Players want freedom AND engaging content

[Bill Cook]

Callan:

Go, Ritalin. I've had this same issue pop up. Once, with a newbie player in a Sorcerer campaign, and more recently, in a space opera campaign with a new group of seasoned players. I haven't really suffered from a black curtain making freedom ambiguous, at least not in any game I've ran since 2002. But I have had issues, as recently as last month, with players arguing for greater freedom when it suits them. And then for tighter control when they're not engaged.

The newbie in my Sorcerer campaign literally made a character based around getting out of dangerous situations. How do you deal with someone like this? Without thinking about it too much, I put him in one dangerous situation after another. Not surprisingly, he commanded his demon to escape them. "Calgon, take me away!" He was having a great time, and so was I. His story wasn't taking any direction along the track of figuring out who killed his parents or finding a new mommie. (He was playing a five-year old girl.) But as long as he was happy, I didn't care. Then he started noticing how the more experienced players' stories developed and exploded into action as they dove into risky situations. And he started complaining about not knowing what to do and how nothing was happening. He had become luggage for other characters. (And brother, did that character get passed around.) So he summoned a combat pawn and started looking for a fight. Unconcerned, I framed him into another variation on finding a mom: being admitted to the state adoption facility. He interrupted me five times as I introduced the setup. Finally, I had to tell him to be quiet and let me move his character where I wanted; none of this stuff is important yet. As soon as he got off the leash, his combat demon barreled into the passer janitor, who entrapped the girl, whose dimension-hopping demon whisked them all away to a room full of stars, etc.

In the space opera my new group just finished, my friend was GMing. Talk about a bitch fit over freedom and lack of engaging play. Their idea of player input was arguing over the plausibility of GM narration. We literally spent 90% of our time doing just that. Another 8% was devoted to complaints about having to hang out for hours, waiting for another player to finish arguing with the GM before they could start arguing. And probably another 1% was bathroom breaks and ordering pizza. Do I sound bitter?

Marco:

I agree. If they burn the steading and the GM is less than unflappable, they should expect to collaborate on authoring new material.

[Callan S.]

And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

I've played in fun, functional games where the PCs have avoided adversity, overcome the challenge by creative means, and so on. The reason why this works, when this works is that everyone takes responsibility for their actions (this, not surprisingly, is what is missing in most dysfunction). If the PCs overcome "the dungeon" then they know that they have to come up with something else interesting to do. When the GM provides adversity he understands that if it doesn't engage the players it isn't profitable game material.

A best-effort attempt on both sides is all that's necessary, IME, for relaible, great "do anything" gaming (in quotes because if you take responsiblity for your actions there are, of course, some actions you won't take--but this is not an illusion or a state of denial).

Dude, your just talking about the same thing as the hand shake agreement to not burning the steading. Different contract, same sort of hand shake! :)

I do have some quibbles about the driving force behind challenge being "you'll be bored otherwise" rather than "these are the parameters you agreed to, now work with them or lose". But that's a sub issue. On the whole I agree with you.

I think your assessment of the black curtain is based on the unwarranted assumption that there will be powerstruggle inherent at the table (perhaps that is where your hardcore gamist stance comes in).

I think if two or more people think they can use something, but have not set up any way of sharing it or determining who does own it, there's a power struggle all set up, even if no one realises it yet. The hardcore gamism comes in by actually determining who's in charge of what, rather than thinking SIS events somehow determine who's in charge of something. When I gave the poison account, I think there was a real sense from readers that the SIS must govern how I took the event, rather than my leaving it to the GM to remember and his actions then let us fill in what happened in the SIS. If he forgets, then we can invent the idea the spider musn't have been able to get both fangs in and give a full dose, or was low on venom from killing it's previous victim or whatever. Rather than SIS determining rules use, it's rules use determining the SIS. I had an old actual play account about the difference and what it was like to shift and...damn, I digress!

[Marco]

Dude, your just talking about the same thing as the hand shake agreement to not burning the steading. Different contract, same sort of hand shake! :)

The reason I don't think it's the same is that an agreement not to burn the steading is an absolute agreement. The idea that I can burn/not-burn depending on how I am willing to address the situation is a dynamic one (IMO). I can, in fact, take "any action" so long as I am willing to put up other actions or accept certain consequences.

