# Authenticity in RPGing



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2022)

This thread is prompted by some recent threads about railroading and about how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work.

For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.

The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) is to squelch authenticity. The parameters of play have already been set.

At least, that's how it seems to me.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jul 26, 2022)

I'd agree. I think it's very possible for other sorts of games to be 'authentic' in the way you describe, but that authenticity isn't baked into the rules the same way as it is with PbtA and the like. Not a matter of better or worse, just different. I do think that people who comment on, but haven't played PbtA or FitD games, often underestimate how big the difference is though. When I run D&D or the like I have really work to make player agency happen the way I want to (which is to say much as it does in Blades or whatever).


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This thread is prompted by some recent threads about railroading and about how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work.
> 
> For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.
> 
> ...



At risk of getting into yet another long tedious argument, I'll dare to disagree; in that I don't think games that are more GM-driven necessarily lack authenticity.  They can, sure, but it's not a given.

My view is that as long as the players are being true to their characters, having those characters do what they would do regardless of the metagame, and staying in-character; and as long as the GM is being true to the setting, neutral impartial and fair in how things are presented and run, and having the setting and its elements (including NPCs) react to the PCs as they reasonably would, then concerns about authenticity should rarely if ever arise.

Where it falls apart is when one or more players put the metagame ahead of the fiction, and-or when a GM moves away from impartiality and truth-to-setting in order to force something; be it via narration, consequence, or ruling.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 26, 2022)

But ... but ... if I can't bend the players to my will and make them squeal in anguish, what's the point of being the DM?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2022)

pemerton said:


> For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make *genuine choices, in play, that say something...*




Emphasis mine.

I don't know what this really means.  It sounds poetic, and seems to take a pseudo-moral stance, but doesn't actually tell me what is happening in these games that is somehow missing in others.

Meaning is where you find it.  It is not an objective quality.


----------



## Arilyn (Jul 26, 2022)

I agree with @Fenris-77 that people who have not played PbTA or FiTD type games do not always grasp how different these games operate. This then leads to the long inevitable arguments. 

At their fundamental cores there is no difference between Fate, d20 games, Savage Worlds, 2d20, etc. Obviously we all have preferences because of mechanics and flavour but the bare bones of the play loop and the authority distribution are the same, minus a few minor tweaks that games like 13th Age contain.  

Other games have changed this core and because that base assumption has been removed it can be hard to understand how differently these games run. The authority truly resides amongst all the players. Playing these kinds of games have a different feel, which is even more stark then between D&D and Fate, for example. It's hard to comprehend the difference unless you try a properly run game of BitD or PbTA or other Story Now game. You may not like it, or you may be pleasantly surprised. I thought I'd enjoy Dungeon World but was taken aback at how different the game really played. 

Both styles have advantages and disadvantages. I happily play and run both, although we do more traditional gaming, overall.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> Other games have changed this core and because that base assumption has been removed it can be hard to understand how differently these games run. The authority truly resides amongst all the players. Playing these kinds of games have a different feel, which is even more stark then between D&D and Fate, for example. It's hard to comprehend the difference unless you try a properly run game of BitD or PbTA or other Story Now game. You may not like it, or you may be pleasantly surprised. I thought I'd enjoy Dungeon World but was taken aback at how different the game really played.




I have played, and run plenty of these games.  I understand the differences.

I do not agree that the difference is "authenticity".  At least, not without an explanation of what is meant by the term in this context.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 26, 2022)

By definition, it is no more authentic than anything else.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jul 26, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I have played, and run plenty of these games.  I understand the differences.
> 
> I do not agree that the difference is "authenticity".  At least, not without an explanation of what is meant by the term in this context.



I can see attendant difficulties in the term for sure as it comes across as containing a value judgement. I suspect that creating an _us and them_ dichotomy wasn't @pemerton 's program, but rather to index something that one family of games does more explicitly and which other families of games imply or suggest (or possibly even just expect). All games can do the thing, or at least that's my impression here.


----------



## Arilyn (Jul 26, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I have played, and run plenty of these games.  I understand the differences.
> 
> I do not agree that the difference is "authenticity".  At least, not without an explanation of what is meant by the term in this context.



I have not mentioned authenticity. I think @pemerton can better explain what he means by this term. 

My point is the very different playstyles between story now and traditional. There can be misunderstandings from players who have only experienced traditional gaming. Story Now aren't even my favourite games but I do enjoy them.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jul 26, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I can see attendant difficulties in the term for sure as it comes across as containing a value judgement. I suspect that creating an _us and them_ dichotomy wasn't @pemerton 's program, but rather to index *something* that one family of games does more explicitly and which other families of games imply or suggest (or possibly even just expect). All games can do *the thing*, or at least that's my impression here.



I'm not sure how this response actually answers the query posed in Umbran's post you quoted.
All you have done is substitute the word_ authenticity _with_ something _and_ the thing _without defining anything.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 26, 2022)

I'm uncomfortable with the term "authentic" being used a characteristic of certain frameworks of play, that necessarily frames other modes of play as "inauthentic" which strikes me as a bit too pejorative.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jul 26, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not sure how this response actually answers the query posed in Umbran's post you quoted.
> All you have done is substitute the word_ authenticity _with_ something _and_ the thing _without defining anything.



Yup! That's exactly what I did. The word _authenticity_ is, I'll freely admit, perhaps somewhat weighted. I don't think the notion at hand is one of good and bad though, just one of different. So I elided the word in question to try and sidestep the (probably inevitable) kvetching about RPG tribalism and whatnot, which I'm 100% sure isn't what @pemerton was getting at.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 26, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yup! That's exactly what I did. The word _authenticity_ is, I'll freely admit, perhaps somewhat weighted.




Somewhat weighted? 

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"



Fenris-77 said:


> I don't think the notion at hand is one of good and bad though, just one of different. So I elided the word in question to try and sidestep the (probably inevitable) kvetching about RPG tribalism and whatnot, which I'm 100% sure isn't what @pemerton was getting at.




This is the issue so many people have with invented jargon. I feel like ... there's been a conversation about this? Here, let's see it in action-

(1) _For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is authenticity. _(2)_ That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.
_
(3)_ The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) is to squelch authenticity. The parameters of play have already been set._

Here's how it works-
(1) Come up with a term that is laden with a positive connotation to describe your preferred games/playing styles/etc. 
Here, we have the use of the term "authenticity." Is authenticity and authentic laden with positive connotations? Oh, you betcha! Let's see it in another context ...
"I like authentic Mexican food, not the other stuff you get at the supermarket."
"You need to be your authentic self, not some fake person."

(2) Then define it in a nebulous way that both gloms on to other good terms (being authentic means making "genuine choices") while also not saying anything at all ... being authentic just means ... saying something. What? Something. How? Together. When? When it's working properly. Right!

(3) Then define other things within the "negative space" of the jargon you have just created. Make sure you use pejorative language as well. When you aren't playing "those RPGs" then what happens .... you "squelch authenticity." 

So what have we really learned? Absolutely nothing. Anyone who already generally agrees with the above will just nod their head sagely and say, "Well, of course. These games are different! I'm not sure what any of this means, but obviously there's something there. I mean, he even says ... something." 

Meanwhile, anyone who is likely not to agree will probably not think very highly of someone who chooses to ascribe "authenticity" to their own favored styles of games, while saying other people prefer to "squelch authenticity." 

It is both provocative and meaningless, and serves only to highlight a desire for conflict. It ascribes (as Umbran correctly notes) a pseudo-morality to play that is inappropriate. 

Non-GM driven games (which is a fine phrase) are very different, and have much to recommend them for some people. "Authenticity" isn't it.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jul 26, 2022)

Well, frankly, I don't think @pemerton is coming up with a positive word to describe his favorite games at all, nor is he attempting to be provocative, nor attempting to foment conflict. I think he's indexing something that all games do to some extent, and that certain families of games perhaps showcase or make explicit more obviously than others.

So I guess other than all the unnecessary and snarky finger pointing I probably agree with you.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 26, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, frankly, I don't think @pemerton is coming up with a positive word to describe his favorite games at all, nor is he attempting to be provocative, nor attempting to foment conflict. I think he's indexing something that all games do to some extent, and that certain families of games perhaps showcase or make explicit more obviously than others.
> 
> So I guess other than all the unnecessary and snarky finger pointing I probably agree with you.




I honestly don't know how to address this. Anyone who has ever played various styles of TTRPGs understands that there is a difference between, say, OD&D, 3e, V:TM, Fiasco, Dogs in the Vineyard, and BiTD.

Labeling one subset of games as "authentic" while other games "squelch authenticity" is ... well, it's certainly a _way _to "index{} something that all games do to some extent" (which ... wow!), but it does so in a very weighted manner.

How about this- how about he does the same indexing, except he calls non-GM driven RPGs ... INAUTHENTIC. Which makes more historical sense, because the traditional (aka, authentic) RPGs tend to be GM-driven. That's how they started ... you can't get more AUTHENTIC than OD&D, right?

There, everyone is happy! Right? Because the actual word doesn't matter- he's just using any ol' random term to "index" something or other.

Win/win! Yay everyone!!!!!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jul 26, 2022)

I feel like I'm going to sit tight and let Pem tilt at his own windmill a bit before I continue with this piquant little roshambo we've started. I think I know what he's aiming for, but that's not enough for me to want to further clutter the thread. You and I are, if nothing else, verbose.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 26, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I feel like I'm going to sit tight and let Pem tilt at his own windmill a bit before I continue with this piquant little roshambo we've started. I think I know what he's aiming for, but that's not enough for me to want to further clutter the thread. You and I are, if nothing else, verbose.










Ro. Cham. Beau. 

I demand the most difficult spellings. H. L. Mencken can simplify my posterior.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jul 26, 2022)

@pemerton 

Are you purposely trolling? It seems unlike you. I can't believe that you'd just sit down and use a word like _authentic_ without being cognizant of the attendant value judgment which accompanies it, and without understanding that the label of _inauthentic_ implicitly be extended to games which do not comport with the criteria which you have set forth.

Perhaps you might elucidate.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 26, 2022)

How about "agency"?  Find and replace every time the OP said "authenticity" with "agency" and it's pretty normal post for a discussion on railroading.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 26, 2022)

I'm going to hazard a guess, based on the OP,  that this is supposed to be about "playing a character", as opposed to "playing a game". That the actions and decisions are dictated by the player's idea of who the PC is and how they would act in a given situation - as opposed to reacting to a game situation, with more or less defined parameters, where the goal is to "win".

(Of course I might be misinterpreting what @pemerton meant, but that's the risk of forum discussions.)

So if this is in fact the argument, fair enough, that's one possible preference. To me, RPGs are first and foremost games. The DM creates a scenario, and the players try to make their way through it. There are goals and challenges. I don't want "collaborative storytelling". To me, that's like those great shows on the telly that somewhere around season 3 or 4 become character-driven instead of plot-driven. As soon as I realise that, I lose interest. I'm interested in events and adventures, not make-believe personalities.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 26, 2022)

Is dnd 4e "authentic"?  If answering that question is unpalatable because it would lead to edition warring, how is that not already a part of how this post is framed?


----------



## Mezuka (Jul 26, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Somewhat weighted?
> 
> "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
> 
> ...



This. Bravo!


----------



## Jer (Jul 26, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> How about "agency"?  Find and replace every time the OP said "authenticity" with "agency" and it's pretty normal post for a discussion on railroading.



Except as presented it's not about railroading vs. sandbox, it's about whole table collaboration in scenario play vs. GM controlled scenario play.

I agree that authenticity is the wrong word here and agency may be the more correct term to what @pemerton is getting at, but not as a discussion about railroading. Because a sandbox game still wouldn't meet the requirements of what he's talking about here because in a traditional sandbox game the GM controls the world and the players poke and prod at it while in a whole table collaboration game everyone at the table is responsible for scene setting, world creation, etc. and the GM is not monopolizing that role in the game.

However I wouldn't use agency here.  What I would actually say is that the games that @pemerton is describing are _structured improvisational_ games where the collaborative model is baked into the rules in ways that it isn't in a traditional game.  And rather than "authenticity" I think that these games are built in a way to lead to an _emergent story_ rather than a _structured story_.  All of the players - including the GM - are participating in the structured improv game and so there can be an emergent story that nobody at the table had planned - including the GM.  In a railroad game you don't have emergent story because the GM is guiding the story down a certain track. In a traditional sandbox game you get an emergent story, but the GM may not get the same level of surprise at the emergent story because of the level of planning they've already put into the game.  They've put potential story elements into the world and then, while they may be surprised by how the players interact with them, they have some expectations. In an improvised game where planning is minimal everyone at the table participates as the story is built as you play and nobody is in control of the narrative at all.

(I will also say that you can do this in traditional RPGs because people do all the time.  In fact I would argue that what the folks who built those kinds of games - PbtA, FitD, etc. - were trying to do was codify that style of play into the rules so that people who don't naturally play in an improvisational fashion have a game that enforces and rewards that play style rather than doing nothing to encourage or discourage that style of play, which is how most traditional TTRPGs operate.)


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> My point is the very different playstyles between story now and traditional.




And I have already admitted this point.  Yes, there are major differences in playstyle.  We can take that as given.  

Until you or Pemerton can connect this to the OP, it casts no light on the subject of the thread.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2022)

Jer said:


> However I wouldn't use agency here.  What I would actually say is that the games that @pemerton is describing are _structured improvisational_ games where the collaborative model is baked into the rules in ways that it isn't in a traditional game.  And rather than "authenticity" I think that these games are built in a way to lead to an _emergent story_ rather than a _structured story_.  All of the players - including the GM - are participating in the structured improv game and so there can be an emergent story that nobody at the table had planned - including the GM.




Okay, it may or may not be what pemerton had in mind, but there's some meat to it, and it isn't as judgmental.  So, kudos to that.



Jer said:


> In a railroad game you don't have emergent story because the GM is guiding the story down a certain track.




Eh.  We should interrogate absolutes like "don't have".  I think relative terms like "more" and "less" will serve us better.  Because, case in point...

I think it depends what "the story" you care about is.  

Let us take the most egregiously railroaded adventure we can come up with off the tops of our heads - Five rooms, in a line.  Once you enter a room, all exits seal shut until the challenge of the room is defeated (whatever that means in each case).  The walls are indestructible, magical transport out of the space of the room is prohibited, yadda yadda yadda.  If the PCs die, or give up, they are magically transported through each room until at least their bodies reach the last room

On one level, there is a fixed story - The PCs go from Room A, to Room B, to Room C.  

But, there is emergent story, still.  How do they manage the challenges?  Is this fixed, or does it emerge?

There's even more emergent story - How to the characters _feel_ about this experience?  Is the GM passing the players notes instructing them on their emotional states?  If not, this emerges from play, and isn't in the GM's control...

If "the story" is a superficial retelling of macro events, yeah, the railroad has less emergent story.  If the story is about the emotional and psychological journey of the characters, I'm not sure that's still true.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 26, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I don't know what this really means.  It sounds poetic, and seems to take a pseudo-moral stance, but doesn't actually tell me what is happening in these games that is somehow missing in others.
> 
> Meaning is where you find it.  It is not an objective quality.



Meaningful decisions has a technical meaning in an educational use - decisions made with sufficient knowledge as to be able to predict more than one outcome based upon the decision. Essentially, a decision that isn't blind to outcomes.
Meaningful Choices — University XP by Dave Eng, Ed.D., for use in educational games.

Several game designers have used the term Meaningful Choices as well... in the videogame space:








						Meaningful Choice in Games: Practical Guide & Case Studies
					

Meaningful choices pull at players' heart strings, making them look inside themselves. These choices are remembered as deeply emotional experiences, the moments




					www.gamedeveloper.com
				




I know I have used the term meaningful choices in the same way. If they players don't have enough information to predict at least two outcomes based upon their choices, and the GM has in mind at least two predictable outcomes based upon the players choice, then the choice isn't meaningful.

