I read in many postings various asides complaining about this loss of control or that loss of control as being universally and incontrovertibly abhorrent. I disagree. We all surrender freedoms and let go of control much of the time. It has always annoyed me when students insist that I am infringing upon their freedoms whenever I expect them to use standardized spellings instead of letting them throw in whatever spellings they feel like at the time.

Organized society is possible only with a certain restriction of individual control and freedom, and this often involves an involuntary or reluctant loss of control. Hell, potty training is an imposition of control and a loss of freedom over one's own bowels -- a far more intimate loss of control and freedom than occurs when I willingly agree to play in a roleplaying game with alignment mechanics.

When someone says, "I don't want some damn alignment telling me what my character would do!", I smile and courteously advise him or her not to join our classic AD-&-D campaign.

When someone says, "I want to experience what it would be like in a magical world in which the gods and cosmology react to me according to which side of a metaphysical war I've taken, the lawful or the chaotic!", I smile and courteously welcome him or her to our classic AD-&-D campaign.

In the real world, if someone dislikes the particular restraints necessary for living in a particular society, she or he has the choice of either working to change that society or leaving that society -- or accepting those restraints as necessary to enjoy the concomitant benefits they provide.

In gaming, the same runs true : in AD-&-D (for example), a player who dislikes the restraints of alignment necessary for a game thematically focused on issues of law versus chaos has the choice of persuading the playing group to accept house rules which modify or ignore alignments or declining to play in that campaign -- or accepting those restraints and enjoying the G/N/S fun they can provide (depending upon how they're handled).

I think we waste time when we reify and fetishize all freedom or all player control as sacrosanct precious resources to be protected at all costs from any and all game master concepts, creative agendae, player stances, or RPG techniques or notions.

If I tell the game master or the GM-less gaming group that I have decided that the major villain has spontaneously turned into a tulip and been swallowed by a goat made from cole slaw, the moment any game master or group consensus tells me otherwise, I have lost some of that precious control, and if they do not let me declare my character to become spontaneously a god, I have lost some of that precious freedom. But without that loss, gaming is impossible.

So, no, in my humble opinion, there is nothing deprotagonizing nor anything involving force or railroading or any other use of jargon to represent loss of fetishized freedom and control if that loss is requisite to the game which the player wishes to play. And I think we misuse those terms when we toss them about in the name of that fear.

Doctor Xero

Doc,

I gotsa agree. You're bringing up some of the same points I just laid down here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11929

Loss of character control, in context can actually be incredibly protagonizing. I've seen this happen in flashes in instances of game play over the years, but it wasn't until I read Vance's Dying Earth & the excellent Dying Earth RPG that my eyes were really opened to the possibilites inherent in this.

In the DE novels, characters do things they don't really want to do, while thinking about the fact that they don't want to do them!, because they've been so (contextually possible) expertly conned. In DE, the golden tongue is a force of Nature, to say the least. The DERPG captures this extremely well in it's mechanics, which allow furious bidding of limited resources in any sort of contest. If you lose, however, you lose big; you might try to convince a restraunt owner to give you free dinner but, as a result of your botched bidding & rolling, end up following his suggestion that your dusty boot would really be the zenith of modern cuisine & get down to eating (albeit with a bemused look on your face...)

This creates powerful stories, of course. Revenge may follow, or personal shame, or the offer to enter a footwear-eating contest, etc.

Hi Doc,

I agree. If we all agree to play by the rules, then there was no loss of control involved. "You agreed to this", is the reply.

On the other hand, there are also many places in games where the rules do not cover, and that is often the source of contention. The usual cop out is the golden rule that, "The GM is God and may freely ignor or revise the rules as they see fit without notifying the players" is a rule that I do not support.

If players complain about the GM spontaneously controlling or limiting their control over their characters outside of the rules in an implausible fashion, that's a valid concern. Or if the rule that "0 hp = dead" applies to PCs but not the GM's favorite NPCs, then that is also a valid concern.

Is there some examples or specific cases where folks have been crying wolf about completely reasonable situations that you'd like to point out?

Chris

Wow well said, I couldn't agree more. Without the loss of control imposed by rules, by a judge (GM) and/or by other constraints of freedom an RPG is no longer a game in my opinion. There is a line somewhere of minimal required rules/constraints that if a game crosses it ceases to be an RPG anymore and becomes a group writing or acting session. Likewise there is a line somewhere on the other end of the spectrum where the rules are so controlling and limiting that it ceases to be a RPG and just becomes a game. I can't pinpoint where those lines are for me exactly but I know it when I play an RPG.

If I tell the game master or the GM-less gaming group that I have decided that the major villain has spontaneously turned into a tulip and been swallowed by a goat made from cole slaw, the moment any game master or group consensus tells me otherwise, I have lost some of that precious control, and if they do not let me declare my character to become spontaneously a god, I have lost some of that precious freedom. But without that loss, gaming is impossible.

