Free Will in the Middle?

[Ian Charvill]

What I am trying to articulate here is the source of my current dissatisfaction with gaming: the limitations placed on player choice during a game.  I’m aware that I will be overlapping with earlier discussions on the Forge to some extent but the archived threads I’ve read so far have settled the matter for me.  Feel free to point me at any threads I might have missed.

I can see three obvious reasons for limiting player choice.  The most obvious is that these are games that are being played and that games have rules – whether formally derived from the game or informally derived from a social contract.  These rules necessarily limit what players can do in the game, whether in the sense of my character is a Fighter and so can’t cast magic or the damage my character would take from the fall means that they can’t just jump off the cliff.

Secondly, the system can require a lot of prep by the games master in terms of mechanically defining encounters and challenges.  The greater the prep time, the less freedom the games master can offer players of the game.

Lastly, freedom requires improvisation, and improvisation is seen as hard work by many games masters.  Too, to some extent some games masters don’t feel they have the skills necessary to improvise something interesting, so they fall back on prepared material.  The idea of improvisation to many games masters, especially inexperienced games masters.

*       *       *

Given that players are likely to have only a limited amount of freedom, how is that freedom expressed?  My experience is that there are three places for freedom to occur.  I’m going to provide extreme examples of each where the given freedom is the only freedom.

Freedom at the Start: players have input over system, genre and setting; they decide what characters to play and the frame for the campaign; and they decide which adventure to play.  For example, the group decides to play GURPS Cyberpunk, and create characters who are highly-trained corporate operatives engaged in counter-espionage.  The games master writes a heavily railroaded adventure, which spotlights each of the characters as they complete a mission congruent with the campaign frame.  The only issue in play is whether the characters succeed or fail.

Freedom in the Middle: The adventure takes the form of a branching series of encounters and events.  The adventure could be mapped as a flow chart.  For example, the players are provided with pre-generated characters and a goal: to find out who killed the Duke.  They can interview the various suspects and witnesses in any order and may or may not visit a number of rooms in the castle where clues might be found.  No meaningful environment exists beyond the castle, nor any meaningful non-player characters.  Again the issue in play, is whether the characters succeed.

Feng Shui offers an interesting variant on this: characters are moved through a sequence of pre-determined action sequences, but within each sequence have a great deal of freedom to improvise stunts, and even the power to take narrative control over scenery elements – usually in the form of creating reasonable scenery elements.

Freedom at the End: Players have no freedom until the climax.  The hallmark of this is plot immunity: player – and important non-player – characters may not die before the end.  Games with strong metaplots tend to feature this kind of adventure.  For example, a games master designs an adventure based on Lord of the Rings.  An abridges version of the plot is followed, until Mount Doom where the player characters decide whether to keep the ring or destroy it.  Gollum is a player character.

*       *       *

This is all a bit wandery so far.  Let’s focus by looking at some questions for which I would like to have satisfactory answers:

What constitutes a meaningful choice?  Does the ability to turn left or right in a dungeon constitute a meaningful choice?  What about the ability to question the maid before the butler?  Pretty clearly the context affects the nature of the choice: how do we make choices meaningful as players and as game masters?

Also, to what extent does the concept of meaningful choices for the players disenfranchise the games master?  Do meaningful choices have to be moral choices?

Secondly: where does freedom need to be located?  In one of the three stages, in two, or in all of them?  Which of the stages is the most important?

I’m very interested to see the kind of feedback I get on this.

Ian

[Le Joueur]

This is a very interesting problem.  Only, I think you are implying a requirement of gaming (or two) that is the real source of the problem.

Reading through your "three obvious reasons for limiting player choice," I see one thing loud and clear.  You are giving the gamemaster sole responsibility for the game.  Some game systems do not limit what a player can do in a game; a search for "gamemaster-full" or "GMful" threads here on the Forge should yield some thinking along these lines.  Essentially, the player is allowed to make some or all 'gamemaster-type' decisions about their character.

In terms of prep time, first of all, everyone has different thresholds of how much they need to prepare in advance.  However, there are two kinds of prep implied here, one is preparing subjects to use in an encounter, the other is preparing encounters completely.  You really seem to be struggling with the idea of how much 'scripting' a gamemaster is supposed to do in order to make a game work.  The problem is this implies that it is the gamemaster who is 'supposed to make it work.'  This 'one man show approach' is one of the most difficult forms of gaming to support and ultimately proves mostly unnecessary.

