Where can you talk about "Objective" and "Sub

[Valamir]

I will offer these final two comments,

If you're looking for language that can pin down with mathematical certainty distinctions about things having to do with social interaction around a game table...well...good luck with that.  I don't see that as being within the realm of possible.  I've come to accept grey areas and the need to take certain things on a case by case basis as a fact of life when dealing with people.

And to Callan...here on the Forge which has promoted the idea of player empowerment to make decisions for themselves vs. traditional games where a god-like GM makes all of the important decisions for you...you can't see the value in distinguishing between who has the power to choose between multiple options offered in a game?

I guess I really am in the wrong thread.

I hope that didn't come off as being snarky.  I was pretty interested in the topic you raised Tony...but I'm realizing that there isn't ere's anything I can really contribute to the direction you want to go with it, so rather than continue to disrupt that, I'll just bow out.

[M. J. Young]

I want to put this forward tentatively. I have benefited greatly from Ralph's distinctions, but I think the matter of whether a decision is strategic is less based on who makes the decision.

What I'd like to suggest is that what is here called Subjective Application will always be Strategic. If someone, anyone, involved in the game is given the credibility to decide when and how to apply the rule, that person will make those decisions according to whatever best facilitates that person's objectives in play--even if those objectives are as benign as making the greatest number of other players happy.

I would further suggest that what is here called Subjective Interpretation may or may not be Strategic. The example Tony gave of taking a token if you do something heroic, and the player taking the token whenever he paid for the round of ale, demonstrates the case in which the player is making a strategic interpretation of the rule--"I have met the condition to gain this bonus."

However, I can see Subjective Interpretation as being non-strategic, thanks to the suggestion that subjective interpretation arises from ambiguity. If the condition is "supremely courageous" then someone has to determine what is "supremely courageous". The game could dictate who makes that decision (choices seem to be player doing the act, referee, consensus of the players, any one person at the table, or any one person at the table other than the player doing the act) or it could leave that ambiguous as well--in which case we need a subjective interpretation of who gets to make the subjective interpretation. The assumption here, I think, is that a subjective interpretation involves someone trying to be fair about how the rule is understood, that is, trying to be consistent in what it means for the conditions to have been met. The value in it of course is that it avoids mechanical definitions (e.g., "it is supremely courageous if you continue to fight when you have lost three quarters of your hit points" is much less useful with a one hundred hit point fighter than with a four hit point magic user) while letting the ambiguity be clarified by people who are actually able to assess the action in the context of play. One disadvantage is that it is open to abuse in all directions.

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 see what you're saying, but I think that in the strict terms we're using here that distinction isn't terribly significant.

My example would be "If the character does something heroic, the player may be awarded a white token." That's Subjective Interpretation (someone has to decide whether an action is "heroic") and Subjective Application (someone gets to decide whether or not to award the token). Presumably, though, white tokens have some objective value in the game, or there would be little point to awarding them. (There have been games in which players are awarded feel-good points, that is, recognition that they did something good in the game that doesn't actually have any value in the game, but I don't see that applying here.) Thus I conclude that you could indeed have an SISA rule that is still connected to something objective.

I hope this has contributed to the thread meaningfully, and I again want to thank Ralph for his input here.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

And to Callan...here on the Forge which has promoted the idea of player empowerment to make decisions for themselves vs. traditional games where a god-like GM makes all of the important decisions for you...you can't see the value in distinguishing between who has the power to choose between multiple options offered in a game?

I see the value in that. I don't see it within the scope of this thread to discuss it. I thought this thread is about analysing the means by which someone is granted control of choice, rather than about that someone being the GM and being granted control to tons and tons of choices. That god like GM thing is a bigger issue and is just one design type which is facilitated by choice enablement. I think Tony's examples were indicative of such an issue, but not to promote discussion of that issue but instead the means by which it and other such designs are facilitated. Then again I could be wrong and I may be in the wrong thread as well (haven't had any responce from Tony so I may be well off aim).

And TUT TUT TUT on me for posting again when I said I wouldn't!