In a post in an earlier thread, I mentioned a handful of games with different mechanics that restrict character action to one degree or another.

On a general note, I have yet to see a half-way convincing argument that these mechanics are objectively good or bad, or that the absence or presence of them is "real roleplaying" (whatever that is).

I think My Life with Master is an excellent example. The characters start with pretty much no chance of resisting their Master's orders, no matter how heinous. They are also more generally restricted even when not carrying out their Master's orders. For example, they can't just hop on the next train out of town. And yet, this is a very brilliant game which can result in some very intense roleplaying moments, not in spite of the mechanics which limit player character action and choice (and can altogether remove choice) but because of those very mechanics.

Xero,

I can't help but see this post as reactionary -- and a reaction to a strawman. No one on the Forge, and certainly not the terminology itself, claims that complete freedom or complete control over all aspects of play, without boundaries, limitations or constraints is a worthwhile goal or ideal of play.

The Social Contract groups form which is heavily discussed here is a form of boundary creation, and the use of Scene Framing by Narrativists is another form of control over the game (and usually performed by the GM); that both of these are techniques whose praises are enumerated here seems highly at odds with any claim that the Forge or its main luminaries are in any way opposed to any loss of control, that boundaries are universally abhorent, or that limitations or restrictions are despised, or that complete player freedom is fetishized.

As such, if you believe anyone is making an argument against limitations or controls over characters, then I believe you have seriously misunderstood what Railroading and Force refer to, and the behaviors they entail, and the context of why those things specifically are disliked.

As I understand this is a rant on your part, there doesn't seem to be much here to discuss; even specific examples where you have seen the behavior or attitude you are opposed to occur here on the Forge are really not worthy of discussion -- no productive discussion could be produced from anyone defending their statements from your perception of them.

So, you're preaching to the choir -- it is fully agreed that ules and restrictions are requisite to playing any game in which the player wishes to participate. Given that, where do we go from here with this subject?

Orec wrote: I suppose with the Forge having a heavy Narrativist presence the desire for a lack of constraints is understandable. The line between Narrativist RPG play and simply a group writing/roleplaying session can be very blurry sometimes

greyorm wrote:
The short version is that Narrativism has nothing to do with "a lack of constraints" nor is it any different from regular role-playing, or closer to a group writing session. Narrativism has nothing to do with freeform or rules-light play, or cooperative storytelling: what it has to do with is Premise, and making the addressing of Premise central to play in the moment.

Sorcerer, arguably the touchstone Narrativist game for most, is the best example of an RPG I can think of that shows this quite well (that Nar games play just like other RPGs, have crunchy mechanics, and so forth).

Hi Orec,

Rules light or freeform gaming usually isn't any more helpful to Nar play than any other type of system, necessarily. Effectively, if you don't have a system that promotes Nar play, whether you have a lot of rules or few, then you still have to drift it to make things that ARE promoting Nar play.

And, to bring that in line with the thread; any CA can be promoted with appropriate behavioral mechanics, any CA can be blocked with inappropriate ones.

Chris

greyorm wrote: I can't help but see this post as reactionary -- and a reaction to a strawman.

greyorm wrote: So, you're preaching to the choir -- it is fully agreed that rules and restrictions are requisite to playing any game in which the player wishes to participate. Given that, where do we go from here with this subject?

Whoa, its a rant, but even still it misses the point by a margin.

The control issue isn't about dodging all restraint. It's about agreeing to a certain level of restraint as part of the social contract...and then having even more restraint applied, thus breaking the contract.

Usually one cause of it is the unspoken contract, where X assumes one level of restraint and Y another. They thought they both agreed to the same thing and those with less experience might go on to argue just how much restraint is the one true way (ie, which of them is right in the eyes of a god of roleplay or something).

A second cause is the hypersensitising of concern about loosing control. People who have had their social contract broken, didn't really realise that and miss apply their energy to protecting their freedom. And there's the opposing side to this, which I'd say I'm hearing here, where 'oh, restraint is vital and important, you must have it!'. No, agreement is important, not restraint. Agreement may lead to restraint, but its not the same as I may very well want to agree to coleslaw goats and insta-godhood.

A third cause is the BS design. For example, people might say they don't want a damn alignment system controlling them. What they mean is that they don't want to agree to a system that revolves around GM interpretation and gives him the power to overtake input they agreed would be entirely up to the player (eg, what their character actually thinks). The rule presents its self as just another rule, like how you don't decide if you hit an orc, the rules do. However, look at it closer and you realise if you agree to it, you'll be agreeing to more than you would have thought at first. It's a 'fine print' issue.

