Players are often said to have a "free choice" of action in roleplaying games, or at least much more free than in any other game. This is not true.

The range of choices may vary, to a much greater extent than in any other game, as the roleplaying game evolves, but at any one time in the game, it seldom exceeds the choices awailable in a normal board game. the strenght of roleplaying games is not in freedom, but in dynamics.

Players are, and should always be, limited in choice. Limitations is the colour of the game, the natural laws of the fictional environment, the limitiations experienced within a certain character, the skeleton by wich we climb to the very peak of involvement in the drama.

Without limits the game is naught. "Free choice" is an illusion. Characters free from the machinations of the fictional world, are dead characters. Characters should be exposed to any and all manipulations, emotions and handicaps. Players should be expected to act within the confines of any cell they are placed in.

Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

And mind you; this is a designers statement; I consider game masters to be players too, in respect to this.

Chris Lehrich talks about this a bit in his article on "Ritual in RPGs," which is in the Forge articles section. In his analysis of roleplaying as ritual, he makes in clear that rituals include a limited set of actions which are supported by the ritual system/structure. You have a range of freedom within those choices, but it's still a closed set. However, through theory, it's possible to make arguments for including new choices or removing old choices from the system.

I'm not explaining this especially well, but maybe he'll show up and address this.

Thomas,

Players should be expected to act within the confines of any cell they are placed in. Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

An overly strong statement and I'm sure you will get much disagreement. My initial reaction was to disagree though I think I've changed my mind, with the proviso that I'm reading you right.

Limitations really do define a large part of what a roleplaying game is about. When the mighty warrior comes up against the nasty villain and we have a system to determine the outcome of their duel then that is acting as a limitation on the players freedom. Whereas if we say the mighty warrior is superior to the villain and will automatically win the battle then we have to find something else to challenge him or else their is no game.

Typically in rpg's physical aspects like strength and combat skills are described in order to face challenges based on them. Thing that are not defined like bravery are never addressed, the player is free to choose whether his character is brave or a coward but it is never tested in play.
Having said that it is possible to make his bravery or cowardice part of the play by adding the limitation of dealing with the consequence.

So in a sense players have freedom to choose but that freedom will be met by the limitations necessary to keep the game flowing. What really defines a game is where you set the limitations.

Tomas HVM wrote: Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

I don't think it is clear exactly what you mean by "free." If what you mean is that freedom must be infinite in order to qualify as freedom, then I think most people would agree. Your choices are never completely free in that they are constrained.

However, such a strict definition of freedom doesn't seem useful to me. I think freedom is more useful if you look at it as a relative term as a degree of freedom. If you look at freedom this way, I would disagree that RPGs offer no more freedom than board games or, for that matter, most video game RPGs. I can't imagine a board game that gives you more choice than even a typical RPG like D&D, much less a more avant garde game like Universalis.

Tomas, at the end of your post, you seem to switch from a descriptive to a normative mode. At the beginning you are saying that players do not, in fact, have free choice. At the end, you say that, once the game has started, players SHOULD not be ALLOWED any freedom. This presupposes that freedom is in fact possible (which appears to contradict your claim that freedom is an illusion), but that it is not desirable. I must admit that I find this claim quite puzzling. Why would I want to play a game in which I am completely lacking in any power? If I'm going to do that, I may as well just watch a movie or read a book.

Tomas,

Could you offer concret examples from an instance of play illustrating what you mean by "freedom" and "limits"? As it stands, I know you think limits are good for the creative act -- which is all well and good -- but no one here really knows what you're talking about.

Thanks,

Christopher

"greyorm":
You seem to be far too occupied with the "social contract". Try to toss it aside from time to time.

I'm talking about the choices made by players, on behalf of their characters, in the course of play. These choices are never free. They were never meant to be. All choices in a roleplaying game are meant to be bound by character, setting and drama.

By the way; I do not know what others mean by "freedom". It is not in my use as a designer of roleplaying games, nor as a game master. If you wonder what it may mean; ask those who praise it so highly.

Henri wrote: Why would I want to play a game in which I am completely lacking in any power?

Tomas HVM wrote: You seem to be far too occupied with the "social contract". Try to toss it aside from time to time.

Interesting enough to me...

This thread is exactly the reason the the Forge has adopted strict academic-style terminology.

It becomes a long exercise in "What do you mean?"

If we didn't have some strictly defined terms for major role-playing concepts all we would every do, in thread after thread is go "What?" "How are you using the word ____?"( My group called it x. Or if you mean y we called it z)

Playing games like the Pool and Universalis changes remarkably the amount of freedom given to all Players...compared to the old standbys.

Tomas, with this reasoning, people in the real world have no freedom either. We always have our actions constrained by the physical world (physics), governmental laws, social obligations, genetics, etc, etc. I would venture to say, in relative degree that characters in RPGs have quite a bit more freedom than the players themselves. But I really don't think that constraint on choice is a lack of freedom. Coercion (railroading in RPGs) creates a lack of freedom, because the choice is directed by someone else. The fact is that the players get to make choices for their characters, but much like in real life the characters have to deal with the consequences of those actions. Are consequences a constraint to freedom? I don't think so.

To everyone other than Tomas:

I think I have observed a tendency for Tomas to use hyperbole in his efforts to make his points and stir discussion. He will often post something harsh and objectionable, and later backpedal to something a bit more moderate--something like trying to negotiate for a position by taking a more extreme position than he wants, and then compromising to what he actually wants.

I don't mean to impugn his motives for doing so; it is a style of discourse that a lot of people use. We don't see much of it here, as we have a tendency to start by trying to say exactly what we mean.

Tomas believes in a very high level of illusionist technique and referee credibility in play; he also believes in an even higher level of credibility to the game designer, whom he suggests should define and control all play of his games.

To Tomas:

Certainly all character choices are to some degree limited. They are limited by characterization (that is, the personality ascribed to the character by the player); by game physics; by setting elements; by genre expectations; by many other things. However, they almost always wind up with choices that the players have to make.

Illusionism can be a great deal of fun, as long as the character players don't see the man behind the curtain--the moment we realize that we've been taken for a ride, we want our money back. Participationism can be a lot of fun without this problem, but in this case no one is suffering any illusions that their character choices are meaningful in the context of play.

A while back someone was trying to work up a game system that was thoroughly illusionist--the referee would control all outcomes. I actually wrote a Game Ideas Unlimited article on the subject at the time, because I saw a significant flaw in it. Illusionism only works as long as either the players are unaware of it, or being aware of it they accept it (turning it to participationism). If you publish rules for a game which states up front that the referee is going to control the outcome of everything and the player choices will have no impact on this, the players will read the rules--or if they don't, they'll read about the rules in reviews at RPGnet, forums at The Forge, and elsewhere. They will know that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that you don't need them to tell your story. Yes, some people like participationist play. Most people find it offensive--we didn't come to be part of your adventure story; we came to have our own adventure.

I could debate for years whether people, real, living people, ever have free choice. My conclusion is that we do and we don't--we do, in the sense that there are usually thousands of options which confront us at any moment which we theoretically could choose, and we don't in the sense that our choice, based as it is on who we are, what we know, how we think, and where we place our values, is ultimately inevitable. In that sense, our role playing characters are exactly the same as we are--they are completely free to choose from thousands of options at any moment, and are completely constrained by who we define them to be.

I see no profit in debating whether or not such characters--or such people--really are free. I agree that good illusionist techniques can take advantage of these constraints on choice by steering the player to make the "right" choice. I don't agree that it's always--or never--good to play that way.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I think I have observed a tendency for Tomas to use hyperbole in his efforts to make his points and stir discussion.

M. J. Young wrote: He will often post something harsh and objectionable, and later backpedal to something a bit more moderate--something like trying to negotiate for a position by taking a more extreme position than he wants, and then compromising to what he actually wants.

