In a lot of online roleplaying communities, the concept of the One True Way to Roleplay gets a lot of criticism, but it's more or less based on the idea that what people do in their own games is their business. However, what has never been discussed more thoroughly is how the One True Way affects the individual's enjoyment of roleplaying. What have been your encounters with the One True Way? How have they influenced your perceptions and experiences with roleplaying?

My own experiences can be found in this thread and this thread.

Hi Green,

What is the One True Way?

Alan wrote: What is the One True Way?

Hi green,

That's what I suspected you meant. I think many of us have run into "the one true way" - but each one true way is different.

Ron uses the term "synecdoche" which means mistaking an example for the whole. If you search "synecdoche" on these forums, you'll find lots of comments about it.

Also check out the provisional glossary in the Articles section.

I think the general consensus of Forge posters is that there is no "one true way."

Alan: I think Green knows that. The question is, although illusionary the notion might be, how does it affect the play experience? Is the player who is gripped by the One True Way happier for it? How about the people who have to play with him?

In my experience, the One True Way can originate from different reasons, and it's results can thus be different as well. Consider:
1) I'm playing as I am and don't like other ways because I'm defending the style I really like, and pressuring others to support my Agenda.
2) I'm playing as I am because I don't know any other way to play. I conceal my ignorance by concervative and intolerant actions, and am socially insecure.

Likewise, there is after all only little difference between synecdoche and preference, and it's important to understand that the One True Way can be a tool of social combat, with no rpg connotations at all. It might be that the player just wants to differentiate himself as a member of rpg elite, or he may feel a need to preserve the style of play he prefers.

Both are fundamentally phenomenons of a social level, and not limited to roleplaying games at all. They will only happen in play surroundings that threaten either the agenda or the identity of the player. Remove that threat by communication and empathy, and you remove the need for the blinders.

But the question remains: How does it affect the roleplaying experience both for proponents of the One True Way (past or present) and for those who have to play with him or her?

It sounds more like the question is what happens when you run into roleplay dogma.

Were basically talking belief here. Belief is the sort of thing that get's you +2 to hit in D&D because the listener(s) believed in the value of your description (of your attack).

Scale this idea up to not just a to hit roll, but the whole game. What happens when you run into someone with particular beliefs? Especially if they are the GM? And given that, although roleplay revolves around negotiation, you can not negotiate someone out of a dogmatic belief right on the spot (thus play crashes into the immovable dogma).

When it isn't crashing play/negotiation, their belief system is going to affect the reward mechanisms of the game.

This can actually be quite stimulating...when someone deeply believes in something, their belief is almost tangible in the same way that their belief wont change or move. Combine this with the game world and it makes that game world quite tangible and real.

Thus you get GM's who can run compelling games, but can also have the biggest arguements. Ah, that night we were all told we suck...sorry, just engaging nostalgia for a mo.

Green wrote: But the question remains: How does it affect the roleplaying experience both for proponents of the One True Way (past or present) and for those who have to play with him or her?

I think each group's One True Way reflects their history. It's the summation of a hundred little refinements of SC and system.

It affects the role-play experience by allowing the group to get into the flow channel and stay there. So that's all good. The downside is loss of flexibility. Also, once the group has mined that meme to its depths, if they continue to hold course, either life changes or having done everything will trend them out of the habit. That's just an is thing, as in, the way it is.

How does it affect those who have to play with him or her? This question presupposes some conflict as to approach. Maybe the situation is that a new guy has joined the group. Or you're at a con and some guy is saying, "That's not how we do it."

In the first case, the new guy can be like a vitamin B shot and really shake things up. This new influence may even drive out entrenched demagogues. On the other hand, the newbie may have to level (or devolve) to the group. This may involve aspirations for play being squelched, in which case, he has to decide if what he's getting is worth hanging around for.

With the con case, the most you can do is say, "Look left. Look right. Meet the new 'we.'"