Edit: Also, as the author of 'PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it' I can tell you it was hardly about agreeing to let the GM decide what ones character is motivated about, and then getting pissed off about him going on to decide it (through session design). And I'm not really sure what you got from the other post you mentioned that was by me.

Hi Doc,

Everyone who posts here comes with a different headspace. Some people have read everything, some haven't read anything. Everyone is at a different level of understanding. About every 3 to 6 months we get a couple of people who are intensely interested in GNS, and they go through many of the same mental cognition issues in trying to understand it. Likewise with any other idea out here.

10 years from now, there will still be people misusing concepts originated here at the Forge. That's just life.

Ultimately each person either is interested enough to try to understand the ideas here(whether they end up agreeing with them or not), or else they aren't. The best this community can do is try to help those who are interested in getting to the level of understanding they're happy at being at. Stressing out about the fact that A) some folks haven't digested everything yet or B) some folks don't care, and will actively misuse anything really isn't worth the effort.

And if the issue is about irrationality and the defensiveness of the ego, that issue plays out in much bigger arenas than simply gaming... I think its one of the biggest issues for mankind, and isn't a problem that can be dealt with on the level of games or discussing games.

But, to point to something we CAN do, which is to show how system(that limitation of rules you're talking about) is best used to promote all types of play, and how those limitations can serve as structure to build what players want, instead of hindering them.

Chris

Speaking as someone that does have serious problems with losing control of his character I agree with Noon's 3 criteria here but would add that There's an element of cost-benefit analysis too.

I place value on controlling my character... making decisions. I also place value on resolving emotional or psychological problems myself, "roleplaying them out" as it were. In order for me to be comfortable with a rules system that removes things I value from the gaming experience it has to pay me back with something. This isn't just about social contract within the group it's also about attraction to the game... regardless of the group relations, why should I play a game that is less enjoyable than other games? I've seen lots of behaviour mechanics, some invasive, others not.

I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics. I understand the arguments about premise and protagonisation but I've neve3r seen it in practice. I've seen Behaviour rules that people accept and rules that they don't... I've yet to see invasive behaviour rules that I've seen people say "Wow... that rules makes this game MUCH better".

It's like Hobbes, as I see it in playing those games I'm surrendering certain authorial rights as a player (control of my character's mental state) and in order for me to be willing to surrender those rights I've got to begetting something good back otherwise it's not clear what the benefit of my surrendering those rights is.


So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really and I think we have a point :-)

Doctor Xero, what do you do in your AD&D game when a player wants to act "out of alignment"? - and they arent one of the classes (clerics, paladins, maybe rangers) who can be reasonably "punished" for it in-game?

I've been lurking here for quite awhile and posting maybe a couple times a year but this rant ties back to an early post on the forge I remember vividly but cannot seem to find. It was, if I recall correctly, about various fallacies and misapplications of play (something that's pretty rare here despite what some of this forum's critics might say) and one of the players mentioned that he'd been playing Call of Cthulhu with a newbie and the newbie, not entirely versed in proper roleplaying technique, when asked "OK, what do you do," responded with "I see a man." This derailed play, of course, and at the time I was just as discombobulated (smugly thinking, "at least I know enough not to do that." Now I'm not so certain. Perhaps the newbie had mistaken the amount of author stance the social contract allowed.

This, it seems to me, is the issue the good Doctor has: certain interpretations of Ron's essays would seem to threaten the style of play he mentions. The Doc front-loaded (if I use the term correctly) his hypothetical campaign with a metaphysical element to explore which was, to my recollection, only tacitly (if at all) mentioned in the original rules for D&D (and indeed sounds more like the Warhammer or Elric cosmology). This made the game completely different from a different, equally hypothetical (or possibly more if Dr. X actually has such a campaign) campaign that's about what the characters will do to defend their country and involves descriptors different from the two Gygaxian axes (law<->chaos/good<->evil).

The question is not whether alignment mechanics (or any such limitations) are intrinsically good or bad, it's WHETHER THE LIMITATIONS JIBE OR CONFLICT WITH THE GOALS OF THE PLAYERS AND THE CAMPAIGN (sorry for the caps, I'll try not to do it again). In this way I'll agree that Xero's fighting a straw man because a third player who wishes to join his campaign and says "I want my character torn between the worship of two chaotic good gods, one who condones torture but forbids killing and another with opposing strictures" would not have as conclusive a result on the litmus test.

In games like Sorcerer (or at least in certain instances of play which are well-facilited by the use of Sorcerer's system and less-well facilitated by, say, Rolemaster), the player has a great deal of freedom to say "I see a man" provided the act of seeing the man (or the specific man the player sees or the presence of a man rather than a woman or one of a thousand other things) is part of a kicker or similar story-pumping action. In other instances of play that are better facilitated by differently-restrictive systems, the player is breaking the social contract by snapping out of actor/pawn stance.

