[Deceit] Self-Deception as a Design Consideration

[Lance D. Allen]

Sure thing, John..

The self-deception has nothing to do with Forge-jargon. The self-deception lay in what I believed were my play goals, and how I defined why I enjoyed V:tM. I believed the prose saying that V:tM was about telling stories* and addressing certain themes, and the methods that character points were given reinforced that belief. I believed that I enjoyed the game because I liked to address those themes in a narrative, storytelling sense.

Looking back, after getting the words and concepts to critically think about it, I realize what I enjoyed was the experience of being a vampire. Of thinking of how I, by extension of my character, might react to things in the world, including those much-touted themes about humanity. I also enjoyed the ass-kicking. The fact is, the themes and stories were secondary in my esteem, but I believed, like a good many people I have known since, that they were first.

Since becoming aware of the G/N/S theory, and gotten past my initial resistance to pigeon-holing (which I know isn't the point, but it is convenient for that, as well) I've become more aware of the things I enjoy in gaming. I'm also slowly coming to grips with how to explore the narrativist side of things, which I always was interested in. If I still believed that what I was doing was all about the story and the themes, I wouldn't be able to do either.

*mini-rant: I am specifically using the word "story" in the more literate sense. While what I used to do with V:tM could be called storytelling in the same loose sense that recounting the events of my day can be called storytelling, that is not the sense I am using. Stories intimately involve themes and follow certain guidelines, having a beginning, a middle and an end, usually with resolution of some conflict related to the theme of the story. While the broader definition isn't incorrect, I think it mostly without value in most forms of discussion. The broader a definition, the less certainly it can be applied, and if it cannot be applied with a reasonable amount of certainty, then it is useless.

[Marco]

Sure thing, John..

Looking back, after getting the words and concepts to critically think about it, I realize what I enjoyed was the experience of being a vampire. Of thinking of how I, by extension of my character, might react to things in the world, including those much-touted themes about humanity. I also enjoyed the ass-kicking. The fact is, the themes and stories were secondary in my esteem, but I believed, like a good many people I have known since, that they were first.

Hi Lance,

I very much like this description since it's useful to discuss. Talking about storytelling, IMO, is not especially useful (either as a 'distinguishing element' of Narrativism or as a description of games outside of some very general categories).

I'm curious about an instance of play where you were thinking about the issues of humanity as a vampire but found the "themes secondary." It's my understanding that if you are thinking about the issues of humanity that confront a vampire--either imagining yourself as a vampire (that is, imagining the vampire as an extension of you) or considering it as an author--'theme,' as the glossary means it, is still the 'primary subject of consideration.'

-Marco

[John Kim]

I am specifically using the word "story" in the more literate sense.  While what I used to do with V:tM could be called storytelling in the same loose sense that recounting the events of my day can be called storytelling, that is not the sense I am using. Stories intimately involve themes and follow certain guidelines, having a beginning, a middle and an end, usually with resolution of some conflict related to the theme of the story.

So I think I understand you, Lance, but just to check...  Back several years, you were playing V:tM and enjoying it.  Your games were "storytelling" in a loose sense, but not "storytelling" in a literate sense.  The fictional events of your V:tM games did not form stories with beginning, middle, end, and theme.  However, even at that time, you conceived of "storytelling" in the narrow, literate sense -- and you thought that your V:tM games fit that narrow sense.  Thus it was self-deception to think so.  Right?  

It's my understanding that if you are thinking about the issues of humanity that confront a vampire--either imagining yourself as a vampire (that is, imagining the vampire as an extension of you) or considering it as an author--'theme,' as the glossary means it, is still the 'primary subject of consideration.'

Well, the question is whether he was deceiving himself at the time.  His view at the time is independent of glossary definitions.  The important thing is what he thought, and how the reality differed from what he thought.

[Wormwood]

First, thank you Lance, that's exactly what I'm getting at. I suppose you also can imagine what most players in a similiar situation would do if they were simply told they were playing "wrong" (i.e. not playing how you think you're playing).

Second, a bit more on where this shows up.

