Where can you talk about "Objective" and "Sub

[Callan S.]

Heya Ralph,

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.

I think your saying that it seems subjective, but it's actually always strategic on the part of the chooser. If not, ignore the following (and if not, what is it if not subjective or strategic? I couldn't see it from your second post).

I agree, mostly. With something like OISA, the Subjective Application part could called Strategic Application. However, I think it requires both OI and SA, for the idea of strategic choice to be involved, rather than just one side of this being thought to enable it alone.

Because without the Objective Interpretation at the start, you have nothing that everyone can understand equally. No objective interpretation, no common understanding. Without that understanding between you, your not playing a game with other people (your all playing different games at the same table).

No game, no strategy possible.

The S in OISA could stand for strategy, but strategy doesn't come from just that second half. Perhaps the S word could be replaced with another, but a subjective choice seems reasonable. In nar when I address premise my subjectivity is fine, and in gamism that subjectivity is up to the test of the challenge. It's how the player is subjective, that is of interest and up for exploration. If we want to know how the subject responds to stuff, we need his subjective responce. To develop a common understanding of it, we'll need it to be a strategic responce.

[TonyLB]

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'm willing to be convinced that this is an important distinction.  It has some intuitive appeal.  But I don't yet see what makes it vital.  So... what's the important difference between "strategic" and "subjective"?

Apart from making MJ (and perhaps you) feel more comfortable with how labels are being applied, what's its wider significance?  Does it correspond to something that impacts our sense of how to design a game?

And I have two for-instances, to try to get my mind around the terms.  I have an intuitive sense for them, but not a hard-and-fast rational framework.  Please don't take this as an attack:  I expect that you do have a rational framework, and I'm genuinely just looking for clarification.

In Chess, if I put my Queen directly into the line of attack of a pawn then it's the other players choice whether or not to take it.  By your definition, would my loss of a Queen therefore be the result of a rule subjectively applied, rather than strategically?

In Universalis there are many resources that belong to no particular player, yes?  Would a rule that lets a player choose how to affect such a resource, but does not affect any resources that are uniquely assigned to either them or another player be subjective or strategic?

[Simon Kamber]

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.

I agree with you that strategic decisions aren't neccesarily subjective applications.

But I don't think "deciding if the rule applies" works as a definition. I would say that "Any time a player rolls a ten the GM awards them a number of squeegee tokens according to how heroic the action was" qualifies as subjective application, even though the rule neccesarily applies every time a 10 is rolled.

[Simon Kamber]

I'm willing to be convinced that this is an important distinction.  It has some intuitive appeal.  But I don't yet see what makes it vital.  So... what's the important difference between "strategic" and "subjective"?

Apart from making MJ (and perhaps you) feel more comfortable with how labels are being applied, what's its wider significance?  Does it correspond to something that impacts our sense of how to design a game?

I don't think the distinction is important so much as that the definition of "subjective application" as encompassing strategic decisions gives problems because it's two very different concepts, at least to me.

If the possible courses of actions, and the motivation for these actions, is clearly defined, then I don't think the rule can be considered subjective, even if there are multiple choices. Chess is a good example, I don't think the application of the rules in chess is subjective.


I would say that a suitable definition of subjective interpretation and application is that they are based in social contract, rather than defined by the rules or chosen by any one player.

[Valamir]

Tony, I really think you're confusing yourself by bringing board games into this.  The whole reason I was pointing out the distinction between subjective and strategic is to draw attention to the difference and why board game examples don't (generally) apply.

Chess rules are very simple.  You losing your Queen is in no way subjective.

There is a rule that tells you you can move 1 piece of your choice on your turn.  Its wholly objective.  When: your turn.  What:  1 piece.  You have a choice as to which piece to move but the rules don't tell you which.  Now by your definition that makes it an Objective Rule and a Subjective application.

Now lets play a variant of Chess where *I* tell you which piece to move on your turn.  Again, you'd categorize this as an Objective Rule and a Subjective application.

But I think its pretty clear that these are completely different things:  My making the choice about your piece is a very different game from you making the choice about your piece.

Consider your quote from the first post

I'll jump right in and say that I think that SIOA rules are absolutely toxic. They beg people to conclude that other players are deliberately cheating them, and to get angry and argumentative about it.

Its clear that what you're envisioning when you said this was "My making the choice about your piece".  You wouldn't be concerned that other people are deliberately cheating you if it was YOU making the choice for yourself.

That's the key distinction.

[TonyLB]

Ralph, in all seriousness, do not tell me what I think.  I am trying very hard not to respond in an inflammatory manner.  But I am really immensely pissed off.  What you've done is the very opposite of respectful treatment of my ideas.

Plus, I didn't ask what I was thinking.  I asked what you were thinking.  But now, in order for us to have a meaningful conversation about our opinions, I need to correct you.  Which is a waste of your time and mine.