In conclusion, I shut up now and hope that there's something of relevance, or at least entertainment value, in the preceding morass.

TooManyGoddamnOrcs wrote: a third player who wishes to join his campaign and says "I want my character torn between the worship of two chaotic good gods, one who condones torture but forbids killing and another with opposing strictures" would not have as conclusive a result on the litmus test.

Bankuei wrote: 10 years from now, there will still be people misusing concepts originated here at the Forge. That's just life.

Doctor Xero wrote: I think we waste time when we reify and fetishize all freedom or all player control as sacrosanct precious resources to be protected at all costs from any and all game master concepts, creative agendae, player stances, or RPG techniques or notions.

Noon wrote: I can tell you it was hardly about agreeing to let the GM decide what ones character is motivated about, and then getting pissed off about him going on to decide it (through session design).

MR. Analytical wrote: I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics.
---snip!--
So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really

Doctor Xero wrote: So, no, in my humble opinion, there is nothing deprotagonizing nor anything involving force or railroading or any other use of jargon to represent loss of fetishized freedom and control if that loss is requisite to the game which the player wishes to play

NN wrote: Doctor Xero, what do you do in your AD&D game when a player wants to act "out of alignment"? - and they arent one of the classes (clerics, paladins, maybe rangers) who can be reasonably "punished" for it in-game?

Bankuei wrote: But, to point to something we CAN do, which is to show how system(that limitation of rules you're talking about) is best used to promote all types of play, and how those limitations can serve as structure to build what players want, instead of hindering them.

DX: Personally I think if someone brings out the 'defensive' stamp, they're not looking to learn about something, they want to teach someone else something in relation to that stamp. Despite this preference I'll continue:

but I am fascinated and confused by how often I read posts arguing seemingly defensively in a fear of control.

You can find such posts in Filing Edges: GM as Author, the value or uselessness of a game master, Mmm, I think I'll roleplay some roleplay, How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?, Narrativism & Force, Clueless about Bangs, Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character, PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it, to name some of the more recent ones.

Yep, you provide ideal examples in your posts here specifically because you both defensively invent comments about GM annexation of player's character when there was no mention anywhere of such a thing in the original post to which you attribute it!

If a restriction of any nature is requisite to the sort of campaign in which the player wishes to play, for that player there is no issue about agreeing to let the game master decide what a player's character is motivated about nor any invasive behaviour mechanics. There is only what the player wants. And to invent such issues when discussing such a situation is to argue against phantoms, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).

Doc,

I'm not sure what it is you're actually complaining about. apparently it's people who want to play in games with invasive behaviour mechanics but then complain about said mechanics but this is kind of a trite point... yes the irrational ARE annnoying :-)

I didn't invent anything about GMs deciding upon motivations. So no invention there... my problem is that while I can see the theoretical justification for these mechanics, I've NEVER seen them do what the theory says and I've never seen them really improve a game. So if the point you're making is that people are overly defensive about surrendering authorial control over their character's inner lives then I'm probably the target of your rant. I don't see the pay off, and I didn't invent any straw men. My objections are quite broad and general to this kind of mechanic.

MR. Analytical wrote: I didn't invent anything about GMs deciding upon motivations.

MR. Analytical wrote: my problem is that while I can see the theoretical justification for these mechanics, I've NEVER seen them do what the theory says and I've never seen them really improve a game.

MR. Analytical wrote: I don't see the pay off, and I didn't invent any straw men. My objections are quite broad and general to this kind of mechanic.

MR. Analytical wrote: I'm not sure what it is you're actually complaining about.
---snip!--
So if the point you're making is that people are overly defensive about surrendering authorial control over their character's inner lives then I'm probably the target of your rant.

Hey Doc. I'm not going to say that "you're wrong, nothing like that goes on here".

But I am going to say that making statements like:

You can find such posts in Filing Edges: GM as Author, the value or uselessness of a game master, Mmm, I think I'll roleplay some roleplay, How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?, Narrativism & Force, Clueless about Bangs, Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character, PC motivation/character and inadvertant GM authorship of it, to name some of the more recent ones.

Second of all, if there are indeed people who react defensively to anything which comes close to suggesting an unwanted loss of control and/or freedom, how does this impact our understanding of our games, our design of games, and/or our packaging of games?

What does it tell us about the psyche of gamers that we recognize the importance of restrictions and yet a number of us react with angry defense against anything which seems to restrict us?

Admittedly, from some of the posts I've read in this and other threads, I get the impression that there are those who would actually make such a demand, though less overtly.