Self-deception is that way that we handle contradictions in our lives, most especially between our perception of self and our actions. Ask a hundred people what sort of player they are, and then watch them play. Discrepancies will arise, whether it's the difference between goals and practice or caused by social pressures, or simply having not introspected on the subject.

However, self-deception isn't necessarilly a bad thing. If we idealize ourselves it lets us become able to do things we otherwise would be to discouraged to do. By using self-deception we can do what needs to be done without allowing social pressures to self-destruct us. Removing self-deception in general is a pipe dream. In the natural pace of things we decieve ourselves and discover our self-deceptions periodically. Meeting both the percieve and actual allows us to provide a double happiness, supporting the contradiction, rather than pulling at it. If we wish to ease away the deception we can simply introduce a gradual force to pull them apart.

Consider as another example, the illusionist / participationist divide. How hard is it for the illusionist player to "out" the GM? Usually not too difficult, but in practice this only happens when significant dysfunction occurs (the contradictions of illusionism become insurmountable). Most players do not want to change their view of the game, even with evidence to the contrary. Sometimes this moves to an unwritten rule of play, which basically becomes silent participationism. Everyone knows what is going on, but it is impolite to mention it. This layering of the truth is what self-deception is all about. And as a whole, it can be a very positive thing for a group, especially when overt communication does not solve all the problems. I've played this way quite a bit, for one, and I think it works better with most groups that overt Participationism.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[Marco]

It's my understanding that if you are thinking about the issues of humanity that confront a vampire--either imagining yourself as a vampire (that is, imagining the vampire as an extension of you) or considering it as an author--'theme,' as the glossary means it, is still the 'primary subject of consideration.'

Well, the question is whether he was deceiving himself at the time.  His view at the time is independent of glossary definitions.  The important thing is what he thought, and how the reality differed from what he thought.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. If his play matched his definiton of storytelling at the time then it wasn't self-deception.

-Marco

[Joe J Prince]

I don't think it's self deception, I think it's a misconception of role-playing.
That there's a right way to role-play. Let's be honest it's just amateur dramatics with rules.
Which is no bad thing.

Essentially role-playing games follow a continum - many people who have never played a PnP rpg before are introduced via DnD or WoD. To them that system IS rpging.

The biggest self deception I'm familiar with is the 'My character would have done that"... Which usually is added after the player has blatantly acted with munchkin tendancies. It's OK to powergame if your character would have done it.  
Bollocks.
Role-playing depends upon a social contract.

Part of that social contract is the implication that you will follow the sim guidelines of a system without striding into gamism - harsh but true.
Well it don't work.
The last time I played V:TM I realised this.
You know it's got silly when the GM says  "Ok there's only 2 garou, no point rolling, you beat them up".

Which leaves us with coherent vs non-coherent systems.
Which is where the self deception lies - players believe (often through no fault of their own) that the system they are playing is coherent role-playing  or even worse 'The One' - but like the Matrix 2&3 they soon realise the uncomfortable reality. It's crap.

JJ

[Lance D. Allen]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. If his play matched his definiton of storytelling at the time then it wasn't self-deception.

You seem rather insistent on proving to me that I wasn't deceiving myself. Lemme 'lone, damnit! I can deceive myself if I want to!

However, even at that time, you conceived of "storytelling" in the narrow, literate sense -- and you thought that your V:tM games fit that narrow sense. Thus it was self-deception to think so. Right?

Exactly. I've always known that storytelling involves more than one sequence after another. Sequence and causality do not a story make. But hell, I was playing the "Storyteller" system! Of course I was telling stories! And to prove it, you get points for good roleplaying! It was self-deception by choosing not to think critically about it, even when I knew better.

Dantai,

It seems to me you might be assuming a few things differently than I expect is common around the Forge..

D&D and WoD are roleplaying. They just support specific types of roleplaying, specifically Gamist and Simulationist, respectively. The former, I don't care for. The latter, I do, though I doubt the system would fit my style as well as it used to. No style in the GNS continuum is considered, except on a purely individual level, to be any better than any other. Gamism is good roleplaying so long as the players in question enjoy that type of play.. So yes, in fact, it is okay to powergame if you like. The only problem is when this goes against the specific preferences of a given play group. Also, Social Contract isn't something that anyone can define objectively. Your assertion that social contract implies that you'll play sim and not gamist is not universally true. It may be true for you and your play group, but isn't true for others.