Examining both forks there...
If the player can't see the difference between picking door A or door B, the choice isn't meaningful to them (unless a narrow grammaphobic). 

If the player choice doesn't matter, because the GM is going to put the same monster behind whichever door is chosen, again, the choice is non-meaningful - as the outcome negates the choice.

One is a communication issue; the other is a case of illusionism.
Both are suboptimal for play.

Many choices made aren't meaningful, even when they appear to be. We ignore a lot of low-meaning choices in real life - grabbing the chip slightly to the left vs slightly to the right - if they're from the same bag, not contaminated, both on top, and roughly the same size, does it matter? only a tiny bit... if planning on both? Even less.

Applying this to game... two orcs at the doorway... left and right. Both have the same HP, AC, weapons, and abilities. Choosing between them isn't particularly meaningful for the first player, unless their character is to one side of the door. (Even then, trivial.) 3 outcomes obvious:
1. Player 1 misses
2. player 1 hits, but does not render non-combatant, the chosen orc
3. player 1 hits, and does render the orc a non-combatant
In case 1: player 2 faces the same choice, unchanged
Case 2: attacking the other orc weights to the same case 2 result, but choosing the damaged orc is more likely to drop that orc.
Case 3: the choice of attack is rendered rather easily as "attack the remaining orc"

Player one's choice isn't meaningful, but two's is, from an objective point of view. It has projectable outcomes, and differences in those outcomes, and the player is (if they know the rules) able to estimate their odds.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 26, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Meaningful decisions has a technical meaning in an educational use - decisions made with sufficient knowledge as to be able to predict more than one outcome based upon the decision. Essentially, a decision that isn't blind to outcomes.
> Meaningful Choices — University XP by Dave Eng, Ed.D., for use in educational games.
> 
> Several game designers have used the term Meaningful Choices as well... in the videogame space:
> ...




Good point! Unfortunately, the OP didn't use the term "meaningful choice," but instead used "genuine choice." So it's hard to ascribe that _technical meaning_ to the OP when it wasn't even used.

That said, I don't think that _meaningful choice_ (in the technical sense) is something that is a specific feature that differentiates how "non-GM drive RPGs" work. As you correctly point out, _meaningful choice _is available in GM-driven games as well.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 26, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good point! Unfortunately, the OP didn't use the term "meaningful choice," but instead used "genuine choice." So it's hard to ascribe that _technical meaning_ to the OP when it wasn't even used.
> 
> That said, I don't think that _meaningful choice_ (in the technical sense) is something that is a specific feature that differentiates how "non-GM drive RPGs" work. As you correctly point out, _meaningful choice _is available in GM-driven games as well.



GM-driven vs non-GM-driven is already an arguable classification.  The former only makes sense as a caricature of trad play and the latter is being ascribed to games that give the GM a significant if specific role in driving play.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 26, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> GM-driven vs non-GM-driven is already an arguable classification.  The former only makes sense as a caricature of trad play and the latter is being ascribed to games that give the GM a significant if specific role in driving play.




True, but at least it's intelligible and not completely judgmental to the extent that "authentic" is. I can understand the term without the need for further context, and while I wouldn't agree that traditional play is "GM-driven," I can at least understand that this is an attempt at a taxonomy that is looking at the division of authority vis-a-vis the GM and the players.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 26, 2022)

_wrong thread_


----------



## billd91 (Jul 26, 2022)

Jer said:


> And rather than "authenticity" I think that these games are built in a way to lead to an _emergent story_ rather than a _structured story_. All of the players - including the GM - are participating in the structured improv game and so there can be an emergent story that nobody at the table had planned - including the GM.



I had been thinking more along the lines of spontaneous story, except that won't definitively distinguish the types of games when you consider that some GMs improv pretty much everything. Perhaps a better distinction would be an improv game with _decentralized authority_ vs GM-based authority.
There's got to be a way to describe this sort of thing without value-laden terms and their implications. That's one of the more off-putting aspects of the narrative game community.


----------



## innerdude (Jul 26, 2022)

pemerton said:


> For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, *that say something* . . . .




You know I have absolutely zero issue with PbtA / FitD play principles, and in fact am now a strong proponent of them after many years of being the opposite. But I still have to question what it is you're actually saying.

When you say, "choices, in play, that say something," what is that something? _What_ is being stated, and _about what _does it have to say?

What is being "spoken" in these instances?

Are you specifically talking about, "It says something about the characters and how the players connect to them, relative to their position in the world"? Okay, what do player and GM choices in relation to those principles actually say? Are you saying that there is a more genuine component of characterization allowed when players can more strongly advocate for their characters and their characters' position within the fiction? If so, is that the sole criterion of authenticity?

I'm having a hard time understanding how the descriptor of "authenticity" applies here.

On a certain level, maybe I can vaguely envision some aspect. There's a scene in the pilot episode of the HBO series _The Newsroom_, where Jeff Daniels' character is on stage at a political campus event, and the moderator tells him, "I want a human moment from you."

And then Daniels' character (Will McAvoy) goes on a minutes long rant that disembowels the idiocy and blind ideology that underpins most of American politics.

And for a brief moment, you see "inside", so to speak, the character who has let his walls down beyond the superficial.

And I love that scene, that character, and the entire TV series, but I'm still not sure how that translates to "authenticity" in play within an RPG.


----------



## bloodtide (Jul 27, 2022)

"Authenticicy" is way to awkward a word.  An "authentic game".  But you can't really compare different games.  And you can't compare diffrent stlyes.  In your game people do X.  I my game it's a traditional old school railroad hard fun game. Your players did X and had fun.  My players were railroaded to the Shallow Sea of The Death Shells where they had to fight giant blink snapping turtles, because I made that fun adventure and wanted to run it.  


Jer said:


> In a railroad game you don't have emergent story because the GM is guiding the story down a certain track.



Except this is not true.  The basic railroad is the DM guiding the story to it's end.....but a good DM does not care about the end, as long as the game gets there.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2022)

_Authenticity_: the property of being authentic. _Authentic_: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self.

Related things: _responsibility _(for what you bring to the table, for the self that you reveal), _vulnerability _(of the self that is revealed), _honesty_ (to oneself, to the others at the table), _forbearance and mutuality_ (we're all here together, all doing this thing, all taking these risks).

_Genuine choice_: the adjective is not qualifying the choice qua choice, but the source/motivation/origin and also impact/consequence/upshot of the choice. These go together: the choice is _authentic_ in the above sense, and is _recognised and accepted_ as such by the others at the table, and hence given its _due weight_. What follows on _follows from that choice_. It has no independence from it.

@Fenris-77 is correct that this is about an ethos/spirit of play. Some RPGs bring this explicitly to the fore in the rules and procedures they set out. They're not the only RPGs that make this ethos/spirit possible.

@Dioltach, @innerdude - what it says something about is _the participant_ - a person in the real world doing something together with others in the real world. The shared fiction, and the character, is a vehicle for that. I think it may be true that _characters_ also become more authentic on this approach, but that's a further thought beyond what motivated the OP and I'm not sure.

@Dioltach - "To me, RPGs are first and foremost games. The DM creates a scenario, and the players try to make their way through it. There are goals and challenges. I don't want "collaborative storytelling"." That's a crystal-clear statement of a different conception of RPGing. You're absolutely correct to see it as contrasting with the OP.


----------



## Campbell (Jul 27, 2022)

I think there is something to be said for embracing taking creative risks without regard for where we ultimately end up. To putting our naked creativity on display, collaborating with others and seeing what comes out of the alchemy. When I was in film school, I used to love the creative experiences from just getting a bunch of people together, starting with a premise and just like shooting all weekend.

From my perspective there's a certain raw emotion to less curated creative material. Jam bands, garage rock, small independent movies. That raw visceral emotion is what I tend to think of when I think of more authentic creative experiences.

From my perspective games like Blades in the Dark or Sorcerer tend to encourage that sort of creative experience at the table because they incentivize taking creative risks at the table. It's less polished, but kind of more raw/visceral because no one knows where things are going to lead and the game's encourage us to not steer them.

This introduction to the Play Passionately blog hits the notes that remind me of that sort of garage band experience:



			
				 Play Passionately said:
			
		

> Play Passionately is a public space setup for me to think out loud about what I enjoy in role playing, the techniques and games that support it, to invite others to try it, and to offer advice on how to do it better. To me, “playing passionately” is something very specific I enjoy in my games and this introduction is intended to outline the core elements likely to be explored and developed further in other articles.
> 
> *To me, a game is most fun when there’s an element of social risk. When playing passionately there are two layers to that risk. The first is the same as any collaborative creative endeavor: Failure. Simply, the game or some part of the game and the created fiction might suck or be no fun. It might take some practice or critical thought to understand exactly what went wrong and how to avoid disappointment in the future.
> 
> ...


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 27, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> "Authenticicy" is way to awkward a word.  An "authentic game".  But you can't really compare different games.  And you can't compare diffrent stlyes.  In your game people do X.  I my game it's a traditional old school railroad hard fun game. Your players did X and had fun.  My players were railroaded to the Shallow Sea of The Death Shells where they had to fight giant blink snapping turtles, because I made that fun adventure and wanted to run it.
> 
> Except this is not true.  The basic railroad is the DM guiding the story to it's end.....but a good DM does not care about the end, as long as the game gets there.



A good GM doesn't normally railroad; the description of a railroad as the "GM driving the plot towards some particular end", at least in most places, a correct definition.

While it is possible for story to emerge apart from the rails, the term generally refers to forcing the players through the prepared stations for set encounters, so the only story is that laid out ahead of time - story on rails. The classic example is the dungeon where each room leads to a 1 way trip to the next...  the second clearest is the dungeon with no branches - choice is limited to advance or retreat. 

At least with the one path dungeon, one has the option to retreat... a few of Gygax's don't...


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jul 27, 2022)

For me, the issue isn't authenticity, it's _artifice_.

I like old-school play with a hard landscape milieu and a principled, neutral referee, because those are the conditions that minimize artifice. The game-world is what it is, what happens happens, decisions have consequences, and all victories and defeats are honestly earned. You may not get satisfying narratives or character arcs out of the deal, but at least you know the referee isn't putting a thumb on the scale to hand the players unearned wins.

Both trad and post-trad, on the other hand, traffic in artifice. In trad games, the mechanics don't really support narrative, so it's expected that the GM will fudge and rubber-band and palette-shift and resort to whatever other soft railroading techniques are required to force desirable outcomes without the players being too overly aware of the GM's invisible hand at work — or at least, without giving the players an excuse to drop the polite fiction that the game isn't being quietly directed.

Post-trad games are considerably more honest, in that they foreground the very mechanics that guarantee a story will happen, but in doing so they also foreground how artificial the whole process is. If old-school is an honest game of poker, and trad drifts between being delighted by an entertaining stage-magician and playing blackjack with a crooked dealer (one with a grudge against the house who occasionally slips you a face card from the bottom of the deck), storygames are watching a Penn & Teller routine where they show you how the trick is done.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 27, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> I know I have used the term meaningful choices in the same way. If they players don't have enough information to predict at least two outcomes based upon their choices, and the GM has in mind at least two predictable outcomes based upon the players choice, then the choice isn't meaningful.
> 
> Examining both forks there...
> If the player can't see the difference between picking door A or door B, the choice isn't meaningful to them (unless a narrow grammaphobic).
> ...



Thing is, a choice or decision may be immensely meaningful; only its meaning and-or impact doesn't become apparent until after the fact.

Sure, at the time it might look like a coin flip - e.g. which of two identical doors to open with no other info to go on.  But when looked at in hindsight, choosing the door that led to stupendous treasure vs choosing the door that led to despair and disaster might be the most meaningful and life-altering choice that character ever made.

The flip side, of course, is that what seems a meaningful choice at the time might later turn out to be relatively unimportant.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jul 27, 2022)

nvm


----------



## clearstream (Jul 27, 2022)

Jer said:


> And rather than "authenticity" I think that these games are built in a way to lead to an _emergent story_ rather than a _structured story_.  All of the players - including the GM - are participating in the structured improv game and so there can be an emergent story that nobody at the table had planned - including the GM.  In a railroad game you don't have emergent story because the GM is guiding the story down a certain track. In a traditional sandbox game you get an emergent story, but the GM may not get the same level of surprise at the emergent story because of the level of planning they've already put into the game.  They've put potential story elements into the world and then, while they may be surprised by how the players interact with them, they have some expectations. In an improvised game where planning is minimal everyone at the table participates as the story is built as you play and nobody is in control of the narrative at all.



A doubt in my mind about that is that in my copy of BitD I count about a hundred pages of overt background, and (to the game's credit IMO) almost every element is steeped in the narrative ink of a very specific world. In my copy of Stonetop, I've counted over 200 pages of overt background, and again much or most of the rest of the game text is very opinionated about what world we're in.

My doubt is as to how one cleanly separates out background prepped by game designer from background prepped by sandbox GM, so that we can differentiate the latter from the former in the specific ways you describe? As a GM who knows BitD's game text, I wonder how I avoid being _unsurprised_ in the ways you have associated with sandboxes?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 27, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, a choice or decision may be immensely meaningful; only its meaning and-or impact doesn't become apparent until after the fact.
> 
> Sure, at the time it might look like a coin flip - e.g. which of two identical doors to open with no other info to go on.  But when looked at in hindsight, choosing the door that led to stupendous treasure vs choosing the door that led to despair and disaster might be the most meaningful and life-altering choice that character ever made.
> 
> The flip side, of course, is that what seems a meaningful choice at the time might later turn out to be relatively unimportant.



That's a consequential choice, but not necessarily a meaningful one. The way I understand the use of meaningful here is the person making the choice knows, at least in general, what they are choosing between - fortune or tragedy. Absent that knowledge, the choice made at that time has no real meaning - though it may have eventual consequences. Basically, if you have to use hindsight to determine if the choice was meaningful or not, it wasn't really meaningful.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> A doubt in my mind about that is that in my copy of BitD I count about a hundred pages of overt background, and (to the game's credit IMO) almost every element is steeped in the narrative ink of a very specific world. In my copy of Stonetop, I've counted over 200 pages of overt background, and again much or most of the rest of the game text is very opinionated about what world we're in.
> 
> My doubt is as to how one cleanly separates out background prepped by game designer from background prepped by sandbox GM, so that we can differentiate the latter from the former in the specific ways you describe? As a GM who knows BitD's game text, I wonder how I avoid being _unsurprised_ in the ways you have associated with sandboxes?




There is an easy answer to that.

The setting of neither Blades nor Stonetop are prescriptive.  Outside of a very few particulars that encode premise (eg the supernatural apocalypse of Blades and the electroplasmic Lightning Towers and related and the general, corrupt, hierarchical disposition of the milieu), everything else is fundamentally contingent.  None of those details exist to constrict the play space of either the GM or the player.  They exist to encode general premise and as inspirational material for:


Questions asked and answered during character creation and during play.
Play loop framing broadly.
Situation framing.
Obstacle space rendering (including calculating Position/Effect and NPC Threat level in Blades)
Consequence space rendering.
All the many and varied and layers of player decision-space in both games.
Threat relationships, manifestation, and evolution once they enter (if they even do) the imagined space (Downtime Faction/Setting Clocks in Blades and Threats entering > Portents and Doom ticking in ST).
Using the maps and their relationships for spatial decision-making on Transport Scores in Blades and handling Perilous Journeys in ST.