Another case worth noting is the guy whose purpose in play is to experience the group evolving. Obviously, this guy is going to have to traffic in groups, because if he keeps refining the same one, he'll wittle down to a nerve and either be excised, or the group will go off like a bomb. If you're this guy, take it from another agitator: go out and meet new people.

I think, in general, good tonic for One True Way is to speak in a forward and plain manner about what you expect--not as entitlement, but rather, as hopes. If no one knows what you're in for, they can at best accomodate you through inference. Give them (and yourself) a chance! Let people know what you're after.

And be open to what's going on. The group you're in may not be best suited for playtesting unpublished indie titles with lots of distributed prep, but they me be great for plot snooping and dramatic IC dialogue.

Hi Greyorm,

I didn't argue that was false or impossible or wrong, but I did try to explain how the setting's integrity would be compromised by its inclusion -- that it was just out-of-place for the genre and so I did not want to include it.

Noon wrote: I'm curious. Did you say you yourself didn't want to include it? Or did you mostly explain how the settings integrity would be compromised?

greyorm wrote:

I then tried to explain it from the perspective of writing a book: if you are creating a story, you tend to stick to a certain theme in the work, there are certain restrictions placed on setting and events in order to produce a particular type of "mood" or "atmosphere"; for example, how constant slapstick comedy would be out-of-place in a gothic horror setting, such as Ravenloft.

The biggest problem I have with One True Way gamers occurs when they have an underlying or even unconscious faith in a One True Way but don't realize it or don't want to believe it of themselves (out of some desire to believe they have a pure, unbiased, "objective" perspective).

(For example, I have learned to avoid most Narrativism / Simulationism discussions on The Forge because too many posters while claiming objectivity operate from an unconscious One True Way bias while valorizes Narrativism as "more mature" (as one poster told me) and stereotypes Simulationism as onanistically empty, but they will never concede to it and become angry when I quote examples of such bias.)

I prefer people who try to recognize that everyone has his or her default One True Way biases, and in recognizing them, each of us can decide which ones are non-negotiable for personal reasons and which ones ought be challenged.

Early in my game mastering career, I sat down with friends to discern and list my own unconscious One True Way habits of game-mastering. I then decided which ones were habits which I really didn't want to let go of, such as my dislike of the idea of the use of torture by capital-G Good characters or my loathing of racism and sexism and homophobia in real life (I see no reason I should have to treat any of those as Divine Virtues in a campaign I run). It is my way of recognizing my own human predilections.

Now, when I bring in a new player, I warn him or her of my own biases which I can not avoid reflecting in my game mastering style. We discuss it, and on occasion a player has convinced me to bypass them. This keeps me from having a player construct a paladin who rapes evil races and then cries "foul!" if I respond with something less than applause. Those times I try something I really don't feel comfortable game-mastering, I warn players that I don't know whether I am up to it, and we work on it as a group from there.

I have found this works out quite well overall.

Doctor Xero

Hi greyorm,

Did it ever come down purely to that it would make you unhappy to run that? Or did it keep getting guided away to what a setting should have Vs what an RPG is capable of?

I don't know about one true wayism there. I think niether of you had a leg to stand on in terms of what a setting should contain or what an RPG can do. The bottom line is that you weren't happy to do it (And not that it matters, but I pretty much agree with you) and would not enjoy running it. I mean, even if it somehow suddenly suited the setting (she shows you an otherwise unseen passage in a book about Arthurian legend which suggests this sort of thing is part of the mythology), would it suddenly suiting make you happy to have that? Would it force you to be happy to have it? I doubt it. So the setting's integrity isn't important and is not something that an arguement can rest on. However, what you enjoy can carry a strong argument (you are NOT going to do something unpleasant, that is far more certain than what a setting can/can not contain). Setting is attached to that enjoyment, but it isn't the crux of it. She's in exactly the same position with her arguement.