Anyhow, my response is a bit off the topic, I think. If you'd like to continue the discussion, feel free to PM me, but I've got nothing else to say on the topic of this thread right now.

[xiombarg]

The WoD has a similiar incoherence, with purported Nar play constrasting with actual Sim support. Likewise this matches Nar-faux Simulationist, who, likewise, believe they wish to play Nar, but actually wish to play Sim.

Right. To add another data point to Mendel's idea besides Lance's, I ran into EXACTLY this problem when I tried to run Changeling: The Dreaming in a more Narrativist fashion a while back.

I was VERY CAREFUL to talk about EXACTLY what kind of game I was going to be running before we started, and tried to make sure everyone understood that I wasn't running the game in a "standard" (i.e. Sim) way.

During actual play, I nearly had a revolt from the veteran White Wolf players. It became obvious, after a protracted discussion, that when I talked about how I was going to run my game, they hadn't believed what I said and hadn't understood what I'd said. They were, by habit, used to nodding knowlingly to Narrativist rhetoric and then ignoring it.

It's notable that the player that DIDN'T revolt (and actively supported what I was trying to do) was a new player, someone who owned a lot of White Wolf books, grooved on the Nar-style rhetoric, but had never gotten to actually play. So the idea that giving, say, plot control to the players was "wrong" never entered into his head, unlike the veteran players,  who were very much Sim-by-habit and fierce about it, too.

So, the idea that there are players out there who like to talk about playing a game one way, but actually play it another way, is very resonant to me. Being brutally honest about one's play preferences is HARD for most people, even outside GNS.

[clehrich]

After reading this whole thread with some care, I'm struck by a thought.

Mendel, would The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast fit what you mean by "self-deception"?

I have never played a WoD game, though I have read a few (and hated them, which is why I didn't play, but that's irrelevant).  What I hear Lance and xiombarg describe is fascinating, and sounds very much like what I always thought Ron had in mind with TITBB.

Basically the game says, "You're in control!  You have the power!  You will tell stories, and they'll be stories, not a bunch of one damn thing after another!  And it will come from you, not the GM, and it will be totally unlike other games!"

And then the game plays, "I (the GM) am mostly in control, I have the power, and the sequences of events we construct will only be stories if I structure them so and not otherwise, and it will be pretty much exactly like every other mediocre Sim game out there."

So what happened to Xiombarg was that he said all the things the game says, but he meant it where the game really doesn't, and so the veteran WW players were furious but the newcomer had never thought for a minute that the game didn't mean what it said.

What happened to Lance was that he liked the sound of all the things the game said, and liked playing the actual game, and somewhat later he realized that actually he didn't like the reality of what the game said, but only the sound of it, while he liked the reality of what the game did, which was completely unlike what it described.

Seems to me the mismatch is: You, the PCs and players, will tell the story, completely freely.  And that story will already have been the GM's story, of which he is the sole author.

Which is The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Yes? No? Am I totally lost here?

[Marco]

Seems to me the mismatch is: You, the PCs and players, will tell the story, completely freely.  And that story will already have been the GM's story, of which he is the sole author.

Which is The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Yes? No? Am I totally lost here?

Yes. I would guess that this complaint is almost an exact description.

-Marco

[Lance D. Allen]

Hm.. I'm not totally grooving on what you're saying, Clerich. Where Xio's story and mine has similar aspects, we had self-deception from opposite sides.

I've only been a player in WoD a couple times. The vast majority of my WoD experience is from the Storyteller's side of things.

Basically the game says, "You're in control! You have the power! You will tell stories, and they'll be stories, not a bunch of one damn thing after another! And it will come from you, not the GM, and it will be totally unlike other games!"

And then the game plays, "I (the GM) am mostly in control, I have the power, and the sequences of events we construct will only be stories if I structure them so and not otherwise, and it will be pretty much exactly like every other mediocre Sim game out there."