Actually, Ralph, I'm beginning to see what Doc is saying. I regularly read posts here and elsewhere in which OAD&D's alignment system is dissed as if everyone knew it had been conclusively demonstrated to be poorly designed and unworkable. I have played that game for years, and never found alignment to be either poorly designed or unworkable; I devoted several of the Game Ideas Unlimited columns to explaining how and why it works. It fails for many gamers, I think, because (as someone just said in another thread) many of them don't take the time to figure out what it is that a system is trying to do and how it's supposed to work. Thinking that they know already what it means, they then declare it unworkable because they didn't do it the way the book says.

So I do see those comments here and there. I don't think they're as pervasive as Doc suggests, but they do appear.

--M. J. Young

Awhile back, I wrote a post about 'rules that backsource'. It was about rules that say they do something, but really they get the user to do it. And I think alignment is one of the biggest examples, because it relies so much on user interpretation.

Here's an example of a made up rule that has a high (user) interpretation requirement:

If the action would make a little girl cry, you loose ten honour points.

Now, I'm damn certain there are a lot of people out there who would see this as a cut and dried rule. They think 'Ah, it's clear to me what would make a little girl cry therefore this rule is straight forward'.

Typically this certainty comes from the fact they've never sat down and realised the diversity of human opinion. That what they think would make a little girl cry isn't an opinion that is shared by the vast majority of humans and only a few people who live in the hills would disagree. Opinions do tend to make themselves appear as if they are part of some grand consensus, to the persons mind.

So what happens when people game together, having formed a social contract that includes using this rule. Exactly what have they agreed on contract wise, if both of them have far differing views on the little girl issue and it comes up?

Really, the amount of restriction (and being burned by honour for certain acts will restrict people from doing them) is not clearly agreed upon.

I agree a lot of people strive for tons of freedom as if it is damn well nessersary. But as I said, I think hypersensitising from poorly defined social contracts has made them missplace sensitivity to the freedom issue, when it should be contract integrity they focus on.

That said, I don't think most alignment rules are firm enough to let users really work on maintaining contract integrity.

Doc, if and when people are actually saying that GM control must always be a bad thing, then they're wrong. I'll go to bat for you on that. But I agree with others here that what you're railing against is not a widely held position, if at all. What is probably true is that many of the people making the statements that you're thinking about use biased language because they have a preference of play that involves removing the particular form of GM control in question. Which does display their preference, which, yes, is not a rational argument about the thing in question. But the point is that if you asked those same people if it was OK for players to play in the mode that includes that control in question, they'd say that if the players wanted it, that it was fine.

Ask them if you don't think so.

Anyhow, again, the general consensus here, in reality, is that everyone agrees that there are lots of ways to play some of which involve differing amounts of GM control. And, in fact, that agreeing to certain limitations is indeed the defining line between "freeform" play and "tabletop" play (And even freeform is a valid way to play, it just doesn't have much to argue about in terms of system design).

So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting what I'm going to guess is your prefered style of play. You indeed seem just as defensive to us as apparenly we seem to you. So, I guess we'll all have to agree to look at each other's arguments on the merits and move on. In any case you can be secure in two things: one, the majority of people playing RPGs are right there with you supporting the idea of lots of GM controls, and two, we agree with you that it's a valid form of play if not that prefered by all of us.

Actually I think that you ought to check out what play of some of the games we play looks like, because I think that you might be surprised at how "normal" it really looks. In the end it's probably not nearly as radical as some people think. Especially given that it's certainly not as lacking in controls as freeform is. I think that one would have to agree that less GM control is a valid way to play given the vast amounts of play that occur with almost no controls at all. Just as it's obvious to me that more control is valid right up to the point that someone is relating events and everyone else is just audience with no input at all. It's called storytelling, and quite entertaining.

RPGs tend to be somewhere in between these, but where is just a subject for the particular design.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What is probably true is that many of the people making the statements that you're thinking about use biased language because they have a preference of play that involves removing the particular form of GM control in question. Which does display their preference, which, yes, is not a rational argument about the thing in question.

Mike Holmes wrote: So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting what I'm going to guess is your prefered style of play. You indeed seem just as defensive to us as apparenly we seem to you.
---snip!--
Actually I think that you ought to check out what play of some of the games we play looks like, because I think that you might be surprised at how "normal" it really looks. In the end it's probably not nearly as radical as some people think.

Valamir wrote: your going to need to provide some evidence as to which people you've seen act this way, and when. What was said and what was the context in which it was said that make you conclude the person is advocating anarchy at the gaming table?

Valamir wrote: your going to need to provide some evidence as to which people you've seen act this way, and when.

Doctor Xero wrote:

Noon wrote: I can tell you it was hardly about agreeing to let the GM decide what ones character is motivated about, and then getting pissed off about him going on to decide it (through session design).