Err, that said, I really only could see you deciding not to play together. But it would have been nicer on the whole coming to that descision.

Much of observed 'one true way'ism could fit into that though...arguments discussed at the wrong level. BTW, scuse any spelling or grammer probs, as they are always part of my posts.

Marco wrote: I read this and I wondered if you were one of the people who understood a player protesting "My character wouldn't do that!" (which some people here think is a completely legitimate/logical way of communicating) or if you were one of the people here who I'd read as saying they didn't understand that sentiment or thought it was an illogical statement.

Noon wrote: Did it ever come down purely to that it would make you unhappy to run that? Or did it keep getting guided away to what a setting should have Vs what an RPG is capable of?

So the setting's integrity isn't important and is not something that an arguement can rest on.

I think niether of you had a leg to stand on in terms of what a setting should contain or what an RPG can do.

Hiya,

Correction: "Strongly focused by the participants' shared vision of play." All a designer can do is provide tools and inspiration for that maybe to happen.

Incidentally, years of moderating this site leads me to say, Raven and Marco, please consider dropping whatever is prompting this quick debate. You two do not mix well.

On the other hand, feel free to prove me wrong; no one would be happier than me if you did.

Best,
Ron

greyorm wrote:

Marco wrote: I read this and I wondered if you were one of the people who understood a player protesting "My character wouldn't do that!" (which some people here think is a completely legitimate/logical way of communicating) or if you were one of the people here who I'd read as saying they didn't understand that sentiment or thought it was an illogical statement.

Honestly, Marco, I see the "My character wouldn't do that!" statement as shorthand for "I wouldn't have my character do that!" However, not everyone who uses the former statement realizes that it actually means the latter (or rather, the full implications thereof), which is why it is also illogical (or amusing).

greyorm wrote: Honestly, Marco, I see the "My character wouldn't do that!" statement as shorthand for "I wouldn't have my character do that!" However, not everyone who uses the former statement realizes that it actually means the latter (or rather, the full implications thereof), which is why it is also illogical (or amusing).

Doctor Xero wrote: In writing, many writers expend a simulated schizophrenia (actually a simulated multiple personality state) in which characters take on their own secondary independence of a sort. In improvisational acting and in method acting, a similar simulated secondary independence occurs, in which a fully coherent secondary persona evolves. The same sort of thing may occur for roleplaying gamers who utilize actor mode -- if such is what they want.

Doctor Xero

Hello,

I'm on record as acknowledging that this phenomenon which you're describing does exist, DX. The issue is not whether it happens; the issue is whether the "character construct" is to be taken seriously as responsible for itself in any way, shape, or form, among us as people.

When folks say "the character does not exist," they are referring to the responsibility of the actual human. It doesn't matter how playing the character feels to the actual human, from their perspective. Sure, it feels like the character is moving and speaking on its own, and it might even be intrinsic to the person's enjoyment to buy into that sensation while it happens.

But in instances of dispute, or necessary negotiation, about the SIS, then the question becomes, how much value does that feeling have in that negotiation? Many folks have chosen to state, "none." This prompts any amount of resentment.

I suggest that calling the real person's responsibility into focus actually shares a great deal with the kind of psychotherapy you're referencing, vis a vis the actual goal of such therapy - for the real person to discover what he or she is really about. Without that goal, such therapy isn't therapy at all, but rather a form of addiction and, in my view, irresponsibility on the part of the therapist.

You might enjoy some older threads with dialogue between me and Jim Henley (Supplanter) about this issue, which a quick search will turn up. It includes phrases of mine that you'll especially like, such as "go back to your planet or stay here and make sense." You can call it bias; I call it mental health.

Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

Best,
Ron

I don't want to seem like a control freak or anything, but I believe the thread is wandering slightly from the original topic.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Marco, I perceive a person who's not mentally unhealthy but still using that phrase to be either using code for plain old "no, I want it that way" in a healthy sense (which is where you're coming from in your post, I think) or dodging responsibility during negotiation. Neither is schizophrenia, but the latter is socially and creatively aggravating to deal with.