Around the Forge, articles like Ron's Essay (as it regards Linear Adventures) and mine about Dynamic Status Quo talk about alternatives to a gamemaster predetermining encounters before the game.  While most approaches allow the subjects of encounters to 'prepped,' the encounters themselves are not a factor of preparation.  (That approach leads to 'railroading,' one of the most difficult gamemastering styles to sustain for any length of time.)  So prepping 'who they might face' and not 'how they will face them' renders irrelevant your second 'limitation' on player freedom.

Your third "obvious reason for limiting player choice" seems more like an extension of the second.  Improvisation is likely the only alternative you see for preparation.  When you prepare the subjects but not the encounters, improvisation becomes little more than dialogue.  (You will have prepared what the subjects are up to, can do, and are interested in; beyond that it's only a matter of how the player characters 'interfere' with that.  If you know 'what kind of person' they face, there's little to truly improvise.)

Later, in all three of your "how is that freedom expressed?" examples, there is the strong implication of plot.  Whether 'deciding which adventure to play,' 'branching towards a goal,' or 'plot immunity,' all these "places for freedom" express some use of the idea of plot.  Again, a pre-plotted game is one of the hardest to maintain player interest in, over time.  Likewise, as I suggest, you give most of the responsibility of 'making it work' to the gamemaster.  I think that's what is hamstringing your discussion.

You question about "meaningful choice" never rises to the level of a player choosing what kind of goals a game will pursue.  Even more abstractly whether a game will pursue any goals at all.

I am really curious about your concept of the "disenfranchised gamemaster."  What exactly is that?  I'm worried that your concept of gamemaster is 'the person who runs the plot' and that a game without a plot will apparently leave the gamemaster with 'nothing to do.'  This is far from the truth (nor does it mean the gamemaster is stuck doing some kind of improvisational tap-dance trying to keep up with the players who are 'charting the plot').

Ultimately the answer to your first question is 'a meaningful choice is a choice over anything the player gives value.'  Not much of an answer without any context.  The heavy theorists around here spend a lot of time wrestling over exactly what things different kinds of players could value.  Frankly, there is no single answer there.  When one player values one thing and another values something in contrast, a game tends to sputter and go out.  Both Ron's GNS Essay and our game's gaming model discuss what kinds of things a player can value and how to approach them somewhat.

Unfortunately these are not simple or easy concepts to assimilate (but I happen to know both authors are happy to help clarify things and answer questions, so feel free to post them to either the GNS forum or the Scattershot forum).

The second question is much more difficult to answer.  Technically, the freedom doesn't need to be located in any specific place (well, perhaps in the group's hands).  Your "three stages" don't really complete a very good picture of what's possible in gaming.  Worse, as a model, I don't think it can be expanded to fit all situations very well.  Part of the problem I alluded to above, but much of it has to do with the descriptions of the stages.  You call them "Start," "Middle," and "End," but they don't really exist at those locations.

Really, the opportunities for freedom should be available in all of these and everywhere else across the whole catalog of gaming.  The specific venues for freedom within a single game vary from incarnation to incarnation.  This is a good thing.  Viva la difference!

Again what 'freedoms' should a game employ?  That depends on what it is designed to do.  If a game delves into thorny moral questions (certainly not a requirement), it will have to not only give them center stage, but put the players there making those choices.  It also has to do with 'what matters' to the players (and that goes back to the answer to the previous question).  The only advice I can offer is to think about the scope of the decisions and whether the players have a desire to 'take advantage' of freedoms on those 'levels.'

Some such levels include statements on thematic issues (like 'what right does a man have to mess with gods'), story-sequence architecture (first there's a crisis, then a climax, then a denouement after the resolution), right on down to whether the player character would choose the rolls or the continental breakfast from room service.  The level that a game's design focuses on should be the level of the most player freedom.  Not every game will include every level; not every game will afford every freedom.  One recent example springs to mind, Clinton's Donjon has a classic 'lack of freedom' (I think); basically you're expected to go into dungeons, no freedom there (the player freedom lay elsewhere).  Another edifying example of 'levels of freedom' would be Jared's InSpectres, a game with little or no gamemaster preparation and much player freedom.

So ultimately there is no 'right answer' and all the theorizing and speculating works mostly to help people discover their 'comfort level' with amounts and types of freedom.  (And how to design games that reach for them; anything is possible.)  I'm sorry if that doesn't really answer your question, but I hope it gives you some place to start.  I look forward to hearing more thought provoking ideas from you (and I offer a belated "Welcome to the Forge").

Fang Langford

[jburneko]

I'm going to take a stab at this.  What jumps out at me is your use of the phrase, "meaningful choice."  I think in RPG terms a choice is meaningful if that choice directly addresses the metagame priorities of play.  Similarly, I don't think there is any requisite degree of freedom only functional degrees of freedom for those same metagame priorities of play.

