part/both parties. It's not going to do much to work from what may well be a failure of communication

That's what I'm desperately trying to figure out, here, Callan: how, given the definition of OTWism, could she not be comitting OTW? How could it simply be a failure of communication?

This is what I am attempting to understand, because that viewpoint isn't clicking for me. Why or how could it be viewed as not-OTW and just communicative failure?

I'm not interested that it could happen or could be so, I'm interested in an argument explaining how it could, or this thread is more-or-less meaningless.

This is the third time I've asked this question directly; please do me the courtesy of providing me with an answer to it.

Mr Young just nailed it. HOW could it be a communcative failure? Well because, IMO, there wasn't enough communication between you shown in your example. I can see the viewpoint Mr Young hypothesized she might have as being quite possible. And from what I've read in your examples, there wasnt enough to help communicate what was going on from both sides.

I can just see her hackles raising and her heels digging in during that discussion. But that is not an indicator of OTW'ism. It certainly is an example where creative negotiation was not happening. And how do you know what someone thinks when their being defensive? Someone spouting that you 'can do anything in an RPG' sounds like a hasty defensive line, not actual reasoning or something you say when you sit down with someone to really talk creativity. I'm not prepared to take someones over emotional responce as evidence.

As a courtesy, I'll say she just shows up as one big defensive black box, that we don't really know the contents of. And as such, a poor example to draw from to discuss OTW.

[greyorm]

As do Marco and Gareth, I think the communication was pretty clear: what each party wants is/was clear, I think, even to the other party. Examining the statements made, and why they believe they should get what they want seems to me to be the heart of OTWism, rather than intent or desire.

As such, I was going to respond to MJ that we can't ever tell what she's thinking, and that's why I considered it a bugaboo. Maybe she's thinking this, maybe she's thinking that, maybe she's thinking about what she wants for dinner tonight.

But your elucidation upon that makes sense, Callan -- the "sounds like digging heels in, not a reasoned belief" viewpoint clears up my confusion as to why someone might consider the statement not an example of OTWism (though I don't know that I agree -- "reason" and "intent" seem like close cousins to me (another topic, perhaps), but your call on the issue does make sense to me when you put it that way.)

Thanks for sticking through this!

[John Kim]

As do Marco and Gareth, I think the communication was pretty clear: what each party wants is/was clear, I think, even to the other party. Examining the statements made, and why they believe they should get what they want seems to me to be the heart of OTWism, rather than intent or desire.

OK, as you say, here the only side of the story we have is you -- so I would ask you:  why do you believe you should get what you want in that situation?  For example, one way of resolving the situation would have been to have a vote among the members of the group: i.e. who felt it would be OK to have a Dragonlance character, and who felt it would not be.  However, as I understand it, this was not done -- but rather you felt that you should get what you wanted without such confirmation.  

(Sorry if you feel this has been covered before -- but I looked back and it isn't perfectly clear to me from prior posts.)

[Vaxalon]

It tends to mean what the user means at the time.

Actually, this is true of ALL language, and therefore tautologous; if you want to complain about a term because its meaning tends to shift a bit, then you're going to have to throw out a much longer list of terms than you use.

In serious philosophical discussions and in legal documents, the people that are communicating start by defining any terms that do not have a traditional definition, and by stating modified definitions for any terms they are using in a nonstandard way.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to pin down a definition of the phrase "one true way."  It's a standard part of scholarly discourse.  You can't say, "Noone agrees on the definition, and you can't get people to agree on a definition, so it's not worth discussing."  The whole point of the thread is to work out that definition, and start to get people to agree with it, or explain why they don't, and work out one that people CAN agree on.

If you don't think the job can be done, then I don't think there's anything constructive you can add, and you shouldn't be posting.  I know that Ron has gotten on my case on one or two occasions by posting similarly.  Ron might get on my case now for being the thread-cop when that's his job, but this has been here a while without comment.

