Where can you talk about "Objective" and "Sub

[Arref]

The subsequent statement that chess moves are subjective applications doesn't, in my mind, fit that. They are strategic decisions, but they are objective applications of rules, as far as I can see--the pieces are able to do specifically defined moves which may have specifically defined consequences.

This is where I'm coming from.

If all the moves and values are worked out and defined objectively, the Player choices are the game part of the game.

I find this very different from subjective rule sets.

And 'toxic' is a fairly useless term.

[Callan S.]

Heya Tony,

Good subject! Now, can I compare this to something like the relic's in D&D 2E? The ones where the GM penciled in what extra powers they had. I would say this is actually a design point which encourages the user to become a designer himself. Would you agree?

"Any time a player rolls a ten the GM may choose to award them a Squeegee Token, at the GMs sole discretion."

Every time this comes up, the GM pencils in whether the award applies.

"When a player does something heroic they get a Squeegee Token."

The GM pencils in what he thinks is heroic, often adjusting during play for various circumstances.

"When a player helps another character face their inner demons that character's player may award them a Squeegee Token."

The GM pencils in whether the the player help face those demons, which again will be amended in further play, due to varying circumstances. Side note: I'll leave the second part of the example though...the player deciding to award the point sounds like normal strategic choice to me.


See how these all are very similar to the 'design it yourself!' structure I mentioned about D&D 2E relic items?

I'll say what I don't like about this:
A. It's bloody asking for money for a product, while not saying what is and isn't designed in it. PS: I like the D&D 2E relic idea...I think that is explicity shows what you have to design in it, as a user.

B: The big one. It's like a dragon eating it's tail. When these DIY elements come up during play, they must be designed at that point, right in the middle of play. It takes an incredibly disciplined user to not to mix up his in game concerns with what he designs. Even if he can, this sort of discipline is unreasonable or is best saved for significant tasks in life and not RP (even though I love roleplay and think it's pretty significant to me).

When in game concerns bleed over into the on the fly design and influence it, it gets this toxic feeling you note. This is where the dragon eat's it's tail, as if that's how it sustains itself. Here we have creative focuses that feed you by controlling behaviour...but the user is designing parts of these same focuses. He is controlling his controller. There is no creative focus here, it is masturbation as the creative limmits that kept him align with the group effort are designed out. Masturbation is fine on your own, but if your in a group your supposed to be doing something with them (why are you with them otherwise?). No one wants to come along, just to watch you wank. That's toxic.

As usual, this is a sliding scale thing...having just a few self design elements doesn't lead to this. But IMO it's on the path to the dragon.

On a side note, I had an older thread on something like this (this thread has helped me advance on from my previous ideas, though): http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13756&highlight=edit


The thing is, I think you always have to be bloody close to this problem. Roleplay floats on the sea of exploration. In chess, it's all there in the rules. For roleplay, this imaginary world will provide atleast part of the answers needed, rather than just rules providing them. It's like having chess, and then a few elements that are vague enough that they plug into an SIS.

I had some thoughts on how to help with this, but they have fled me. I'll be back latter! :)

[TonyLB]

A rule that presents you with "strategic" options in how it can be applied is an SA rule.  You have options.  There is a decision point embedded in the application of the rule.  And the definitions are about whether you have a choice to make.

I get that this doesn't jibe with some people's personal definitions of "subjective".  But I can't build anything on definitions that vary from person to person.  That's why I'm trying to get something as clear as I can as a foundation.


Now, that minor correction out of the way:  A very interesting question has been raised.  How much (if any) functional difference is there between a rule that presents you with an SA choice in whether it does anything, and a rule that presents you with an SI choice about whether it applies at all?

I'm positing that we're designing a hypothetical game "Killfest".  We need to figure out how people hand out Spatter tokens.  We have two possible rules:[list=1][*]"When a character does something supremely gorey and disgusting the GM gives them a Spatter token."
[*]"At any time, the GM may give a player a Spatter token to signify that they have done something supremely gorey and disgusting."[/list:o]As I hope the highlighting makes clear, these rules as stated are SIOA and OISA respectively, by the strict definitions.  Now, are they meaningfully different?