MR. Analytical wrote: I've yet to be convinced that there's any practical payoff for invasive behaviour mechanics.
---snip!--
So I'm probably as close to those people Doc is ranting about as you're likely to find here really

Yep, you provide ideal examples in your posts here specifically because you both defensively invent comments about GM annexation of player's character when there was no mention anywhere of such a thing in the original post to which you attribute it!

Doctor Xero wrote: So, no, in my humble opinion, there is nothing deprotagonizing nor anything involving force or railroading or any other use of jargon to represent loss of fetishized freedom and control if that loss is requisite to the game which the player wishes to play. And I think we misuse those terms when we toss them about in the name of that fear.

Doctor Xero wrote: Where do we go from here? Well, first of all, if it's even possible, perhaps we should consider why, if I've "preached to the choir", there is still such as misapplication of terms such as deprotagonizing, force, and railroading.

Second of all, if there are indeed people who react defensively to anything which comes close to suggesting an unwanted loss of control and/or freedom, how does this impact our understanding of our games, our design of games, and/or our packaging of games?

What does it tell us about the psyche of gamers that we recognize the importance of restrictions and yet a number of us react with angry defense against anything which seems to restrict us? And more relevantly to this forum, how can we utilize in our game design what our consideration of this reaction tells us?

Doctor Xero wrote: Why would you assume I personally support a position merely because I object to irrational attacks against that position? Why would you assume that I would only defend something because it's my preferred style of play?

Doctor Xero wrote: I believe you, Jonathan, when you claim that you have never personally witnessed a non-dysfunctional use of the game master's duties when it comes to motivation mechanics. This is why I say you should take a look at not only what you've seen but at what others have seen, in both gaming enthusiast articles and scholarly articles about gaming ; do this, and you will find a large body of evidence describing quite functional and healthy uses of such mechanics in a fashion which improves the game for all concerned and avoids any level of game master dictatorship or coercion (except by the most paranoid definitions, i.e. the subject of my rant).

I'm all for control of my character...

- but where are the boundaries between my character and the world? Is my soul the only free aspect of my character there is, since my body can get ill or damaged? Or must the existence of madness and mental manipulations make my soul a part of the world to, and subject to loss of control?

If both body and soul is subject to loss of control; what's left? The spirit? Could the spirit of the character in a roleplaying game be identified with the player? Could it be that I am a kind of guardian spirit of my character? Does that make me the only free aspect of my character in the game?

I am the guardian spirit, but I am not at all able to cope with all evils that befall my character...

Sounds promising!

What annoyed me was your phrase "So, you'll have to excuse us if, like you percieving the bias in the rants of others, we percieve a bias in your rant supporting" which had no use of "seems" nor any similar proviso.

That said, I know this is a personal pet peeve, which is why I apologized for reacting with frustration to it.

Doctor Xero

MR. Analytical wrote: So I don't think the people you're ranting about are that widespread

Tomas HVM wrote: Is my soul the only free aspect of my character there is, since my body can get ill or damaged? Or must the existence of madness and mental manipulations make my soul a part of the world to, and subject to loss of control?

If both body and soul is subject to loss of control; what's left? The spirit? Could the spirit of the character in a roleplaying game be identified with the player? Could it be that I am a kind of guardian spirit of my character? Does that make me the only free aspect of my character in the game?

I am the guardian spirit, but I am not at all able to cope with all evils that befall my character...

Noon wrote: The control issue isn't about dodging all restraint. It's about agreeing to a certain level of restraint as part of the social contract...and then having even more restraint applied, thus breaking the contract.

I'm surprised.

I'm surprised the more eloquent and more technical in their jargon forge regulars haven't said anything here. Jeez, if 'system doesn't matter' was mention...but 'social contract doesn't exist' and nuttin?

Tomas: I think you've got some missconception about how rigid and legalistic social contract is. You want flexible...social contract is as flexible as the users want it. And its about the users desires, don't jump on me telling me I was stamping out new ways. I was describing someone agreeing to a certain level of restriction. 'Certain level' could be anything, like 'Hey, do anything with my character but never pour icecream on his head'. I'm sorry man, don't give me this flexibility thing...the player says that, then either play abides by that or his contract requirement is broken. Of course we get mid game renegotiation, where the player might see the icecream thing might be cool right now (excuse the pun) and allow it for the moment. That's how flexible it is, renegotiation on the fly.

Let me give a solid example of usually pretty inflexible social contract your using right now. Your group has decided on a system to use when playing and you don't switch systems at all during a session. You might all agree on importing a rule or two, you might twist or skip whatever rules from the system. But you don't switch systems mid session. That is social contract man, and a pretty rigid example. I bet only a few groups in the world switch system mid session on any regular basis...and that's their social contract. It's all about what people agree to.

Quite frankly the rest of your post is riddled with examples of social contract agreements and points of negotiation for it. I think you just want to use different words, though 'flexible expectations' isn't really comprehensive. How flexible it is, is up to users.