Consider this situation.  A player, for whatever reason, wants to marry the princess but the princess's father won't allow his daughter to marry until a family heirloom that was stolen by an evil necromancer is returned.  So the player sets off to the castle to vanquish the necromancer and retrieve the heirloom.

Now this situation could arrise in any game, under any style.  But what constitutes a "meaningful choice" at this point totally depends on the priorities of play.

If for example, the above situation is just a bit context for a classic dungeon crawl and the game is really about exploration, survival, and overcoming other objective challenges, then whether to go through the front door or the back door or climb through a window, or go left or right down a hallway are all 'meaningful choices' because they impact the parameters of the game.  These choices may lengthen or shortten the distance to the goal.  They may alter the scale of difficulty with regard to what order problems and challenges are faced and so on...

HOWEVER, if the game is REALLY about the player his love for the princess, her father's disapproval then a meaningful choice is anything which develops or resolves those specific conflicts.  So, whether the player goes through the back door or the front door is pretty meaningless.  Indeed the GM may just cut right to the confrontation with the necromancer or may have the player trigger a trap and fall into the necromancer's dungeon or anything which gets us right to the drama because really what we're establishing here is just what exactly is this guy willing to do to get this heirloom so that he can marry this princess.  Is she really worth it?  And so on...

I think a lot of disfunctional play arrises from this very conflict of what constitutes a meaningful choice.  If as a GM, I just had the player trigger a trap and fall into the necromancer's dungeon, I've had players who would throw a fit because they didn't get a chance to avoid it with their 10 foot pole and I've had other players who smile with glee because now we're getting to the good part.

So, my answer really boils down to, It depends.  What is your game really about?

Hope that's useful.

Jesse

[Ian Charvill]

Fang

Damn, I obviously wasn't entirely clear - I'm hoping to examine an issue to understand it better rather than indicating my own preferred method of running a game.  Most of my points are based around the way games are typically run in my experience, not the way I typically run games, although I do seem to have embedded the fact that I prioritise a dramatic narrative with a plot.

This is a very interesting problem.  Only, I think you are implying a requirement of gaming (or two) that is the real source of the problem.

Reading through your "three obvious reasons for limiting player choice," I see one thing loud and clear.  You are giving the gamemaster sole responsibility for the game.  Some game systems do not limit what a player can do in a game; a search for "gamemaster-full" or "GMful" threads here on the Forge should yield some thinking along these lines.  Essentially, the player is allowed to make some or all 'gamemaster-type' decisions about their character.

I'd grant the games master responsibility for is setting the tone.  If they come to the table railroad spikes in hand, then as players, you're going to ride the railroad or go nowhere at all.  I would agree absolutely that power should be shared much more than in the traditional model.  Where I'm at is trying to articulate why this should be the case.

Secondly let me state this up front - because it might be an agree to differ type point - I find it hard to grasp the idea of a formally defined game system that does not limit player choice at some level (even if the only limit is on what they can do to other player characters).   I'd be really interested in an actual citation of a game system that is totally open in this regard - or an account of play using such a system.

Your third "obvious reason for limiting player choice" seems more like an extension of the second.  Improvisation is likely the only alternative you see for preparation.  When you prepare the subjects but not the encounters, improvisation becomes little more than dialogue.  (You will have prepared what the subjects are up to, can do, and are interested in; beyond that it's only a matter of how the player characters 'interfere' with that.  If you know 'what kind of person' they face, there's little to truly improvise.)

Improvisation here only means making stuff up during the gaming session rather than before it.  The way I would see it is that knowing the characters is what allows you to improvise, it doesn't mean you don't improvise.

It's a useful argument though: that if you prep well - and correctly - improvisation doesn't need to be scary.  Your safety net is prepping well, it's not the fact that you know what's going to happen.

Later, in all three of your "how is that freedom expressed?" examples, there is the strong implication of plot.  Whether 'deciding which adventure to play,' 'branching towards a goal,' or 'plot immunity,' all these "places for freedom" express some use of the idea of plot.  Again, a pre-plotted game is one of the hardest to maintain player interest in, over time.  Likewise, as I suggest, you give most of the responsibility of 'making it work' to the gamemaster.  I think that's what is hamstringing your discussion.

You're using plot much more narrowly here that I would.  A plot, to me, is a causal series of events such as could be expressed in the terms "Because of A, B did C".  You can extend, complicate and layer this pretty much infinitely.  I don't believe you can have a roleplaying session that produces a good story without a plot - whether that plot be pre-determined or developed during play.  Given that I was talking about limiting freedom, and given that I'm a drama monkey, I expressed it in terms of plot.