M. J. Young wrote: ... we have a tendency to start by trying to say exactly what we mean.

M. J. Young wrote: Tomas believes in a very high level of illusionist technique and referee credibility in play;

M. J. Young wrote: he also believes in an even higher level of credibility to the game designer, whom he suggests should define and control all play of his games.

M. J. Young wrote: Certainly all character choices are to some degree limited. They are limited by characterization (that is, the personality ascribed to the character by the player); by game physics; by setting elements; by genre expectations; by many other things. However, they almost always wind up with choices that the players have to make.

M. J. Young wrote: If you publish rules for a game which states up front that the referee is going to control the outcome of everything and the player choices will have no impact on this, ... They will know that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that you don't need them to tell your story.

M. J. Young wrote: My conclusion is that we do and we don't--we do, in the sense that there are usually thousands of options which confront us at any moment which we theoretically could choose, and we don't in the sense that our choice, based as it is on who we are, what we know, how we think, and where we place our values, is ultimately inevitable.

All I can do when I look at a post like this is shrug and say "you obviously haven't been playing the same sort of games that I have."

You obviously haven't been playing the same sort of games that I have.

I would like the question, however, your use of "freedom." You seem to think that it means "can do anything, at all, ever." I would use freedom to mean "has choice."

So you have freedom in a text adventure game. When the GM says "left or right," that's freedom (perhaps meaningless freedom, but still freedom.) You have freedom in nearly any endeavor at all. *some measure of freedom*

Further, I think that RPGs are characterized by a limited, infinite freedom on behalf of all players (including GM.) Let me explain what I mean by that.

By "freedom" I simply mean "choice" or "the ability to make a choice," as I talk about above.

By "infinite" I mean that your choices are infinite in number -- you cannot list them.

By "limited" I mean that there are a signifigant (also infinite) number of invalid choices, or that your choices are restricted by social contract, system resources, and setting decisions.

To draw an example, I believe that formal poetry writing has a similar sort of limited infinite freedom. Take, for example, a sonnet. The sonnet has a definite rhythm and rhyme structure that cannot be violated if the poet still wants to write a sonnet (actually, it's a little more flexible than that, but let's take formal sonnets for now.) However, within this structure, they have a nearly-infinite (as close to infinite as makes no odds) choice of topic, word choice, etc. A poet could write sonnets, the same sonnet-structures, all his life and never get the same one twice.

Role-playing games are the same. At any point, the player can make an infinite amount of reasonable character decisions that are in line with characterization, system, setting, etc. This is still a heck of a lot of freedom.

Thoughts?

yrs--
--Ben

Hrm, this appears to be a semantic argument over the exact definition of "freedom," where neither party is saying anything different than the other about the limitations inherent in reality and the play of any game. It's "potato" vs. "potatoe."

Both parties are saying the exact same thing from opposite points of view; I see absolutely no disagreement between views here, except in the use of the word "freedom" and each party's personal connotations attached to that word.

On to the other matter: I note, Thomas, that while you are "not interested in debate," despite your statment to the contrary about explaining your position, you are apparently also not interested in providing actual answers to questions about your views.

I did ask, after all, in the spirit of understanding, and recieved a vague personal criticism as a response, as I've already pointed out. That doesn't exactly scream "desire to explain my position."

Also, I don't accept excuses of rudeness with statements saying "I didn't mean it" and no direct apologies. We've seen people play that game here before -- last time I checked, that was considered unacceptable behavior at the Forge.

As well, your decision to "present [opinions] in a piqued manner" (ie: deliberately irritate or arouse anger in) and "provoke readers" -- whatever the ultimate goal of these behaviors -- is similarly an intolerable way to interact here.

Should you wish to engage in these behaviors, there are plenty of other forums and lists which accept, perhaps even tolerate, that method of discourse. This is not one of them, however.

And I simply don't care whether you agree or disagree with that; it's a little piece of the Forge's limitations on your behavior you accept in posting and interacting while here.

Thanks for listening.

Tomas,

All activity and thought, in every substrate of life, is both free and constrained. Umberhulk mentions this, as does Jonathan in referring to my discussion of "practice" theory and ritual. Let's be explicit about it.

On the one hand, the constrained end of things, there are always structures more or less explicit in the situation that limit the possibilities. Many of these arise from social structures, which is why social contract isn’t something that can be set aside, for even an instant, in any consideration of the possibility of action or thought. Social structures and culture determine further structures, symbols, concepts, and ideas that can be manipulated, and the range of such manipulation.

Within RPGs, only a limited range of activities is permitted as legitimate. This is determined by the total spectrum of “system,” ranging from social contract down to ephemera, to use the Big Model’s terminology. If you don’t like that terminology, let me say that it simply means that certain actions are not considered valid when performed by players (including GM) during play. And a given system and game and group determines these even more sharply. If you’re playing a D&D-style fantasy game, a player cannot suddenly decide to invent laser-guns and aliens; this is outside the accepted range.

On the other hand, the free end, structures can always be manipulated strategically to produce more or less desired ends. You may be constrained to dress in a limited range of ways at your job, but that limitation still allows considerable variance; this is why not everyone at a given workplace dresses identically. To take a somewhat silly example, imagine that everyone is required to wear exactly the same uniform suit. But who’s to know if one of the men is wearing ladies’ underwear? That’s a choice available to each man, and he need not necessarily make that explicit to others. To be a little less silly, even if we all have to wear dark suits, I might wear a gray pinstripe and you might wear a blue fine herringbone, and I might wear a red tie and you might wear a blue one. This is choice within constraint. Even if you hold a gun to my head and say that I must wear a blue tie, I still have a choice: I can wear a blue tie or I can be shot. That’s choice, however tightly constrained.

Within RPG’s, the point is that one can manipulate the structures of the game, its symbols and its history of discourse, to achieve desired ends. That’s why no two games are identical.

Frankly, while I realize that you are deliberately being provocative, I can’t see what you think you are provoking. You have proposed a notion of freedom that is, at base, dependent upon an unstated assumption:

I'm talking about the choices made by players, on behalf of their characters, in the course of play. These choices are never free. They were never meant to be. All choices in a roleplaying game are meant to be bound by character, setting and drama.

Tomas,
You started this thread with a statement that you obviously care about.

What are its consequences to you as character player, as GM, as game designer, as game reviewer, as rpg theorist? How do you believe people should live by this word?

SR
--

Rob,

I'm a bit occupied at the moment, so I'll have to come back to you (and the others) later this week. I do appreciate your question though, and will try my best to answer it.

Rob Carriere wrote: Tomas,
You started this thread with a statement that you obviously care about.

Rob Carriere wrote: What are its consequences to you as character player?

Rob Carriere wrote: What are its consequences to you as GM?

Rob Carriere wrote: What are its consequences to you as game designer?

Rob Carriere wrote: What are its consequences to you as game reviewer?

Rob Carriere wrote: What are its consequences to you as rpg theorist?

Rob Carriere wrote: How do you believe people should live by this word?

Tomas,
Thanks for the answer, and you're welcome to the liberty. :-)

I think it would help me digest your post if you could address two points,


• (Testing my understanding here) Am I summarizing your position on freedom correctly when I say that you want games designed with specific goals for the mode and subject of play; that you want players stick to those goals and not claim that `if we happen to like it today' inserting space aliens into a Middle Earth game would be cool?
• (Clarification sought) You state that you see the character as the sole vehicle of play for the character players, yet they do not `own' their character. From your words, I think I see you arguing for the player being obliged to address the game in mode and subjet and not just wander off in some solipsistic dream. Is that correct? If so, is that the extent of your intention, or should I read more into this non-ownership?