Neel,

I've been to Arizona, but I've never met one of my characters. So you seem to be glossing over some important distinctions here.

Nonetheless, there's a point to what you're saying. It's totally reasonable to say 'my guy wouldn't do that' because you have a sense of who that guy is as a fictional character and you think that character's integrity is violated by performing the action in question. There is such a thing as violation of character integrity.

But the choice not to violate character integrity, like the choice to violate it, is a choice made by a human being at a particular time. So not owning that choice - which some gamers do not, without being schizophrenic - is a kind of mistake.

Here's the thing: when you read a book and character integrity seems to you to be violated, you get mad at the author, right? (One also gets mad when narrative integrity is violated - authors are responsible for both.)

So when someone in your group does something you perceive as integrity-violating, you have the right to ask them: "Dude! Why did you do that?" Since you're 'authoring' the thing together as you go.

The answer in such a case should not just be "Because it's what my character would do", but rather some supporting material which explains why the character's player thinks that that's the best or most appropriate action. To bring the other to be able to share in the judgment of integrity.

I think.

And the bar is higher for a good answer in games where there are substantial goals of play beyond fidelity to a relatively static and highly detailed conception of one's own character. I think.

Guys, please. This is interesting and everything, but I'd rather this thread focus on the impact that the One True Way has had on each respondant's roleplaying experience.

Yikes, good point. As one of the guilty parties, let's get back on topic.

Best,
Ron

As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.


Getting back to the original topic, I'd have to say, for me, the single most pressing 'One True Way' issue I've encountered in my roleplaying experience is the supposed truism of 'The GM is God'. I've encountered way too many players who believe, wholeheartedly, in this this statement, and refuse to question its validity in any context.

Mortaneous: On the dragon lance/Authurian setting I agree.

On the 'GM is god', yeah, that is terribly recurring. Even though most will acknowledge that if all the players leave the table, he isn't a 'god' of anything. The thing is, it's hard to describe how people can be sitting at the table but at a credibility level, starting to walk away/staying further and further away. How do you crack this perception that he is 'god' when he's just anything that the other players grant him at any given second.

And why is the 'GM is god' idea circulated so widely? Is it the fallout of terrible mechanics on RPG culture, thus leaving the idea that to get any effective gaming done some user has to have draconian power. 'GM is god' rose out of 'system doesn't matter'?

Is the 'GM is god' idea damaging to new thought? Ie, why come up with nifty new rules when it's in the GM's 'god like' area of work to handle that? Certainly I can find about four reviews of TROS on RPG.net where there is actual resentment of spiritual attributes. Even getting down to 'Does the author think we don't know how to write games!?'

I was just thinking about this in relation to my post about "story continuity" and the issues behind that for me...

One impact of "The One True Way" on my play experience is the demand by some that you "earn" your way. For example, if you join a campaign, you start off as a 1st level character. Or in the thread on Monte Cook's boards that I referenced, that you be expected to sit out of the game when your character dies and even if that will be a long time because of the particular story being told, that the fun of the other players would be destroyed if the GM bent the story to let you back in.

This is an element I struggle with myself, though in my most recent campaign I experimented with having every PC have the same number of experience points (whether the player was there or not, or if the character was brand new or had been played from day 1).

Frank

I personally like my one true way, such to the point where I don't consider Standard D&D 3rd Ed. Role-playing (I consider it dungeon tromping). I often GM and I play a very narritive/sim style. I've had problems with playing with D&D 3rd Ed. Players because of certain issues.

Example: As a GM, I usually run games where I roll all the dice (for two reasons, one so that combat moves faster, two so that people can't figure out enemy stats/hidden target numbers). I had an issue with a gamist D&D player who was not enjoying my game because he didn't get to roll for his character in what (little) combat their was. I think he also had a problem with the amount of combat. He ended up leaving on his own.