I think if two or more people think they can use something, but have not set up any way of sharing it or determining who does own it, there's a power struggle all set up, even if no one realises it yet.

This illustrates the difference: both people "can use it" (whatever "it" is and whatever is meant by "use") so long as they do so in a way that is seen as profitable to the other parties. In every aspect of everyday real life in any social dynamic (home, work, which movie to watch, which TV show to see, what to do for dinner) there is "power struggle all set up."

Do we live every moment of our lives in power struggle? No--not necessiarily (although certainly some people do). Whether we do or don't is dependant on how we make our decisions and what our major goals are in the relationship. RPGs are no different--they just provide another arena for that same dynamic and a convinent scapegoat (a printed set of rules) if we decide we want to argue (notably, some people use their wedding vows the same way).

-Marco

[contracycle]

What about this:

The GM has a private, non-explicit rule that the steading cannot be burned down.  If the players propose that they burn the steading down, then the GM veto's that plan, but at the same time says "Bravo, it is a good plan, but I can't allow it for continuity reasons.  Have this fistful of XP instead."

The point here is that the cunning of trying to burn the stead down is rewarded, and the players blatantly bribed to go along with restriction.  Does that seem like a viable contract?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I can't believe I'm reading this here.

Why not cut to the chase? Why not have characters with motivations and resources be the antagonists, rather than random events?

Use a Conflict Resolution system! Does running over the hill win them their stakes? No? Then they won't do it! Yes? Then everyone's happy!

The problem here is that you're trying to do something good with a system that's bad for it: a system that uses Task Resolution so the players avoid the Tasks because it's a surefire way to avoid the possibility of failure. It's dysfunctional play stemming from dysfunctional rules.

Is there something I'm missing here? Why is this still up for debate?

[Bill Cook]

contracycle:

Not to me. I'd either say "No, I need you to confront them directly because that's how the module is plotted" or "Should there be a follow up confrontation between the giants whose home you've destroyed, or by 'burn down the steading' did you mean 'also burn the giants alive?' And if it's 'burn the giants,' are you wanting to entertain the possibility that they may escape your arson? And if you're cool with angry giant-based follow up, who has an idea for the reprisal?" Of course, if they answer, "No, we meant 'roast them with no possibility of escape,'" I'm cool with that; but after they finish high-fiving and touchdown dancing, I'm basically gonna be like, "Ok. Your main level bosses are now charred corpses. Anyone have anything else? 'cause most of the rest of this is no longer relevant."

glyphmonkey:

Consider it an exercise in drift. I don't think the balance between freedom of action and engaging content is righted and maintained simply by using conflict resolution.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

contracycle:

Not to me. I'd either say "No, I need you to confront them directly because that's how the module is plotted" or "Should there be a follow up confrontation between the giants whose home you've destroyed, or by 'burn down the steading' did you mean 'also burn the giants alive?' And if it's 'burn the giants,' are you wanting to entertain the possibility that they may escape your arson? And if you're cool with angry giant-based follow up, who has an idea for the reprisal?" Of course, if they answer, "No, we meant 'roast them with no possibility of escape,'" I'm cool with that; but after they finish high-fiving and touchdown dancing, I'm basically gonna be like, "Ok. Your main level bosses are now charred corpses. Anyone have anything else? 'cause most of the rest of this is no longer relevant."

... does not match with

Consider it an exercise in drift. I don't think the balance between freedom of action and engaging content is righted and maintained simply by using conflict resolution.

It is, in the examples you've given. The problem that you're having is that a) there is no facility for Polaris-like "But only if", or Dogs' Followup Conflicts. You're saying that the players are doing things where either the stakes are avoided or gained without consequence. It sounds like they've found, and playing, the strategy that works best in this system. If that's fun for everyone, then cool. If it's not (it's not. You're not cool with it), then you need a way to gnarl up their actions, to give them meaning.

Now, you might have other examples in your head that you haven't said, and those examples might require other solutions. I'd like to hear them, because these problems you're having are objectively solveable. They've been solved in other games, and you might want to borrow techniques or switch systems altogether. If you're interested in slowly sliding your players into a new mode of thought, well, borrow techniques. Call them house rules. If everyone's cool with switching systems now and again, do that instead.