So, once again:  I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

I am not envisioning that players can only be upset about rules where other people effect them.  I'll give an example:

[*]When your character does something supremely heroic, take a Bonus Token from the jar.[/list:u]If I take a token from the jar every time my character pays for a round of ale, other players can (and in my experience will) consider that cheating.

By your definitions, would this be a rule with a Strategic application?

[TonyLB]

Whoops... sorry, my mistake:  Obviously that rule wouldn't be Strategic, as there are no choices involved.  Would this rule:

[*]When your character does something supremely heroic, you may take a Bonus Token from the jar.[/list:u]... be strategic or subjective application?

[Simon Kamber]

Whoops... sorry, my mistake:  Obviously that rule wouldn't be Strategic, as there are no choices involved.  Would this rule:

[*]When your character does something supremely heroic, you may take a Bonus Token from the jar.[/list:u]... be strategic or subjective application?

How does the definition I proposed, that the defining factor for a subjective application is that the social contract provides the application, fit here? I.e. the rule is, as written, not subjective. But in practice, it would be, because social contract would dictate when you took a bonus token.

[Valamir]

Tony...I have no desire to make you angry.  But if I'm not permitted to come to a conclusion about what you mean based on what you say, then I'm not sure how its possible to have a productive dialog about anything.

If somewhere I came to a false conclusion, I concede that possibility. But all of my conclusions came directly from your own words, so getting angry with me is not really that fair.  ALL of your subjective application examples in your initial posts involved 1 person passing judgment on someone else, until the issue got clouded with chess.

I believe I answered the question of what I think above.  Perhaps if you read it again and overlook the parts you found upsetting you'll find it there in my example of the Queen's move and how who decides among the choices makes for a very different play experience.

When your character does something supremely heroic, you may take a Bonus Token from the jar.

I'll make a couple of points here.

1) you don't REALLY have a choice in the second part unless there's some reason NOT to take a Bonus Token.  In other words if tokens are universally desireable (or universally undesireable) than there isn't really a choice you always (or never) take them.  If the Bonus Token gives you some sort of increased effectiveness now but penalizes experience points later (for example) then there is the opportunity for a choosing among different preferences.

2) So assuming there is some actual choice in the above, then since the player is making it for themselves its clearly a strategic choice.  

3) the subjectivity of the first part may result in an abusive "toxic" play, but that doesn't change the fact that the application is the player choosing what they think is best.  Its no different than choosing which of your pieces I want to capture in chess.  Now if I'm subjectively deciding how many turns in a row I can take (the interpretation is subjective) you can call that equally toxic.

But lets avoid that and make the choice between the following:


Every time you kill a Drowg you get to take either 1 Red Chip or 1 Black Chip.

vs.

Every time you kill a Drowg I get to choose whether you take 1 Red Chip or 1 Black Chip.

In these examples the Interpretation is entirely objective...did you kill a Drowg yes or no (assuming the rules are clear about what constitutes death and how to rule if the actual final fate of the Drowg is unknown).  The Red and Black Chips have different valuable uses in the game such that which chips you take influences the ways in which your character can be effective going forward, i.e. there is a meaningful choice to make.

Can you see the inherent difference between you getting to choose the chip, vs. me choosing the chip for you?  Very different play experiences, because the rules are creating a very different social dynamic.

[TonyLB]

Ralph, fair enough.  I literally cannot conceive how you got what you thought I was saying from what I said, but if you thought that you were just recapping for clarity then I can hardly fault you for it.  And now, of course, you realize that you were mistaken about what I was saying.

On your discussions of "making a choice for yourself or making a choice for another", absolutely, the difference in those instances is clear.

I get that, because I immediately jumped to questions, rather than affirming that I see the difference you're saying, you felt obliged to trot out clearer and clearer instances.  They've made your point.

I think, however, that there are important boundary conditions that are only fuzzily defined in your usage of the terminology.  And I'd like to understand those boundary conditions.  Which is why I'm asking questions about situations where the usage isn't clear.  So could you possibly address one of the unclear variations that I've proposed?

[Valamir]

Well I'm not wedded to any terms.  I only called it Strategic because that's how MJ referred to it.  If it makes more sense to call it:

So:  Subjective Choice made by Others vs.
Ss:  Subjective Choice made by Self.  

Thats AoK by me...its your proposed taxonomy.  I was only concerned with identifying a distinction within your Subjective category that wasn't captured in the Taxonomy as you had it.


Objective Interpretation:  There is no choice in what the rule means, its unambiguous.  

Objective Application:  There is no choice in when, how, or whether to apply the rule is it is unambiguous.

Subjective Interpretation Others:  There is a choice to be made on what a rule means.  That choice is made by someone other than the person being effected by the rule

Subjective Interpretation Self (aka Strategic):  There is a choice to be made on what a rule means.  That choice is made by the person being effected by the rule.

Subjective Application Others:  There is a choice to be made on when, how, or whether to apply the rule.  That choice is made by someone other than the person being effected by the rule.