SR
--

Rob Carriere wrote: Testing my understanding here) Am I summarizing your position on freedom correctly when I say that you want games designed with specific goals for the mode and subject of play; that you want players stick to those goals and not claim that `if we happen to like it today' inserting space aliens into a Middle Earth game would be cool?--

Rob Carriere wrote: Clarification sought) You state that you see the character as the sole vehicle of play for the character players, yet they do not `own' their character. From your words, I think I see you arguing for the player being obliged to address the game in mode and subjet and not just wander off in some solipsistic dream. Is that correct? If so, is that the extent of your intention, or should I read more into this non-ownership?

Note- I have read the discussion up to the present, so I have read Tomas' expansions on his thesis here.

Tomas HVM wrote:
Without limits the game is naught. "Free choice" is an illusion. Characters free from the machinations of the fictional world, are dead characters.

Characters should be exposed to any and all manipulations, emotions and handicaps. Players should be expected to act within the confines of any cell they are placed in.

Players should not be allowed any freedom, once the game has started.

Hey Tomas,

Could I ask for some clarification on who you're targeting with this.

When you say:

Tomas HVM wrote: I see players worship "freedom", while they still play their juvenile games.

a tendency to use idealistic phrases in our internal discourse on roleplaying games

I'm observing that juvenile thoughts of "freedom" is quite common amongst roleplayers.

Some game designers has it blocking their ability to see the true potential of their games.

The freedom to choose a game to play, is not the freedom to play it any way you want. "System is naught", says many players. I say: they have never really played more than the one game they always play. There is no "freedom" in disregarding the limitations of method and setting.

No character is the sole ownership of any one player.

It is the sole vehicle of play for the player,

I try to give my games fully functioning methods; clear instruction on how to play the game, coupled with the careful communication of what kind of drama the gameplay is meant to create.

Statements like this: "You may do whatever you want", or this: "These rules are but a guidance. Feel free to change and skip them at will", meet with little understanding by me.

A game should be designed to do what it does in a great way, and with rules that really are meant to be adhered to. Mostly I take such improper relativism as a sign of lax attitudes on the part of the designer, being a cowardly or lazy designer, and I tell them so. "Get your act together", I tell them, "and decide what game you're going to make"!

We seem to be getting into a quote-box frenzy here, and it's making my eyes hurt. I'd like to remind everyone, before this thread gets any harder to read, that the usual Forge style is to keep quote boxes to a minimum. This isn't email--you can always scroll back up to see the messages to which people are replying.

Ralph beat me to the punch. So..."what he said" -- pretty much everything Thomas has said would seem to have been long ago accepted by the Forge as fundamental points, and thus Thomas appears to be preaching to the choir.

There's something to be said for "saying it for yourself" but that seems not to be the main point of Thomas' posting. So, I'll ask the same question of Thomas as Ralph did, anything else you need to say, have you meant something else than we've gathered by your statements, or is this thread over?

Tomas,
As for your answer to my first question, fair enough. I allowed a poorly chosen example to stand when mr. Gates interrupted reality. From your answer it is clear that you meant what I thought you meant, so all is well anyhow. I believe that, as several others have already stated, you should find that you are among like-minded people here.

As to the second question, clearly I latched on to the wrong phrase with the `sole vehicle' thing, but this leaves me unsure of your exact intention. Are you speaking of Credibility or of emotional investment or something else entirely? Could you perhaps provide an concrete example of this handling of character?

SR
--

I wrote: No character is the sole ownership of any one player. And "Valamir" agreed to this.

Valamir wrote: Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

Valamir wrote: In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I think we're having a communications difficulty, because the impression you got from my words was not was I wanted to say at all. So I'll try again.

Tomas HVM wrote: I wrote: No character is the sole ownership of any one player. And "Valamir" agreed to this.

Valamir wrote: Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

I'm not against immersion in character. Labeling immersion as "selfish" is, in my eyes, a very misspelled way of understanding what I try to say. I'm all for using your character in play. Any use of character in interaction with the drama at hand, and the other characters, is fine with me (making an exception for disruptive play, of course). I will not support any theory set to give players bad conscience for using their characters. Immersion is a great way of being possessed by your character and the drama. And as far as I can tell; when immersed in your character, you are also immersed in the drama.

Valamir wrote: In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I don not agree with you at all. This is a severe misconception of the character/player relationship!

The point of the character being "the vehicle of play" for the player, is to be understood as the player identifying with the character during the course of play, and use this identification to imagine the drama from his characters point of view. The drama comes alive by this relationship! In my view this is one of the basics of roleplaying games, and one of it's greatest powers. I'm not on a quest to make all roleplaying games play like Universalis.

So please; understand that I'm arguing that players should not maintain any ideas of sole ownership over their character. At the same time I'm advocating a strong relationship between player and character. Bring these two together, and you get the character as "the sole vehicle of play" fo the player.

Hello,

I'm alerting everyone that I'm considering closing this thread. What will keep it open is this:

Make an effort to understand what the other person is saying. Ralph (Valamir), you're doing this. Tomas, it's not clear to me that you are, at all.

It should be understood by everyone here that reaching maximal mutual understanding is the top priority.

Best,
Ron

I don’t know if this helps or not, but here goes.

In most cases, with the exception of games where there is explicit corporate or communal ownership of characters, e.g., Universalis, individual players do have exclusive ownership of their characters (one to one mapping of player to character). Even here though the GM does have some input on character.

Upon reflection I see that ownership is a troublesome word. Unless I am mistaken, ownership in the context of this thread means operationally the exclusive rights to control the character. Even the word “control” is too strong; perhaps the phrase “to express intent of action or thought” might be more accurate. As was stated earlier in the thread we have freedom to choose how to act, not freedom to choose the consequences of our act or desires – IOW we can opt to try anything, within the confines of the Social Contract, but that does not mean such efforts will automatically come to fruition.

Hypothetically, given that we are playing a specific game where there is (virtually) exclusive one to one mapping of player to character, the player still has a duty and responsibility to all the players at the table. While the character may be under the exclusive control of a specific player (ownership), that player has a duty and responsibility to play the character in a way that contributes constructively (in accordance to the strictures laid out in the social contract) to the shared imagined spaced (exploration).

So we have two issues here, one of which is really a red herring; ownership and responsibility to the Shared Imagined Space. Neither Private nor Corporate “ownership” of a character does not guarantee that said character will be played in such a way as to contribute to the shared experience of all the players. I agree with Valamir’s, “all characters are vehicles for all players,” it’s just that we are not all drivers of the same vehicle.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Silmenume wrote: Upon reflection I see that ownership is a troublesome word. ... Even the word “control” is too strong; perhaps the phrase “to express intent of action or thought” might be more accurate.

Silmenume wrote: I agree with Valamir’s, “all characters are vehicles for all players,” it’s just that we are not all drivers of the same vehicle.

It's not just that. We are also looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character. They relate to us as the friends or companions of our character. our character is the vehicle for us, and no one else is in fact in on our ride. They're only feeding of our actions to create a ride of their own, corresponding with the ride we have in some respects. This parallell imaginary ride help to create what we call the "shared" imaginary space (we do not know to what extent we actually share the same fantasy).

our character is the vehicle for us, and no one else is in fact in on our ride

Ralph, can I borrow this:

We are not just looking at the other characters through the eyes of our own character, we are simultaneously looking at them through our own eyes as well, the eyes of the audience member....

Take for example the venerable Soliloquy. It is generally not "in character" for most people to talk to themselves in grammatically correct sentences in a loud projecting voice. Yet this technique has long been used to allow the audience inside the characters head, because theatre acknowledges that its real purpose is not the accurate portrayal of character but the delivery of meaning, message, and entertainment to the audience. Accurate portrayal of character is important only in so far as it fulfills those real goals.

It is not the actors job to just play the character. It is the actors job to play the character in such a way to inform, enlighten, and entertain the audience.