I think the answer is yes.  Specifically, I think they communicate different things when the GM doesn't give a player a Spatter token.  

Under rule #1, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude either:[list=1][*]The GM doesn't agree that your action was "supremely gorey and disguisting," or[*]The GM is misinterpreting the rules[/list:o]Under rule #2, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude nothing.

[Bankuei]

Hi Tony,

Perhaps the key word to highlight in # 2 is "may"- because that's the one word that changes the rule into a "Mother-may-I"* choice of the GM's whim.  But yeah, that's completely on point.

On a larger scale, this is why the "Golden Rule" and "Rule 0" are wack in general, because they basically throw "may" into a whole ruleset... "If you don't like it, you -may- ignore it"...  This is a rule as much as any other, and its an escape clause for either bad design or designers who were too chickenshit to admit their wundergame doesn't cook, clean, slice, dice AND wash the car.

What may also be worth noting, when we're talking about objective vs. subjective(as you're using it here) is the use of physical tokens to nail things down to being objective.  

If we roll a die, the die is a physical thing that can be referred to by the whole group.  Though what all that means and how that affects SIS is interpretive to the group, a "4" on the die is a "4" on the die.  Likewise, while points may not exist in a physical form, they often are tracked through physical records and serve a similar purpose.

While rules might point to how to manipulate or manage tokens, or how to interpret them, the rules can't invalidate their actual existance... which is very important.  It serves as a flag to the group when subjective decisions are being made...  If you rolled a "20" and you know you should have hit the DM's Very Important NPC, and he declares that you missed... the group can clearly see a subjective decision overriding "how play normally works"...

I'd say every one of these violations is a key sign of where mechanics and CA don't meet up, and are a good thing to look for when trying to identify CA tells.

Chris

*"Mother-may-I" is a term borrowed from Mike Mearls in regards to such rules and mechanics.  I think it fits perfectly.

[Silmenume]

Hi Tony,

Jay:  I'm interested to hear that you're running so much SIOA, as it doesn't match well with the vibe I'd gotten from your descriptions.  Can you describe one such rule for us, to help give us some Actual Play structure to reference?

Let's see.  I say subjective for several reasons.  First there is no fixed or printed rules set, thus many times (not always) there is no "objective rule" to invoke.  Second as the game tends to be unstructured/free flowing as to who gets to say what when, knowing when to invoke a fixed rule is very difficult and basically a subjective call.  For example, many times combat rules are subjectively invoked by the GM not primarily to make sure everything "works out" properly, but rather when it suits his needs to make the play as exciting as possible.  Sometimes we play out (essentially mime) whole segments of combat without a single roll, and other times many rolls are called for.  Depending on how we mime out our combat actions we may or may not get bonuses or penalties to rolls.  So here we have a case of SIOA.  The application is expressed as specific bonuses to die rolls.

Conversely non-combat situations are also awarded awards for what is impossible to objectively define – "good role-play."  By being clever, or dumb, or passionate, or stoic, or inventive or whatever else contributes to the Dream in a profound way can be rewarded with "wisdom checks" and or bonuses to "swaying/rallying the NPC's" or a cool new Character or a "Best role-player of the night star."  I'd guess this would be SISA.

The very difficult part about OIOA that I was referring to in my game is that there are very few fixed rules which call for relatively unambiguous invocation.  Given that what is frequently rewarded "good role-play" is entirely subjective it is virtually impossible to make objective interpretations on that reward mechanism.  Also, as what matters in the game is virtually infinite, we frequently don't even bother with a fixed rules system but rather make judgment calls mated to die rolls (combat is the major exception to this, but even here there is much – er – sloppiness?)  Even rolling up levels is open to subjective interpretation where all sorts of things usually end up being negotiated.  FREX – I've played a Dunedain a couple of times recently.  I was involved in the sack of Aria, I all by myself, by dint of will and Charisma alone defeated an enraged mob of 300+ townsmen who were about to murder my brother.  Finally, in an effort to stave off a war between king Dain and king Thranduil, I went into the Dead Marshes with my brother and several others including Gandalf at the request of Gandalf to try and find some "bauble" of antiquity (1st or 2nd age Elven jewel) that would salve the ego of king Dain.  By dumb luck via an unusual turn of fate Aragorn loaned me an elfstone that Arwen had betrothed to him.  All I knew was that it was similar to phial of Galadrial.  Without any real understanding or knowledge of what it did, I used the stone three times – once to open a Numenorean tomb, and twice to destroy great heaping mobs of spectral undead – IOW enough EP's to make several levels.  "By the books" I should get 3 levels, but the GM feels that 2 is more appropriate.  He explained his case and I agree with him, but I intend to see if I can leaven my Character some via secondary skills or even my attributes (Wisdom and Charisma would be nice!) because of the workings of the stone (the light that shown forth was basically the light of the two trees via the light of the Silmarils present in the stars – very holy and uplifting stuff!)  Thus even here there is much subjectivity involved – and I wouldn't have it any other way!  At least with this GM.