TLDR - Along with xp triggers and Agenda, they define they premise of play.  They help all the participants make decisions about content introduction but they neither bind me as GM nor does anything (except what has been established) mandate what can be gleaned during Info Gathering actions, DTA LTPs, intra-Score Flashback/Study/Survey/Consort or specific playbook moves in Blades nor Know Things/Seek Insight/Keep Company/specific playbook moves in ST.  Same goes for the nature of Threats (their fiction and gamestate implications) entering play whether it be a Tier 4 Demon of Seduction (named Lillith) entering play as possessing the Rival of a PC in a Blades game nor a Demonic patron of a twisted Hillfolk tribe possessing an NPC Follower in Stonetop after a 7-9 Pull Together move result (where the NPC was sent into the field to retrieve a supplied wagon left out in the field by the PCs on a prior Adventure).  Premise, prior fiction, xp triggers, agenda/principles all do the heavy lifting there and then move results + the fiction of the book inspires and helps fill out the fiction (Marshedge exodus of horse breeding family as Opportunity on Spring move, dangerous Hillfolk tribe of The Steplands at the center of the family disappearance, dark entities and chaos/savagery vs order/civilization as thematic opposition, Homefront at risk as premise).

TLDR x 2 - LOL at my TLDR being just as long/involved as my READ!


----------



## MarkB (Jul 27, 2022)

Authenticity is subjective. If I know that something was established as objectively factual in the game's fiction before being revealed to me as a player, and I manage to correctly work out that fact from context and act upon it intelligently in-character, that, to me, feels more authentic than if I as a player declare something as factual, and whether or not it turns out to be right is determined by a dice roll.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 27, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Authenticity is subjective. If I know that something was established as objectively factual in the game's fiction before being revealed to me as a player, and I manage to correctly work out that fact from context and act upon it intelligently in-character, that, to me, feels more authentic than if I as a player declare something as factual, and whether or not it turns out to be right is determined by a dice roll.




So I'll readily admit that I could be wrong here, but I think @pemerton 's interest in the usage of "authenticity" for his thread here is supposed to be something about _originality and creative curiosity creating an emergent quality of discovery to setting/character through play vs the art of giving shape/form to setting/character by way of pastiche/skillfully deploying performative tropes and mapping preconceptions.  _

So I think what you're talking about is a different axis of "authenticity", like a priority for successfully controlling the gamestate as a player of _Skilled Play Puzzle-Solving vs Skilled Play in Tactical Resource/Play Procedure (dice pool marshaling, limited resource deployment, risk assessment in tactical gambits etc) management._

I can see why you might go there.  Interestingly, to some folks (possibly a lot), Puzzle Solving probably _feels _more like the former in the top paragraph _(originality and creative curiosity creating an emergent quality of discovery_).  I'm not sure that it is inherently so, but it probably feels like that to a lot of folks whereas tactical gambits (like skillfully assessing risk > stipulating a helpful/interesting thing > marshalling resources to make it so)  feel more rote and S.O.P (we've done the math and now its just imparting the subroutine upon play) and therefore "shallow."

Kind of like are master Chess players discovering new things with creative curiosity and original gambits very often when contrasted with (say) master Pictionary players (if such a ranking existed...some folks are clearly waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at Pictionary than others so there is an effective ranking if not an established metric for a league or whatever)?  I have neither a reflexive nor well-considered answer to that, but it wouldn't surprise me that if you polled a ton of folks that their off-the-cuff response would be "Pictionary players all the way."

Ok, I do have a thought.  Pictionary probably feels more akin to "Go" in terms of total number of parameters and orientation/interaction of parameters (therefore employing creativity and experiencing discovery at a considerably higher rate than Chess).  Whether it is or not, I don't know.

Does this sort of demonstrate what @pemerton is getting at in terms of _creation of a working fiction via discovery of character/setting_ vs _intentional instantiation of it by way of observing and mapping pre-existing stuff (pastiche, tropes, preconception)?_


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> _Authenticity_: the property of being authentic. _Authentic_: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self.
> 
> Related things: _responsibility _(for what you bring to the table, for the self that you reveal), _vulnerability _(of the self that is revealed), _honesty_ (to oneself, to the others at the table), _forbearance and mutuality_ (we're all here together, all doing this thing, all taking these risks).




Look, I'm a GM, not a qualified group counselor.  I am not running a game to get the players to "reveal truths".  I'm running a game so they can have some entertainment, and maybe a momentary escape from whatever is weighty in their lives.  This is true whatever style of game I am running.  

I mean, this sounds like it ought to be part of Session Zero - "And in this game, we will reveal _truths about ourselves_ to each other."  See how many show up for Session One after that pitch.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 27, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good point! Unfortunately, the OP didn't use the term "meaningful choice," but instead used "genuine choice." So it's hard to ascribe that _technical meaning_ to the OP when it wasn't even used.
> 
> That said, I don't think that _meaningful choice_ (in the technical sense) is something that is a specific feature that differentiates how "non-GM drive RPGs" work. As you correctly point out, _meaningful choice _is available in GM-driven games as well.



Authentic choice is used in some UK education paper for the same meaning.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 27, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Authentic choice is used in some UK education paper for the same meaning.




I mean, sure. If we are to assume that the OP was not inventing new pejorative jargon, and was not using the jargon that people already used ("meaningful choice"), but was instead _borrowing jargon that is occasionally used in UK eduation papers ... _maybe? Color me unconvinced. 

The whole point of jargon (technical language) is that it allows people to be _precise with the use of fewer words. _This is the exact opposite; it is obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation. 

_Good times!_


----------



## MarkB (Jul 27, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> So I'll readily admit that I could be wrong here, but I think @pemerton 's interest in the usage of "authenticity" for his thread here is supposed to be something about _originality and creative curiosity creating an emergent quality of discovery to setting/character through play vs the art of giving shape/form to setting/character by way of pastiche/skillfully deploying performative tropes and mapping preconceptions.  _
> 
> So I think what you're talking about is a different axis of "authenticity", like a priority for successfully controlling the gamestate as a player of _Skilled Play Puzzle-Solving vs Skilled Play in Tactical Resource/Play Procedure (dice pool marshaling, limited resource deployment, risk assessment in tactical gambits etc) management._



Hmm, not really. I talked about successfully figuring out something that exists in the gameworld, but it's not about the puzzle-solving in itself, it's about whether I'm inhabiting _my character_ and figuring things out from their perspective using the information at hand, versus in some form playing both my character and the world around them, creating that world rather than exploring it.

The latter feels less authentic because it pulls the focus back from the perspective of the character I am playing - I'm telling their story more than experiencing it.

It's not that it's worse or anything - I've both played and run FitD games and had a great time doing so - but that sort of collaborative story-forging comes at the expense of actually experiencing that story purely from a character's perspective.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 27, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean, sure. If we are to assume that the OP was not inventing new pejorative jargon, and was not using the jargon that people already used ("meaningful choice"), but was instead _borrowing jargon that is occasionally used in UK eduation papers ... _maybe? Color me unconvinced.
> 
> The whole point of jargon (technical language) is that it allows people to be _precise with the use of fewer words. _This is the exact opposite; it is obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation.
> 
> _Good times!_



That the conceptual link was made by myself, and is relevantly close to the consistent use, shows that, intentional or not, the term is being used in a way that is not inconsistent.
Your lacking the knowledge of the professional jargon bears little to nothing on Pemerton's lack or non-lack of the technical terms. They're a clade of terms meaning roughly the same as Pemerton's use. And the technical versions show the term to _not be opinion_ in the way "I don't like your avatar" or "D&D sucks"  are.



Umbran said:


> Look, I'm a GM, not a qualified group counselor.  I am not running a game to get the players to "reveal truths".  I'm running a game so they can have some entertainment, and maybe a momentary escape from whatever is weighty in their lives.  This is true whatever style of game I am running.
> 
> I mean, this sounds like it ought to be part of Session Zero - "And in this game, we will reveal _truths about ourselves_ to each other."  See how many show up for Session One after that pitch.



Yes, the GM skillset is much closer to kindergarten teacher than to therapist.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 27, 2022)

Egon Spengler said:


> For me, the issue isn't authenticity, it's _artifice_.
> 
> I like old-school play with a hard landscape milieu and a principled, neutral referee, because those are the conditions that minimize artifice. The game-world is what it is, what happens happens, decisions have consequences, and all victories and defeats are honestly earned. You may not get satisfying narratives or character arcs out of the deal, but at least you know the referee isn't putting a thumb on the scale to hand the players unearned wins.
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to ask I guess, what is MORE artificial than the sort of set-piece environment of a typical classic D&D dungeon? I'm hard pressed to see how something like Apocalypse World or whatever is 'more artificial' than that! I mean, there are Indy RPGs that utilize meta-currencies and whatnot in ways that may be entirely outside of the 1st person RP experience, but old-school games have those too! Then there are Indy games like, say, Apocalypse World which don't really have such things at all (or certainly not even to the degree that D&D does). Are they the most 'natural' of all? I mean AW, if you play it 'by the book' is a 100% in-character game. At most the participants have to vocalize what the actions are that are being taken, which I guess is a bit out of 1st person, but not much, maybe not at all in most cases. I'm not at all sure that the dividing lines lie between old-school, trad, and post-trad as you have put it...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 27, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> That the conceptual link was made by myself, and is relevantly close to the consistent use, shows that, intentional or not, the term is being used in a way that is not inconsistent.
> Your lacking the knowledge of the professional jargon bears little to nothing on Pemerton's lack or non-lack of the technical terms. They're a clade of terms meaning roughly the same as Pemerton's use. And the technical versions show the term to _not be opinion_ in the way "I don't like your avatar" or "D&D sucks"  are.




No. Absolutely not. Look, first rule of holes is ... stop digging.

First... the OP never used the phrase "authentic choice."

The OP used the phrase "authenticity."  

*You* used the term "meaningful choice" to defend the OP. Stating that "meaningful choice" is a technical term.

After I pointed out that the OP never used the term "meaningful choice," you are now saying that there is another, even lesser-known term called "authentic choice," which is (a) not used in TTRPGs, and (b) not even as common as the original phrase that the OP didn't use, and (c) also not used by the OP.

Of course, the educational use of "authentic choice" which requires, inter alia, an authentic self making an autonomous conscious choice is ... not really a focus of _roleplaying_, which acts at a certain remove from that. So ...

And all of this goes away from the central point I keep hammering, which is that the use of technical terms should allow for better communication and precision. Am I really to believe that at this late date, this was the invocation of a specific technical term from another field (that remained unexplained) and you are the only one that got it ... even though the term _was never used in the OP_?

If so - the jargon did not illuminate, it obfuscated.


----------



## adamantyr (Jul 27, 2022)

As a software engineer, I run into this problem frequently. Various terms and words are used like "Treatment", "Asset", "Entity", "Classification" get attached to processes, resources, etc. Often with overlap between different teams, which makes for serious confusion.

Reading over the OP, I have no idea what he means at all by "authenticity". For one thing, I don't even know the acronyms of the games they mention. Nor do they supply any links to these threads that prompted the post. What is the three clue rule? I don't know.

And saying "This gameplay style is better because..." always rubs me the wrong way. If you're going to make that kind of claim, show some examples.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 27, 2022)

In the Traveller community, there's a dual consensus on when Old School ends: either at 1981 (introduction of HG) or 1984 (Atlas of the Imperium)...
I can't think of any games from before 1981 with anything more metacurrency than HP, and those really don't get counted, since they're a mechanical representation of exhaustion, which culminates in a single telling blow. 1984, it's still rare - WFRP fate points come to mind, and FASERIP Marvel's Karma.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 27, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Hmm, not really. I talked about successfully figuring out something that exists in the gameworld, but it's not about the puzzle-solving in itself, it's about whether I'm inhabiting _my character_ and figuring things out from their perspective using the information at hand, versus in some form playing both my character and the world around them, creating that world rather than exploring it.
> 
> The latter feels less authentic because it pulls the focus back from the perspective of the character I am playing - I'm telling their story more than experiencing it.
> 
> It's not that it's worse or anything - I've both played and run FitD games and had a great time doing so - but that sort of collaborative story-forging comes at the expense of actually experiencing that story purely from a character's perspective.




Ah ok.  Well, this thickens the plot further because this is yet another angle of conversation different from the prior two; _the cognitive state of the participant at the table._

Since you mentioned FitD, I'll just use that.

My position on the cognitive state of any given individual player in my Blades games is the following:

* Autobiographical (it varies person to person what qualifies for _habitation in this moment of play_)

* Drifting (no one stays in one particular cognitive state continuously)

* Often inhabiting two states simultaneously

* Take Responsibility is quite nuanced and only one of many Player Best Practices (meaning an impetus for "collaborative storytelling" isn't quite the cognitive state throughline that it might be in another game - like, say, "Fate"...this is definitely not a "writer's room" experience)

As GM?

* Navigating my decision-space and then inventorying the outputs of it feels like a Rorschach Test.  I'm an audience member not just to the play of the players, and the accreting fiction, but I'm also an audience member to myself in a way that resembles very little else in this world (there aren't many experiences where you're integrating several distinct axes and chunks of information within a structured and constrained environment and having to make extremely quick improvisational decisions).

* I don't feel like and I'm definitely not a collaborator.  Be a Fan of the PCs is not a collaborative state of being.  Its a particular brand of burden of responsibility that works in concert with other stuff to orient my decisions.  The biggest part of that is relentlessly putting on offer honest, thematic opposition and "playing my game pieces with integrity (which includes warranted aggression)."

* I feel like I'm inhabiting the haunted city and all of its constituent parts.  I'm representing them as best I can but I'm always in (lets call it) "attack mode."

* I'm constantly mentally interfacing with the myriad, layered rules (that goes back to "playing my game pieces with integrity").




So that is my autobiographical testimony about player and GM habitation.  Which is different than the lead posts' orientation toward content introduction/character/setting in a shared imagined space.  And is different still than my prior post's "the varying nature of Skilled Play priorities."


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Does this sort of demonstrate what @pemerton is getting at in terms of _creation of a working fiction via discovery of character/setting_ vs _intentional instantiation of it by way of observing and mapping pre-existing stuff (pastiche, tropes, preconception)?_



I'm not sure if this is addressed to me.

But I'll reiterate my response to @Dioltach: RPGing-as-puzzle-solving is looking at the activity through a completely different lens from the OP. Rather than _authenticity_, the most relevant quality I can think of is _ingenuity_. Or perhaps just _quickness - _like, some people can just intuit the plot of a thriller or a murder mystery from the first few minutes/pages, while others still need it to be explained to them even when they've imbibed the whole thing, had it all explained in-fiction, and the credits are rolling.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Look, I'm a GM, not a qualified group counselor.



Fair enough. What you think of as _counselling_, I think of as friendship, collaboration and genuine conversation.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. What you think of as _counselling_, I think of as friendship, collaboration and genuine conversation.




And the conditions for friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation resides in...game mechanics and principles?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> In the Traveller community, there's a dual consensus on when Old School ends: either at 1981 (introduction of HG) or 1984 (Atlas of the Imperium)...
> I can't think of any games from before 1981 with anything more metacurrency than HP, and those really don't get counted, since they're a mechanical representation of exhaustion, which culminates in a single telling blow. 1984, it's still rare - WFRP fate points come to mind, and FASERIP Marvel's Karma.



Hit points are thoroughly 'meta' though. All RPGs have these abstractions. Some of them kinda tell us something about the game world, others don't tell us much at all. old-school, as I think was meant in the comment I replied to, is referring to something similar to original Gygaxian 'skilled play' D&D. You can play that in a style that is very first person, as basically character and player knowledge can be deemed indistinguishable, for example. Likewise player and character thought process, etc. It has not aged well mainly for reasons we need not rehash in this thread, but it CAN technically work in a pretty 'close to the rubber' sort of way where the player is very closely identified with the character. The main problem is it tends to break down or get boring at a certain point (since you are basically playing yourself).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> And the conditions for friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation resides in...game mechanics and principles?