In an RPG, all of the players around the table are simultaneously both fellow actors and audience. Your obligation as a player is not just to your own character but to inform, enlighten, and entertain your fellow players

I am in fact talking about the players as some kind of "audience" when I state that they are "feeding of our actions". The other players observe me and my character, and make my actions into a part of their imaginative space. The links thus created between us, as players in the same game, are many and various, and strong enough to make it meaningful to talk about a "shared imaginary space". I prefer to say that this space is outside the true vehicle of play; our character.

As for arguments derived from theater, I find them weak in this instance; as there is an essential division between the player and the actor. The actor is mainly into mannerism; directed at the audience, with his own enjoyment of the play as a side-effect. The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect. If you shift this focus on part of the players, a lot of them will fail to live up to the demands placed upon them, and certainly a lot of them will stop enjoying the game altogether.

As for creative freedom, and non-realistic techniques, in relation to how you portrait certain events or atmospheres; it is part of roleplaying games in abundance. Look to how we resolve conflicts in most roleplaying games, or how we routinely communicate out of character, in order to relate essential parts of the drama.

I have tried to argue my initial position; players never have a free choice. I don't expect people to agree with me (at least not all of them, or all the time), or to be won over by my feeble attempts at convincing them. However; I honestly do hold this to be a valuable insight.

To accept it as a game designer is wise; you may do things with your designs othervise unthinkable. To accept it as a game master will open up a whole range of effective techniques to you, and some exciting themes to be played. To accept it as a player is beneficial to your understanding of the game, and the understanding of your character.

Try to read it like I do, and see what may come out of it...

The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect. If you shift this focus on part of the players, a lot of them will fail to live up to the demands placed upon them, and certainly a lot of them will stop enjoying the game altogether.

It's a good night, Rev, as I seem to be agreeing with you quite a bit. I was thinking very much along the same lines as you when I read

what Tomas wrote: The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect.

I'd like to clarify: I'm not talking about one particular way of playing roleplaying games when comparing theatrical "mannerism" and roleplaying "immersionism". These were the words I found practical at the moment, to describe what I see as essential differences between theater and roleplaying games.

To put it another way: the actor has the audience as the main focus of his acting (using his manners to "impress" them in some way). The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play ("immersing" himself to a varying extent in the experience of it). I believe that "immersionism" is something all players are into, to a varying extent. To me it is another way of saying that we identify with our characters. Please understand that the use of "immersionism" in this context, in no way imply that I advocate one kind of play before another.

And I do not advocate the use of acting techniques in roleplaying games, quite the contrary. I stated that any shift in focus on the player part (leaving the focus on identifying with your character), would cause players to fail in the game. I might as well state that it would cause the game to fail (and it would certainly be a failing of the game). If forced into some actor-audience relationship, the players would be expected to use abilities they don't possess. It would not be due to some "lazyness", only lack of ability. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend. Most of us lack the ability to manipulate an audience in any conscious way, like an actor do. Please believe this; if the players are left to endulge in what they do best, and are supported in this, they will give their fellow players the best experience possible, them being the happenstance "audience" to their actions.

As for the distinction between different modes of play; I acknowledge it, but I do not feel compelled to choose one mode of play at the cost of another. I want my games to be fleeting experiences, changing seamlessly between different modes of play, according to the needs presented by the game, the genre, the particular scene, the characters, and the players.

People guessing on what style of play I prefer, are wrong in doing so. This is especially true for those trying to "conclude" that I'm into some GM-ruled player-manipulative non-interaction style of play. Please refrain from such guesswork! I've made my share of roleplaying games the last fiftheen years, five of them being published, and they vary a great deal in what designer goals they adhere to.

When I'm advocating techniques on how to influence characters to strenghten gameplay (at the cost of player autonomy), it has to do with me perceiving these techniques to be sorely misrepresented in roleplaying games of today. I sincerely believe that this is a weakness in many game groups, and that part of the remedy is to be found in more explicit design on the particular field of game methods. The strong player autonomy which is maintained in many roleplaying groups, is mainly due to some historical accidents, vague design on methods being one of them.

Tomas:

Please recognize, you are still presenting solipsistic immersion on the part of the player as an inevitable improvement on other forms of play.

While asking others not to interpret how you run your games from your own descriptions of them, I respectfully ask you not to tell me the following:

If forced into some actor-audience relationship, the players would be expected to use abilities they don't possess. It would not be due to some "lazyness", only lack of ability. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend. Most of us lack the ability to manipulate an audience in any conscious way, like an actor do.

pete_darby wrote: [R]ecognise that a group consisting of players that define their enjoyment of a game purely in terms of their own gratification can only function as a socially cohesive group by happy accident.

I'll go out on a limb Hal and answer for myself as well as some of the other posters. Nobody is arguing with Tomas that such type of play isn't possible or even entertaining, rather that it is not the only way to play. Computer games, like Quake, are not the same as table top RPGs, and 1st ed AD&D is not Universalis. Different artistic mediums require different techniques. For example, deep Immersion is the only option in a computer game, you literally have no choice, that is not true in pen and paper RPG's. We are arguing that more satisfying pen and paper RPG play may arise from other techniques.

I'm not arguing any "deep immersion" kind of play. I'm not an "immersionist". I'm not arguing one particular mode of play at all. Neither am I trying to insult any advocate of any mode of play.

I'm talking about what I perceive to be the basics of roleplaying games, and how the games may be played to it's best potentiality. Choices made by the players are central to roleplaying games, and I'm trying to convey the great benefits to be had if the ideal of "free choice" is chucked overboard. In my view players should be bound byt he characters they have chosen to play, and their characters should be bound by the cultural setting. Due to this every single choice made by the players in the game, on behalf of the characters, should be considered to be anything but free.

Although I talk about this in general, as if all games where the same, I know that this is not the case, so this idea of mine will have a varying degree of validity in different games. Still I choose to talk about it in general, as I experience the "freedom-paradigm" to be a general tendency within roleplaying games. Much can be said about it, but I am mainly concerned with the limitations it places upon the gameplay of many roleplayers, first and foremost these are limitations in their mindset when engaging in roleplaying games.

I believe that any choice to be had in a roleplaying game, should have some strings attached to it, and that such "limitations" in choice in fact present great possibilities for individual and exciting gameplay. I believe this to be the case in most successful roleplaying games of today. I believe that many gamesessions come short of their potential due to the restraining effects of some misconceptions of "freedom".

To give the players resistance in their desicion-making, through their characters, is one great way of involving them in the drama, deepening it for all parties, and making the intensity of interaction soar to the skies. As you experience resistance in the decision-making of the character, and you conquer the doubts in your character, you will discover that this interactive process is making it into more of a real choice, and worth while to make. That's the crux of my idea.

At the same time I don't have to do this every time I play, or in every game I make, or in every conflict. It is true to a varying degree in my own games, as I expect it to be in other games. although I place it before you very strongly, my position is that this is one great way of doing it. I believe most roleplayers, and certainly most designers, need to reflect upon this way of doing it, in order to broaden the scope of their games.

My experiences are mainly done within traditional fantasy roleplaying, by the use of a traditional resolution system, and with players of all ages and differing levels of "roleplaying expertice". I find that most players are in possession of two great abilities; the ability to play and to pretend. I have tried to support these abilities with all my might, both as a gamesmith and as a game master, to release any potential within the players at hand. I think all of you here may agree with me that the potential is great!

This discussion is about one way of releasing the potential. My premiss for initiating the discussion is not to preach this as the one way. It is not. My premiss is that the players of a roleplaying game need a broad array of techniques and tools to release their true potential within the game. So I'm talking of a kind of thinking commonly seen amongst roleplayers, which I perceive to be narrowing the array of techniques available.

Some of the participants here seem to be somewhat provoked by this. It is not intended as personal in any respect. It is not intended as provokation or disparagement of any group of players. It is a statement based on my play and talks of roleplaying games, and it is solely placed before you with the intent of evoking thoughts on an important issue.