[TonyLB]

Ralph:  Thank you for the many ways in which you've helped push this thread forward to fertile, productive ground.  I'm sorry to hear that you're bowing out, but I know we all appreciate your input.

MJ:  I absolutely agree that Subjective Application could always be strategic (for my own, personal, intuitive definition of "strategic").  SA rules are tools for the players who execute them, and they're naturally (and, IME, very consistently) going to use those tools to drive toward their own goals.

And I think, having reflected on it, that you're also right that SI rules will be used as tools to drive toward player goals.  Sometimes the top priority will be something like "interpret the rules fairly", which can make it look as if play is being driven by something other than player goals.  But I have real difficulty seeing a situation where somebody would deliberately and knowingly act against their own agenda.  Once you define their agenda broadly enough, that becomes almost a tautology, doesn't it?

EDIT:  Which does not mean I think it's a useless insight.  To the contrary, I hadn't realized it, tautology or no, and it's an important point.  Rules don't act.  Players act.

Which brings us to my comment on Noon's contribution:  Noon, I think you're absolutely right that the players need an objective... well, actually, I would label it "predictable", to differentiate it from the many other "objective" things we already have floating in the conversation.  I agree that the players benefit from a predictable structure, so that they can leverage their individual subjective decisions into broader consequences.

I don't think this is a separate thread.  I think it relates directly to what MJ is saying about the goal-seeking nature of Subjective Interpretation.  Because, I would offer,  A player will predict (and rely upon) the interpretation of future rules B and C when making his subjective application of current rule-instance A.

For instance:[list=a][*]Player A is having fire breathed on him by a dragon.  The princess is behind him.  He may, or may not, elect to dodge, which gives him a roll to avoid all damage.  He elects not to dodge, and gets well and thoroughly toasted.
[*]The GM now applies the rule "When a character has adequate cover they take no damage from area weapons".  He decides that a knight in armor is not adequate cover.  The princess takes full damage and dies.  This runs counter to Player A's prediction of how the rule would be interpreted.
[*]The GM moreover applies the rule "When a character makes a heroic sacrifice they earn 10,000 XP".  Since the princess died, he deems that the knights actions were neither heroic nor a sacrifice.  No bonus.  Once again, this runs counter to Player A's prediction.[/list:o]If the idea that players will rely on predictions is accepted, then the later Interpretation of rules B and C has the capacity to retroactively change the import of the application of rule A.  The knight in the example has now, retroactively, made a stupid, pointless, unstrategic decision. He has acted against his own interests, by his own choice.

How does the import of that to the player vary when (a) He thinks his prediction is 100% reliable (e.g. that the rules clearly support his position) and (b) He knows that his prediction is only a guess (e.g. that he's trying to predict what another player will choose to do)?

[Callan S.]

Hi Tony,

How does the import of that to the player vary when (a) He thinks his prediction is 100% reliable (e.g. that the rules clearly support his position) and (b) He knows that his prediction is only a guess (e.g. that he's trying to predict what another player will choose to do)?

I thought that was the direction you were going, but I think your looking at multiple rules when you don't need to, while M.J. also does this until the multiples of rules meet something objective and infers that it then inherits objectivity.

You don't need to extend past one instance of OISA or SISA. If you want to play with someone, you both need to be playing the same game. How do you play the same game? You do so when you have a common understanding of what choices are available, in every participants mind. Commonly the list is short, because that's alot easier to make clear in the minds of multiple participants. The longer that list get's, the less likely it will be clear in everyones minds. The less likely its clear in everyones minds, the less likely your actually playing the same game between you all.

Hello SISA, with it's almost unlimited amount of choices. The chance of everyone playing the same game is nil. It doesn't matter if your all at the same table, that doesn't infer a common knowledge. No, being chums for 10 years doesn't do it either. No, reality being in front of everyone doesn't mean you all share a common knowledge either (okay, I'm pimping a point from another thread here; a little dangerous). Your just not playing a game with each other.

But what if a SISA rule applies to an objective rule latter on? Wouldn't that mean it becomes play?

Well, no. The objective rule it effects still doesn't let everyone equally understand under what limits you made that subjective application. You must have group understanding to have a group activity, it's that basic. Otherwise your playing near each other, not with each other.