Example 2: As a GM, I understand the roll of GM to be absolute god. Someone can question the GM quickly, but contesting a point and bringing the game to a screeching halt (especially about a mundane point) is not okay. The theif in the party of a game I was running failed his spot traps check and fell down a trap door. I gave the player a few points of damage and he just flat out REFUSED to take them. After a few minutes of arguing about whether his character really fell down a pit or not I booted the player from my game. I'm a grumpy GM and that was just too much for me.

Otherwise, mostly I've had positive experiences. I've played with four players who I get along with (hell, that's most of the people I get along with), and it works well enough for me. I might have a banal and closed perception of what role-playing should be (not to say that I don't enjoy gamist play, just that I don't view it as role-playing), and I'm happy with it.

Green has asked us to move back on topic, and since Ron and Marco said everything I would have said on the character issue, there's no need for me to start a seperate thread to respond to Xero.

Marco wrote: I actually think your discussion of looking at the ramefications and analyzing the real meaning behind a statement (the player is not insane, but instead has valid reasons not to want his character to take a course of action) that, at least, strikes many people as an illogical assertation is a (the?) powerful antidote to one-true-wayism.

Mortaneus wrote: As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.

For me, the primary problem with OTW in gaming communities is that whatever the group's OTW is becomes a shibboleth. Everybody knows that they like "role-playing not roll-playing," and "character" and "story" (or "realism" or, God help us, "fun" or what have you) and all you have to do for the cool kids to like you is to agree with these statements. This causes a problem, or maybe two problems.

1) OTW replaces thought about gaming experience. There's a right way and a wrong way, so it's very difficult to discuss how to improve games. Any suggestion that Sacred Cow X of the group's OTW is not a good idea leads to being drummed out of the group, even if nobody really likes Sacred Cow X.

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity but typically has no real impact on gameplay, people get very confused. You are told that a game is all about "character exploration" and join it, only to find out that it is all about puzzle-solving, or setting trivia, or fights. All games claim to be about "politics and intrigue," because that's the OTW. The result is that people wind up in games they would never have joined if they knew what they were really about, and game groups now have to deal with mobs of bored-ass players.

I'm speaking here mostly in the context of large groups like LARP campaigns, but I've seen it in sit-down as well. It's very frustrating to me personally, and I've seen at least one game totally destroyed by it in the last couple of months.

John Uckele wrote: Example 2: As a GM, I understand the roll of GM to be absolute god. Someone can question the GM quickly, but contesting a point and bringing the game to a screeching halt (especially about a mundane point) is not okay. The theif in the party of a game I was running failed his spot traps check and fell down a trap door. I gave the player a few points of damage and he just flat out REFUSED to take them. After a few minutes of arguing about whether his character really fell down a pit or not I booted the player from my game. I'm a grumpy GM and that was just too much for me.

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity

greyorm wrote:

Mortaneus wrote: As far as the situation with the Dragonlance character in Arthurian fantasy, I'd say that sounds like a Social Contract issue that led to a blow-up in the establishment of the elements of Exploration, more specifically a conflict between your desires with regards to setting, and her desires with regards to character.

While that is certainly a good judgement of the situation on another level, the problem was that the situation could not be resolved because of the thread topic: how actual play occurs and what actual play comprises.

I'm not sure if your statement is disagreeing with my calling this OTW, but it seems to be.

Noon wrote:

James:

2) Because OTW is an expression of group identity

Yeah, I think that's a strong cause too. Gaming groups develop these small pockets of culture, which are very much a group contruct and thus intimately tied with the friendship bonds of that group. Without a seperation between technique (which should be open to change) and friendship (which should have loyalty to those in the group), ya got problems mate!

Hello,

Even after a supposed move back on topic, I am confused.

By "one true way," are we discussing the mere observation that a given group has arrived a particular way to play?