Choices made by the players are central to roleplaying games, and I'm trying to convey the great benefits to be had if the ideal of "free choice" is chucked overboard.

I believe that any choice to be had in a roleplaying game, should have some strings attached to it, and that such "limitations" in choice in fact present great possibilities for individual and exciting gameplay. As you experience resistance in the decision-making of the character, and you overcome it's second thoughts and doubts, you will discover that this interactive process is making it into more of a real choice, and worth while to make. That's the crux of my idea.

Hi Ralph,

maybe we could leave the discussion, and push on to talk about some related issues:

- different ways to make character choices worth while.
- how to make use of social tenets in character handling.
- what kind of techniques may be used, by the game master and/or the players, to strenghten the intensity of drama and interaction in a traditional roleplaying game.

(Obviously crossposted with Tomas; he's saying what I am with much fewer words.)

I'm finding this conversation surpassingly strange; it's like Tomas and others were using the same words but having different discussions. What makes it strange for me is that I've been in Tomas's discussion, I think. The issues, terminology and opinions all ring familiar. The context it's familiar from is the majority of Finnish roleplaying game depates I've participated in, especially with the more theoretical types. I've told you some times how the immersionist, GM-as-auteur school of thought dominates the field in Finland as far as theory goes? Well, this discussion right here Tomas is having is the very same one that tends to surface. Not the freedom thing (about which everyone agrees), but the one about players as tools of GM vision and stuff.

Tomas, are you sure that you are addressing the issues the other posters have lately raised? AfaI understand they have tried to ascertain whether you might have some underlying assumptions about the nature of roleplaying that make it hard to understand your position. You have written that you are emphatically not writing about a certain kind of game, but of all games in general. Despite this you didn't comment on the issues others had with your formulation in your last post, so it's left vague what you then consider the roleplaying you are talking about.

On the other hand, as has been repeatedly pointed out, if f.ex. Ralph's interpretation about your freedom-point is valid, then the discussion is already done. We all agree that games do limit player choice and what's more, they should. There are a multitude of reasons for conciderated limitations starting from the Vision of Interaction DoctorXero outlined a little while ago, goiing through all kinds of player auctoring questions and ending up with the thematic focus of a given game. Look at the IGC competition from last week, which captures Forge ethos in a particular way; many of those games go to great lenghts to produce different play experiences through limiting player options. As far as you aren't arguing some extreme of no choice at all as the highest pinnacle of play, there's nothing more to discuss if you wouldn't like to go forward and tell us how the principle of limiting freedom works in practice.

So, everyone; don't you find that this thread has run it's course? The general discussion about the nature of roleplaying with Tomas should maybe be in another thread, though I suggest someone gets Tomas to play some MLwM or something in the 'net before continuing. I've found here in Finland that it's most efficient to confront this discussion with presenting the proof for why someone might be needlessly limiting his conception of roleplaying. I've talked to exhaustion with people absolutely convinced that anything without a GM and player characters isn't a roleplaying game, only to find out that they've never even heard of Once Upon a Time. I'm not suggesting this about Tomas, but I'd like to be absolutely sure he realizes the stratum of experience people here are working from. The discussion simply doesn't concern itself with the same issues it does here in Finland (or in Norway, presumably), because nobody can keep to those particular preconseptions after playing the Pool or having twenty people tell himself that yes, indeed, there is other games than GM-auteur in town. The general strengths and weaknesses are so different that Tomas is arguing against imaginary disagreement; most likely any Finnish roleplayer can relate to his opinion simply because they see the connections about what the heck he's talking about, but until further deconstruction and care from Tomas it's hard for the others here to do so.

Then again, I might be mistaken in seeing what I see. If so, apologies.

I understand Tomas, I was attempting to explain to Hal in very broad strokes.

No one is going to argue with you that to design a structure requires that there be limitations. The limitations, in a sense, define the structure. It is so obvious that we are looking deeper into your argument to discover if there is something we can actually hold a discussion about. I understand that to be an underlying assumption, on your part, that the driving force behind coherent and functional play is the gamemaster. And that proper role for a player is as an "actor" inside the gamemaster's world. It is that assumption that is in contention.

If this is your assumption than the ensuing discussion is correct and unless you care to revise your opinion or entertain other views then we have come full circle and this thread can close.

If this is not your underlying assumption, and your theory posses different implications, please state them more clearly so we can discuss.

If you are not advocating anything by your "theory" other than to say that structure requires limitation than we all agree and can happily end this thread. If this happens to be the case this thread is remarkably similar to a great many of your other threads where you take issue with a certain word do to it's implications. I think the problem is one of context. In english, as opposed to Japanese or French, there is no standardization of the language, therefore it is nessesary to define words by context. We use words like Freedom as relative terms, not absolutes.

BPetroff93 wrote: I'll go out on a limb Hal and answer for myself as well as some of the other posters. Nobody is arguing with Tomas that such type of play isn't possible or even entertaining, rather that it is not the only way to play.

Computer games, like Quake, are not the same as table top RPGs, and 1st ed AD&D is not Universalis. Different artistic mediums require different techniques.

Thomas,

Please believe this; if the players are left to endulge in what they do best, and are supported in this, they will give their fellow players the best experience possible, them being the happenstance "audience" to their actions.

Tomas HVM wrote: The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play...
...it would cause the game to fail (and it would certainly be a failing of the game)...
...If forced into some actor-audience relationship, the players would be expected to use abilities they don't possess. Our prerequisite as players of roleplaying games lies in our ability to play and pretend...

People guessing on what style of play I prefer, are wrong in doing so...This is especially true for those trying to "conclude" that I'm into some GM-ruled player-manipulative non-interaction style of play. Please refrain from such guesswork!

I've made my share of roleplaying games the last fiftheen years, five of them being published, and they vary a great deal in what designer goals they adhere to.

When I'm advocating techniques on how to influence characters to strenghten gameplay (at the cost of player autonomy), it has to do with me perceiving these techniques to be sorely misrepresented in roleplaying games of today...I sincerely believe that this is a weakness in many game groups, and that part of the remedy is to be found in more explicit design on the particular field of game methods.

My premiss is that the players of a roleplaying game need a broad array of techniques and tools to release their true potential within the game. So I'm talking of a kind of thinking commonly seen amongst roleplayers, which I perceive to be narrowing the array of techniques available. Some of the participants here seem to be somewhat provoked by this.

Brendan Petroff wrote: No one is going to argue with you that to design a structure requires that there be limitations. The limitations, in a sense, define the structure.

Brendan Petroff wrote: I understand that to be an underlying assumption, on your part, that the driving force behind coherent and functional play is the gamemaster. And that proper role for a player is as an "actor" inside the gamemaster's world. It is that assumption that is in contention.

I am late coming back to this thread, my apologies – I hope to instill a few insights.

Tomas HVM wrote:

Silmenume wrote: Upon reflection I see that ownership is a troublesome word. ... Even the word “control” is too strong; perhaps the phrase “to express intent of action or thought” might be more accurate.

This is interesting. "Intent of action or thought" do not encompass emotions or automatic reactions. The field of emotions and reactions is exactly where I, as a game master, make my "infringement" upon character/player autonomy.

Tomas HVM wrote: …The player is mainly into immersionism; directed at himself, with the entertainment of other players as a side-effect…

Tomas HVM wrote: …"shared imaginary space". I prefer to say that this space is outside the true vehicle of play; our character.

Tomas HVM wrote: The roleplayer has himself as the main focus of his play ("immersing" himself to a varying extent in the experience of it).

greyorm wrote:
Let's focus for a moment on a concrete example of our disagreements:
...
Three blanket statements about players, play, and methods, all made authoritatively, all of them highly arguable.
...
why do you insist on repeating these statements as though someone here disagrees with them, when no one has?
...
How you have missed the fact that everyone here agrees with you is beyond me,
...
I mean, you are saying absolutely nothing new to anyone here. What's the point? Why do you keep pushing it when everyone already agrees with you, and has said so?