No. RPGing is not the only way to engage in conversation. But some RPGing takes the form of genuine conversation, and some doesn't. To state the more obvious contrasts, a script of a conversation is not a conversation; an interviewer working from prepared questions is not engaged in conversation; putting together a bike we bought at the local department store isn't a conversation, although we might converse while doing it.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. RPGing is not the only way to engage in conversation. But some RPGing takes the form of genuine conversation, and some doesn't. To state the more obvious contrasts, a script of a conversation is not a conversation; an interviewer working from prepared questions is not engaged in conversation; putting together a bike we bought at the local department store isn't a conversation, although we might converse while doing it.




What if you chat with your friends about the best way to assemble a pool of six-sided dice?  Is that a genuine conversation?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2022)

billd91 said:


> That's a *consequential* choice, but not necessarily a *meaningful* one. The way I understand the use of meaningful here is the person making the choice knows, at least in general, what they are choosing between - fortune or tragedy. Absent that knowledge, the choice made at that time has no real meaning - though it may have eventual consequences. Basically, if you have to use hindsight to determine if the choice was meaningful or not, it wasn't really meaningful.



To me the two bolded words are synonymous here, in that IMO a choice without consequences cannot be meaningful.  That the consequences (or lack thereof) might not become apparent until later doesn't change this.

Some in this thread seem to want to synonymize *meaningful* with *informed*, which is a different thing entirely.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. RPGing is not the only way to engage in conversation. But some RPGing takes the form of genuine conversation, and some doesn't. To state the more obvious contrasts, a script of a conversation is not a conversation; *an interviewer working from prepared questions is not engaged in conversation;* putting together a bike we bought at the local department store isn't a conversation, although we might converse while doing it.



If one takes 'conversation' to mean two (or more) way communication between two (or more) people, then the interviewer is very much engaged in coversation.  She might not be inventing the words she says, but she is the one saying them in order to glean responses from the interviewee.

Same goes for the script of a conversation - it becomes a conversation once two (or more) people say the words to each other as the script intends.  Whether said scripted conversation has either meaning or relevance to its participants, however, is another question entirely.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean, sure. If we are to assume that the OP was not inventing new pejorative jargon, and was not using the jargon that people already used ("meaningful choice"), but was instead _borrowing jargon that is occasionally used in UK eduation papers ... _maybe? Color me unconvinced.
> 
> The whole point of jargon (technical language) is that it allows people to be _precise with the use of fewer words. _This is the exact opposite; it is obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation.
> 
> _Good times!_



While I feel the wording choices are unfortunate, I don't think it is right to cast it as jargon. The third bullet in the definition of "authentic" that Google returns with is

(in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.
And we do commonly speak of a person as being "authentic" in that sense. @pemerton explained they meant


> "_Authenticity_: the property of being authentic. _Authentic_: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self."




The vital and interesting question then seems to be contained in your comment that


> Of course, the educational use of "authentic choice" which requires, inter alia, an authentic self making an autonomous conscious choice is ... not really a focus of _roleplaying_, which acts at a certain remove from that. So ...



If we can take "genuine choice" to be necessarily an "autonomous conscious choice" and therefore one that could foreseeably benefit from mechanics around player agency (player ability to narrate what follows) then we can reasonably ask - can it be "a focus of roleplaying" - and therefore challenge the assumption that RPG is an activity which always "acts at a certain remove".

To be authentic to ourselves - responsible, emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive - we would presumably need to express ourselves via autonomous conscious choices, that are not overridden as they are implied to be in some traditions of RPG. In this thread some have noted that our form of "let's pretend" can even lead to preferring the inauthentic to ourselves in order to be authentic to our character (and I would add, authentic to our world). Is that our dichotomy?

Can game rules serve such ends? What do they look like when they do? What is it about other rules that may get in the way? The OP doesn't make the case in full (doesn't show the putative implication to be necessitated.)

@Manbearcat BitD is setting-prescriptive and that's really kind of the point, but that has little to do with what @pemerton is saying because IMO it is less about finding ourselves in distinct settings that emphasise certain themes, and more about how we play in those settings and address ourselves to those themes, according to the game's rules... and let's not forget principles.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What if you chat with your friends about the best way to assemble a pool of six-sided dice?  Is that a genuine conversation?



Maybe. But if it wouldn't be radically different if it was about dice or a bike, then the RPGing seems secondary.

I can chat to my friends in the course of (collectively) solving a crossword, or playing Forbidden Island. I don't think that makes crossword puzzles, or playing cooperative boardgames, activities that might manifest authenticity in the way that RPGing can and sometimes does.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Maybe. But if it wouldn't be radically different if it was about dice or a bike, then the RPGing seems secondary.
> 
> I can chat to my friends in the course of (collectively) solving a crossword, or playing Forbidden Island. I don't think that makes crossword puzzles, or playing cooperative boardgames, activities that might manifest authenticity in the way that RPGing can and sometimes does.



I feel like your thesis might be getting at a special mode of authenticity. Consider "Adderson brings tremendous personal authenticity to everything they do." I think I don't want to say "Except when solving a crossword with a friend or playing Forbidden Island."

I think you may be identifying special opportunities for authenticity. One can reflect in that respect on Nordic Larp.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 28, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> If one takes 'conversation' to mean two (or more) way communication between two (or more) people, then the interviewer is very much engaged in coversation.  She might not be inventing the words she says, but she is the one saying them in order to glean responses from the interviewee.
> 
> Same goes for the script of a conversation - it becomes a conversation once two (or more) people say the words to each other as the script intends.  Whether said scripted conversation has either meaning or relevance to its participants, however, is another question entirely.



I feel like almost any situation gives us opportunity to be authentic - including interviewing and traditional RPG. What I might think about are the differences between kinds of opportunity.

I find a thesis that - to be authentic to ourselves (responsible, emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive) we need to be able to express ourselves via autonomous conscious choices - plausible. And I find a thesis that - some lusory arrangements can be predicted to offer more or special scope to explore and challenge how we construct ourselves - equally so.

It's a shame that using words like "authentic" and "genuine" cloud the picture with a sense of casting shade on other modes of RPG, which are then presumably inauthentic and disingenous. To resolve that, I would differentiate between normal modes of authenticity, and special modes afforded by play. Thus mooting (and yet to be concretely argued) that the latter can be designed for (and is designed for, more for some modes of RPG over others.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 28, 2022)

clearstream said:


> *It's a shame that using words like "authentic" and "genuine" cloud the picture* with a sense of casting shade on other modes of RPG, which are then presumably inauthentic and disingenous. To resolve that, I would differentiate between normal modes of authenticity, and special modes afforded by play. Thus mooting (and yet to be concretely argued) that the latter can be designed for (and is designed for, more for some modes of RPG over others.)




In response to your earlier reply to me, I am going to bold this.

A shame? This isn't a bug of this post, this is a feature. 

As I wrote some time ago in a thread specifically about this topic-



> Jargon (or any kind of specialized language... you can put in Thieves' Cant if you want) is both helpful and unhelpful. If you think of any specialized field- medicine, law, banking, computer science, and so on, it will have jargon. Jargon can serve a very useful purpose- it can allow people with a shared interest in something technical or specialized to describe something quickly without having to use regular language each time and "re-invent" the wheel. At its best, jargon is a linguistic shortcut used by people with a shared interest.
> 
> Of course, there are other instances of jargon as well, outside of technical fields. Think about almost any area- when there is a shared group, there is often a shared vocabulary. This gets down to the smallest groups- I am sure that all of us have friend groups, and in those groups we have verbal shortcuts from shared events or people we have known! If everyone remembers that terrible night in Toledo, then it would be normal for someone in the group to say, "We don't want another Toledo" and for everyone to nod in agreement. (I am sure that someone is getting ready to start typing, Shakra, when the walls fell.)
> 
> ...




Now, look what we have here. The thesis of the OP  (such as it is ... I mean, from what little I have seen, I don't see a thesis) is the following:

For me, what those RPGs {the RPGs that the OP enjoys discussing, such as PbtA, FitD, etc.}- with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - *is *_*authenticity*_. That players and GMs make *genuine choices*, in play, that *say something* - *individually* *and*, if it's working properly, *together*.

*The flipside of this *{all other RPGs, such as the ones many people enjoy playing} is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) *is to squelch authenticity*. The parameters of play have already been set.

(My emphasis added).


So, what is really the grand thesis? Once we remove the loaded language, the grand thesis is this-

The RPGs that I like allow players and GMs to say "something," individually and together. What is this something? Well, the OP calls it a "genuine choice." The RPGs I don't like don't allow players and GMs to say something, either individually or together. Because they don't allow "genuine choice." What is this "genuine choice?" As later alluded to, it's ... _truth._ And _geunine conversation_.

Cool, right? I mean, if the OP was American, I'd expect the thesis to say, "My RPGs are authentic, which allows for truth, justice, the American Way, apple pie, and kittens. Other RPGs, of course, don't allow for that."

Now I appreciate that those who want to dive down into some esoteric idea of what the OP might mean or salvage the thesis are looking for educational papers in the UK and/or the definition of authenticity in _existentialist philosophy _in order to salvage some non-pejorative meaning out of all of this. Which ... I mean, wow? Like the most common and accepted meaning of authetic is "of undisputed origin, genuine," or "done in the traditional or original way."

So to reiterate- not only is a term being highjacked in a way that is non-intuitive to both support a thesis (when other terms that are intuitive would suffice), and not only is that term being grossly misused as it _necessarily is pejorative to other playing styles_, but the term in its most natural meaning that everyone would understand it would use it to refer to "traditional or original ways" of playing. 

...but I wouldn't troll people by using the accepted definition of authentic to refer to games, and using inauthentic to refer to other games.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 28, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Some in this thread seem to want to synonymize *meaningful* with *informed*, which is a different thing entirely.



Informed is a prerequisite for meaningful. 
It is not a prerequisite for consequential.
Consequential is a prerequisite for meaningful as well.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I think you may be identifying special opportunities for authenticity. One can reflect in that respect on Nordic Larp.



Yes to both points, though I'm far, far from any sort of expert on Nordic LARP.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 28, 2022)

Generally I would frankly prefer if people would just say "your preferred way of playing games sucks," instead of trying to wrap the sentiment in a verbose cloak of pseudo-intellectuality. At least the former more readily comes across as just a personal opinion, while the latter tries to present the judgement as some sort of an objective analysis.

Sorry for being blunt, but it's not like this is the first time this has happened, and I'm a tad tired of it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

clearstream said:


> While I feel the wording choices are unfortunate, I don't think it is right to cast it as jargon. The third bullet in the definition of "authentic" that Google returns with is
> 
> (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.
> And we do commonly speak of a person as being "authentic" in that sense. @pemerton explained they meant




I think I take a couple of issues with the OP, if I understand the OP's argument (which admittedly I may not). The first is it kind of creates a false dichotomy between games that are non-GM driven* as non-railroads and all other games being railroads. There is a big difference between a traditional* game that is on a set of tracks the players can't escape from and traditional game where there is a vague outline of a track but the players can go in any direction they want if they choose, versus a game where there is no track and the GM uses restraint in order to maximize a sense of fairness. So I think there is a bit of a false division here 

On authenticity I think it is a very loaded word, but taking it in the existential sense and in the sense of being true to yourself, the argument of the premise could also be used to make the case that the most authentic people are those who have the most power and money (which I find deeply unsatisfying). I realize Pemerton didn't make this argument in particular, but by equating the amount of power players have in the game*** itself with their ability to be their authentic selves, I think that misses the fact that authenticity can very much exist within constraints (i.e. the GM being able to fiat an Owl Bear encounter doesn't nullify my authenticity, my authenticity is in my reaction to that owl bear encounter). 

I may be missing something here or projecting assumptions about systems so perhaps I am wrong. 

*Unless by GM driven he just means railroads but I got the sense he was talking about games that empower players mechanically 
**Not hung up on this word, just trying to make the point 
***Again if I am correctly following his argument which I might not be


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> the GM being able to fiat an Owl Bear encounter



I don't even know what this means.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't even know what this means.




The GM being able to decide by fiat that an owl bear encounter takes place


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> To me the two bolded words are synonymous here, in that IMO a choice without consequences cannot be meaningful.  That the consequences (or lack thereof) might not become apparent until later doesn't change this.
> 
> Some in this thread seem to want to synonymize *meaningful* with *informed*, which is a different thing entirely.



Well, I wouldn't argue that meaningful and informed are synonymous, but I would argue that an uninformed choice is meaningless in the sense that we are discussing here. If you come to the proverbial T in the corridor and NOTHING is known about either branch, nor can be inferred, etc. then no meaningful choice of direction to take can exist, the whole exercise is pointless. The most you can salvage out of it is some sort of statement about the utter helplessness of people and the ultimate futility of free will or some such. I guess that's a legit thing to do in an RPG, but there's little to say about it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The GM being able to decide by fiat that an owl bear encounter takes place



I would note that there are relatively few RPGs where this is not the case, and that RPGs @pemerton normally mentions as being amenable to the sort of experience of play he is presumably talking about here (if I may so presume) are ones in which a GM saying "As you walk through the woods you hear a strange hooting sound!" would generally be quite appropriate, though perhaps the GM will ask a different set of questions in order to decide the appropriateness of such in, say Burning Wheel, as opposed to Moldvay Basic D&D. 

For example, such a move in Dungeon World would simply be a 'Soft Move' on the part of the GM. You are now framed into a scene containing a dangerous fantastical magical beast. How will you react? Play to find out! Now, this scene might not be the most appropriate if the PCs were coming out of the local dive bar on a mission to find the halfling's sister, although even here we'd have to know more context to say exactly why the GM brought in this element, etc.


----------



## kenada (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think I take a couple of issues with the OP, if I understand the OP's argument (which admittedly I may not). The first is it kind of creates a false dichotomy between games that are non-GM driven* as non-railroads and all other games being railroads. There is a big difference between a traditional* game that is on a set of tracks the players can't escape from and traditional game where there is a vague outline of a track but the players can go in any direction they want if they choose, versus a game where there is no track and the GM uses restraint in order to maximize a sense of fairness. So I think there is a bit of a false division here
> 
> On authenticity I think it is a very loaded word, but taking it in the existential sense and in the sense of being true to yourself, the argument of the premise could also be used to make the case that the most authentic people are those who have the most power and money (which I find deeply unsatisfying). I realize Pemerton didn't make this argument in particular, but by equating the amount of power players have in the game*** itself with their ability to be their authentic selves, I think that misses the fact that authenticity can very much exist within constraints (i.e. the GM being able to fiat an Owl Bear encounter doesn't nullify my authenticity, my authenticity is in my reaction to that owl bear encounter).
> 
> ...



The way I understood it is that a distinction is being made between play where the group decides in the moment versus deciding ahead of time (“railroading”). I would expect a traditional game could thus be “authentic” if the group were committed to deciding in the moment.

The question I would ask is if this is all-or-nothing, or can it be a toggle? If I see a “railroad” and derail the train, has play become more “authentic” if we decide to see where that goes? Or if everyone agrees to a constraint (e.g., playing in a particular sandbox), can play still be “authentic” within those constraints?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

kenada said:


> The way I understood it is that a distinction is being made between play where the group decides in the moment versus deciding ahead of time (“railroading”). I would expect a traditional game could thus be “authentic” if the group were committed to deciding in the moment.
> 
> The question I would ask is if this is all-or-nothing, or can it be a toggle? If I see a “railroad” and derail the train, has play become more “authentic” if we decide to see where that goes? Or if everyone agrees to a constraint (e.g., playing in a particular sandbox), can play still be “authentic” within those constraints?