Or are we discussing the dogmatic insistence that other ways to play are somehow inadequate?

Clearly the former is a no-brainer, yay for that group.

Clearly the latter is a meaningless claim used as an isolating mechanism from other folks, or perhaps as a weapon to suppress dissent within a group.

Is there actually a topic here worth discussing? I'm certainly not seeing one. Green, please clarify.

Best,
Ron

Sorry to step in before Green, but I'm going to be at a con all weekend so I'm not going to be able to get into this thread again for a while.

My understanding of the initial question is that we're examining what effects the notion of "One True Way" has on gamers and gaming groups, both positive and negative; it has to be recognized that the "One True Way" is something believed by individuals, which may be in harmony or conflict with a specific group.

From a designer's perspective, the problem I see in it is that individuals are unwilling to try new approaches, because they "aren't right". I noticed a blurb for a review of a game I recognized (I'm afraid I don't recall which game) in which the reviewer commented that he wasn't certain it was really a "role playing game" as opposed to a "story telling game", which suggested to my mind that this person (whoever he was) has a narrow definition of what is necessary for a game to count as "role playing". The problem for the designer, then, is that anything that is truly innovative runs the risk of being rejected by a large number of gamers for whom that's just "wrong", but the lack of innovation can only mean honing existing rules concepts to attempt to achieve a slight improvement on what's already been done so many times before--thus, so many fantasy heartbreakers each attempting to stay within the parameters of how these things are done while at the same time making them work better.

Of course, homogenous One True Way groups have most of their social contract in place before they ever begin to play, so that's certainly an advantage. On the other hand, One True Way means that there are non-negotiable elements in the social contract expectations of at least one participant, and if these are not shared through the entire group, they're a time bomb waiting to detonate.

Oh, Raven--you should tell that girl that she'd really enjoy Multiverser. That's one of the core concepts of the game--her character can appear in any universe.

--M. J. Young

I now know why Mensa will never rule the world. Guys, you're really making this way too complicated. I didn't start out with a hypothesis to prove or a point to make. I was simply looking for raw data from which to begin about an experience that seems common enough to coin a phrase for it yet never seems to be openly talked about. I'm trying to set up something of an experiment, not a debate. If the data of your personal experiences has common threads in it, then I'll start debating with what's really going on with the One True Way, what can/should be done about it, etc.. Only four people have actually answered the initial question. All of them, except for MJ's most recent post, are on the first page. Here's a brief dramatization of what I see happening:

Me: Could you tell me about how the One True Way has impacted your roleplaying experiences and your perceptions of roleplaying?
First few posters: (answer the question)
Everybody else: (talk about strong identification with character, insanity, One True Way as group dynamics, and other things besides the initial question)
Me: Please get back on topic.
Everybody else: What were we talking about? Oh, the One True Way thing. Yeah, I think the One True Way does this and that and the other thing.
Another poster: This seems pointless. Is there even a topic for discussion?
Me: ????

Now, to reiterate, this is what I was asking: What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

On second thought, this thread might be better served in Actual Play to avoid further confusion.

greyorm wrote: "You can do anything in an RPG," was very much at the heart of the issue, and this is why I called it a "One True Way" problem. Since I was restricting her choices in play by genre convention, I "wasn't playing right" and the game would not, in fact, "be an RPG" because of these restrictions (since RPGs allow you to "do anything" and are "without restriction"). If this was not a case of One True Wayism, I'm not sure what else would qualify as such either.

simon_hibbs wrote:

greyorm wrote: "You can do anything in an RPG," was very much at the heart of the issue, and this is why I called it a "One True Way" problem. Since I was restricting her choices in play by genre convention, I "wasn't playing right" and the game would not, in fact, "be an RPG" because of these restrictions (since RPGs allow you to "do anything" and are "without restriction"). If this was not a case of One True Wayism, I'm not sure what else would qualify as such either.