You question about "meaningful choice" never rises to the level of a player choosing what kind of goals a game will pursue.  Even more abstractly whether a game will pursue any goals at all.

This is interesting.  If a game doesn't pursue any goals - and by extension the characters and players do not pursue any goals - wouldn't play get kind of wandery?  Give me some examples of what kind of things would occur in a session of actual play in the absense of some kind of goals defined by somebody.

I am really curious about your concept of the "disenfranchised gamemaster."  What exactly is that?  I'm worried that your concept of gamemaster is 'the person who runs the plot' and that a game without a plot will apparently leave the gamemaster with 'nothing to do.'  This is far from the truth (nor does it mean the gamemaster is stuck doing some kind of improvisational tap-dance trying to keep up with the players who are 'charting the plot').

I guess that's an issue which has been dealt with explicitly before.  Consider it a non-issue for this discussion.

The second question is much more difficult to answer.  Technically, the freedom doesn't need to be located in any specific place (well, perhaps in the group's hands).  Your "three stages" don't really complete a very good picture of what's possible in gaming.  Worse, as a model, I don't think it can be expanded to fit all situations very well.  Part of the problem I alluded to above, but much of it has to do with the descriptions of the stages.  You call them "Start," "Middle," and "End," but they don't really exist at those locations.

I guess I'm starting from basic ideas from drama - beginning, middle and end - and then fitting the role playing concepts to them, which probably limits the discussion more than needs be.  Consider them examples of places where freedom might exist, not an exaustive typology.

Thanks, there's some good stuff to think about in there.

Ian

[Ian Charvill]

I'm going to take a stab at this.  What jumps out at me is your use of the phrase, "meaningful choice."  I think in RPG terms a choice is meaningful if that choice directly addresses the metagame priorities of play.  Similarly, I don't think there is any requisite degree of freedom only functional degrees of freedom for those same metagame priorities of play.

OK - that's very clean.  Meaningful is meaningful to the players, and can be seen in the context of "what do the players want?".

I think a lot of disfunctional play arrises from this very conflict of what constitutes a meaningful choice.  If as a GM, I just had the player trigger a trap and fall into the necromancer's dungeon, I've had players who would throw a fit because they didn't get a chance to avoid it with their 10 foot pole and I've had other players who smile with glee because now we're getting to the good part.

Which would suggest the conclusion here is that you can limit freedom in a large number of ways, as long as those limitations don't affect why a player is playing the game.

So, my answer really boils down to, It depends.  What is your game really about?

Hope that's useful.

Jesse, way useful.  Cheers.

Ian

[GreatWolf]

A quick thought that I can develop later, if desired.

I think that the issue of freedom is tied closely to the GNS priority of the group.  For instance, if a group is aiming for a Narrativist priority, then the players need to have a certain freedom in creating the story.  If the group is aiming at Exploration of Character, then players need freedom to explore and act out the roles that are defined.  If the group is playing Gamist style, then the players need to be able to make real choices that affect their success or failure.

As a corollary to this, players will, of necessity, yield a certain freedom at the same time.  The Narrativist group cannot indulge in free flights of character immersion if it will get in the way of developing the story.  The Explorationist group might not be able to metagame their decisions if this will interfere with the immersion aspect of the game.  The Gamist group might yield the finer aspects of acting in order to be able to focus on tactical decisions.  (These may not be great examples, but hopefully they give an idea of what I mean.)

So, to whom do the players yield this freedom?  The gamemaster.  I have said that railroading is not necessarily wrong, so long as it takes the players to where they want to be.  I once ran Castle Falkenstein for my wife, who was interested in an Exploration of Character and Setting.  I railroaded the adventure blatantly, but she didn't care.  In fact, she liked it, because I railroaded in such a way that it maximized her opportunities to explore her character and the setting.  In a manner of speaking, it could even be argued that Bangs fit into this category.  The Gamemaster is pointing the group in a direction in an (almost) non-negotiable way, but this is being done to get the group to a place where it can maximize the freedom that it has been given.

Seth Ben-Ezra

[Le Joueur]

Hey Ian,

Secondly let me state this up front - because it might be an agree to differ type point - I find it hard to grasp the idea of a formally defined game system that does not limit player choice at some level (even if the only limit is on what they can do to other player characters).   I'd be really interested in an actual citation of a game system that is totally open in this regard - or an account of play using such a system.