Did I make any sense at all?  Let me know if you have further questions or there are ways I can make myself better understood!

[Jasper Polane]

What may also be worth noting, when we're talking about objective vs. subjective(as you're using it here) is the use of physical tokens to nail things down to being objective.

I think this is an important point. See, I don't think rules like PtA fanmail and TSOY's gift of dice are subjective at all. Who may use it, when they may use it, etc, all is very clearly defined. The tokens actually define these things.

--Jasper

[Callan S.]

I think the answer is yes.  Specifically, I think they communicate different things when the GM doesn't give a player a Spatter token.  

Under rule #1, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude either:[list=1][*]The GM doesn't agree that your action was "supremely gorey and disguisting," or[*]The GM is misinterpreting the rules[/list:o]Under rule #2, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude nothing.

Interesting distinction.

I'm guessing what your saying is that the following really mean.
Rule 1. Players should do something gorey and assert the contention that this is gorey and deserves the reward listed here. The GM will agree or disagree with this contention.

Rule 2. Don't bother with asserting the contention, the GM will award the point with or without any arguement from you that you deserve a reward for these actions. Thus there is no real engagement (through beneficial arguement) between individuals about this reward. Not only does he get to decide what is gorey, you don't even get to push for times of your choice when he should decide this. Shit happens, you don't influence that.

Interesting distinction. Is this the sort of thing your getting at, because I thought I understood you with my last post?

[M. J. Young]

Callan called me on the carpet on my last distinction. No, I am not talking about whether or not we're going to continue to play the game. Let me, though, take a familiar rule from a familiar board game, and morph it into three different versions. The game is Monopoly.[list=1][*]If you draw the Take a Ride on the Reading Chance card, you must move your token around the board in a clockwise direction to that space.[*]If you draw the Take a Ride on the Reading Chance card, you may decide whether to move your token around the board in a clockwise direction to that space.[*][*]If you draw the Take a Ride on the Reading Chance card, the first player to your left who does not own that space will decide whether your token will advance clockwise around the board to that space.[/list:o]Rule one is clearly an objective rule objectively applied. Setting aside the matter of whether we're going to follow the rules, it's clear that if we're following the rules I will move my token to the Reading Railroad space.

Rule three, meanwhile, may have an objective value, but it is subjectively applied. The player on my left has the power to decide whether or not the rule should apply in this case. I've attempted to nullify the possibility that he would benefit from the decision (I would have to include several more provisions to eliminate all potential benefit), so the decision is based entirely on whether he wants you to go there or not.

Rule two, however, is a strategic decision. I make the choice based on whether I think that move is going to benefit or harm me. There may be subjective elements, but in the end the answer will reflect that which I think gives me the best board position.

The point about rules two and three are that whether or not I move, the rule has still been applied. In rule one, applying the rule means the piece is moved. In rules two and three, applying the rule means someone gets to choose whether or not the piece is moved.

I realize that strategic is a bad word. By it I mean "a decision that advances player objectives". That would mean that maneuvering the game into a position in which you can make a statement concerning premise is a strategic decision, as is altering the shared imagined space in a manner that opens new opportunities for exploration.