The closest you'll get, and what actually does make it play, are social contract add ons "Oh, Jim could say I don't provide any cover to that princess, but he'd knows he's already done a ruling like that three times this session and I'm now going red in the face, as an indicator the fourth will be too much and he will 'loose' as a GM". Hello, an OISA rule! Fresh from the social contract! Now I can understand Jim's rulings! Now I'm playing with him!

There is no play at all possible with SISA rules, but they do encourage the end users to make their own OISA designs (often in a disorganised way). This is why I mentioned over and over the relics in D&D and how you can pencil in their powers. SISA rules demand you pencil in stuff until they become OISA or even multiple OISA rules.


On a side note Tony, there's something I find interesting about the way you put the following.

The knight in the example has now, retroactively, made a stupid, pointless, unstrategic decision. He has acted against his own interests, by his own choice.

Well no, the Knight/player didn't make a mistake. The GM used the rules like an attack, so as to kill his princess resource, and used another rule to attack the players income of XP.

Now, if the GM got something out of this, like he has a PC that get's some XP from all this, everyone would be saying "Oh, you bastard, you just did that to get XP!". They might even be saying it in shocked admiration, given the right gamist (or even nar...maybe even sim) game set up.

But when the GM isn't given any resource for it there's this perception that the knight/that player made a mistake. That what happened is simply what happens. Well as I and Ralph put it, no, the GM has a stake in the game (otherwise he isn't playing). These are attacks by him on the player (which as I said, is a neutral technique), but they aren't perceieved as such because hey, no ones benefiting from this are they!? The GM's stake, the one that is actually benefiting, remains hidden. It's illusionism enablement, via mechanics.

Either that or it demands the GM/whoever, stops playing and designs the game for awhile then start play again. Which is just disruptive and it's easier to slip over to illusionism than to keep doing that (so like system matters, you'll slip to good old illusionism).

[TonyLB]

I think that what you're saying in the first section is this:  That the Knight-Player and the GM may both believe that the rules are unambiguous and give them no choice... that, for instance, what is "enough cover" is clear and obvious to everyone.  

If that's the case, though, isn't "attack" an awfully intent-laden word to refer to what the GM's doing?  A GM could do exactly this, then tell you with complete honesty that he didn't make any choices at all... he just applied the straightforward rules.

That doesn't mean he didn't make a choice:  He did.  But he wasn't cognizant of it as a choice.  And surely that consciousness, or the lack thereof, makes a difference in how the matter is communicated.

[Jasper Polane]

There is no play at all possible with SISA rules, but they do encourage the end users to make their own OISA designs (often in a disorganised way). This is why I mentioned over and over the relics in D&D and how you can pencil in their powers. SISA rules demand you pencil in stuff until they become OISA or even multiple OISA rules.

I don't see SISA rules having problems at all. Take this example:

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

If the player awarding the token is also the one deciding if the condition is met, there really is no reason to define "face their inner demons" here.

Nor is there any reason to be consistent in interpreting the rule. Say my character is an alcoholic. I could decide to give the token when a player takes away my drink, or not. If I decide to give him a token, it doesn't mean I have to give a token to every player that does the same.

--Jasper

[Callan S.]

That doesn't mean he didn't make a choice:  He did.  But he wasn't cognizant of it as a choice.  And surely that consciousness, or the lack thereof, makes a difference in how the matter is communicated.

Emphasis mine.
Yes, but how long does this last? This nievity?

I do see this all the time on somewhere like the palladium boards. People talk about 'this is how it would work out' like it isn't their choice at all. These are young players or people who remain young in regards to such conciousness of self issues (and I'm not putting down such a state).

I believe this is soap bubble design. And in context of this discussion, these SISA rules could actually be treated as soap bubble OISA rules because the GM/whoever only sees the game world working in a certain way, and can't see their own choice in the matter (much the same as nieve "my guy" syndrome). They are objectively answered as much as the participant is unaware they have any subjective choice in the matter. This is a soap bubble just waiting to burst.

Really, I believe roleplay requires informed discussion between participants about how the game is played, to at least be possible. "how the game is played" requires the understanding that you are indeed making a choice as to how it plays. The bubble should be burst.