You misread my statement.  I wasn't saying that a single game system is able to place no limits on player choice, I was saying that if you look every game you'll find that there are no areas which have not been unlimited.  Every game has some kind of limitations; they're just different.  What is a limitation in one game isn't in another.  That means there are no universal limitations common to all games.  Indirectly what you asked for, how player choice limitiation is "required" by in certain ways.

There aren't any.

As soon as you find a way that player choice has to be limited, I bet someone can think of an extant game where that is not limited.  No single limitation is necessary in all games.

It's a useful argument though: that if you prep well - and correctly - improvisation doesn't need to be scary.  Your safety net is prepping well, it's not the fact that you know what's going to happen.

This is a very important point that I'm glad I was barely able to make in my usual inarticulate way.

Later, in all three of your "how is that freedom expressed?" examples, there is the strong implication of plot.  Whether 'deciding which adventure to play,' 'branching towards a goal,' or 'plot immunity,' all these "places for freedom" express some use of the idea of plot.  Again, a pre-plotted game is one of the hardest to maintain player interest in, over time.  Likewise, as I suggest, you give most of the responsibility of 'making it work' to the gamemaster.  I think that's what is hamstringing your discussion.

You're using plot much more narrowly here that I would.  A plot, to me, is a causal series of events such as could be expressed in the terms "Because of A, B did C".  You can extend, complicate and layer this pretty much infinitely.  I don't believe you can have a role-playing session that produces a good story without a plot - whether that plot be pre-determined or developed during play.  Given that I was talking about limiting freedom, and given that I'm a drama monkey, I expressed it in terms of plot.

There's still the implication that C is unavoidable.  Usage of the word 'plot' is always fraught with this type of misunderstanding.

Anyway, you didn't really use the word, I did.  The problem is in the implication that the "causal series of events" is predictable.  Something like "If A and B, then C;" this whole 'more work for the gamemaster' concept is hung from the idea that the gamemaster is somehow responsible for C.  That's why I spoke of avoiding the preparation of encounters and preparing subjects instead.

The enemy of player freedom is trying to make the game obey one person's idea of "a good story."  That's what's implied by statements like, "...as hard work by many" gamemasters or "limitations placed on player choice."  There's just this inherent idea that players need to be limited and gamemasters have a lot of work.

I think that is what's causing the dissatisfaction.  Changing the limits on players, lessening the work of the gamemaster, these things won't change the problem.  Heck, even empowering the players and delegating gamemaster responsibility simply doesn't cut it.  I think you need to address a whole paradigm switch.  Don't think in terms of either limitation or responsibility; try imagining it as a series of contributions.  Here are the player's contributions; there are the gamemaster's.  It isn't about limits or responsibilities belonging to any specific person, but about matching the sum of the contributions to the desired outcome of the participants.

You question about "meaningful choice" never rises to the level of a player choosing what kind of goals a game will pursue.  Even more abstractly whether a game will pursue any goals at all.

This is interesting.  If a game doesn't pursue any goals - and by extension the characters and players do not pursue any goals - wouldn't play get kind of wandery?  Give me some examples of what kind of things would occur in a session of actual play in the absence of some kind of goals defined by somebody.

You seem to have the idea; it does just wander around.  The vistas of a high fantasy world can be grand to just poke around in; some people just like that kind of play.  Play like that becomes completely short-term player goal driven; these goals arise from the setting and are served by it.  It's a great venue to delve into things like the values of 'being someone else' for a while and so on.

I am really curious about your concept of the "disenfranchised gamemaster."  What exactly is that?  I'm worried that your concept of gamemaster is 'the person who runs the plot' and that a game without a plot will apparently leave the gamemaster with 'nothing to do.'  This is far from the truth (nor does it mean the gamemaster is stuck doing some kind of improvisational tap-dance trying to keep up with the players who are 'charting the plot').

I guess that's an issue which has been dealt with explicitly before.  Consider it a non-issue for this discussion.

I wasn't meaning to be dismissive.  I really am curious if the idea of the "disenfranchised gamemaster" is or is not a function of the responsibilities you've implied come with the role.  I haven't really heard of this idea.  I hope you'll at least explore it a little further.

The second question is much more difficult to answer.  Technically, the freedom doesn't need to be located in any specific place (well, perhaps in the group's hands).  Your "three stages" don't really complete a very good picture of what's possible in gaming.  Worse, as a model, I don't think it can be expanded to fit all situations very well.  Part of the problem I alluded to above, but much of it has to do with the descriptions of the stages.  You call them "Start," "Middle," and "End," but they don't really exist at those locations.