I will admit that in role playing games it is not always clear which are strategic decisions and which are subjective--if the referee gets to decide whether or not you get a token for your bravery, does that decision impact play in a manner that would influence his decision, or is it merely the referee acting in the manner of a teacher grading a work of art for creative expression? "I thought it was brave and merited a token" is an entirely subjective rule. "I gave him a token because I want to encourage that kind of play in the events ahead" may be a strategic one.

However, certainly, "I moved my knight to QB4 and so took his queen and put his king in check" is a strategic, not a subjective, decision; and the actions of the movement of the knight, the removal of the queen, and threat to the king are all based on entirely objective applications of objective rules. If I could say, "I promise not to take your king on the next turn, so you don't have to move him, because my promise means he's not in check," or you could say, "Taking my queen left your knight injured and debilitated such that he can't possibly take my king on the next move, so my king is safe where he is," that might be a subjective rule--we get to decide whether the apparent threat of one piece being in a position to take another is an actual threat. The subjective element arises in whether the rule applies automatically in a clearly defined and unarguable situation (objective) or whether someone decides whether this time the rule will apply.

The OISA example was not a case of deciding whether we're going to continue to play the game. It was a case of a clearly defined condition being necessary but not sufficient for the application of a rule, the remaining aspect being the subjective (or possibly strategic) judgment of the referee as to whether or not the bonus should be given. The rule initially read something like, "If a natural 10 is rolled, the player may be given a token, at the sole discretion of the referee." That is exactly the same as saying, "If a natural 10 is rolled, the referee is empowered to determine whether or not to give the player a token." Nothing in that is about whether we're going to continue to play the game. It's about whether the referee wants to give the player a token, and whether he's allowed to do so.

My primary objection is that I'm not persuaded we can clearly distinguish which part of a rule is subjective. If part of it is subjective, it's subjective.

I'm positing that we're designing a hypothetical game "Killfest".  We need to figure out how people hand out Spatter tokens.  We have two possible rules:[list=1][*]"When a character does something supremely gorey and disgusting the GM gives them a Spatter token."
[*]"At any time, the GM may give a player a Spatter token to signify that they have done something supremely gorey and disgusting."[/list:o]As I hope the highlighting makes clear, these rules as stated are SIOA and OISA respectively, by the strict definitions.  Now, are they meaningfully different?

I think the answer is yes.  Specifically, I think they communicate different things when the GM doesn't give a player a Spatter token.  

Under rule #1, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude either:[list=1][*]The GM doesn't agree that your action was "supremely gorey and disguisting," or[*]The GM is misinterpreting the rules[/list:o]Under rule #2, if the GM doesn't give a Spatter token you can conclude nothing.

I disagree.

In case #2, if the referee has not given you a Spatter token, you can conclude that the referee did not think you did anything sufficiently gorey or disgusting to merit such a token.

In case #1, if the referee has not given you a Spatter token, you can conclude that the referee did not think you did anything sufficiently gorey or disgusting.

Case #1 phrases the rule such that the referee is instructed to give tokens to those whose actions fit the standard, but leaves the judgment as to whether any particular action fits the standard to his subjective judgment.

Case #2 phrases the rule such that the referee is empowered to give tokens to those who in his subjective judgment meet his standards.

As someone has observed, the difference is entirely in the use of the word "may"--it changes the rule from mandatory to optional. It doesn't make it less subjective, really. If the rules were:[list=1][*]"When a character does something supremely gorey and disgusting the GM will give them a Spatter token."
[*]"At any time, the GM will give a player a Spatter token to signify that they have done something supremely gorey and disgusting."[/list:o]The difference evaporates completely.

With the "may" versus "will" distinction clarified, the question then falls back to the context of the game. Why would a referee choose to or not to give the token to the player? The answer is almost always going to be strategic--because doing so advances or impedes the referee's intentions for the game.

It may well be, though, that all "subjective application" rules are really "strategic application"; I'm not sure on that point. "Subjective interpretation" is more difficult, as it is almost always possible to turn a subjective interpretation into a strategic decision.

I've rambled long enough here. I'm still not happy with the idea--if there's subjectivity in the rule (which is not a bad thing), I'm not sure you can always be clear where it lies.