Soap bubble design leads to magical early roleplay experiences, I think. But it also leads to very nasty lack of consent issues latter, as the supposed objective choice of someone slips into a subjective choice instead (on how one treats someone else) as the GM figures out they have a choice over this. All without the other person consenting to that GM getting to have a choice over these things.

It's hard to think of an analogy: I suppose it's like accepting the orders/decrees of someone, who points at a computer monitor with a list of rules he's working from to give those orders. You decided to follow him because the rules are so concrete. Except over time that person has figured out how to hack the list of rules to show what he wants.

Actually, that's still not good enough. Instead: Over time, this guy hasn't learnt to hack these rules, he's realised he's always been hacking them and it just isn't possible for them to reflect anything but his will.

I get the feeling someone will argue with me now "Oh no, a good GM wouldn't just be doing what he wants". Sorry, by 'good' your just refering to a multiple of social contract OISA add ons, to make up for this soap bubble issue, so the GM isn't just doing what he wants. That's great that the end users might do that. But frankly I see the social contract having to make up for a fragile design, as just bad design. It's not fine for the designer to design this way, IMO.

[Callan S.]

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

If the player awarding the token is also the one deciding if the condition is met, there really is no reason to define "face their inner demons" here.

Nor is there any reason to be consistent in interpreting the rule. Say my character is an alcoholic. I could decide to give the token when a player takes away my drink, or not. If I decide to give him a token, it doesn't mean I have to give a token to every player that does the same.

--Jasper

Yes, but how has the set of rules enabled you to get involved in a group activity with others? No one else has any concrete idea on what criteria you decided to give that point. Without that knowledge you are easily working on a similar, but seperate activity in the presence of others. This way, giving that point is like writing fifty pages of character history before play has even started...it is nothing to do with group play. It can effect group play, but it's just you, on your own, playing with yourself and no one else.

When you come to play as a group and the rules only enable you to play by yourself, they are the wrong rules for the job.

[Jasper Polane]

Yes, but how has the set of rules enabled you to get involved in a group activity with others? No one else has any concrete idea on what criteria you decided to give that point.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion without knowing more about the game. Why wouldn't they know my criteria? Should they know them? It depends on the situation in which the point was or wasn't given. To come back to my example:

"Dude, why didn't you give me a token? When Michael took away your drink, you gave him one."
"Then I was drinking away my guilt over my wife's death. Now I'm, y'know, just enjoying my drink."

Also, I don't really see how changing to OISA rules would change this. If the rule was: "When a player takes away another character's drink, that character's player may award them a Squeegee Token", the other players still wouldn't know my criteria for awarding the token or not. I still make the decision on a subjective basis.

--Jasper

[Callan S.]

"Dude, why didn't you give me a token? When Michael took away your drink, you gave him one."
"Then I was drinking away my guilt over my wife's death. Now I'm, y'know, just enjoying my drink."

This isn't group play. The only part of it that get's close to group play is the "Dude, why?" as they begin to explore it (and that isn't supported by this rule in question).

Take these two examples:
1. The book has relics in it, with blanks for the powers. The GM pencils what he thinks they should be before play begins.
2. Same thing, but the GM decides to pencil them in during the session.

It's the same as your example, where the player is basically penciling in what gets a token. Something like this isn't part of group play in either case. At best it's the preperation of material for use in group play. It's a missassociation that if your at a table with others, any descision you make is actually part of a group activity.

Is the GM drawing up a dungeon all on his own, part of group play? Is deciding all by myself whether someone gets a point, part of group play?

Also, I don't really see how changing to OISA rules would change this. If the rule was: "When a player takes away another character's drink, that character's player may award them a Squeegee Token", the other players still wouldn't know my criteria for awarding the token or not. I still make the decision on a subjective basis.

They don't know the other persons criteria, I'm not saying they do. They know the books requirements for the player to even have an opportunity to choose whether he gives out a point.

Without that, no one else has an objective measure of what you've contributed. When given the opportunity to give a point, by assessing that opportunity and what you did with it, I can triangulate an understanding of that decision. With SISA I've only got one point to work with "Something happened and it could have happened at any time". Triangulation isn't possible.