This is.. not how I've ever played any game. My problem, perhaps, is that I'm rather laissez-faire about the whole process of GMing. I have my intended plots, but other than presenting them as possible avenues of exploration, and pulling my "events" out of them, I've never authored the story. Since the early days of my longest-running V:tM game, I've never planned out whole story arcs, because of the old, modified adage: The most carefully wrought GM's storyline never survives first contact with the players. The players casually and unknowingly shredded my carefully laid plans, so since then, it's always been very fast and loose with the stories.

The thing is, I believe that this is the heart of Sim play. Sim isn't, unless I've vastly misunderstood, about telling stories at all, either the GMs or the players, so much as experiencing something through play, whether it's experiencing the system, the setting, the character or the situation. Any "story" (using the loose term) that happens along the way is incidental, and is likely to be more like the loose collection of causal events that makes up everyday life, only generally more exotic and exciting.

The deception is when you believe, and convince yourself, that a given game supports a given mode of play, when it actually supports a totally different mode. It has nothing to do with who has control over events. As an example, look at Donjon. From everything I can tell, it is intended to be a new angle on dungeon-crawling gamist play, but the players have a lot of control over what happens. For a long time, I would have thought Donjon was Narrativist because of the high degree of player control, until the point when, during my efforts on ReCoil, a game I thought was Narrativist for the same reasons, someone pointed out to me that player control is not the hallmark of Narrativist play. The same sort of self-deception would have followed had I tried to play Donjon before having this sorted out, even though the game itself likely doesn't try to pretend to be anything but what it is.


Whether or not this is TITBB, I'm not sure, as my understanding of that term has slipped in recent years.

[clehrich]

Lance,

We're completely in agreement, I think.  At least, I agree with everything you've just said.

Basically what I was trying to argue is that what you correctly call the "heart of Sim play" is not at all what WoD games describe as their shtick.  They say they're all about stories, and player-controlled ones at that.  To my mind, if you actually try to tell stories with WoD games, and don't permit Drift, that means that you end up with a GM-controlled story and probably TITBB.

The thing is, I believe that this is the heart of Sim play. Sim isn't, unless I've vastly misunderstood, about telling stories at all, either the GMs or the players, so much as experiencing something through play, whether it's experiencing the system, the setting, the character or the situation. Any "story" (using the loose term) that happens along the way is incidental, and is likely to be more like the loose collection of causal events that makes up everyday life, only generally more exotic and exciting.

You are, in my view, absolutely right.  Sim has nothing whatever to do with story, by any but the loosest possible definition (one thing follows another).  What I read you as saying was that WoD games claim that they tell stories, and are about stories, and by that definition appear Narrativist.  But since they're straight Sim games in terms of how they actually work, what you get is a mismatch.

If you ditch story and play WoD games Sim, you'll be happy.  And the self-deception comes in if you tell yourself that really this is storytelling.

If you hang on to story hard and play WoD games, you must either Drift into Nar (which means altering the system), or get GM-controlled stories, or get unhappiness.  Or all of the above!

All I'm saying is that this mismatch, Nar-Sim constructed this way, is I think what Ron really means by TITBB.

[Marco]

If you ditch story and play WoD games Sim, you'll be happy.  And the self-deception comes in if you tell yourself that really this is storytelling.

If you hang on to story hard and play WoD games, you must either Drift into Nar (which means altering the system), or get GM-controlled stories, or get unhappiness.  Or all of the above!

All I'm saying is that this mismatch, Nar-Sim constructed this way, is I think what Ron really means by TITBB.

I haven't fully studied the WoD rhetoric (I read the 1st Ed Vampire and found it a little preachy). However, I understand that GURPS is considered Sim-supporting in the same fashion as the Vampire rules and I did play GURPS V:tM in what I would describe as a Narrativist fashion.

If what you are saying is true, this must be self-deception or drift.

The games I've written up here use a similar methodlogy to the ones I ran V:tM with. They use a mechanics-set that is a Sim as GURPS and I'm fairly sure I'm not drifting the game. Where do you see the deception*?