Hi Tomas, thank you for your response to my post. I think your statement about more limitations, of whatever kind, being present in newer games as opposed to older games is interesting and would be a topic worth discussing. However, the current topic seems to still escape my grasp.

I understand that you do not equate RPGers with stage or screen actors. I was using the term actor metaphorically. I apologise for any misunderstanding.

While I agree with you that something does not have to be in contention to be worth saying, a contentionless conversation on one topic can only continue for so long. This one has been interesting, however, unless we can discuss some underlying issue or implication of your philosophy it seems that it has reached it's natural conclusion.

What I intended to ask you, through my actor reference, is if the underlying assumption behind your theory is that the GM is the driving force behind the adventure in a manner SIMILAR to, but not identical to, a director and actors. I am not trying to imply that acting and roleplaying are similar mediums, just that the heirarchy of authority, or story control, appears to be similar in your theory.

Is this correct? If not, are there any implications to your theory for actual design, other than the fact that limitations of some kind must be built into the system? If not, do you feel this conversation has fullfilled your original intent and can be closed?

Brendan:

apologies; I misread your metaphore. I must warn you though; the apparent similarity between theater and roleplaying games may fool people into believeing that a roleplayer and an actor are the same. Due to this the use of it as a metaphore has it's hasards.

As for my "philosophy", I am afraid that no logical and consistent work has been made of it, so it may not be termed a philosophy yet. It's my thoughts and experiences, and I would like to make some coherent work out of it. I am indeed collecting all my thoughts, as expressed here, in my games, and in other forums, with the intent of collecting them in one theoretical work on roleplaying games. Such a work is long overdue for me, but I have not had the time to compel it yet. Sorry.

I will have to come back to the posting of Aure Entaluva.

Thomas,

The questions of mine you quoted were not directed towards your ability (or lack thereof) to debate, but to the point of this thread -- the reason you brought the topic up in the first place, to us, specifically. Something Ralph had also asked about.

I don't think anyone can judge whether or not the discussion has been of help to you unless we're clear on what, exactly, you were trying to get help with. Frankly, I'm content on letting this thread die and trying the subject again at a later time, though I admit that result is frustrating because it means this thread was ultimately a lot of wasted time for everyone.

Silmenume wrote: By “action or thought” I meant all physical and mental processes, including emotions, as expressed. This is on a character level. While the player may feel many things, at this level of play we are referring to Character, the Exploration Process and the Shared Imagined Space. Shared is the operative word. This a Character/game process because a player’s true emotions are not subject to outside control.

Silmenume wrote: I am confused by you statement about infringement. Do you mean you “infringe” upon the player’s emotional state or the character’s emotional state? The reason I ask is that emotions are probably the most gut level and least controlled of all player actions. There is a certain “honesty” to emotions and automatic reactions that seem to me the one thing you would like least to “infringe” upon.

Silmenume wrote: First, while a player cannot literally share what they are experiencing (or have experienced) the experience can be expressed and shared with others to a greater or lesser degree.

Silmenume wrote: ... the idea that what an individual player experiences is theirs alone and is not worthwhile or profitable to share is moot.

Silmenume wrote: ... just because we can only experience and feel inside our heads does not mean we are indifferent to other people’s experiential processes and what goes on in their heads.

Silmenume wrote: To make a blanket statement that players are self-directed and regard the other players as merely an afterthought, if at all, is an egregious error.

Silmenume wrote: The internal process is the how, the focus of play is the what and why he is going through the process of imagining and attending to. We need our eyes to “see” but it is what we are looking at that is what we are focusing on.

Silmenume wrote: Regarding the idea of “freedom of choice,” perhaps a better phrase might be that players have “freedom to choose,” among the choices laid out before them and within the constraints of character.

Tomas HVM wrote: The character is the main entrance to the fictional world of the game, for the player. Through the character the fiction is brought to life.

First I'd like to say that I enjoyed this last posting by M.J.Young immensely. It is always good to see some fresh thoughts brought forward (fresh to me at least).

I do not deny that our roleplaying may have, and usually do have, qualities to be appreciated by fellow players. What you refer to is proof good enough for me, and my own experience support it.

However; it may be that your example is about a fellow player, not an "audience" as such. Your example describes a viewer who is still part of the game. As a player he may be said to share mindset with the rest of the players. It is possible that this mindset is a prerequisite for his appreciation of the game. It is also possible that prior knowledge of the characters in action, is essential to any shared enjoyment of the drama.

Would it be fair to say that the game you describes as "very involving", probably would be as dull to watch for a true outsider, and as involving, as a traditional roleplaying game usually are?

Do you (or others) have experiences contradicting such a dependency of a shared mindset? If not; do you think it is possible to create it in "true outsiders" to the game? What kind of techniques would it require? How would it influence gameplay? Could any such techniques (if such techniques exist) be used to market roleplaying games more effectively?

Tomas HVM wrote: Would it be fair to say that the game you describes as "very involving", probably would be as dull to watch for a true outsider, and as involving, as a traditional roleplaying game usually are?

In LARPs I encountered the phenomenon of players -- that is, people who signed up to play, made costumes, paid their travel expenses, read the rules, got into character -- who then proceeded to drift through the game, doing very little, regardless of the urgent agendas outlined on the character sheets.

People dissatisfied with their character roles, or confused by the game, perhaps? But no. For one thing, they kept coming back. For another, there were more of them over the course of successive games.

We realized, eventually, that they were spectating. And decided, after our initial surprise, why not? They were paying their way, they were contributing color and richness to play (like extras in a movie), they weren't complaining. Cool with us. (Perhaps, sometime in a previous century, a team playing a little-known esoteric game called "baseball" wondered, why would anyone bother to come to a game just to watch?) Unlike baseball fans, these participants would spectate using all the media of play itself: interacting in character with the other player-characters, using their individual character powers and privileges (such as membership in factions) when applicable, participating in rituals, and often acting as gophers and assistants to other player-characters.

Players of other LARP styles and MMORPG players report similar phenomena in their respective media.

You cannot draw a hard line between players and audience. You can (sometimes, as with the LARP participants I just described) identify individuals who are currently behaving as audience rather than playing, but you cannot fix any particular level of involvement with play as signifying that the participant is no longer audience. For instance, I've been reading this thread for many days. By any reasonable definition, I've been part of the audience for the thread. Now I've posted to the thread. Am I now no longer part of the audience? If not, then when did that happen -- when I started thinking about this post, or when I started writing it, or when I posted it, or have I somehow made myself not-audience retroractively back in time to the start of the discussion? None of those possibilities make any sense to me. It seems far more reasonable to say, I was and still am an audience member, and I am now additionally a participant.

- Walt

How a player participate, and at what level he engage himself in the gameplay, is not essential to this issue. He's still a player. I've had my fair share of players never taking any initiative. Whatever tricks I use to get them into active participation, they will maintain the seemingly inactive stanca, and still they come back to play my campaigns year after year. As an argument in this discussion, this goes to underline my point that the character, and it's life in the inner sanctum of our imagination, is the one true vehicle of play for the player.

I've run tabletop roleplaying game sessions with a non-participating audience (kind of five persons playing and fifty watching), and I've seen the audience enjoying the game at such sessions. So I do know that this may be done, and how it may be done good. However; I have only once seen non-participating viewers of a game enjoy it, when the game itself was not played to their amusement. At all other occasions I have seen viewers grow bored and leave, if they don't involve themselves in some out-of-game conversation with the players. They may be termed "audience", but it's a pretty bad show.