Suppose you came across a GM wo insisted that his game setting must retain it's genre purity, and couldn't be sullied by elements not orriginal to a narrow interpretation of the genre. Wouldn't that be One True Wayism? Surely ther are other valid ways to approach the genre.

Aren't you being a bit One True Way-ist yourself? I cite 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' as evidence for the prosecution. If Mark Twain can do it, why can't your Dragonlance fan?


Simon Hibbs

Mortaneus wrote: The difference, I think, is that OTWism is a more across-the-board rule, for all games played by a specific group. I can understand imposing rules like 'No Dragonlance in Camelot' for a specific game, in order to achieve something. OTW is when you impose rules like that across ALL games you run, because you feel that is the way things should be done.

Green wrote: What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

Hi Green,

One True Way stopped my enjoyment of roleplaying.

I hooked up with a bunch of guys. Bright, creative guys. For them RPGs was all about simulating genre. We used a lot of Hero, tweaking it for whatever Genre was at hand. In-Character knowledge for PCs was a point of honor and craft. Lots of character voices (to limit -- I see now -- Player input from other stances.) Props were given for getting genre details "right".

Investment on thematic issues was almost nill. Emotional investment was a liability.

There was no sense that there was anything to discuss (as has been the case about different taste in other groups). This was an issue of aesthetics. If you couldn't hack it, if you didn't talk IC, if you got the genre element wrong (Doc Savage Pulp, Star Wars, CoC, whatever....) there was a real looking down the nose.

There was no sense that any of these stories might really be attached to the real world -- concerns about issues that mattered to the players. On occassion the GM's plot would contain some conundrum that seem drawn from a freshman year ethics class -- we'd be put, as players, in a hard place. But I have to say, it was seldom MY hard place. It was an exercise in debate. Again, the issues was addressing the debate clearly as presented, not running off with something I (or anyone else) might care about. Caring might break the aesthetic experience.

The idea was to create -- using cliches, tropes, and pop culture artifacts -- a "miniature" version of things these guys had read and loved. Or, in some cases, had heard about and assumed they would love. I ran Pendragon for a while and it didn't click -- and was stunned to realize that their ONLY reference for the matieral was Boorman's Exacalibur and the musical Camelot. My fault on that one. But this is important. Without a template to follow, the game ground to a halt. The rules of Pendragon themselves had led to me and my fellow players to have hugely fun, imaginative and emotionally engaging play several times at conventions (a weird reversal of the convention norm, I know). Because we all "got" and loved the system, we let ourselves get carried away by what the rules offered at those con sessions. However, for the group I'm talking about, the rules weren't there to lead to unexpected place of story, theme or emotion. The rules this group used was to keep a tight, Noh-theater ritualistic lid on the events, recreating in diminished form what had come before. That was the prize.

It was reinforced. Snobbish comments were made about "other" players, "inexeperienced" and the need to "break in" new players.

The effect on me: I tried to get it right. I had been working as a freelance RPG writer and so much of the material I worked on, and so many of the peopel I dealt with were focused on, getting properties and genres "right". DC Heroes. Star Wars. CoC. High Fantasy vs. Al Qdim vs. Dark Sun...

The idea of most published was to give the consumer diminished versions of things they loved. Though I didn't understand how, exactly, to play the way these guys played and like it at the same time, I could see that might, in fact, be the point. So I went along.

And slowly got bored and frustrated out of my mind. It ultimately was a bunch of narrative posing. "See! Here's this correct bit!"

At the time, I thought these guys had found where games were supposed to reach for. I didn't like what I found. So, I got out of the hobby.

Christopher

Green wrote: Now, to reiterate, this is what I was asking: What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

On second thought, this thread might be better served in Actual Play to avoid further confusion.