--M. J. Young

[TonyLB]

MJ:  First, let me just ask for a quick clarification:  When you use "subjective" in the first section of your text, you're no longer talking about it in any way that relates to my definitions, are you?

Because if you're expressing your own personal opinions about what the broader word "subjective" means, that's fine.  But if you're saying those things in reference to one of my definitions then I'm going to correct your usage.


Now, on the two rules:  I don't see how your modified ("will" version) rule #2 would work.  Or, rather, as I read the rule, it would imply that the GM has to give out a Spatter token to a player at every single moment of the game, and that they signify that the players have done something gorey and disgusting (whether they have or haven't).

[Callan S.]

Hi M.J,

Actually, I think I missunderstood you and made a case on my misspercieved point. But looking at it closely now, why I made this mistake raises an interested line of enquiry from me (and hopefully more on target).

Rather, a subjective application rule would be any case in which someone in the game gets to decide whether or not the rule should apply in this case.

Which I think puts me in much the same situation as John: subjective application is not different from subjective interpretation, as in both cases we're asking whether or not the rule should apply. The OISA example is a case of the referee deciding whether or not a token should be awarded on this particular roll of ten (without any guidance concerning how to make that decision).

Emphasis mine.

At first, I thought you meant that deciding whether the rule applied was at the level of "Do we play the game or not?".

Re-reading it, I think it's a confusion that only if the reward is applied, did the the rule get applied.

"Any time a player rolls a ten the GM may choose to award them a Squeegee Token, at the GMs sole discretion." Objective Interpretation, Subjective Application (OISA)

Am I reading you right in that your saying that if that token isn't given, the GM decided the rule doesn't apply?

I think that's where the subjective interpretation and subjective application confusion is coming up.

There is no descision on whether the GM applies the rule. If a ten comes up, the GM must consider whether the player gets a token. There is no subjective "Oh, now I'll decide whether I want to decide if he get's a token". The GM must decide. No ifs, no buts. He must make a descision on this, he doesn't get to subjectively decide if he'll make this descision. Now, whether the token is handed out is subjectively up to him, yes. But like it or not, to play the game he must make a descision when a ten comes up. That is completely objective. There is no choice about whether he makes a decision on this, only choice on what his descision is.

I think we need to be careful of thinking that only if someone got a token out of such a rule, did the rule apply at all/the GM decided if the rule applied.


Once we have it pinned that the GM is objectively required to make a decision (even though he subjectively decides that decision), Tony's second rule example becomes significantly different.

"At any time, the GM may give a player a Spatter token to signify that they have done something supremely gorey and disgusting."

Nothing objective forces the GM to make a descision on this. If he's going to make a descision on it, it's because he subjectively decided to make a subjective descision. As Tony puts it, you learn nothing from such a descision. IMO that's because it's not at all creatively focused (to much subjectivity means it's just impractical to learn from by others). It's subjectivity stacked on top of subjectivity.

"When a character does something supremely gorey and disgusting the GM gives them a Spatter token."

Looking at it now, personally I like to think of it as a rule which forces two results. I consider someone at the game table having to make a descision, as a result in itself. "Ha! I rolled a ten, now you have to think about this question!" is the same as "Ha! I rolled a ten, now you have to take away ten HP!". The rules have forced something to happen...what happens is up to the user in this case, but he is certainly forced to do something. That's a result, objectively required.

Oops, I'm rambling!

PS: Did you forget example 3 in your post?

[M. J. Young]

To do last things first,

PS: Did you forget example 3 in your post?

No; I got an extra asterisk marker in it, apparently, so it listed nothing as #3 and #3 as #4. I'd fix it, but it's too late.

I will concede that there is a difference between the subjective application and the subjective interpretation; what I'm not clear on is why it particularly matters in play--in both instances, players are going to gloss over the difference and just decide.

However, to clarify this, let me create a new set of less ambiguous examples (and attempt to get them to number correctly this time):[list=1]If the attack roll is at least 18, the attack does maximum damage.[*]If the attack roll is at least 18, the referee may ignore the damage roll and allow the attack to do maximum damage.[*]If the referee believes the attack roll is high in this situation, the attack does maximum damage.[*]If the referee believes the attack roll is high in this situation, the referee may ignore the damage roll and allow the attack to do maximum damage.[/list:o]In cases 1 and 2 the Interpretation is clearly Objective, while in 3 and 4 it is Subjective. In 1 and 3 the Application is objective, while in 2 and 4 it is Subjective.