-Marco
[ * As far as I am concerned, I am involved in what would be considered storytelling in an RPG-context (i.e. normal storytelling doesn't involve dice and game books so if you're going to say the word can apply at all, then you're translating it in some way to RPG's) ]

[John Kim]

So, the idea that there are players out there who like to talk about playing a game one way, but actually play it another way, is very resonant to me. Being brutally honest about one's play preferences is HARD for most people, even outside GNS.

So this brings us back to Wormwood's original topic about self-deception as a design consideration.  Let's assume that I want to design my game to be easy and fun, rather than hard and brutal.  I don't want to psychologically interrogate my players to strip their barriers, nor do I want them to revolt.  What can I learn from, say, Wolfen's fun experiences with WoD.  

I'm going to postulate for a moment that for some players, the idea of "story" is psychologically comforting.  So they find it easier to identify with "story" even when -- like Wolfen -- that isn't really what they're enjoying.  This is probably because stories (as in novels and movies) are more respectable than association with games, dreams, or make-believe.  This is particularly important as gamers get older, and typically wants to disassociate himself from "childish" games.  

So how does this influence design?  If my postulate is correct, then this suggests that rhetoric about "story" (or perhaps other forms of rhetoric) may help players enjoy a game independently of its mechanics.  

If you hang on to story hard and play WoD games, you must either Drift into Nar (which means altering the system), or get GM-controlled stories, or get unhappiness.  Or all of the above!

I haven't fully studied the WoD rhetoric (I read the 1st Ed Vampire and found it a little preachy). However, I understand that GURPS is considered Sim-supporting in the same fashion as the Vampire rules and I did play GURPS V:tM in what I would describe as a Narrativist fashion.

If what you are saying is true, this must be self-deception or drift.

Urk.  This seems like it's drifting off-topic.  For the topic of self-deception, I think we have to accept self-evaluation.  i.e. There isn't enough data and there are many pitfalls to talk about other people deceiving themselves -- or worse, argue that another poster is self-deceiving.  Drift is also off-topic, I would say.

[clehrich]

So, the idea that there are players out there who like to talk about playing a game one way, but actually play it another way, is very resonant to me. Being brutally honest about one's play preferences is HARD for most people, even outside GNS.

So this brings us back to Wormwood's original topic about self-deception as a design consideration.  Let's assume that I want to design my game to be easy and fun, rather than hard and brutal.  I don't want to psychologically interrogate my players to strip their barriers, nor do I want them to revolt.  What can I learn from, say, Wolfen's fun experiences with WoD.  

I'm going to postulate for a moment that for some players, the idea of "story" is psychologically comforting.  So they find it easier to identify with "story" even when -- like Wolfen -- that isn't really what they're enjoying.  This is probably because stories (as in novels and movies) are more respectable than association with games, dreams, or make-believe.  This is particularly important as gamers get older, and typically wants to disassociate himself from "childish" games.  

So how does this influence design?  If my postulate is correct, then this suggests that rhetoric about "story" (or perhaps other forms of rhetoric) may help players enjoy a game independently of its mechanics.

This postulate rings true to me.  I don't know that this is what Mendel had in mind, especially, but it seems to me an elegant explanation for all those fights -- er, debates -- we've had about Story in this or that game or style or whatever.  Or anyway, most of them.  It also explains some of why a common initial reaction to GNS classification is, "I'm a Narrativist, because I want to tell stories," commonly from people who don't in fact want to play Narrativist (or haven't but think they have).

Let me ask you -- or anyone else -- to postulate further.

By the Kim Postulate, Story is a significant locus of Mendelian self-deception.  (Sorry, I'll stop it now.)

By your postulate, Story is one of those places where people tend to deceive themselves and yet get good gaming.  As Mendel said, self-deception isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor dysfunctional.  So if Story is something that helps people feel good about what they're doing, even if what they're doing isn't Story, game designs that fit those people's play styles would do well to talk about Story.

This leads to two questions, for me:[list=1][*]What sort of play style is this, that likes the rhetoric of Story yet actually wants something else?  To put it differently, what is the something they actually want?
[*]Are there other rhetorical or conceptual points, apart from Story, that might equally have positive self-deceptive effects for particular gaming styles?[/list:o]