Subjective Application Self:  There is a choice to be made on when, how, or whether to apply the rule.   That choice is made by the person being effected by the rule.


The ambiguities I can see are
a) how meaningful does the choice have to be to qualify as subjective.  If the Choice is so loaded as to be effectively notta-choice does that make it objective?

b) what about rules that effect multiple players simultaneously.  I guess that would depend on the context of the rule.  Traditionally the "someone other than the person being effected" has been the GM.  Overlap in applying a rule that would effect both the GM and the players has been limited to things like area of effect spells that will nail both a PC and an NPC.  Traditionally, I would call such a rule "subjective other" because the distinction from the perspective of a player is the more meaningful one.  But as games where players share power become more common, that gets a little more difficult.  

I think its probably always unambiguous if you add "from the perspective of any given person".  But what does that mean for different players having different perspectives for any given application...?  I think that's a hella interesting avenue for exploration.  Great Ork Gods comes to mind as a game where this situation is encoded into the rules.  Certain players make the choice in certain arenas, so in those arenas they experience Subjective Self.  Other players experience Subjective Other.  In other arenas that's reversed.  It creates a pretty interesting dynamic specifically because of the difference between self and other.

[TonyLB]

I think I see what you're saying.  Can I offer a different way of looking at it, and see whether it twigs with what you're thinking?  Because these issues of "What does it mean when rules affect both the executing player and other players?" are nagging at me.

Any individual rule can either Affect the character of the player executing the rule, or not.  Short-hand-of-the-moment:  APC or -APC.

Any individual rule can either Affect the characters of players other than the one executing the rule, or not.  Short-hand-of-the-moment:  OPC or -OPC.

I don't think that OPC = -APC, or APC = -OPC.  For instance:

[*]APC/OPC:  A player may take a token from some other player and keep it for themselves.[*]APC/-OPC:  A player may take a token from a bowl on the table and keep it themselves.[*]-APC/OPC:  A player may take a token from some other player and put it in a bowl on the table.[*]-APC/-OPC:  A player may take a token from one bowl on the table and put it in another bowl.[/list:u]Does that seem accurate to you?

[Valamir]

At first blush that seems reasonable.  My two initial reaction concerns with it would be:

1) is it really effecting the characters that's important? or the players?  I'm thinking the players.  Effecting a player's character *IS* effecting the player, so that's covered.  Plus it allows for effects that aren't character specific.

2) These designations may be putting too fine a point on it...i.e.  the more specific they are the less wiggle room you have for things that don't fit neatly.

By that I mean

APC/-OPC: A player may take a token from a bowl on the table and keep it themselves.

By this nomenclature taking a token from a bowl doesn't effect anyone elses character.  But...if the tokens are drivers of character effectiveness, and there are a limited number of them in the bowl...then every time you take one there are fewer there for other characters...so ultimately you ARE effecting other characters (or at least other character's potential).

In other words I think trying to get too precise can open you up to spending too much time discussing minutia, when really its the big picture effect that's worth capturing.

[TonyLB]

Well, I think we're hitting a snag in methodology then.

You want to do big picture talk, and you're willing to use terms that have to be interpreted, well... subjectively.

I want to do big picture talk too, but if I can't find a term that's going to precisely and objectively map to what I'm talking about then I'm going to shy away from talking about it.

As for why?  Witness the many ways that "subjective" and "objective" as undefined terms have been used in this very thread.  You say that Chess is an objective game.  I (and many other people, I suspect) would classify it as a subjective game, closer in fact to an art form.  I don't think we're really going to learn a lot about chess by arguing that point, though we might learn a lot about ourselves.

By comparison, I can say with mathematical certainty that Chess is a game composed purely of a combination of OIOA and OISA elements (by my first definitions).  To the extent that those terms mean anything, I can use them as tools for discussing Chess itself, rather than discussing the people doing the discussion.


So when you say that you can't pin down the distinction between affecting yourself and affecting others to language that we can agree on... far from making me excited about all the potential, it makes me very leery of the whole topic.  Does that make sense?

[Callan S.]

Well, I got lost. If someone uses an objective rule to kill the monster I was about to kill on my turn (objective interpretation to subjectively remove a monster token of choice...the one I wanted to kill), there's no difference in him doing that than if I did it myself.
Note: If someone else can effect my resource like this, then it isn't exclusively my resource, it's a shared resource...thus no one else is making a descision for my resource. It's not mine to begin with! That monster isn't mine...and if they can choose what moves my PC makes, that PC isn't exclusively mine. That's why I don't see any value in this "it's different if someone else chooses" line of enquiry.

What interested me is how there is subjective choice in there, but only when combined with an objective element, can strategy exist. Only once a subjective choice is objectively limited, does it become strategy. What interested me further is when the rules fail to make it a strategic choice, and SC has to take up the slack and turn it into an OISA rule, which almost always means the rules are a bad design.

I'm just going to read for awhile longer, then split off my own thread specifically on maintaining strategic choice. Cause I'm not sure of this threads direction now.