My perception is that case 1 is the clear rule: whenever an 18 or better is rolled, everyone knows that the attack does maximum damage.

In all other cases, if an 18 is rolled, everyone is going to wait for the referee to decide whether the attack does maximum damage or a damage roll is required.

#2 is distinguished in that if a 17 is rolled, no one will wonder--the referee doesn't give out bonus damage on 17's because the game doesn't call for it. On the other hand, with ##3&4 it may be that this referee only gives out bonus damage on 19 or 20, in which case the players will gradually learn that 18 doesn't count. In all three cases, though, from the player perspective this rule means that on high rolls they have to wait for the referee to decide whether they get bonus damage. With #2 they don't have to wait if the roll is not at least 18 because it's written in stone that lower rolls don't qualify. With #3 they have to wait to see whether the referee thinks this is a high roll in this situation--one might argue (assuming that it's d20 based) that a 20 would have to be a high roll in every situation, but a referee might object that against this adversary a 20 is not a high roll unless you've got hefty bonuses to support it. In case #4 the referee is deciding both whether he thinks the roll is high enough for the situation and whether he wants to give out the bonus, which is indeed two subjective decisions.

My concern is that I don't think the players care. In all three cases, the referee has the credibility to decide whether or not they get the maximum damage entirely on how he feels about it at the moment.

However, I will agree that a good referee who treats the rules as authoritative will distinguish in his own mind whether he's not giving the bonus because the roll wasn't high enough from whether he's not giving the bonus because despite the high roll he doesn't want to give it this time.

Tony, it may be that I'm uncomfortable with your use of "subjective" if it applies to chess moves (as someone has applied it in this thread). Every move we make in a game involves system/rules at some level. I think for this objective/subjective distinction to apply meaningfully to rules, we have to separate from it decisions that are made concerning moves made. There is a sense in which deciding to move my knight is choosing which rules apply, but I would not say that counts as subjectively deciding whether or not to apply the rules connected to moving knights.

At the same time, I find it difficult to find an example in which the decision of whether or not to apply a rule would not be strategic, in the sense that the person making the decision is doing so to achieve an objective in the game. Thus in my examples above, the referee could decide not to award the bonus damage in examples ##2&4 because he wants this particular enemy to be hard to kill. He could in fact decide in #3 that he is not going to give the bonus damage for exactly that same reason--he wants this enemy to be hard to kill. That's a strategic decision. What would a non-strategic subjective decision look like? I'm not sure. Maybe, "Yeah, 8 is high enough in this situation, I don't feel like digging out the dice for damage, so just do the maximum."

So I'm trying to distinguish "My guy walks across the street" from a subjective application of the rules. If "subjective application" is going to mean any time anyone decides to do anything not dictated by the rules, then it ceases in my mind to have any relevance to "rules" at all.

So maybe I'm just not getting this thread.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

I think the discussion of Subjective vs. Strategic...while essentially tangental...does highlight a weakness in the original definitions.

While Tony's definition reads

A rule with Subjective Application gives some player the right to any of two or more possible outcomes when the rule is relevant.

Both of his initial examples are examples of some person making the interpretation on behalf of someone else.

I think that's an important distinction and one appropriate to make when using the word "subjective" a rule is objective when there is no question about how its going to apply to me.  A rule is subjective when someone else gets to choose how its going to apply to me.

I think Tony missed this distinction in the initial definition and that led to his conclusion about Chess being full of subjective decisions which then opened this discussion on subjective vs. strategic.


The key difference would seem to me to be "when I have a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its strategic".  "when someone else has a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its subjective".  "when noone has a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its objective".

[Callan S.]

Hi M.J,

My concern is that I don't think the players care. In all three cases, the referee has the credibility to decide whether or not they get the maximum damage entirely on how he feels about it at the moment.

However, I will agree that a good referee who treats the rules as authoritative will distinguish in his own mind whether he's not giving the bonus because the roll wasn't high enough from whether he's not giving the bonus because despite the high roll he doesn't want to give it this time.