I, personally, would think that authentic play in the sense discussed here revolves around exploring characterization and character experience as opposed to an exploration of, say setting and backstory. Not that any game is likely purely one or the other, but there is primary focus in one area or another.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. RPGing is not the only way to engage in conversation. But some RPGing takes the form of genuine conversation, and some doesn't. To state the more obvious contrasts, a script of a conversation is not a conversation; an interviewer working from prepared questions is not engaged in conversation; putting together a bike we bought at the local department store isn't a conversation, although we might converse while doing it.




I don't feel that this illuminates a central point very well, specifically because those examples are such extreme cases of activities-that-only-emulate-the-thing-they-resemble. Scripts of a conversation or reading prepared questions are straightforwardly not a conversation. You don't mistake one for the other in the same way you don't (if working in good faith) mistake Ralph Fiennes' lines while portraying a Nazi in _Shindler's List_ as his own opinions, or the like. This doesn't really tell me what you think are genuine conversation in RPG gaming, and what aren't. Are the genuine conversations those done in character (with our without accents and special voices)? Are they ones that are about weighty subjects? This is the same problem I have when a critic reviewing a movie says something like, "______ brings real authenticity to the role of _____" -- it seems to be trying to say something, but I'm not sure what.

Honestly, I think the interests of moving us all to discussing what you had intended this conversation to be would best be served by you starting over and re-stating a premise (feeling free to find alternate terms if they better apply) and us all starting from there. There's already a huge amount of thread baggage around the original post.


----------



## kenada (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I, personally, would think that authentic play in the sense discussed here revolves around exploring characterization and character experience as opposed to an exploration of, say setting and backstory. Not that any game is likely purely one or the other, but there is primary focus in one area or another.



I’m inclined to agree, but consider the following example.

Suppose we sit down to play Moldvay Basic. The DM puts a hex map of Mystara on the table, telling us that this is where the game take place, but they commit to using nothing but the game’s procedures and tables to determine what is there and what happens. They also commit to the principles of being a neutral referee, so they can’t put their thumb on the scale surreptitiously. Does the resulting play have authenticity?

If the answer is “no” or even just “not necessarily”, then there is an issue. “Railroad” was presented as the flipside of “authentic”, but I don’t think one could reasonably construe the above play as form of railroad.

I don’t actually know what the answer should be. Intuitively, such a sandbox approach suggests an orientation of play towards basking in the setting. However, since the setting is unknown until it is revealed, it seems like how the characters react should say something about them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

Campbell said:


> From my perspective there's a certain raw emotion to less curated creative material. Jam bands, garage rock, small independent movies. That raw visceral emotion is what I tend to think of when I think of more authentic creative experiences.




I love improvisational music, there is a tremendous release in improv. But is it more authentic? Sometimes being authentic musically means sitting and introspecting about what you are trying to say. I don't think that kind of labor and thought makes the final result less authentic. Some of the most raw and visceral emotion I've been able to express musically came when I stopped letting my fingers do the thinking and really contemplated the music (in one instance I recall spending a full day thinking about one line of melody for example). Not attacking more improvisational music at all. I think both are potentially just as authentic though. To me, inauthentic music would be when that emotion you are expressing isn't real, or if the musical ideas you express don't genuinely excite you (for example playing to an audience but without any heart).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

Campbell said:


> From my perspective games like Blades in the Dark or Sorcerer tend to encourage that sort of creative experience at the table because they incentivize taking creative risks at the table. It's less polished, but kind of more raw/visceral because no one knows where things are going to lead and the game's encourage us to not steer them.




And I think that is a much more clear expression of a case for these games than equating them with authenticity. If the priority is creative self expression, which is what it sounds like you are saying, then what is authentic to that is going to be different from a game where the priority is something like exploring a world or going on exciting adventures


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Informed is a prerequisite for meaningful.
> It is not a prerequisite for consequential.
> Consequential is a prerequisite for meaningful as well.



Disagree.

Informed is a prerequisite for informed.
Informed might give better advice as to the scope and degree of consequences, thus also informing as to _potential_ meaningfulness.
Consequential is a post-requisite for meaningful, to the point where they are synonymous.
Presence and-or degree of meaningfulness cannot be determined until after the consequences - if any - have arisen.  This last is and remains true even if the decider is somehow unaware of those consequences.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I wouldn't argue that meaningful and informed are synonymous, but I would argue that an uninformed choice is meaningless in the sense that we are discussing here. If you come to the proverbial T in the corridor and NOTHING is known about either branch, nor can be inferred, etc. then no meaningful choice of direction to take can exist, the whole exercise is pointless.



Not at all.  In the moment there's nothing informing the choice, sure, but that has nothing to do with the choice's meaningfulness.  Why's that?  Because you can't know the meaningfulness of a choice until after - and sometimes a very long time after - it has been made and acted on.

If both branches of the T lead to empty dead ends then it soon becomes apparent after a bit of exploration that the choice was in fact meaningless.  But if one branch leads to disaster and the other to reward the choice in hindsight becomes perhaps-hugely meaningful.

Another example: a character finds a lever in a wall.  Choice is whether or not to pull it.  No other information available.  Consequence, unknown to the chooser, is that pulling the lever frees a prisoner elsewhere while not pulling it leaves said prisoner to starve.  The chooser does not and cannot know the meaningfulness of the choice until-unless becoming aware of the existence of the prisoner and-or the connection with that prisoner's fate and the lever; yet the choice is still meaningful due to the simple fact it has consequences.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Informed is a prerequisite for informed.
> Informed might give better advice as to the scope and degree of consequences, thus also informing as to _potential_ meaningfulness.
> ...




I tend to agree with this. I think the big problem with uninformed choice in an RPG is sometimes it may be meaningless if the GM is not presenting a real choice (for example if you have a fork in a road and no matter which direction you go, there is a dire elephant). For me the key here is the GM pinning down the moment a fork because present, what the consequences of different choices will be (and the fork is just an example it could be just as easily a social situation). A good campaign will have a mixture of different kinds of choices (some will be informed, some won't but they should all be meaningful). I think it is actually an important GM trait to became very conscious when choice is arising in the game (for me I usually immediately write things down the moment choice is in play so I am locked in to whatever outcome once the players make their decision). In life you don't always make informed choices. Sometimes the decision to take the bus rather than drive results in you getting in a car accident or not getting in a car accident. The choice was a meaningful one, in that it was very important, even if there was no way for you to decipher in advance that someone would run a light at Wyoma Square and T bone Bus 426.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

kenada said:


> I’m inclined to agree, but consider the following example.
> 
> Suppose we sit down to play Moldvay Basic. The DM puts a hex map of Mystara on the table, telling us that this is where the game take place, but they commit to using nothing but the game’s procedures and tables to determine what is there and what happens. They also commit to the principles of being a neutral referee, so they can’t put their thumb on the scale surreptitiously. Does the resulting play have authenticity?
> 
> ...



I don't know, maybe @pemerton can say something about that. I think you cannot really judge by simply naming a system and positing some fairly broad style of play within it? This is all not a system-dependent thing, not exactly. I do still think that character exploration and engaging with the character-as-played, and allowing for genuine development of such in a way that feeds back into play is pretty much key. Its not going to be clear cut in all cases, by any means, IMHO. 

Going back and rereading the OP (this is something people should do more, IMHO) I see that there is a contrast drawn specifically between what I would generally consider primarily narrativist play and railroady "GM is presenting a story" kind of play. Again, there's not some perfectly clear demarcation there. As for "what is a sandbox?" I think its still not going to be a clean 'this' or 'that'. Obviously in your scenario above the characters can explore Mystara. That could be their major activity. What are the players doing though? Are they making choices that are significant to the characters? Or maybe more interesting, do they have choices that represent different possible paths of character development, and genuinely different outcomes in terms of who the PCs are and what becomes of them?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Not at all.  In the moment there's nothing informing the choice, sure, but that has nothing to do with the choice's meaningfulness.  Why's that?  Because you can't know the meaningfulness of a choice until after - and sometimes a very long time after - it has been made and acted on.
> 
> If both branches of the T lead to empty dead ends then it soon becomes apparent after a bit of exploration that the choice was in fact meaningless.  But if one branch leads to disaster and the other to reward the choice in hindsight becomes perhaps-hugely meaningful.
> 
> Another example: a character finds a lever in a wall.  Choice is whether or not to pull it.  No other information available.  Consequence, unknown to the chooser, is that pulling the lever frees a prisoner elsewhere while not pulling it leaves said prisoner to starve.  The chooser does not and cannot know the meaningfulness of the choice until-unless becoming aware of the existence of the prisoner and-or the connection with that prisoner's fate and the lever; yet the choice is still meaningful due to the simple fact it has consequences.



We'll just have to hard disagree. See, I cannot imagine how one would call a choice 'meaningful' when we can go back and say "well, at the time you made this choice, if the two branches had been swapped, there's no reason you would have made the opposite choice." Its just a meaningless roll of some dice. If my choices are no better than that, no more informed than that, then you've reduced my entire experience to nothing but random chance. Nothing is more meaningless than just rolling some dice and getting told what happens next.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I tend to agree with this. I think the big problem with uninformed choice in an RPG is sometimes it may be meaningless if the GM is not presenting a real choice (for example if you have a fork in a road and no matter which direction you go, there is a dire elephant). For me the key here is the GM pinning down the moment a fork because present, what the consequences of different choices will be (and the fork is just an example it could be just as easily a social situation). A good campaign will have a mixture of different kinds of choices (some will be informed, some won't but they should all be meaningful). I think it is actually an important GM trait to became very conscious when choice is arising in the game (for me I usually immediately write things down the moment choice is in play so I am locked in to whatever outcome once the players make their decision). In life you don't always make informed choices. Sometimes the decision to take the bus rather than drive results in you getting in a car accident or not getting in a car accident. The choice was a meaningful one, in that it was very important, even if there was no way for you to decipher in advance that someone would run a light at Wyoma Square and T bone Bus 426.



Again, I hard disagree. There's no point to an experience where you simply make arbitrary choices, they aren't choices at all! I might as well not even be there, I, as a player had no part in this at all, anyone or a d6 could have done the same thing and it would have made no difference! It can mean nothing to me.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> We'll just have to hard disagree. See, I cannot imagine how one would call a choice 'meaningful' when we can go back and say "well, at the time you made this choice, if the two branches had been swapped, there's no reason you would have made the opposite choice." Its just a meaningless roll of some dice. If my choices are no better than that, no more informed than that, then you've reduced my entire experience to nothing but random chance. Nothing is more meaningless than just rolling some dice and getting told what happens next.



I agree with you, but this is at least partly a semantic disagreement. It think "informed choice" is better term than "meaningful choice" if that's what one means, as it is less ambiguous.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I agree with you, but this is at least partly a semantic disagreement. It think "informed choice" is better term than "meaningful choice" if that's what one means, as it is less ambiguous.



Yeah, I am definitely not trying to die on any semantic hills myself  Honestly, there's no reason to outlaw T intersections in dungeons either just because we sort of randomly pick a direction. It is not something that's going to rise to a level of significance in the scheme of play where I would think of it as problematic. As @Lanefan says, we make random 'choices' every day. I just don't think they really count for anything in the scheme of things. Sure, IRL you might say "gosh I wish I'd caught the next bus." You don't berate yourself for that kind of thing though, because we know it just has no component of 'free will' in it that is significant.


----------



## kenada (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't know, maybe @pemerton can say something about that. I think you cannot really judge by simply naming a system and positing some fairly broad style of play within it? This is all not a system-dependent thing, not exactly. I do still think that character exploration and engaging with the character-as-played, and allowing for genuine development of such in a way that feeds back into play is pretty much key. Its not going to be clear cut in all cases, by any means, IMHO.



Like I said, I’m inclined to agree with you, but I see a gap between the two things being contrasted. Is the OP only contrasting these two things (out of many), or are they it? That’s why I chose the example I did. Moldvay Basic was particularly convenient because it does have tables and procedures that can be used to discover as you play, but it’s not a game one’d expect to be put in the same bucket as PbtA or FitD games.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Going back and rereading the OP (this is something people should do more, IMHO) I see that there is a contrast drawn specifically between what I would generally consider primarily narrativist play and railroady "GM is presenting a story" kind of play. Again, there's not some perfectly clear demarcation there. As for "what is a sandbox?" I think its still not going to be a clean 'this' or 'that'. Obviously in your scenario above the characters can explore Mystara. That could be their major activity. What are the players doing though? Are they making choices that are significant to the characters? Or maybe more interesting, do they have choices that represent different possible paths of character development, and genuinely different outcomes in terms of who the PCs are and what becomes of them?



I think there’s something more fundamental happening in the OP rather than “authentic” being just a euphemism for “narrativist”. If the characters set out to discover what’s out there, then they can’t also help but discover something about themselves as they face adversity. That seems to be exactly what @pemerton is saying in his second post explaining his use of _authenticity_.

_Authenticity_: the property of being authentic. _Authentic_: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self.​


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2022)

My take on this comes from something that Johnny Carson told Jay Leno about having a successful comedy sketch: *you buy the premise, you buy the bit*.

This is such an important part of gaming when you're running something like an adventure path: you have to get the players to buy into the game's premise or you will never have any fun. Once you do that, you can give them a ton of agency (that's the term I would use rather than authenticity) but still use an adventure.

For my example: I ran Curse of Strahd recently and the players had to buy into the premise of adventure in Barovia, which is a locked-down environment where you can't just pick up and leave. Further, the group ran into Strahd who invited them to dinner in a week. That meant that the group had a time limit on the things they were going to be able to do before going up to Castle Ravenloft. If they weren't okay with that, they would not have had a good time in the game *at all*.

Once I established those groundrules, I just let them go and explore. They encountered the different villages and decided to figure out what was really going on. They could go anywhere and do anything (which includes some level inappropriate areas) within those limits. It worked exceptionally well.

One of my players it turned out really doesn't like horror games. After a few sessions, it became obvious that this wasn't the campaign for them, and we agreed to play in the next one together. That's the key: I got everyone to buy into the game and then they just rolled with it. The one player who just didn't like where the game was going was just not a good fit for the game.

So I see that as agency, but it's a very different sort of thing than, say, a PbtA game where I wouldn't have had something like the adventure to work with.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

kenada said:


> Like I said, I’m inclined to agree with you, but I see a gap between the two things being contrasted. Is the OP only contrasting these two things (out of many), or are they it? That’s why I chose the example I did. Moldvay Basic was particularly convenient because it does have tables and procedures that can be used to discover as you play, but it’s not a game one’d expect to be put in the same bucket as PbtA or FitD games.
> 
> 
> I think there’s something more fundamental happening in the OP rather than “authentic” being just a euphemism for “narrativist”. If the characters set out to discover what’s out there, then they can’t also help but discover something about themselves as they face adversity. That seems to be exactly what @pemerton is saying in his second post explaining his use of _authenticity_.
> ...



Yeah, I'm not saying that I think (and I have no position on what @pemerton thinks) about Moldvay Basic or general sandbox play in terms of where it falls in his analysis. I think its just hard to say based only on "I'm running a sandbox" how that call would be made. 

Lets think about, say, Dungeon World, in terms of being a game that is presumably intended to 'likely produce' the sort of play @pemerton is talking about. You could certainly set a DW game in Mystara. Although there is, at a larger scale, a pretty complete map, it still has a lot of blank spaces in it. In DW Mystara you'd notably create FRONTS and their associated THREATS and whatnot. These are dynamic constructs that evolve independent of the PCs. I could imagine a pretty sandboxy Basic game with similar elements. However the details are probably nailed down more in Basic in terms of each environment (dungeon, whatever). Usually, IME, with DW these things are fairly loosely described, or even generated more-or-less on the fly as things come up. I think the main difference is that DW pretty heavily specifies the sort of player/character facing play that it intends, whereas Basic discusses things more in terms of procedures and logistics and such. So, a DW game is a bit more likely to focus on the interplay between the Fighter and the Thief, where the Basic game is likely to focus a bit more on how many torches and rations they have left.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, I hard disagree. There's no point to an experience where you simply make arbitrary choices, they aren't choices at all! I might as well not even be there, I, as a player had no part in this at all, anyone or a d6 could have done the same thing and it would have made no difference! It can mean nothing to me.