Hey Green,

Was Christopher K.'s post, about the group that wanted to simulate certain texts very exactly, what you were looking for? That's what I thought this thread was about; if that isn't what you want, I'm lost. But if it is, there's your answer to Callan.

clehrich wrote: Was Christopher K.'s post, about the group that wanted to simulate certain texts very exactly, what you were looking for? That's what I thought this thread was about

Green wrote: What have been your experiences with the One True Way, and how has it impacted your perception, experiences, and enjoyment of roleplaying?

Mortaneus wrote: Getting back to the original topic, I'd have to say, for me, the single most pressing 'One True Way' issue I've encountered in my roleplaying experience is the supposed truism of 'The GM is God'. I've encountered way too many players who believe, wholeheartedly, in this this statement, and refuse to question its validity in any context.

My contact with the One true Way has left me with guilt and uncertainty that has lasted for years and will probably last for a few more.
I look at that sentence and it sounds really big and really profound and then pretty silly. Anyway, here's the deal:
I started gaming in junior high (age 13-14) with red box D&D with my friends. Very little actual play, lots of character design (My first actual system purchase was GURPS, but I never managed to play that, just read the book 20 times.) I eventually hooked up with a pickup group at a local gaming store DM'd by Sam, a serious, old school DM. He had original books. He was at cons where 1st Ed stuff was first released. He had Judge's Guild products, he had stacks of notecards and crates of binders. He played by the rules and was up front that he was there to wipe out PC's.

Then I went to college and hooked up with the gaming club there. Now I start to run into Vampire (mid to late 90's). Suddenly I run into role-play vs. roll-play. Combat is bad. You should try to run entire sessions with no combat or no rolls. Somehow dice are wrong. Wanting to enjoy the excitement of combat is wrong. Staying in character at all time, making multi-faceted, believeable characters, these are all things to be sought after.

I came to feel guilty about liking combat, about trying to "munchkin" my character to be effective. I tried so hard to fit in, to "really roleplay." And I stopped having fun.

Within the last year or so, I encountered the Forge. I learned about creative agenda, stances, different play styles. I devoured Actual Play. I bought Sorcerer, Heroquest, Inspectres, Trollbabe, Elfs, Donjon, and TROS. I tried out some Narr stuff in a Mutants and Masterminds game and had a BLAST with it (until the GM followed her own OTW training and it all fell apart for me, but that's beside the point.)

Currently, I'm in a very Gamist game. D&D 3.5, straight module, lots of bragging rights, straight pawn stance. I still feel guilty about building an effective character, but I'm coming to terms with the fact that I enjoy combat and like the challenge of Stepping Up. It's okay. I'm allowed.

One True Way...

Hmmn...

Best example I can give is a group I was in where we started playing using one system, but the GM didn't like the inherit 'flaws' in it and wanted to 'modify' it and make it 'better'.

We ended up with a completly different games system, that was nothing like we started with.

Was it bad? No. Did it not work? No.

Then where is the OTW example? It was with the GM.

The system he was running wasn't to his liking, it wasn't 'right'. We couldn't play the way we were 'supposed' to. He had to change it and make it 'work'.

We, the players, watched it happened. There was some grumbling by some. I personally thought it would be interesting to see the evolution of a new hybrid system and to see where it ended.

But that is how my own personal OTW-ism works.

I believe that OTW is a incorrectly labeled. It should be call, "Many True Ways". I like Coke, you like Pepsi, Green likes tea. Who's right? Who's wrong? Was my GM wrong in wanting to change the system that he was telling his story in? Should he have just gutted it out?

The group he was running for was the key to that decision. Could we adapt to a new system that didn't do things the same way the other one did? Did we want to? In the end we could and did. Not everyone stayed but the core of the group did. Our OTW (or MTW) was adaptable to change. We were able to move on and enjoy the experience.

Not all groups can. Not all individuals can. OTW? It's the illusionary construct that is as unique as any other illusionary construct.

Role playing... you get out of it what you put into it.

These are my experiences and opinions. They are not to be confused with the governing laws of the universe. If they were then we'd be in real trouble!