That actually is the problem, he will indeed need to be a good referee. A referee is someone who isn't playing the game, he's watching over others who are playing. The big model doesn't differentiate between GM and player. The GM is just another player...he is playing, and he has stakes in how the game goes. His choices are strategic whether he likes it or not, unless he stops playing.

The players either do care, because they notice the conflict of interest, or don't care, not because the conflict isn't there, but because they haven't noticed. They enter some sort of 'The tree never fell in the woods because we didn't see it happen/the GM is just a referee' mode of play.

Typically the work around is that he does indeed stop playing, think about it, make a declaration, then start playing again. This isn't terribly effective at removing the conflict of interest and these are rules that asks a player, in order that the game goes on, to stop playing. Over and over. That's what I was getting at in my old thread I linked to, about run phase and editing phase, and being forced into editing/referee phase by the rules (sometimes multiple times for one task resolution).

Finally, when that conflict of interest bleeds in, you get the toxic effect where the creative focuses that apply to the GM (and help him make something interesting) are undermined by how he can control them. Things like the bad guy getting away by means that players would never have been allowed by the GM, in his interpretation of the rules.


Just on what you asked Tony,

In Chess your turn comes up, and you have two or more (generally many more) possible outcomes of taking your turn. You can move the knight here, or move the queen there, or castle, or.... Those are all choices of Application, which makes it OISA.

I'll hypothesize that this actually defines a strategic choice, in showing what seperates it from a purely subjective choice (the objective part helps change it to a strategic choice). Sort of like XX is a woman and XY is a man, SISA is purely subjective and OISA is strategic. In that OISA can contain a subjective element and not be subjective, like I have an X chromosome and that's part of what makes me a man.

What would a non-strategic subjective decision look like? I'm not sure. Maybe, "Yeah, 8 is high enough in this situation, I don't feel like digging out the dice for damage, so just do the maximum."

That's why I mentioned the design level. If your not making a strategic choice then your making a design descision (like penciling in the relic powers in D&D 2e). What that non-strategic subjective decision looks like is someone sitting down and designing a roleplay game. No play involved at all.

[Callan S.]

Hi Ralph,

The key difference would seem to me to be "when I have a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its strategic".  "when someone else has a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its subjective".  "when noone has a choice in how / when / whether to apply a rule to me, its objective".

I think this will take the discussion off a productive track. Someone else deciding how the rule works is a design attempt to make it objective. It's an attempt, because it assumes that other person for some reasons doesn't have a stake in the game and wont use the descision to strategic purposes. Someone who is playing in the game with you. Umm, to play, you need to have a stake. This isn't part of a definition, but an old design to help the "stop playing/decide/start playing again" conflict of interest work around to this problem.

The real distinction with OISA is that the game rules decide when you get to decide something. That's a really big difference from you deciding when your going to go and decide something.

The former requires strategy, the latter doesn't. The former can focus a group all onto the same strategizing activity, the latter can't. Really, it can't, only social contract rules setting up OISA like choices will make it seem like it can and only if you manage to forget social contract exists. Freeform play, for example...full of SC rules (containing OISA rules), but SC is often assumed not to exist.

[Valamir]

I'm afraid I don't follow you Callan.  I can't parse what you're trying to say.

My point was to identify the source of confusion that caused MJ to start to discuss "strategic" choices, brought on by the unfortuneate use of board games as an example.

The reason why having multiple choices where the rules don't tell you which to do seems subjective in an RPG is because its someone else doing the choosing for you.

The reason why having multiple choices where the rules don't tell you which to do seems strategic in a board game is because its you choosing for yourself.

The reason why bringing someone else in to decide how the rule works is an attempt to make it objective is presumeably because the other person is a neutral third party with no vested interest to decide one way or the other.  

In an RPG there is no such person...regardless of whether the GM is called a referee, they always have their own vested interest and are thus never objective.  That's why traditional rule books add layer on layer of rules...because only the application of predetermined rules can be truly objective.

Far from being unproductive, I think this distinction is essential to put an end to the whole subjective vs. strategic tangent of the thread.