Again, I think even if just comes down to you making a 50/50 call, the choice is meaningful because the consequences were death. I agree it isn't an informed choice. But it is a very real choice and it wasn't a meaningless choice in way it would have been had, were this an RPG, the GM simply said 1 in 2 chance, which ever direction you choose a car T bones you, because in that instance which direction you choose doesn't matter at all, in the former instance which direction you choose very much mattered (it wasn't a puzzle to crack, your choice may come down to a whim on your part, but it mattered). And that is a very far end of the extreme of the choice not being informed. Most choices will fall on a spectrum (another example you may have some indication things are a miss: i.e. you hear on the radio a bank got robbed three blocks from Wyoma Square to something even more informed like you see series of bad omens the closer you get to the bus). But I think even when the choice is essentially made in a vacuum there is a large difference between one where your choice is going to result in disaster or a normal day; and one where your choice has no input into that. The former I would label a meaningful choice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> ...but I wouldn't troll people by using the accepted definition of authentic to refer to games, and using inauthentic to refer to other games.



*Mod Note:*

Everyone: in the interests of keeping conversations civil, how about NOT accusing people of trolling in thread?  If you think someone is trolling, report the posts you feel instead of adding fuel to the fire by making public accusations.


----------



## kenada (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I'm not saying that I think (and I have no position on what @pemerton thinks) about Moldvay Basic or general sandbox play in terms of where it falls in his analysis. I think its just hard to say based only on "I'm running a sandbox" how that call would be made.
> 
> Lets think about, say, Dungeon World, in terms of being a game that is presumably intended to 'likely produce' the sort of play @pemerton is talking about. You could certainly set a DW game in Mystara. Although there is, at a larger scale, a pretty complete map, it still has a lot of blank spaces in it. In DW Mystara you'd notably create FRONTS and their associated THREATS and whatnot. These are dynamic constructs that evolve independent of the PCs. I could imagine a pretty sandboxy Basic game with similar elements. However the details are probably nailed down more in Basic in terms of each environment (dungeon, whatever). Usually, IME, with DW these things are fairly loosely described, or even generated more-or-less on the fly as things come up. I think the main difference is that DW pretty heavily specifies the sort of player/character facing play that it intends, whereas Basic discusses things more in terms of procedures and logistics and such. So, a DW game is a bit more likely to focus on the interplay between the Fighter and the Thief, where the Basic game is likely to focus a bit more on how many torches and rations they have left.



A point of clarification. The map in my example is a map of Mystara, but there is no key. It’s like the map of Duskvol in Blades in the Dark where it has some but is otherwise a blank slate. A hex might have e.g., a forest, but the only way to know what’s there is to go discover it.

I admit my example is somewhat contrived. I think you’re going to run into the limits of the procedures and tables in B/X pretty quickly. However, it’s meant to be a thought exercise. If we subject ourselves to these constraints, particularly that we avoid setting the parameters of play in advance, what kind of play results?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I think even if just comes down to you making a 50/50 call, the choice is meaningful because the consequences were death. I agree it isn't an informed choice. But it is a very real choice and it wasn't a meaningless choice in way it would have been had, were this an RPG, the GM simply said 1 in 2 chance, which ever direction you choose a car T bones you, because in that instance which direction you choose doesn't matter at all, in the former instance which direction you choose very much mattered (it wasn't a puzzle to crack, your choice may come down to a whim on your part, but it mattered).



But if it is a blind choice on a whim, it is effectively random. It is just that the method of randomisation is blindly picking a direction rather than a die roll. But it's the same thing really.



Bedrockgames said:


> And that is a very far end of the extreme of the choice not being informed. Most choices will fall on a spectrum (another example you may have some indication things are a miss: i.e. you hear on the radio a bank got robbed three blocks from Wyoma Square to something even more informed like you see series of bad omens the closer you get to the bus). But I think even when the choice is essentially made in a vacuum there is a large difference between one where your choice is going to result in disaster or a normal day; and one where your choice has no input into that. The former I would label a meaningful choice.



Yeah, it is true that in practice it is common that the choices are not completely uninformed, they might just be poorly informed.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 28, 2022)

I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.

There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.

There are methods that don’t promote that kind of authentic play. Railroading, the three clue rule, and the like. These lead to choices and actions that don’t have all that much impact on play.

I don’t really get who would disagree with this. I feel like disagreeing with it means that folks can share examples of railroading that somehow allows for the kind of authenticity that’s being talked about.

Can anyone provide such examples?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But if it is a blind choice on a whim, it is effectively random. It is just that the method of randomisation is blindly picking a direction rather than a die roll. But it's the same thing really.




I think it matters for how the game feels and it matters because you know when you make the choice it could be important. If the GM is just assigning a random die roll to determine what is beyond the door, my feeling as I make that choice is totally different, and my feeling of hindsight as another poster pointed to is also different. I get what you are saying, you can say "well its basically a coin flip" but the fact remains the outcomes are very different because you chose to go left, or you chose to go right (or chose to drive or chose to take the bus). It is certainly not an informed choice. I wouldn't argue against that. And a litany of uninformed but meaningful choices is probably not a good foundation for an adventure or an entire campaign. 




Crimson Longinus said:


> Yeah, it is true that in practice it is common that the choices are not completely uninformed, they're just poorly informed.



I think my ideal campaign is going to be a mix along that spectrum with a number of fairly informed choices. But I do like my occasional "T sections" too. They add different things to the game (uninformed choice add an excitement, a sense of tension and danger, and they lead to other important choices like how you approach the door, what protective precautions you take, etc). So even an uninformed choice can add to fun in that way (particularly through the excitement of the unknown and the tactical decisions it can lead to). But you wouldn't want every single decision in a game to be that. Once in a while, sure. Much of the time I would expect to be able to make more informed choices.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.




I think we can agree that there are methods that lead to more meaningful, more informed, and more whatever choices in play (but I think posters would also have a number of disagreements on what methods are best, what systems are best). If the OP just means approaches that lead to choices that matter; maybe say that? At least that is a better starting point for a discussions so we aren't talking circles around the word authentic (which I think does warrant a bit of the push back it has received here). Authentic doesn't really strike me as the best word choice (even outside this discussion I think the term 'authentic' gets way overused for things and it tends to cloud what is really being offered on the table). And I also think some of the lack of clarity is around what the OP means by GM driven adventures and what a broad canopy that is (most I am sure would agree a railroad limits choice and leads to less meaningful choice, I think fewer would agree that the three clue rule leads to less meaningful choice for instance).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.




When you frame approach X as encouraging authenticity (a clear good) and other approaches as squelching it, it will lead to contention. I don't think there is much mystery here


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> When you frame approach X as encouraging authenticity (a clear good) and other approaches as squelching it, it will lead to contention. I don't think there is much mystery here




Why? Is there someone who would be offended at the idea that a railroad eliminates authentic choice? 

Most folks seem to look at railroading as something to be avoided. Those that are for it don’t seem to care about player choice. 

When we start to move away from as severe an example as railroading and toward things like the three clue rule, then I can see things are less black and white. But again, I haven’t seen anyone cite the three clue rule as a means of promoting authentic choice.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Why? Is there someone who would be offended at the idea that a railroad eliminates authentic choice?




Two issues I think, it wasn't just framed as authentic choice, it was framed as authenticity, as people being true to who they are as people (the use of the word authentic, at least as I read it in the OP) went beyond something like 'meaningful choice' and into deeper territory, which is why I think people initially took issue: it isn't a matter of taking offense, it just feels like the wrong term for a play style

That said, if what was meant was meaningful choice. No I am not offended. But I do understand the push back because he wasn't just attacking railroads. The language was



> The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) is to squelch authenticity. The parameters of play have already been set.




The three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out are being described as variations of railroading (presumably a number of other things also fall under that categorization).

So I think it is entirely reasonable when someone invokes play A as authentic, and play B as inauthentic (and not just inauthentic but also a railroad) that you get a reaction


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Most folks seem to look at railroading as something to be avoided. Those that are for it don’t seem to care about player choice.




If the thread had been "I think railroading leads to a lack of meaningful choice, and these games in particular are good at evading railroads" no one would have batted an eye


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> . But again, I haven’t seen anyone cite the three clue rule as a means of promoting authentic choice.



The issue is, I think, very few people would agree with the OP's assertion that it squelches it


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I think even if just comes down to you making a 50/50 call, the choice is meaningful because the consequences were death. I agree it isn't an informed choice. But it is a very real choice and it wasn't a meaningless choice in way it would have been had, were this an RPG, the GM simply said 1 in 2 chance, which ever direction you choose a car T bones you, because in that instance which direction you choose doesn't matter at all, in the former instance which direction you choose very much mattered (it wasn't a puzzle to crack, your choice may come down to a whim on your part, but it mattered). And that is a very far end of the extreme of the choice not being informed.



I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.


Bedrockgames said:


> Most choices will fall on a spectrum (another example you may have some indication things are a miss: i.e. you hear on the radio a bank got robbed three blocks from Wyoma Square to something even more informed like you see series of bad omens the closer you get to the bus). But I think even when the choice is essentially made in a vacuum there is a large difference between one where your choice is going to result in disaster or a normal day; and one where your choice has no input into that. The former I would label a meaningful choice.



I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.

Now, I agree, there's a whole range of how informed someone is. A rumor, a faint bad smell, a map that says "do not go this way!" (but may be a trick), and so on and so forth. Nor would I expect choices to generally be perfectly transparent either, certainly they never are in the real world. However, if we have this no-information situation certainly the 'choice' cannot do any work in terms of informing the quality of our role play, right? I mean, I am not learning anything meaningful about my character, or establishing anything meaningful about her, if I simply say "meh, I always go left..." Sure, its a fact, but we can't conclude anything much from it. 

The point, ultimately, being we need some sort of informed decision making. I think, personally, informed agenda setting is even better. You can get a version of that in, say, a sandbox, we go to the castle or the temple, and we have reasons for choosing one or the other. The most powerful version, in a character development sense, would be "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" That can be a fun way to pull in what the players are looking to do, and is part of what I think something like Dungeon World is about.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.




We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this as I think we've both made the strongest cases for why we feel this way and still don't see eye to eye. Again I would point to how I feel in the moment of making the choice: knowing there is meaning in it, it can be an important and consequential decision, even if I can't decipher anything beyond having a choice between A and B. Whereas I know the GM is just flipping a coin no matter what door I pick, then suddenly my decision feels quite different (certainly a lot of the tension evaporates for me). And it leads to hindsight like "Had I picked door A all those years ago, I might be a very different man today". Again, I agree it is not an informed choice. I would just agree with the distinction made between meaningful and informed choices.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.



To go left or right is still a choice though. And that choice can be very significant. It might not reflect your intellectual ability to make good choices. It might not be the product of deep rumination over a variety of pros and cons. But it is a choice.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.
> 
> I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.



To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Now, I agree, there's a whole range of how informed someone is. A rumor, a faint bad smell, a map that says "do not go this way!" (but may be a trick), and so on and so forth. Nor would I expect choices to generally be perfectly transparent either, certainly they never are in the real world. However, if we have this no-information situation certainly the 'choice' cannot do any work in terms of informing the quality of our role play, right? I mean, I am not learning anything meaningful about my character, or establishing anything meaningful about her, if I simply say "meh, I always go left..." Sure, its a fact, but we can't conclude anything much from it.




One thing to keep in mind is I don't think this uninformed but consequential choice should be the default or the preferred dilemma in an RPG. I just think it is one that has its uses like any other type of choice. I wasn't really making an argument in terms of the quality of RP it brings. I think its main value is in the excitement and surprise it can bring into play. That said, sure it can inform the quality of your role-play. You learn how your character deals with potentially risky dilemmas with very little information. That does tell you something about the character (does the character just kick open the door? does he convince someone else to open it? does he take every possible precaution? Does he leave the dungeon in search of more information?). There are certainly going to be other types of choices that illuminate your character more than that, but is isn't empty when it comes to characterization. And the consequences of the choice could certainly contribute meaningfully to the RP (for example if he chooses door B and has his arm squashed to pulp a dire elephant). 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> The point, ultimately, being we need some sort of informed decision making. I think, personally, informed agenda setting is even better. You can get a version of that in, say, a sandbox, we go to the castle or the temple, and we have reasons for choosing one or the other. The most powerful version, in a character development sense, would be "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" That can be a fun way to pull in what the players are looking to do, and is part of what I think something like Dungeon World is about.




Hey I agree, you need some informed decision making. I would even say more informed decision making is the best case (I just think there is room for the door A and B situations too). In terms of whether sandboxes or a game where you can declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" leads to either more meaningful choices or a more authentic experience, I am not persuaded. I think there is a lot to say for games that do the latter. I just have found sandboxes have a lot of meaningful choices and the fact that you can't declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" can in some cases make those choices more meaningful. I don't play Dungeon World, but I do play Hillfolk, and there is a degree of immersive roleplaying that is definitely one of its strong suits (and it does the whole "I think there's a temple of my patron god..." thing). But your choices are meaningful in a different way than they are in a sandbox. It is very hard to compare them cleanly. They are just very different experiences. I wouldn't label one more authentic or having more meaningful choices than the other. I certainly wouldn't say it is the most powerful version of creating informed choice making. Same goes for character development.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.




Yes and this matters a great deal for characterization


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.



I accept that some people would feel that way. I have to say, when faced with this sort of decision my answer is pretty much uniformly to just pick up a d6 and roll it. 

And to elaborate a tiny bit, as a GM I consider this sort of stuff to fall into the category of things that 4e DMG admonished GM's to "skip over and get to the interesting part." Yes, you navigated a mazy twist of corridors, they all looked the same and you wandered around for a while before eventually coming out here... Its not that I wouldn't even say to the players "hey, there seem to be east and west trending directions, which one do you pick?" OTOH I consider this to be 'color', fairly inconsequential detail that just builds a more satisfying picture of a detailed environment vs something that means anything in play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out are being described as variations of railroading (presumably a number of other things also fall under that categorization).
> 
> So I think it is entirely reasonable when someone invokes play A as authentic, and play B as inauthentic (and not just inauthentic but also a railroad) that you get a reaction




But aren’t they? Don’t those methods undermine choice? 



Bedrockgames said:


> If the thread had been "I think railroading leads to a lack of meaningful choice, and these games in particular are good at evading railroads" no one would have batted an eye




I don’t know about that. I think that the chances may have been better, I’d grant that. But I think plenty would still argue the point because of the perceived slight toward D&D and traditional play. Even though none of the methods cited as problematic are essential to that kind of play. 



Bedrockgames said:


> The issue is, I think, very few people would agree with the OP's assertion that it squelches it




But no one has demonstrated that, have they? No one has said “here’s how the three clue rule promotes authentic play” or “this is how I use alignment to do it”. 

As you say, most arguments are about the choice of words rather than the actual premise. 

I would love if someone offered a take about the three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out the GM’s predetermined solution (I added that last bit back in because I think it’s essential) that somehow explained how they led to authentic play.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

kenada said:


> I think there’s something more fundamental happening in the OP rather than “authentic” being just a euphemism for “narrativist”. If the characters set out to discover what’s out there, then they can’t also help but discover something about themselves as they face adversity. That seems to be exactly what @pemerton is saying in his second post explaining his use of _authenticity_.
> 
> _Authenticity_: the property of being authentic. _Authentic_: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self.​



I haven't read all the overnight posts, but just wanted to respond to one aspect of this. If I've read it correctly (which I may not have - see previous sentence) it's talking about the characters.