As a general issue of roleplaying games though, such audiences don't interest me. I prefer to focus my thoughts and creative powers on the five playing members of the game. These players are usually present through the whole game session, but they are not active all the time. Gameplay flow from one to another, from activating the whole group to activating an individual. In a traditional roleplaying game one or more players are routinely left inactive from time to time. My point is that even when inactive they are players, not audience. They will view the play of the others as a fellow player. As a fellow player you have special insights in the game, relations to the characters at play (thorugh your own character) and you are invested with an interest in the game, pertaining to elements that may be useful or important for your character.

To argue it in the same way you do: if a player who is not directly involved in a scene, should be considered audience, then a goalkeeper at the soccerfield should be considered audience too, whenever his side were attacking. Why don't he sit down? Looks silly standing there, pretending to be part of the game!

It is a part of playing the game to be left inactive at times.

To argue that players are audience at any stage in the game, have no great meaning to me, at least not in relation to a traditional roleplaying game. To me the term "audience" is used on spectators having no individual influence on the game. They are not expected to have a go at playing out any situation before or after the scene they view.

To maintain that true outsiders may enjoy the game, is of relevance to the game itself only if it's to be used in some kind of recruitment-scheme. We could of course discuss the ways of doing this, but it is far outside the field of this thread. And I'm afraid that I would have little to contribute with, being that it interest me a lot less now than it did before.

These players are usually present through the whole game session, but they are not active all the time. Gameplay flow from one to another, from activating the whole group to activating an individual. In a traditional roleplaying game one or more players are routinely left inactive from time to time. My point is that even when inactive they are players, not audience.

And there's still that funny sense going around that any sort of audience is passive in relation to the performers. Perhaps we've got too "civilized recently," but certainly performers still play to the audience, and the audience responds, and the performer reciprocates.

Think less in terms of a well-behaved theatre audience at a "serious" play... think about a music hall crowd, or a British pantomime audience, or an audience in a lively jazz club, or a stand-up clubs audience, or the crowds that faced Shakespeare's first performances even, with William in the wings working out how to make that scene scarier, or that scene funnier...

Now fold that sort of audience back into the group that is also the perfomers... that's what we're on about, not a passive, dispassionate group of observers, but a group of people who, even when not involved directly in the creation of a scene are intimately invested in the development of it.

Ralph missed a great opportunity to bring in the mechanics of Universalis (perhaps out of misplaced modesty): Universalis allows great investment in scenes where you are not controlling any of the characters, because you can affect any scene at a moments notice if you wish. It invites investment of interest by all players at all times, while working from an assumption that the character is not the primary or sole lens of experience of the shared imgainary space for the player.

Valamir wrote: Are you using some special meaning for "audience" Tomas?
...
Hopefully at this point you can see how much more useful it is to discussions like this to realize that "player" as a term is a collection of things, and to really understand what is going on around the table, you have to examine the various components of that collection.

One of those components is indeed irrefutably "the player as audience".

Well we're in 'agree to disagree' territory then. Your statement that

- A spectator takes active part in his own observation of the performance, but he does not influence the flow of drama. He may be activated by performers, or by their performance. He may even be called to the scene as anindividual volunteer, or find himself part of an indicated crowd within the drama, but he does not share the mindset of the performer.

Tomas HVM wrote: I misread you. But however much you meant to include emotions in your statement, they seldom are included in the actual roleplaying game. The techniques for introducing and handling them are not present. The "Lumpley principle" is not enough in the way it is usually applied: focusing on how to handle player intent on Character action. However; if you realize that the principle may cover the gamemaster intent on Character action too, and you make the game reflect this by opening a true avenue for gamemaster coauthorship of Character, you have a principle that will function in regards to automatic reactions and emotions.

My point is simple: we are not in total control of our real Character, so why should we be in total control of our fictional one?

Tomas HVM wrote: …The gamemaster may force reactions and emotions on the Characters, and still leave the players to deal with these in a way they choose to be relevant for their Character…
…When confronted with it in play, most players accept it without question, and those questioning it are usually convinced by the simple statement: This is one way of feeding you stuff to play with. You're still the one expected to play with it…
…The apparatus as such is not suited for any and all roleplaying games. I can't think of any one technique which are. The point is that roleplaying games as such lend themselves to this kind of play, and by that reason there should be some exploration of the possibilities within it…

Tomas HVM wrote: The main focus of the player is himself and his own enjoyment, and it should be.

Tomas HVM wrote: Maybe I should formulate my idea in another way, to make it clear: the player are focussed, by the roleplaying game, on the Character. The Character is the main entrance to the fictional world of the game, for the player. Through the Character the fiction is brought to life.

Silmenume wrote: I am not certain if you are up to speed on the Lumpley Principle or not. ... Any statement that is headed for the SIS is subject to negotiation, ... Thus the problem of GM coauthorship of Character is not so much a problem of design as it is a matter of Social Contract.

Silmenume wrote: The problem is not so much the apparatus as the expectations of the players, which is handled in the Social Contract level of the game.

Silmenume wrote: Are you asking or suggested that there needs or should be some sort of formalized system technique for this process or are you simply bringing up the point that the interjection of emotions and “automatic reactions” into a Character by a GM ought be used more frequently as a game play/story telling tool?

Silmenume wrote: I believe that this statement is troubling for several reasons. First, if a player’s main focus is himself what would then motivate said player to share any screen time at all and not dominate the game utterly?

Silmenume wrote: Or if said player, focusing on his own enjoyment, enjoyed wrecking other players’ enjoyment why is that the way “it should be.”

Silmenume wrote: Roleplay, with its Shared Imagined Space, is a communal effort, and must be so to function, so why should it be that the main focus of the player be upon himself?

Silmenume wrote: why is it so that it should be that the satisfaction of the self be preeminent?

Silmenume wrote: ...
Regarding your ideas about audience –

The distinctions you make between the player, the spectator, and the performer are rather superfluous regarding roleplay.

Hello,

Unless I'm mis-reading, Tomas, what you've just written is synonymous with my points:

1. Exploration is composed of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. Creative Agenda concerns the aesthetic standards for this activity.

2. System Does Matter in realizing Creative Agenda, individually and in terms of the group.

Can anyone explain whether I'm misunderstanding? And if I'm understanding correctly, could everyone reflect on why it took five pages to arrive at a simple identity of conclusions?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron!

The discussion in itself has been thoroughly knocked about already. So I hope your post is an effort of constructive participation.

I'm quite comfortable with five pages of discussion. The discussion has it's own value in my eyes. It has dealt with issues related to the first statement made by me. To me this discussion has been both complex and challenging. I do not perceive it to be "simple" in any way. I do not perceive any of it to be "synonymous" with the list of elements in your post.

I propose for you to explain it yourself; how you think the issue at hand interact with your set of terms, and in what way those terms affect the thinking on "player freedom".

Hi Tomas,

I've got two questions for you.

1) Are you saying that players can't decide to do any damned thing at the table because their creative choices are bound by:

- characters.
- setting.
- genre
- method
- and the interactive nature of roleplaying games

2) Thus, you're defining "freedom" as the choice of behaviors that would ignore one or more of the boundries listed above.

Thanks,

Christopher

As all players are "bound" by lots of things (or limited in choice), it is obvious that they still may do a lot of things, decide for themselves what course of action to take, behave within scenes in various ways.

Many players believe the character should be "free" of social boundaries. Many are convinced that for a game to be amusing, it has to be played out with a group of characters totally "free" from human emotions. I do sympathize with the urge to do so in a juvenile player, and hold it to be escapism of the best kind. As such I have catered for it both in design and in gamemastering. But in adult players, or as something close to a philosophy of roleplaying games, it is abhorrant. As a visible attitude within the roleplaying community, and in the games, it makes roleplaying games less interesting to engage in for ordinary, adult people. It also lends weight to any claims of "roleplaying games being escapism". It certainly is, for a lot of people.

I'm not "defining" freedom as such. I'm trying to adress some misuse of the concept.