I guess I'm starting from basic ideas from drama - beginning, middle and end - and then fitting the role playing concepts to them, which probably limits the discussion more than needs be.  Consider them examples of places where freedom might exist, not an exhaustive typology.

But that's just it, it's limited by looking at it strictly from a limitations perspective.  If you go looking for ways to limit players, you'll find them...and reasons to.  I think that your dissatisfaction might stem from the dichotomy of roles (one limited, one responsible) and that you might find fertile ground exploring ideas outside the box.

Working even from a topology that includes the concepts of beginning, middle, and end, inherently throws everything into a relationship with a linear-story interpretation of gaming.  Working from a contributions standpoint, there is no middle, beginning, or end; those are just accidents of sequencing.  In a scheme that implies responsibility and linear objectives, you almost can't avoid finding someone to make responsible for the parts of a story.  That's apparently hampering your thinking.

I think.

Fang Langford

[Andrew Martin]

I'd be really interested in an actual citation of a game system that is totally open in this regard - or an account of play using such a system.

There's my Ratio/Star Odyssey game. There's no GM. Instead GM power is distributed to all players for them to use or not as they choose. Players can roleplay immersively, or empower their characters like the heroes of a play, novel or movie. It was a fun and exciting experience in playtest, which I aim to repeat in coming weeks, when I'm over my 'flu (hopefully soon) and I've got some more done on the setting/background (based on GURPS Transhuman Space and a long running TV Sci-Fi series.

[contracycle]

But that's just it, it's limited by looking at it strictly from a limitations perspective. If you go looking for ways to limit players, you'll find them...and reasons to. I think that your dissatisfaction might stem from the dichotomy of roles (one limited, one responsible) and that you might find fertile ground exploring ideas outside the box.

Fang, I'm rather confused as to what you are getting at here - earlier you were saying that limits are implicit in many fields which the gane renders "out of focus".  On that basis, its correct to recognise the presence of these implicit limits and explore whether or not they should be there, or made explicit, or whatever.

As for the disenfranchised GM, I have touched on this myself: I am not interested in primarily being a suppot system for the players - its boring.  Play styles that cast the GM as being detached from the creative process and essentially reduced to environment maintenance (which is how I interpret most of the GM-free/full proposals) are thus rather unintersting to me.

[Ian Charvill]

Fang, I'm rather confused as to what you are getting at here - earlier you were saying that limits are implicit in many fields which the gane renders "out of focus".  On that basis, its correct to recognise the presence of these implicit limits and explore whether or not they should be there, or made explicit, or whatever.

I really am having a problem here imagining a game without any limits on player choice - or how such a thing could be meaningfully considered a game rather than a collaborative artistic exercise.  It's very difficult to prove a negative - in the sense that there cannot be any game that does X because I have never come across a game that does X.  I would be surprised if examples could be provided of systems that allow any of the following:

1. A player having irrevocable narrative power over other player's characters (e.g. player X says of player Y's character that their arm falls off, and this arm falling off cannot be negated).

2. Characters having no formal definition - in the form of ability scores or descriptors - which have in game effects.

3. Players having the right to make wholesale alterations to genre, setting and plot without some kind of group consensus being reached.

*       *       *

To come back briefly to the idea of a 'disenfranchised' games master.  In any game with a games master the games master will have certain functions - voicing NPC dialogue for example, rolling the dice for npc's, setting difficulty numbers, arbitrating on disputes between players.  Disenfranchising the games master would involve players taking away those functions during play - to the point where the games master may be sitting at the table with nothing meaningful to do.  At that point why have a games master at all?

It would be like if you were running Sorceror and the players came up with all the bangs, framed the scenes, drew the relationship map, rolled the dice for the demons and the non-player characters, defined humanity and decided when humanity rolls were appropriate.  What would the games master do?

I feel like I'm making points that are tangential to my central concern - which was summed up in contracycle's quote above.  I'm going to go away and think about this and then see if I can focus myself a little better later.

Ian

(Andrew - I'm going to read Ratio/Star Oddessey when I have time and see how it engaes with my area of interest here)

[Le Joueur]

But that's just it, it's limited by looking at it strictly from a limitations perspective. If you go looking for ways to limit players, you'll find them...and reasons to. I think that your dissatisfaction might stem from the dichotomy of roles (one limited, one responsible) and that you might find fertile ground exploring ideas outside the box.

Fang, I'm rather confused as to what you are getting at here - earlier you were saying that limits are implicit in many fields which the game renders "out of focus".  On that basis, its correct to recognize the presence of these implicit limits and explore whether or not they should be there, or made explicit, or whatever.