Do you agree that you need to give others tools so they can understand you, if you want to do work as a group with them? Or do you think understanding just comes?

[Callan S.]

A quick example of something familiar.

"If you were going to go live on a desert island, what three books would you take?"

Compare it to

"If you were going to live on a desert island, what books would you take?"


Is there much point to asking the second question? Would you get something out of asking that?

Note: be careful on answering that, unfortunately this example also uses the very objective criteria that your isolated on a desert island. It might help to instead compare:
"What three books would you keep if you had to loose all the rest?"
Vs
"What books would you keep, if you had to loose all the ones you don't keep?"

[TonyLB]

Well, Callan, what does "group play" mean to you?

If we go with a definition like "play done in a group", then yeah... if my action (e.g. awarding a token) is part of the execution of the rules, and I'm sitting at a table with other players, then I'm engaged in group play.

I assume that you're working off some more stringent definition, but I can't read your mind to tell what it is.  Care to elaborate?

[Callan S.]

If you want to play with someone, you both need to be playing the same game. How do you play the same game? You do so when you have a common understanding of what choices are available, in every participants mind. Commonly the list is short, because that's alot easier to make clear in the minds of multiple participants. The longer that list get's, the less likely it will be clear in everyones minds. The less likely its clear in everyones minds, the less likely your actually playing the same game between you all.

I like my previous summing up of it and think it covers the question.

Basically group play is merely avoidance of everyone playing a bunch of seperate games, at the same table. I say avoidance, because I think it's not a binary state but a sliding scale of how in sync everyone is kept at the table, in terms of playing just one game. The percentage of OISA rules to any other type, increases the syncronicity (sp?). The percentage of SISA rules to any other type decreases it.

"play done in a group" makes me think of a bunch of children playing in the same room and not spoiling each others focus of play (a group commitment to a focus on how to behave), but one is on the lego, another is doing a drawing, another bouncing a ball (no group focus on what to actually do, once were all behaving). They most certainly are a group, and they most certainly aren't doing something as a group. It's not something I usually clarify in my own mind, but for this thread it's important to be clear on how you can be in a group, but that doesn't mean your all working as a group.

"play done as a group" is what I'm thinking about when it comes to group play. Everyone is working on one lego project together, or everyone is working on one picture. No, they're not all working on one page but doing seperate little drawings in each corner of it. They are indeed working on the one picture, because the rules are helping them to work together. That just doesn't happen unless you have some rules (written down or otherwise).

[John Kim]

Basically group play is merely avoidance of everyone playing a bunch of seperate games, at the same table. I say avoidance, because I think it's not a binary state but a sliding scale of how in sync everyone is kept at the table, in terms of playing just one game. The percentage of OISA rules to any other type, increases the syncronicity (sp?). The percentage of SISA rules to any other type decreases it.

As I said in the original 20x20 Room thread, I disagree that objective rules are inherently clearer. Humans are pretty good at communicating subjectively via nuances, feelings, and so forth. Sure, it is easy to miscommunicate -- but in my experience it is easy for people to misunderstand or miscommunicate through objective rules as well.

For example, a computer program is the ultimate in objective interpretation, but it can be extremely difficult for an average human to decipher.  Sometimes a simple analogy can explain what the program does to a large degree much better than reading the code.  On the other hand, subjective communication can also be very unclear as well.  

Some people are better at one than the other. i.e. Someone with an engineering or science bent might understand something better if it is laid out in objective rules and numbers. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are completely thrown off by such things -- whereas a few minutes of honest face-to-face communication over subjective boundaries just makes things click for them.  

My point is just that I don't think there is a simple optimization here.  Objective interpretation is often clearer -- but depending on the people, I do think there are many times when a subjective explanation is clearer to them.  

This isn't directly on-topic, but I also think there are some cool examples of non-synchronization.  I was stunned by Matt Turnbull's http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/fillinthegap28oct04.html">Singular Space, for example, which I think is a stroke of genius.  The players have starkly different pictures of what is going on, and it is exactly that difference which drives the game.