What are the other issues you've been having? Specifically, what issues that don't have to do with the players endrunning the intended events of the game?

[Bill Cook]

I'm cool. I play lots of different systems with a number of different groups. I get a variety of play experiences. I was participating in a more general sense.

BTW, I don't disavow conflict resolution. I just think that even with it, even using a system like DitV, there will still be a push and pull of "free me!" and engage me!"

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I'm cool. I play lots of different systems with a number of different groups. I get a variety of play experiences. I was participating in a more general sense.

BTW, I don't disavow conflict resolution. I just think that even with it, even using a system like DitV, there will still be a push and pull of "free me!" and engage me!"

Yeah, but it'll fade into the background toute suite as soon as people reallize that they can either confront stakes or not play.

[Mike Holmes]

I mostly agree with you Joshua, but, then, I would. That is I think there are valid ways to play with certain of these sorts of restrictions. I don't even have a problem with the rule about burning the stead.

On all of this, I do think it's an CA issue, but Fred is approaching it sorta backwards. Basically, Callan identified it correctly, this is the railroading issue. That is, it's not "freedom" that players want, it's an opportunity to express some CA. The thing is that many prep methods don't support a CA. They may aim at one, but they don't provide opportunities for interaction.

This is the old stuff about general premise (not nar premise) and "protagonism" (which I think is a terrible term). Basically the player has to be allowed to participate in the game somehow on a level that's engaging to them. That seems unbelievably obvious, but it's amazing how many modules don't seem to allow for any participation on the CA level.

The Steading is not one of these. The old D&D mode is just fine at producing solid gamism. The "no burning the steading" rule is actually a good one, intended to define the parameters of the contest. If we were playing Monopoly, and somebody said, "I want to invest in the stock market - what, that's what I'd do in real life?" would you let them invest? No. The parameters of the competition are well defined.

The problem with the "no burning the Steading rule" is not in what it sets out to do, but in how it does it. That is, unlike the rules for Monopoly, which are very clear about how to go about the challenge, and what is allowed and what is not, the Steading assumes that since its an RPG, players are allowed to have their characters do "anything." Well, here's the mistake. That is, either they should simply decide to limit the game to less than "everything" in a metagame way, or they need to allow "everything" and ensure in another way that the burning option is not a cheap way to win the competition.

Gareth has it right, if you simply go the metagame rout, it works fine. But some players won't like that. Because they assume "everything" is available. The thing is that in D&D, "everything" is explicitly not available. For example, there are no rules for running for office, ousting the current king, and then simply taking an army up to the steading. The text, in fact, says, "Start" and puts the characters at the door, the King having put them there. So there's obviously some metagame agreement about what's going on here.

The rules of the RPG in question limit the scope of what the game play is about. Playing outside of the rules is metagaming to win, which was discussed in another thread recently. That can work for some people, but is largely considered to be dysfunctional for most.

Basically there are better and worse ways to set the limits of what play is about, and to give opportunities for participation. Using the metagame as an arena for competiton on this as opposed to the table for agreement on the limits of what play is about is highly problematic to say the least (though I won't call it automatically dysfunctional). Using the metagame to agree on things like what the arena of conflict is, or what stakes exist, etc is where I see good game designs happening lately.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Heya again, Marco,

The reason I don't think it's the same is that an agreement not to burn the steading is an absolute agreement. The idea that I can burn/not-burn depending on how I am willing to address the situation is a dynamic one (IMO). I can, in fact, take "any action" so long as I am willing to put up other actions or accept certain consequences.

Yes, but their entirely meta game consequences, aren't they? It's not like the dungeon module that states "if a character tries to teleport past the challenge, his brain fries and he looses INT points". It's "If a character tries to teleport, tell him it's now his job to bust out the graph paper and make up a new challenge himself!". Rather than the agreement being 'absolute', what matters is whether it explicitly refers to metagame consequences.

On power struggles, exactly, what TV show to watch or what to have for dinner are power struggles all set up. The thing is, if I'm playing a sport like basketball, I don't want a powerstruggle set up about what hoop the ball is to go through. It'll lead to either
A: A bitter and nasty power struggle
or B: Both teams shake hands and agree which hoop to put the ball through.