If the sensation of limitation is the source of dissatisfaction, no amount of tinkering will change that.  Any limitation will prompt the sensation sooner or later.  I am suggesting that the limitations, while implicit, are not the actual source of dissatisfaction.  That being the case, the implicit limitations are not the actual cause of the problem and will not be the route to the solution; it may only seem like limitations are the cause.  If we focus on tinkering on the limitations, we won't every discern if they are, in fact, the actual problem at hand.

Mind you, I think a discussion of limitations would be very interesting; I could really go for that, but I wanted to address Ian's real problem, especially if it weren't the limitations he speaks of.

As for the disenfranchised GM, I have touched on this myself: I am not interested in primarily being a support system for the players - its boring.  Play styles that cast the GM as being detached from the creative process and essentially reduced to environment maintenance (which is how I interpret most of the GM-free/full proposals) are thus rather uninteresting to me.

It really weirds-me-out that everyone always jumps to the conclusion that if the gamemaster isn't solely responsible for the creative process, they have nothing to do.  More in a minute.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Hey Ian,

I really am having a problem here imagining a game without any limits on player choice - or how such a thing could be meaningfully considered a game rather than a collaborative artistic exercise.

Ian, I've said this before, but somehow, you missed it.

Code Select Expand

I wasn't talking about limitlessness in a single game.

I'm saying that there are no universal limitations.  One way or another, there are games out there that will void any single limitation you can think of.  This is not to say that single games exist that void every limitation you can think of.

I would be surprised if examples could be provided of systems that allow any of the following:

1. A player having irrevocable narrative power over other player's characters (e.g. player X says of player Y's character that their arm falls off, and this arm falling off cannot be negated).

I believe Once Upon a Time by Atlas Games and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Hogshead Publishing offer this freedom.

2. Characters having no formal definition - in the form of ability scores or descriptors - which have in game effects.

There are a number of 'free form' games (whose names escape me) that do this.  If I remember, Twerps comes pretty close.

3. Players having the right to make wholesale alterations to genre, setting and plot without some kind of group consensus being reached.

I know the ill-fated Those Annoying Post Brothers game formerly from Hogshead Publishing did this, largely because the characters in the source material could, using their 'reality shifting' abilities.

Like I said, a game can probably be found that voids any single limitation you can name.  I think Univesalis by Mike Holmes and ??? is tailored almost exactly to some of these concepts you list for freedoms the game offers; you'll have to talk to Mike about the specifics (I haven't seen the current version).

To come back briefly to the idea of a 'disenfranchised' games master.  In any game with a games master, the games master will have certain functions - voicing NPC dialogue for example, rolling the dice for npc's, setting difficulty numbers, arbitrating on disputes between players.  Disenfranchising the games master would involve players taking away those functions during play - to the point where the games master may be sitting at the table with nothing meaningful to do.  At that point why have a games master at all?

Well, that is only if you assume that the gamemaster loses all of these 'rights.'  Disenfranchisement would mean that they lose exclusive access, not all ability.  Imagine a game where non-player character dialogue and die rolling can be handled by anyone (and there are no difficulty numbers to assign), a game where arbitration is handled mechanically rather than by a referee.  Then imagine that the gamemaster still can do any of these as he desires, simply that he is one among many who can; this would be disenfranchisement.  Creating a game that restricts the gamemaster from all of these completely would almost be a gamemasterless game (well, around here we call them "gamemaster-full" games because everyone is essentially a gamemaster); the only venues left (in my list) would be setting origination, introduction of non-player characters, pacing/tone, and 'facilities management.'

Did you mean that a disenfranchised gamemaster was restricted from the things you list or that they simply had to share them?

It would be like if you were running Sorcerer and the players came up with all the bangs, framed the scenes, drew the relationship map, rolled the dice for the demons and the non-player characters, defined humanity and decided when humanity rolls were appropriate.  What would the games master do?

Orchestrate the whole thing, keeping it 'on track' and fun, and make sure that no one hogged all the limelight.  (There are other concerns, this is just 'the short list.')

I feel like I'm making points that are tangential to my central concern - which was summed up in contracycle's quote above.  I'm going to go away and think about this and then see if I can focus myself a little better later.

I'm still not sure why a gamemaster can't share all these responsibilities without being divorced of things to do.  What about only managing the central villain's organization and leaving the remainder of the world 'up for grabs?'  I've played that way a number of times and all I felt was relief from the pressures of having to 'do it all.'