Now, in order to post something that actually adds to the discussion (lest I display the beam in my own eye) let me say this:

If One True Way means saying "Roleplaying games must always have X" or "Roleplaying games must never have Y" then I have never seen it in Actual Play.  I've only seen it in the context of philosophical discussions, such as one finds here at the Forge.  I have had plenty of people say, "I wouldn't want to play in a game that had X" or "Any game I play in must have Y" but that's a matter of taste and entirely beyond philosophical dispute.  

Everyone I've ever gamed with has been pretty openminded about what CAN go on in a game, no matter how closedminded they were about what they wanted in a game in which they were participating.

[Cup of Iron]

END TRANS

[greyorm]

OK, as you say, here the only side of the story we have is you -- so I would ask you:  why do you believe you should get what you want in that situation?

I think we have covered this before, but that's no problem.

Tangentially, the main reason I presented quotes from the actual discussion that took place was to avoid the problems that arise with trying to guess intentions ala "this is what I think she was saying/doing" and "this is what I think I was saying/doing", and also to avoid the "one-sided viewpoint of the situation" problem. Since it was "Here's what went down. Here's what was said by Party A, and Party B" I don't really know that it matters that I also happen to be Party A in this instance (especially when considering I am not recalling the statements from memory, which is fallible, but using a logged on-line chat, which is not).

Anyways, why do I personally believe I should get what I wanted in that situation? Good question. Mainly because I had said, "I want to run this. Anyone interested?"

As GM, what I was interested in doing was the traditional Arthurian game, and I was not interested in a non-traditional game in that genre (not with the proposed setting, at any rate).

When she asked whether or not she could play her Dragonlance character in the game, I clearly stated a plane-hopping character would not fit the nature of the game nor the established 'multiverse' of the setting, thus, no, she could not play that character in this particular game.

Basically, what I had offered to run was clearly not offered as 'up for discussion.' It was, 'I want to play this, as writ. Anyone else?'

However, you'll note that the response was not a simple, "Ok. Then I don't want to play in that game." It was an argument about how and why I was wrong -- an attempt to force me to change my chosen boundaries for the offered game according to the other person's stated 'law' about what is "allowed" in an RPG.

Consider: I am under no obligation to allow a player to add an element to a game that is such that I am uncomfortable in running the game with that element involved. If I chose to allow something and live with it in play, then it is fine, it is my choice.

Sure, this means that I might sit out if everyone else wants to play football and I want to play baseball, but so be it -- or that a player will have to sit out if they want to play football and everyone else wants to play baseball, but those are the breaks either way.

So, why should I have "gotten what I wanted"?
Because I offered to GM a particular sort of game, and we were not discussing as a group what we all wanted to play next. It was a take-it or leave-it offer. Not a chance to critque what I was willing to GM and why that was wrong.

I think it would have been far, far different if I had said, "What do all of you want to play?" And then proceeded to argue with her about it; such would have been extremely unfair on my part.

Had the other person said, "No, I am not interested in that. I would rather play this, this, or this if you don't want to make that change." It would have also been far different situation.

I hope that clears things up, John. Just ask if it doesn't, or you have more questions.

[John Kim]

So, why should I have "gotten what I wanted"?
Because I offered to GM a particular sort of game, and we were not discussing as a group what we all wanted to play next. It was a take-it or leave-it offer. Not a chance to critque what I was willing to GM and why that was wrong.

I think it would have been far, far different if I had said, "What do all of you want to play?" And then proceeded to argue with her about it; such would have been extremely unfair on my part.

Had the other person said, "No, I am not interested in that. I would rather play this, this, or this if you don't want to make that change." It would have also been far different situation.

I hope that clears things up, John. Just ask if it doesn't, or you have more questions.

Thanks, that's (to me) a very clear statement, and clears up my understanding of the disagreement.  Still, if this were to happen to me, it would take me by surprise.  It's usually implicit in groups that I'm in that what is run and who runs it is open for negotiation, rather than take-it-or-leave-it.  But that's just a habit, it's not the One True Way, and once I realized the difference I would accept that as your approach.