Sidenote: Your sidenote is patronising. Keep the word 'peer' in mind.

Hi guys,

First, I'm not sure what everyone's arguing about. No one is saying there should be no rules, or means of deciding "what happens"... That's lumpley Principle- "How do we figure out what happens?"

Second, this is ALL about social contract.

Now, to back up Callan here, Tomas; Social Contract is a term used anytime you have 2 or more people interacting. It can be as simple as, "Don't be a jerk" and when that basic rule is violated, people react in a variety of ways, from leaving, talking trash behind someone's back, verbally or physically confronting them, etc. Some of these methods of enforcement are more effective and functional than others.

Some typical social contract rules in gaming:

1)"We follow the rules to the letter, and if we encounter something that the rules don't cover, the GM rules and we go with that"

2)"We follow the rules to the letter, and if we encounter something that the rules don't cover, we collectively discuss options and go with that"

3)"We follow the rules that the GM enforces, and ignor the rest."

4)"We've added our own rules, and we go with that."

5)"The GM decides everything, the rules occasionally apply"

6)"We generally follow the rules, and sometimes we argue. The person with the most endurance wins, then we move on until the next argument."

And many more options are available. Notice that even the ones that say the written rules aren't as important then puts authority for deciding what happens in the hands of one or more individuals. Also, notice that its very possible for a group to change these things. As Callan is saying, negotiation is based on what people are willing to deal with.

Agreement to follow the rules, or not follow the rules, is a social contract agreement. And however you actually play as a procedure(following these rules, ignoring those, houserules here, negotiation, etc.) is System in play, as per lumpley Principle.

How much input should any person(player or GM) have over any given apsect of a game? That depends on the game and the goals of the game. Therefore, arguing that System X doesn't allow enough input, or gives too much to any person(again, players or GM), is pretty much empty. Either it does or doesn't do what you want, and if it doesn't, you ought to either look elsewhere or look into Techniques that will give you what you want.

Chris

Callan wrote: I'm surprised the more eloquent and more technical in their jargon forge regulars haven't said anything here. Jeez, if 'system doesn't matter' was mention...but 'social contract doesn't exist' and nuttin?

Noon wrote: Tomas: I think you've got some missconception about how rigid and legalistic social contract is. ... Of course we get mid game renegotiation, ...

I wrote: I am the guardian spirit, but I am not at all able to cope with all evils that befall my character...

Doctor Xero wrote: Good Lord, this is brilliant!

In a thread which is not a rant, I would love to see you pursue this mapping of Platonic or Cartesian notions onto the player-PC relationship!

If nothing else, this one thought makes this thread worth the while!

(My post was inspired by M.J.'s comments.)

From Force and Vice:

Ron Edwards wrote: ONE: FORCE
I'll be as blunt as I can: Force is not, by definition, dysfunctional.

a) It is incompatible with Narrativist play when we're talking about Premise-addressing decisions.

b) It is essential to focused story-creation during Simulationist play.

c) Force is not the same thing as "GM input." One of the things that's very hard to get across is how much input a GM can have - and it can be huge! - without exerting Force. I think so many people have become accustomed to Force that they think, without it, that a GM is practically stricken dumb and cannot contribute at all.

TWO: INPUT-NEGOTIATION
The key to reaching an accord about this during play, among the participants, is to distinguish between "decree" and "approve."

Let's take some Narrativist play. In your graveyard example, I typically say something like, "You're at the graveyard - is that OK?" And the player can tell me then whether we ought to do something else first. Note that I have not said, at all, what is about to happen to him at the graveyard. I need his complicity in being there first, before he knows the consequences of agreeing. The whole point is that I, as GM, have an idea for the crisis the character will face, but I cannot actually play his character to get him there - but we can, together, cut to this scene as long as we're both in on the cut.

[Side issue: if the player consistently uses this opportunity to dodge out of play, as in, "No! I'm not at the graveyard. I'm, uh, driving around." So I cut back to him later and say, "What now?" and he says, "Um, I dunno." I say, Come on, and he says, "Oh, I guess I'll stop for a hamburger." This guy is dodging out of play. At that point, I'll probably say, "Dude, you're wasting our time," and move to the next guy, or carry out some other social techniques that I described in a recent thread.]

By contrast, I might also use some Force and simply take unto myself the privilege of total authority over all such scene-cuts. I play more this way when we're going pretty Simulationist, and the participants (me included) are not as committed to addressing Premise - just to "playing out a story" in a kind of "story is set or at least in the improvisational hands of one person, hence out of our hair." The GM uses Force, the players say "Frame me, baby."