B may seem funtional because nobody is arguing, but it's actually completely undercut the supposed agenda! That of the two teams challenging each other.

Side note: In the past I've railed against the GM with unlimited resources. I was told by the forge regulars that really the GM is like a guy on a sports team who has machine guns and jet boots, etc. Ie, if he used them all, it's just bogus. I took that in. But now I'm thinking...how much is he just agreeing which hoop the ball goes through?

[Callan S.]

Hi Joshua,

The problem here is that you're trying to do something good with a system that's bad for it: a system that uses Task Resolution so the players avoid the Tasks because it's a surefire way to avoid the possibility of failure. It's dysfunctional play stemming from dysfunctional rules.

It's dysfunctional engagement of the rules rather than poor rules. Take a game of chess for example. If I'm about to lose the game, but decide to flip the chess board off the table so as to avoid that, is that a functional engagement of the rules? What if I'd been told 'In chess you can do ANYTHING!'

Task resolution and the possibility of failure is supposed to be unpleasant in the same way each move of chess is supposed to be 'unpleasant' because it could mean I could lose. If I could legitimately avoid that by flipping the board, I would. However, just because I'd like that as a player, doesn't mean I should be supplied rules that let me do it.

Side note: This is another strike I make against 'lets all sit around and discuss what we like' as a panacea for gaming problems. Unless your going to think long and hard about it, your going to undercut your agenda by adding just what you like. And if you are thinking long and hard...isn't that the game designers job?


Contra:
I think that's a brilliant idea! I can imagine the following being said, but the points changing just how it's said in the latter example:
"This game couldn't handle my brilliant idea!", said in a bitter, angry way.
Vs
"This game couldn't handle my brilliant idea!", said in a smug, victorious way, as the player counts the reward points he got that siginify that win!

Really, although we'd like to burn the giants to death, what we really want is to have the idea recognised as a good one/valid one! The reward points signify that recognition!

[Shreyas Sampat]

It seems like this opposition only arises in a very specific case: When preparation prevents the preparer from knowing what content will engage the players, and what they will disengage from.

The solution to this should be obvious.

[Marco]

Heya again, Marco,

The reason I don't think it's the same is that an agreement not to burn the steading is an absolute agreement. The idea that I can burn/not-burn depending on how I am willing to address the situation is a dynamic one (IMO). I can, in fact, take "any action" so long as I am willing to put up other actions or accept certain consequences.

Yes, but their entirely meta game consequences, aren't they? It's not like the dungeon module that states "if a character tries to teleport past the challenge, his brain fries and he looses INT points". It's "If a character tries to teleport, tell him it's now his job to bust out the graph paper and make up a new challenge himself!". Rather than the agreement being 'absolute', what matters is whether it explicitly refers to metagame consequences.

I agree that they are both "meta-game" power struggles--but I think you are missing some key aspects of play in deciding that because of that they are both the same. There are non-RPG purely competitive games where it is possible to have lengthy stalemates. There are games that focus on player-driven diplomacy. In either of these "normal games" a player who opts for a stratetgy that is riskier but avoids having to do something distasteful (have a long, dull stalemate or perhaps lie/decieve someone in a particuarly unpleasant manner) is "playing the metagame."

The meta-game is often a very strong part of traditional, functional RPG play the same way it is also a very strong part of many traditional games.

I think that the purity of two teams competing against each other is only a small fraction of the spectrum of interaction a traditional RPG can address and as such I think you're simplifying things significantly.

That said, while I think your railing against all powerful GMs was off base and I don't agree with your take here, I do think you make some decent ponts and don't want to come off like I'm completely discounting what you say. I just think you're analyzing a narrower spectrum of goals than you might.

-Marco

[contracycle]

It seems like this opposition only arises in a very specific case: When preparation prevents the preparer from knowing what content will engage the players, and what they will disengage from.

The solution to this should be obvious.

Well enlighten us then.  But if, as I fear, your "answer" is No Myth, then it is a valueless answer, because it speaks only to an even more specific case, that of a particular play style.  I think the problems of preperation apply far more generally.