But the bit that you quote from me was talking about participants in the RPG endeavour. That post did go on to say something about characters too, but flagged it as conjectural at best.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> One thing to keep in mind is I don't think this uninformed but consequential choice should be the default or the preferred dilemma in an RPG. I just think it is one that has its uses like any other type of choice. I wasn't really making an argument in terms of the quality of RP it brings. I think its main value is in the excitement and surprise it can bring into play. That said, sure it can inform the quality of your role-play. You learn how your character deals with potentially risky dilemmas with very little information. That does tell you something about the character (does the character just kick open the door? does he convince someone else to open it? does he take every possible precaution? Does he leave the dungeon in search of more information?). There are certainly going to be other types of choices that illuminate your character more than that, but is isn't empty when it comes to characterization. And the consequences of the choice could certainly contribute meaningfully to the RP (for example if he chooses door B and has his arm squashed to pulp a dire elephant).



Right, I mean, I don't have an issue either with a PC being confronted with "OK, you lack any good information here, how do you deal with that?" That's a reasonable dilemma to hand to someone. So, in the context of, say, the gradual exploration of a locale or something like that it takes on this other character of opening up many choices of strategy. One of them could be "blindly go forward in some direction" and I agree THAT is a consequential choice that can tell us a lot about the character, etc. (it could also factor in a different way where 'skilled play' is expected, so some system differences could be germane there too).


Bedrockgames said:


> Hey I agree, you need some informed decision making. I would even say more informed decision making is the best case (I just think there is room for the door A and B situations too). In terms of whether sandboxes or a game where you can declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" leads to either more meaningful choices or a more authentic experience, I am not persuaded. I think there is a lot to say for games that do the latter. I just have found sandboxes have a lot of meaningful choices and the fact that you can't declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" can in some cases make those choices more meaningful. I don't play Dungeon World, but I do play Hillfolk, and there is a degree of immersive roleplaying that is definitely one of its strong suits (and it does the whole "I think there's a temple of my patron god..." thing). But your choices are meaningful in a different way than they are in a sandbox. It is very hard to compare them cleanly. They are just very different experiences. I wouldn't label one more authentic or having more meaningful choices than the other. I certainly wouldn't say it is the most powerful version of creating informed choice making. Same goes for character development.



I guess overall I'm certainly not admonishing GMs to avoid ever creating a "shrug, I guess we can go through door A or B" low-information choice either. It is just one of those things that I wouldn't think of as a key part of play in any sense. 

Otherwise I think we have reasonably similar opinions here. I mean, there is clearly a qualitative difference between a pre-stocked sandbox and something like DW or Hillfolk (I guess, I'm not too knowledgeable about that game itself really, but it sounds like it has some player facing narrative elements). Honestly, I don't even have a personal issue with old-fashioned dungeon-maze just go around bashing random doors play either myself. I think the OP is mostly saying "this is not so deep." When it comes to something like the 'three clues rule' I think he's just mentioning that as a technique that GMs are supposed to use to get the players to send their PCs to the spt which is most convenient for the GM, so kind of removing much significance from their decisions, sort of like a 'quantum ogre'.


----------



## kenada (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I haven't read all the overnight posts, but just wanted to respond to one aspect of this. If I've read it correctly (which I may not have - see previous sentence) it's talking about the characters.
> 
> But the bit that you quote from me was talking about participants in the RPG endeavour. That post did go on to say something about characters too, but flagged it as conjectural at best.



I am, and I think I misunderstood or conflated the players with the characters.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The GM being able to decide by fiat that an owl bear encounter takes place



I still don't know what this means.

What are you intending by _encounter_? Who decided that _owlbears_ are salient? What conditions must obtain in the fiction for the fiat you are imagining to be enlivened? What conditions must obtain at the table for the fiat to be enlivened?

Without the things I've mentioned, and probably others I haven't, being set out, there is not a description of an episode of RPGing that can really be discussed.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, I mean, I don't have an issue either with a PC being confronted with "OK, you lack any good information here, how do you deal with that?" That's a reasonable dilemma to hand to someone. So, in the context of, say, the gradual exploration of a locale or something like that it takes on this other character of opening up many choices of strategy. One of them could be "blindly go forward in some direction" and I agree THAT is a consequential choice that can tell us a lot about the character, etc. (it could also factor in a different way where 'skilled play' is expected, so some system differences could be germane there too).
> 
> I guess overall I'm certainly not admonishing GMs to avoid ever creating a "shrug, I guess we can go through door A or B" low-information choice either. It is just one of those things that I wouldn't think of as a key part of play in any sense.
> 
> Otherwise I think we have reasonably similar opinions here. I mean, there is clearly a qualitative difference between a pre-stocked sandbox and something like DW or Hillfolk (I guess, I'm not too knowledgeable about that game itself really, but it sounds like it has some player facing narrative elements). Honestly, I don't even have a personal issue with old-fashioned dungeon-maze just go around bashing random doors play either myself. I think the OP is mostly saying "this is not so deep." When it comes to something like the 'three clues rule' I think he's just mentioning that as a technique that GMs are supposed to use to get the players to send their PCs to the spt which is most convenient for the GM, so kind of removing much significance from their decisions, sort of like a 'quantum ogre'.




Hillfolk is very good at drama series emulation. I've really enjoyed the sessions I've had with it. I ran it once and played in it a number of times. Running it was pretty cool. I ended up cludhing my own combat system onto it for a wuxia campaign, and used the methods for scenes (which is what most of the campaign entailed) for the rest. A lot of wuxia gets treated as a 50+ episode drama series and I wanted to go for that. It succeeded quite well. If you want a game that would make for a very good Breaking Bad, Babylon Five, or I, Claudius campaign, Hillfolk is a good choice in my opinion. 

I see the three clue rule as a way of preventing choke points in an investigation. Its just a method for avoiding the classic "What if the players miss a crucial clue" problem (which not everyone thinks is a problem, but if you find it to be one either the three clue rule or the approach taken in Gumshoe are both quite good solutions, from two entirely different angles). I don't think anything about the three clue rule squelches significant decisions.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.
> 
> There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.
> 
> ...




So  we are talking, once again, about railroads vs sandboxes vs play to find out, only now we have add a new term--authenticity--which has been articulated as being about taking creative risks, saying something, genuine conversation, and friendship.  This layer is largely obfuscatory; I don't see what it adds.  Here you might direct your call for examples to @pemerton to illustrate exactly what they mean.

Meanwhile, @kenada's example of the Mystara sandbox is a good one.  Because the notion, sketched in the OP, that trad play consists entirely in railroaded set pieces, DMs enforcing alignment, games that consist entirely in guessing what the DM is thinking or "DM storytime," is a RPG horror stories caricature.  The "participationism" caricature is needed in order to elevate the qualities of other games.  So what about the b/x sandbox?  Based on previous conversations, I would guess that this would not count as "authentic" play.

Meanwhile, in terms of taking creative risks and collaboration and friendship, think of the new player.  The very act of sitting around a table with friends and pretending to be elves and dwarves and maybe doing accents is a huge and awkward risk.  It's silly and campy and nerdy, and yet being those things makes one vulnerable.  I think that says more about being genuine and taking risks among friends that any particular style of ttrpg.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I still don't know what this means.
> 
> What are you intending by _encounter_? Who decided that _owlbears_ are salient? What conditions must obtain in the fiction for the fiat you are imagining to be enlivened? What conditions must obtain at the table for the fiat to be enlivened?




By encounter I just mean any interaction the GM decides to give you with an owl bear. The GM would have decided by salient (which I think is implied by fiat). Again in this example I wasn't worried about what conditions needed to be met, my point was even in a case where the GM has total power to decide that you face an owl bear, that doesn't seem affect the authenticity of my character (certainly you could say its unfair, its not the best procedure, it is heavy handed, it imposes on agency if the GM isn't considering conditions). It was more a point about how I am not seeing where authenticity is the issue. I am not saying the GM declaring an Owl bear encounter "because" is a good practice. I just don't see how a GM even doing that is particularly relevant to the authenticity of play and of your characterization of your character. If, as others have suggested, you were just saying by authenticity to mean "meaningful choice" then I could see the point there (I still think there is meaningful choice in a reaction, but I appreciate that different procedures, different considerations and different mechanics for arriving at that encounter will have an impact on how meaningful are choices are leading up to it)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> But aren’t they? Don’t those methods undermine choice?




I don't think they undermine meaningful choice (at least not enforced alignment rules and the three clue: the players needing to figure out the GM's predetermine solution could well impact meaningful choice depending on what you mean exactly by that). With alignment the players are still free to make what moral choices they want in the world. Having rules governing alignment give some cosmic consequences to those choices (which I think can add more meaning to them). A classic example might be a player finding this character slowly gaining an evil alignment through his actions as he takes more and more selfish steps, sacrifices others to get ahead, etc. You are still free to make those choices. Another would be how a place like Ravenloft handled alignment where certain evil actions could attract the dark powers attention and result in players suffering supernatural transformation. My experience with Ravenloft is that added a lot in terms of meaningful choice (as well as characterization and development).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know about that. I think that the chances may have been better, I’d grant that. But I think plenty would still argue the point because of the perceived slight toward D&D and traditional play. Even though none of the methods cited as problematic are essential to that kind of play.




It is the internet, and a gaming forum, so you are not going to have zero disagreement. Not bat an eye may have been an overstatement. At the same time, when you frame something as a zero sum game, especially if you invoke other styles of play or other systems when praising your own style or your preferred system, you are going to run into more contention. If I just say "Hillfolk is great for drama series emulation" as I did in my other post, people who hate Hillfolk or who think it is not good at drama series emulation (or think there are better options than Hillfolk) might weigh in. If on the other hand I say "Hillfolk is great for drama series emulation, but D&D thwarts drama at every turn" even if there is some truth to D&D not being built with drama emulation in mind, you are going to find yourself contending with fans of D&D who use it in more dramatic campaigns.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I would love if someone offered a take about the three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out the GM’s predetermined solution (I added that last bit back in because I think it’s essential) that somehow explained how they led to authentic play.




I responded to this a bit in my previous post. I think if someone is making the case that the three clue rule squelches a virtue of play, it is more on the person taking that position to make their case than on people to defend the three clue rule. At least it needs to be made clear why they think the three clue rule squelches important choice making. I think something like the three clue rule is pretty neutral on this front. It isn't aiming to actively promote it, but doesn't detract from it. And it can be used to promote meaningful choice. Its reason for existing isn't to solve the problem of a lack of meaningful choice, but to solve the problem of investigative bottle necks (and it is a direct response to the Gumshoe 'systems' approach by offering an 'adventure structure' approach). 

Again here I think authentic play doesn't work well as a term. But if we are talking meaningful choice, I definitely think D&D alignment rules can be used to enhance that (for reasons I stated in my other post). Obviously alignment is one of the more divisive concepts in D&D so some people don't like it, or won't agree. But taking away meaningful choices or reducing authenticity isn't a problem I have found with it (I have certainly encountered other issues with alignment, such as how individual alignments are defined). I found it to be a very powerful tool in Ravenloft, precisely because it makes moral choices meaningful on a level that impacts the characters physical form.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I wouldn't argue that meaningful and informed are synonymous, but I would argue that an uninformed choice is meaningless in the sense that we are discussing here. If you come to the proverbial T in the corridor and NOTHING is known about either branch, nor can be inferred, etc. then no meaningful choice of direction to take can exist, the whole exercise is pointless. The most you can salvage out of it is some sort of statement about the utter helplessness of people and the ultimate futility of free will or some such. I guess that's a legit thing to do in an RPG, but there's little to say about it.



What if a character has a Belief that "I will always choose the right-hand path!" And a player, by choosing to go right, manifests that Belief in play. Depending on other features of the game being played, the procedures adopted, etc, this might be meaningful. And might connect in some fashion to authenticity.

Or flip it around: if that character's player chooses to go left despite the Belief, maybe they are setting things up for some kind of character epiphany, or are inviting the GM to "bring it on".

This is why I think that these sorts of examples of decision-making need a lot of context to be provided before we are able to talk about their relationship to meaning, authenticity etc.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

kenada said:


> The question I would ask is if this is all-or-nothing, or can it be a toggle? If I see a “railroad” and derail the train, has play become more “authentic” if we decide to see where that goes? Or if everyone agrees to a constraint (e.g., playing in a particular sandbox), can play still be “authentic” within those constraints?



I think a lot of self-described "traditional" play has more "non-traditional" elements than is frequently acknowledged. And as a result is less GM-driven then it says on the box.

Sandboxes can be extremely varied, especially when the previous paragraph is considered. They can also produce "tugs-of-war" between players and GM over what the action is _really_ about, which is the more antagonistic manifestation of the previous paragraph.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

kenada said:


> Suppose we sit down to play Moldvay Basic. The DM puts a hex map of Mystara on the table, telling us that this is where the game take place, but they commit to using nothing but the game’s procedures and tables to determine what is there and what happens. They also commit to the principles of being a neutral referee, so they can’t put their thumb on the scale surreptitiously. Does the resulting play have authenticity?
> 
> If the answer is “no” or even just “not necessarily”, then there is an issue. “Railroad” was presented as the flipside of “authentic”, but I don’t think one could reasonably construe the above play as form of railroad.



_Flipside_ is ambiguous as between _contrary_ and _contradictory_. I see _railroad_ and _authenticity_ as contraries. They may not be contradictories in general, though if the domain of analysis is confined (and I think the confining can be done in a non-arbitrary, not trivially tautological way) then I think they become contradictories.

The Moldvay Basic game you describe looks, from your description, like it will be classic wargaming D&D. I don't think it will manifest authenticity, by default, for just the reasons that a typical wargame or boardgame won't: it's not the right sort of activity. Nor is it a railroad.

Of course, as we all know, the player-to-character identification aspect of RPGing means that the toggle can shift very quickly! But when it does, then the idea that _the referee will use nothing but the game's procedures and tables_ breaks down. And then we move into the domain where I am tempted to see railroad and authenticity as contradictories and not just contraries.


----------



## kenada (Jul 29, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Meanwhile, @kenada's example of the Mystara sandbox is a good one. Because the notion, sketched in the OP, that trad play consists entirely in railroaded set pieces, DMs enforcing alignment, games that consist entirely in guessing what the DM is thinking or "DM storytime," is a RPG horror stories caricature. The "participationism" caricature is needed in order to elevate the qualities of other games. So what about the b/x sandbox? Based on previous conversations, I would guess that this would not count as "authentic" play.



To be fair, the OP doesn’t call out traditional play specifically but only refers to railroads. I don’t think it follows that traditional games must be railroads. Based on subsequent responses by both @pemerton and @AbdulAlhazred, I would agree my example most likely falls under neither authentic nor railroad. Do I think that’s a bad thing? Not really. It just means some styles of play aren’t part of the discussion.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

kenada said:


> It just means some styles of play aren’t part of the discussion.



Or occupy a different location in the discussion.


----------



## kenada (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Of course, as we all know, the player-to-character identification aspect of RPGing means that the toggle can shift very quickly! But when it does, then the idea that _the referee will use nothing but the game's procedures and tables_ breaks down. And then we move into the domain where I am tempted to see railroad and authenticity as contradictories and not just contraries.



This is where I assume ideas like being a fan of the players’ characters comes into play. It’s not enough just to keep the GM’s thumb off the scale. There also needs to be an intent to present situations that allow for authenticity.