Does that help at all? In each case, the relationship between suggest and approve is the same. It's just that in the second, blanket approval for the GM's "suggestions" is granted at the outset. It so happens that in doing so, a certain Creative Agenda is hamstrung, but that might be perfectly OK.

THREE: RAILROADING
Railroading literally means the use of Force such that the suggest/approve process, whatever its acceptable form has taken for a particular group, is abused. I think that is about as clearly as I can put it.

Bill C. Cook wrote:
I think the negative connotation of the term, Force, incites posters to assign their fears to its understanding. I bet you could really spin your wheels trying to define it and all the while be defending your preferred Social Contract.

Quoted instead of edited ...

Marco wrote: As someone who doesn't much like the present definition of Force, I find the suggestion that I (among others) might be "assiging my fears to its understanding" to be at very least a condescending way to put it if not outright dismissive.

Marco wrote: You say that in Sim play Input Negoitation is fixed at start time.

I don't agree with that: the idea that input negoitation is stops for traditional games when the campaign is designed is something I've never observed. Even in the most functional of narrow games (call them what you want--probably Sim, probably railroaded) I've seen and engaged in negoitation throughout play.

Marco wrote: If I don't think the in-game situation as stated would legitimately impede me there's no existing social contract anywhere that means I'll put up with being stopped (arbitrarily). No one I've ever met agrees to that. I've never met someone who puts up with being framed if they had stuff to do before the framing. Not Sim. Not Nar. Not ever.

Marco wrote: . . if during play there's a conflict between the GM and me about what outcomes are legitimate, that initial agreement doesn't in any way apply to what's going on in game.

Marco wrote: Am I supposed to read your post and assume that's just "my fear" talking?

Well, this has been an interesting level of impassioned and/or thoughtful responses to something that was never intended to be much more than a rant. I honestly had expected my first post to be the only one on this thread.

I admit I had the tangential daydream that sharing my frustration might inspire some changes in that fervent minority of posters who react with snarky defensive outrage at anything which comes within a two-mile radius of the suggestion that restriction/structure is not always intrinsically foul. I didn't expect it, though, and I made it clear that I recognized my own subjectivity by my using the label of "rant" from the start.

As it is, that daydream evaporated as one or three of those defensive posters responded with defensive posts in which they claimed they never write defensive posts.

I had a few posters choose to "put words in my mouth", such as claiming that I had stated that this minority of posters were commonplace or the norm, then disputing me for these things I hadn't even said, and then ignoring my corrections only to continue their choice of misreading what I had written.

I had a few posters tell me personally that they agreed with me but declined to agree with me publically on The Forge. That is their privilege.

And I had some posters write some enjoyably insightful posts. Some of them agreed with me and some of them disagreed with me, but either way, they wrote intelligent and provocative posts, better than I expected for something labelled a "rant".

What I have learned from reading the various responses to this thread has very little to do with roleplaying game theory, G/N/S models, or indie game design. What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

But I didn't want a lesson in the sociology of Forge reactions, and I can see this rant continuing to mutate in ways which have little to do with my simple notion that we might want to avoid jargon-tossing or defensiveness but instead consider listening to another -- not just the majority of us listening but ideally all of us listening, with courteous impatience for the minority who refuse to listen.

So I request that this thread be closed now, and I encourage people who want to pursue some of the tangents brought up in this thread to create new threads of their own.

Thank you to everyone who participated. I appreciate what I learned from everyone, whether you were earnest or defensive or both, whether you agreed with me or disagreed with me, whether you disagreed with what I wrote or rewrote my words and then disagreed with that. No matter what, thank you for participating.

Doctor Xero

Doctor Xero wrote: What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

Tomas HVM wrote:

Doctor Xero wrote: What I have learned from this thread is more a lesson in the sociology of The Forge.

Hmm... I like this. Makes me think there is humans doing the discussion here, with personalities, and some of them very subjective. Nice!

I'm all for humans, by the way, but I don't think they have complete control over themselves... ;-)

For the record, its generally considered bad form to take parting shots at "some posters" and then call for the thread to close, thereby cutting off any chance of response.

In the future if you're going to close a thread you've started, please just ask for it to close without the concluding dramatics.

Valamir wrote: For the record, its generally considered bad form to take parting shots at "some posters" and then call for the thread to close, thereby cutting off any chance of response.

Doctor Xero wrote: Thank you to everyone who participated. I appreciate what I learned from everyone, whether you were earnest or defensive or both, whether you agreed with me or disagreed with me, whether you disagreed with what I wrote or rewrote my words and then disagreed with that. No matter what, thank you for participating.

On a quick note I'll add this: When I try to suggest the problem isn't X bt instead it's Y and I then say my past post isn't about Y; I'm not trying to defensively say that post doesn't have X in it (I'm trying to say it has no Y in it). I'm sounding convoluted here , maybe that's why I didn't get my meaning across.