Back to the central issue, may I ask if you have had a chance to think about whether it is the presence of 'limitation thought' or something else that causes your dissatisfaction?  I am curious whether you have considered that something 'outside' of tinkering with the limitations may be your solution.

Fang Langford

[Ian Charvill]

Just to clear up a couple of points before I try and focus on the meat of the discussion.

My bit on 'disenfranchising the GM' was to explain what I meant when I used the phrase.  I.e. in a given instance of play where a GM does X, Y and Z taking away X and Y reduces the role of the GM.  I don't think narrativist play does this, although some narrativist group might.  It doesn't keep me awake at night either way.  And it's not the spur of what I want to discuss on this particular thread (although it might be an interest topic for another thread).

My experience as a player is that I do chafe somewhat at the limitations I feel in a game.  What I'm trying to get to grips with is whether these limitations have a positive function in the game, whether I'm over-reacting to them, whether they're necessary, and where they should be if they should be anywhere.

I believe Once Upon a Time by Atlas Games and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Hogshead Publishing offer this freedom.

Go James Wallis!  In Once Upon a Time you don't have characters in the sense of you as a player do not play a role.  In Baron Munchausen you do play a character (who has no formal stats, etc. so this does become an answer to my point two) but there are formal rules for wagers and objections (including fighting a duel with swords or muskets!) which limit the way in which you can affect another character.

If the sensation of limitation is the source of dissatisfaction, no amount of tinkering will change that. Any limitation will prompt the sensation sooner or later. I am suggesting that the limitations, while implicit, are not the actual source of dissatisfaction. That being the case, the implicit limitations are not the actual cause of the problem and will not be the route to the solution; it may only seem like limitations are the cause. If we focus on tinkering on the limitations, we won't every discern if they are, in fact, the actual problem at hand.

Mind you, I think a discussion of limitations would be very interesting; I could really go for that, but I wanted to address Ian's real problem, especially if it weren't the limitations he speaks of.

I think the key source of my disatisfaction was hit on pretty early, Fang, by yourself, Jesse and Seth.  I prioritise narrativist goals, and when playing with a GM prioritising other goals I tend to chafe somewhat (i.e. I'm keenly aware of the limitations).  The answer to that is simple - talk to the various GMs I play with and let them understand what I'm looking for from the game and hopefully we can come to some sort of an accomodation.

But I'm also have concerns about the limitations themselves in terms of running games and playing in games.  A lot of discussion of the Forge is about system design, which is less interesting to me than (for want of a better term) adventure design.  Permit me to reframe the discussion.

In a given instance of play, using a given system, there will be limitations.  Where do we think the bottlenecks are?

My take on it is this (briefly):

You can get away with a great deal of limitation in setting up play in terms of decisions about characters, genre, setting and so on.  I think limitations later are much more obvious and much more chafing.

Ian

[Ian Charvill]

Just to catch up a couple of points I missed that I meant to include:

Andrew: I had a bit of a read of the Ratio/Star Frontiers stuff on your site.  It was interesting and does open up a lot of possibilities in certain areas of player choice.  But it's not limitless in the blanket sense that I meant: for example, Star Frontiers is a science-fiction setting which would preclude certain kinds of characters - a Victorian Nanny with a flying umbrella for example.  Not that it should: genre expectations would be one area of limitation that I would say was a good example of something positive derived from limiting players.

Regarding Plot: I didn't intend the formula because of A, B did C to indicate C was fixed.  C could be any number of things and, personally I would prefer it to be determined during play.  But if the plot has some kind of merit in the lit-crit sense, C should feel apt and should illustrate the character of B in some sense (and probably also the theme or premise).

Examples based around the character being a warrior:

Because outlaws kidnapped his mother he commited ritual suicide to save face.
Because outlaws kidnapped his mother he hunted each of them and slew them.
Because outlaws kidnapped his mother he put aside the sword and became a magistrate to bring justice to such men.

The last one's a bit cludgy on the language but I hope they illustrate the form I intended and that although causal the outcome is not fixed.

Ian

[jburneko]

Ian,

I'm a bit confused at what you're trying to get out of this thread.  I think we're ALL agreed that games put limitations on the player and that those limitations are kind of the point of playing a game.  I think we're also agreed that different games put different limitations on players and that whether those limitaions are "noticable" depends largely on player preference.

In the case of your "warrior" example if the GM had planned the whole adventure around warrior's player hunting down the killers for revenge, then some players wouldn't blink an eye at this because they're interested in the challenge of the hunt, where as you'd be annoyed by it because you're more interested in the initial choice of what to do about the situation and the subsequent consequences of that choice.

So, where do we go from here?  What are you looking for?

Jesse