Hi Tomas,

Thanks for the reply.

Like you, I agree that the best creative work is contained with bounds and limits.

I said as much back on page one of this thread when I wrote, "As it stands, I know you think limits are good for the creative act -- which is all well and good."

I don't think anyone here would argue with this point of view. And like Ron, I'm amazed you've somehow jiggled this conversation enough to keep people going this long.

Your saying playing without boundries is immature. I would say useless. It's like playing tennis without a net.

Despite my requests for you to define "freedom," you have refused -- even though it is the point of your arguement. But your last post in reply to my questions, it seems to boil down to this:

"The ability of any player to decide -- against the face of previously established rules of character, setting, characters, method, and the interactive nature of roleplaying games -- to do anything they want willy-nilly."

Because it's clear from the answer you just gave me (players have "limited choice"), that they do have freeom. Limited freedom, but indeed free within the bounds.

So they do have "free choice."

So the title of the thread should have been, "Players Don't Have Absolute Freedom." Becuase that's what you're saying.

Okay.

And... So what?

Is this really news?

To anyone?

I mean, apparently it's news to Tomas, who I can only assume has been pelted with players all these years who actually expect Absolute Freedom in a game. But anyone else? Certainly he hasn't read anything on these boards that would suggest people expect that around here.

If this is the case, then I'm glad Tomas got to talk through this thread and find that everyone already agrees with him.

Right?

Christopher

Christopher,

I've raised a debate, and I have responded in earnest to those questioning my statements. Your sarcasm and rethorical constructions are neither justified, nor very pleasant. If the debate don't interest you, or if you are unable to participate in a civilized manner, please leave it.

As it is, your arguments are mixed with elements that are way out of bounds.

Tomas HVM wrote:
I've raised a debate, and I have responded in earnest to those questioning my statements. Your sarcasm and rethorical constructions are neither justified, nor very pleasant. If the debate don't interest you, or if you are unable to participate in a civilized manner, please leave it.

As it is, your arguments are mixed with elements that are way out of bounds.

Eero Tuovinen wrote:
As for debate; it's not a value in itself, and I see nothing good in keeping it up purposefully. It won't make you look any more intelligent. Most people here aren't debating you, but instead trying to find out your opinion and tell you about their's. It's no wonder this drags on if you persist in seeing it as debate instead of communication.

Another thing to consider, Tomas: one of the reasons there's an urgency to "get to the point" of threads & not go on & on & on is that the Forge doesn't have unlimited hosting capacity. There is limited space here, & none of us outside of the people who run the Forge are paying for it. Since we're getting this service for free, it behooves us all to save as much space as possible. It's good to have a lengthy discussion, if the discussion warrants length. But if the length is taken up with a lot of arguing over terms when everyone posting pretty much agrees with the central premise, the length isn't necessarily warranted.

A "debate", Eero, don't necessarily imply quarreling or trying to win something. That's not my idea of it. I've tried to argue an issue (several, as the debate has evolved). I know for sure that the communication of it has not altogether failed.

The debate on player and audience is not "idiotic". It may seem so to you, Eero, but I've tried to use these words to point at a real difference. I see this difference as quite essential, and as quite illuminating in relation to what a "player" is, and is not. Most of you don't. This may be due to me communicating it badly, or to real disagreement, but it is not a point of semantics, not to me at least.

Eero claim that "it's obvious to most that you are working from some very specific assumptions concerning roleplaying". It should be, as I have implied it very openly in the debate. I will try to clear it up now, commenting on your list, Eero:

- I do talk of a gamemaster, but it is not essential to my argument. I'm not assuming that a gamemaster is present in all roleplaying games. I'm mostly conserned with "the player" (including the gamemaster in relation to most issues). I've had some great games without gamemasters present, but in relation to tabletop roleplaying I'm fairly convinced that the use of a gamemaster/player-setup make for the best games. However: other setups are possible, should be explored, and not every game using a gamemaster is great (!).

- I'm not sure what Eero means by "readymade situation". Is he referring to the social setup of the game, or to the contents of it? I'll make a comment on the assumption that it is the latter. In my own practise as gamemaster, I do not normally make scenarios in the traditional meaning of the word. My scenarios tend to be lists of names (to be used as NPCs are created during play), some general knowledge of the setting (including maps, but not normally dungeon or floor-plans) and the contemplation of one or more conflicts in the character group or in the setting.

- I freely admit to plan my games, but not as rigid as "plot" usually implies. The above text should show as much. Most of my design at the present also make use of a gamemaster, and I strongly advice some preparedness on her part, before play is commenced. A minimum of preparation would be to read my gamebook beforehand, to know what this roleplaying game is all about. My most present game is not about plotting at all. It has an appalling lack of opponents to be challenged and fought. It is almost totally focused on social interaction. As such it has to be played with an open and truly interactive attitude by both gamemaster and players, in order to function at all. "Planning" by the gamemaster in this game, amounts to making up a guestlist for the gathering (for herself and the players), listing popular themes of conversation (for the players), and pondering the various motives to be had for different NPCs (for herself).

- I do assume that players identify with a character in the game. And players do so in the vast majority of roleplaying games. I've presented some argument on this, trying to communicate to what extent I hold this to be done. I do believe that each and every player of a roleplaying game is "immersing" in his character. I maintain that this is a game of "pretend to be someone else". I do not assume that everybody agrees with me in the use of "immersion" in this respect.

- I do not assume that players are passive about the art. I assume that most players don't care about roleplaying games as an artform, and that they don't care about the many challenges a game designer is met with. As a designer I assume that the people buying my books may be quite blank in relation to what a roleplaying game are. But I also assume that these people have qualities that enables a great game to be had, if they can be induced to make the effort. I assume that people, once they have become players, are quite active in the games they play, trying to make the best out of it.

- I do not expect players to be guided to conclusions by the gamemaster. I expect it to happen at times, as part of a game, but I do not consider it a sound overall attitude towards a game of interaction. I do perceive roleplaying games to be interactive, and I consider the fuelling of this interaction in various ways, to be almost unavoidable in the quest for great gameplay.

I hope this clarifies some of the assumptions you have about me, Eero.

As for those of you complainig about the debate in general, or the way I have behaved in it; please hold your tongue. The debate has been interesting and illuminating, under the din of your complaints. I have used a large portion of my time on it lately, because I hold it to be important for me as a designer of roleplaying games. I expect to be taken seriously when claiming that I have insights to communicate.

The issues of this debate may relate to the people visiting the Forge in different ways. Some of you may think they are issues of lesser importance, or issues you have dealt with a long time ago. You may state that "all agree on this", as several of you have. You may be right, or maybe you're not. The fact is; I still make use of the Forge to debate these issues. I find it useful. Some others do to.

I do not answer any and all questions directly. However; my will to discuss the issue is evident in the efforts I have made to communicate. You may deem my communication to be bad, or my cause to be unworthy, but please; grant me the right to express myself.

Tomas HVM wrote: I do not answer any and all questions directly. However; my will to discuss the issue is evident in the efforts I have made to communicate. You may deem my communication to be bad, or my cause to be unworthy, but please; grant me the right to express myself.

I'm not saying that I deliberately don't answer questions. I'm saying that they are not answered directly. But my choosen wording is misleading. Please accept this to be what I intended to say: I do not answer all questions directly.

I do not withold clarification. As a rule I make an effort to be clear and communicative. Evidently I have not succeeded here, at least with regards to some of the participants in this debate.

If I try to explain my view, and you still don't get it, it may be due to my skills as a communicator, your skills as a reader, or both. To discuss our skills in this respect is really besides the issue, as well as a bit too personal, so I will not engage in it.

After the last wave of "discussion" of clarity and communication, I will no longer follow up on this debate. If you want to make comments directed to me on such issues, you will have to make it a personal message.