For example, I don’t just throw a vampire at the party because that’s the challenge that came up. I use it to set up a situation where we get to learn something about the players (such as whether the cleric will destroy the vampire once she is capable even after the vampire has become an ally).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

kenada said:


> I use it to set up a situation where we get to learn something about the players



Or, to link this back to the OP more explicitly, a situation in which one or more players get to make a commitment.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> We'll just have to hard disagree. See, I cannot imagine how one would call a choice 'meaningful' when we can go back and say "well, at the time you made this choice, if the two branches had been swapped, there's no reason you would have made the opposite choice." Its just a meaningless roll of some dice. If my choices are no better than that, no more informed than that, then you've reduced my entire experience to nothing but random chance. Nothing is more meaningless than just rolling some dice and getting told what happens next.



For heaven's sake - _uninformed does not equate to meaningless_!

Uninformed is nothing more than what it says on the tin: uninformed.  And yes, uninformed choices can make for boring play; I'm not arguing against that.

But even ignoring the amount of available information, there is no way to tell how meaningful a choice will be if that choice has any possibility of consequences down the line that are not yet obvious.  You could have all kinds of information at your disposal, or you could have none, and its presence or absence wouldn't and couldn't affect the meaningfulness of the choice because at the time the choice is made _its ultimate degree of meaningfulness has not yet been determined_.

The only thing an informed choice can give you over an uninformed one is some insight into the choice's _potential_ meaningfulness; as in, the information may allow you to see or predict some possible consequences of the different options.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I responded to this a bit in my previous post. I think if someone is making the case that the three clue rule squelches a virtue of play, it is more on the person taking that position to make their case than on people to defend the three clue rule. At least it needs to be made clear why they think the three clue rule squelches important choice making. I think something like the three clue rule is pretty neutral on this front. It isn't aiming to actively promote it, but doesn't detract from it. And it can be used to promote meaningful choice. Its reason for existing isn't to solve the problem of a lack of meaningful choice, but to solve the problem of investigative bottle necks (and it is a direct response to the Gumshoe 'systems' approach by offering an 'adventure structure' approach).




So if someone has a choice to make, what will make that choice authentic? I would think that they're not deceived about the nature of the choice, and they reasonably understand the nature of the choice and its implications.

Would you agree with that?

That's how I've approached this part of the conversation.

So take that and then think of the three-clue rule. The rule states "for any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include three clues."

What does this do? It works to keep play (typically investigative type play) on track. It works to ensure that the players will find the information they need in order to proceed to the next scene. It's already determined what the next scene will be. The conclusion is already decided by the GM. It's right there in the rule.

Does that sound as authentic as the players taking actions and gaining information and then deciding what to do next or how? It doesn't to me.

I don't know if I'd consider the three-clue rule full on railroading because I can imagine examples that still play out differently than expected by the GM even when deployed, but it's certainly closer to railroading than not. Chances are certainly higher that play will go the way the GM has decided it will go. I mean... it's designed to do exactly that.




Bedrockgames said:


> Again here I think authentic play doesn't work well as a term. But if we are talking meaningful choice, I definitely think D&D alignment rules can be used to enhance that (for reasons I stated in my other post). Obviously alignment is one of the more divisive concepts in D&D so some people don't like it, or won't agree. But taking away meaningful choices or reducing authenticity isn't a problem I have found with it (I have certainly encountered other issues with alignment, such as how individual alignments are defined). I found it to be a very powerful tool in Ravenloft, precisely because it makes moral choices meaningful on a level that impacts the characters physical form.




I don't think this is really what was meant by GM enforced alignment. I don't think alignment in and of itself is the issue, it's when the GM enforces behavior of players based on alignment. The idea that a character could shift alignment in some way... either at the player's wishes, or at the GM's suggestion based on what the character's done... doesn't seem inauthentic as it relates to the discussion.

Barring actions based on alignment was more how I took that. Again, I don't think alignment is an issue, but I can see how the GM taking too firm a stance on it could be an issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So if someone has a choice to make, what will make that choice authentic? I would think that they're not deceived about the nature of the choice, and they reasonably understand the nature of the choice and its implications.




I don't think understanding the nature of the choice makes it authentic (again that makes it informed). But in terms of whether it has meaning? That is more about whether the choice was a genuine one where my deciding to do A or deciding to do B had impact and significance. So I think that could apply to a very large range of choices


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 29, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I agree with you, but this is at least partly a semantic disagreement. It think "informed choice" is better term than "meaningful choice" if that's what one means, as it is less ambiguous.



Without the differential outcomes, the choice is of no value. Quantum monster. Go left, he's left; go right he's right. Even if the color differs from the rooms, the choice has no value, and thus no real meaning can be attached to it_ from the outside view_.

And I'd say, based upon Pemerton's terms, my "meaningful choice" is pretty much, if not a direct synonym, close enough for the discussion. And, to be blunt, the same criteria have been used by many. A sampling from the non-ed side...



			
				B Morrison said:
			
		

> Meaningful choice requires the following four components:
> 
> Awareness - The player must be somewhat aware they are making a choice (perceive options)
> Gameplay Consequences – The choice must have consequences that are both gameplay and aesthetically oriented
> ...











						Meaningful Choice in Games: Practical Guide & Case Studies
					

Meaningful choices pull at players' heart strings, making them look inside themselves. These choices are remembered as deeply emotional experiences, the moments




					www.gamedeveloper.com
				






			
				D. Eng said:
			
		

> Choice categories
> 
> There are as many choices in games as there are games themselves. But meaningful choices are broken down into four main areas:
> 
> ...











						Meaningful Choices — University XP
					

Helping a player make informed and meaningful choices is part of what makes good games great. Those meaningful choices provide the player weight and substance to their player experience. But often in the pursuit of creating interactive and engaging experiences, we often fall into the trap of creatin




					www.universityxp.com
				






			
				D. Doan said:
			
		

> Good games have many meaningful choices — ones that actually matter and have a real impact on how the game turns out. Many designers fall into the trap of providing meaningless choices. One of the bigger examples is in a game with vehicles where the choice of vehicle is strictly cosmetic; if you have vehicles that all drive the exact same way, it’s as if you didn’t have a choice at all. Another common mistake comes with imbalanced choices; in a shooter, if you have twenty weapons but one is clearly better than the others, your choice is pretty much always going to be that one and again it’s as if you didn’t have a choice at all.






			
				M. Alves said:
			
		

> Jon Back’s, from Jon Back’s Creative Geek YouTube Channel[ii], points out that for choice to exist, you need information, as a complete lack of information about the consequences of your choice collapse the idea of choice into just randomness. On the other side, having complete information about the consequences of your choice creates a situation where one of the possible choices will be recognized as the right one, thus again creating a situation where there is no real choice to be made. It is when you have some information and some hidden aspects at the same time, that you need to start thinking.
> This is what creates *meaningful *choice. As James Portnow clarifies: “A choice is meaningful when the decision-making process is not arbitrary.”. For James, the player must have ways to weight in their options. They don’t need to know the full consequences of it, but they need to believe that they have something to base their decision on and that there will be future consequences based on their choice.











						Meaningful Choices and Space of Possibility in Board Games:
					

In this article I will explore the game design theory behind the choice in games, and how important is meaningful choice to make good games.




					www.thegamersage.com
				





			
				Alves: K. Salen & E. Zimmerman said:
			
		

> The careful crafting of player experience through a system of interaction is critical to the design of meaningful play. Yet, just what makes an interactive experience "meaningful"? We have argued that in order to create instances of meaningful play, experience has to incorporate not just explicit interactivity, but meaningful choice.
> *-Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, Rules of Play - Game Design Fundamentals*



Ibid. Bolding original
Meaningful choice is a term of art in game design, with well established criteria.
@Lanefan - your tautology of "informed is a prerequisite of informed" I'm presuming is a temporary braincramp and you left off "choice" from the end. If not, then it's impossible.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think understanding the nature of the choice makes it authentic (again that makes it informed). But in terms of whether it has meaning? That is more about whether the choice was a genuine one where my deciding to do A or deciding to do B had impact and significance. So I think that could apply to a very large range of choices




My point is that if the choice isn’t actually a choice, then it’s not authentic.

The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about. 

Again, I don’t think that it must always be so, but I think it clearly leans that way.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So take that and then think of the three-clue rule. The rule states "for any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include three clues."
> 
> What does this do? It works to keep play (typically investigative type play) on track. It works to ensure that the players will find the information they need in order to proceed to the next scene. It's already determined what the next scene will be. The conclusion is already decided by the GM. It's right there in the rule.




This isn't what the three clue rule is for. It isn't about going to the next scene. The conclusion you want the PCs to make, isn't necessarily a scene (when Alexander talks about scenes it is in his discussion of Gumshoe and the Esoterrorists (which are structured around scenes). Alexander is more concerned with chokepoints in adventures and what kind of information players are able to find in order to arrive at conclusions that are important to solving the mystery. So a conclusion he gives an example of is "The killer is a werewolf". That is one of several conclusions about the killer in the mystery (the other two are he is a former lover and his confession can be found at the butcher shop where he works). Each of those conclusions would have three clues. But he also mentions being open to solutions the players themselves come up with:



> _With that in mind, you should consciously open yourself to permissive clue-finding. By this I mean that, if the players come up with a clever approach to their investigation, you should be open to the idea of giving them useful information as a result._




I don't anything about the GM deciding these features of the mystery take away from meaningful choice on the part of the players.

Just as an example, I use the three clue rule all the time, and while I do map out the clues and there locations, none of these key to or lead to any scenes. It is just a handy way of knowing where the evidence is. 



> Does that sound as authentic as the players taking actions and gaining information and then deciding what to do next or how? It doesn't to me.




I answered this in my previous paragraph but I would say "Yes it does". It is all about making sure the players have a greater range of ways to obtain information and make choices about that information. At the very least, I would say it doesn't squelch meaningful choice.



> I don't know if I'd consider the three-clue rule full on railroading because I can imagine examples that still play out differently than expected by the GM even when deployed, but it's certainly closer to railroading than not. Chances are certainly higher that play will go the way the GM has decided it will go. I mean... it's designed to do exactly that.




That seems like an overly broad definition of railroad to me. If "there is a killer in this mystery adventure, and the GM has decided who and what that killer is, and what evidence that killer left" is a railroad, then I don't think we have a functional definition of railroad.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> @Lanefan - your tautology of "informed is a prerequisite of informed" I'm presuming is a temporary braincramp and you left off "choice" from the end. If not, then it's impossible.



No, just an intentional tautology saying that if you're informed then you're informed and that's it; in an attempt to make the point that the presence or non-presence of information at the time a choice is made has no relevance to the level of meaningfulness that choice in hindsight turned out to carry.

And to throw in another pebble: all of this assumes one can trust the information one has available; and-or that the information is correct.  A choice can seem meaningful at the time it is made and lose all meaningfulness later once it becomes apparent the information used to make that choice was faulty, or even intentionally outright false.

Extreme example: all the signs, omens, divinations, foreshadowing, etc. point to the left door being disaster and the right door being highly rewarding; yet when each is opened there is nothing of consequence or relevance behind either one.  This is the flipside of my earlier point that a choice's meaningfulness cannot be known until later: the same holds true for a choice's ultimate meaning_less_ness.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about.




But that isn't the three clue rule. Nothing about the three clue rule means no matter what you do 'this will be the conclusion". It is just about making sure information and evidence is available to the optimal level in a mystery. It comes out of a criticism of mysteries that they tended to crash if the players missed a vital clue. And it was a response to the popularity of Laws solution, which some people liked, but some people, like Alexander, wanted a non-mechanical solution. 

Now there is an argument to be made for the players being able to miss clues. I think that is something that should also be in play. But at the time the three clue rule was written there was a lot of heated discussion about mysteries flaming and I understand why he framed it the way he did (to maximize his persuasiveness: but a lot of the people who picked up the three clue rule were specifically an audience of GMs who were actively trying to avoid railroads. 

When I use three clue rule, I usually also have a timeline of events and disasters that can unfold if the mystery isn't solved or if the killer is allowed to roam (and it is adjustable depending on how the actions might impact the choices made by NPCs in the adventure). I don't care if the players solve the mystery. If they don't I often structure it so something interesting still happens and it also creates a consequence for making certain choices during play. I am also open to things going in totally different directions depending on what the players do.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> My point is that if the choice isn’t actually a choice, then it’s not authentic.



I quite agree with this in the Quantum Monster sense; where the GM is meta-changing things behind the scenes in direct reaction to what the players/PCs do.  In my view a GM doing this risks making the whole game inauthentic, not just the here-and-now choice. 

I don't agree in cases where it's already set that each choice leads to, say, nothing (the two dead ends off the T, for example); here the choice is perfectly authentic, but ultimately turns out to be meaningless.


hawkeyefan said:


> The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about.



I'm not 100% on board here, in that IME many players/PCs are more than capable of arriving at a different and-or "erroneous" conclusion even after getting all three clues; and then chasing that red herring to the ends of the setting and back. 

That said, I'm not that big a fan of leading them by the nose at the best of times; given the choice between that and them getting stuck on something because they missed or misinterpreted a clue or some info, I'd rather they get stuck and have to figure it out - or, even, abandon it; as that's another quite realistic option.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think this is really what was meant by GM enforced alignment. I don't think alignment in and of itself is the issue, it's when the GM enforces behavior of players based on alignment. The idea that a character could shift alignment in some way... either at the player's wishes, or at the GM's suggestion based on what the character's done... doesn't seem inauthentic as it relates to the discussion.
> 
> Barring actions based on alignment was more how I took that. Again, I don't think alignment is an issue, but I can see how the GM taking too firm a stance on it could be an issue.




That is fair but I have never met a GM who told us we couldn't do something because of our alignment (at most they let us know a certain action could lead to an alignment shift, but never had anyone clamp down and say you can't take action X).


----------



## Campbell (Jul 29, 2022)

So, I think there are levels to this stuff:

It's not that any given game, technique or individual choice we make is either authentic or inauthentic in the creative sense. It's that it might be more or less authentic. For a creative choice to be as authentic as possible I think the following should be true:

1. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity. We all need to be interested in these particular characters and this particular setting. We have not hold on too tightly to our conception of things and really consider the choices we make.
2. It is done with a willingness to be vulnerable. We all have to be willing to kill our babies and not treat the elements we are responsible for as if we own them. We have to willing to genuinely follow things where they lead instead of trying to control the process.
3. The focus is on process/journey and not the results. Trust the process and the people you are playing with. Be willing to take risks and try not to drive things to particular ends.
4. It is not performative. The choices we make should come from curiosity and vulnerability, not a desire to set up set pieces or cool moments. If our process is good more often than not things will work out. When we play earnestly those moments feel earned.

The less these things are true the less authentic it is in a creative sense. The more these things are true the more authentic the choice is in a creative sense. Technique, play culture and systems can all impact this stuff. It's not like black and white though. We all make allowances for the medium and other competing needs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Does that sound as authentic as the players taking actions and gaining information and then deciding what to do next or how? It doesn't to me.




Both from the Three Clue rule but also just knowing how Justin Alexander speaks about running games, this is something you are expected to do using the three clue rule. There is advice in there on players coming up with their own ways of finding evidence and the GM giving that a reasonable hearing. It is also expected that the players are going to decide what actions to take and where to go. Nothing about the three clue rule prohibits the players from finding out by other means where a suspect lives, and then going to their house and interrogating them directly: even if the GM hadn't foreseen that as a possibility. I do stuff like this all the time using the three clue rule. You never know what players are going to do and they will often come up with ingenious ways to find clues, ways of finding clues you didn't even think about but when they bring it up, you realize might be present somewhere. He says in the article it is not meant as a straight jacket, it is just a safety net to avoid chokepoints.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That seems like an overly broad definition of railroad to me. If "there is a killer in this mystery adventure, and the GM has decided who and what that killer is, and what evidence that killer left" is a railroad, then I don't think we have a functional definition of railroad.




Such investigative type adventures are very susceptible to railroading. They tend to be linear and many elements are predetermined. It takes some real effort to work against these elements pushing things a specific way. 

I’m not saying it’s impossible. But these things lend themselves to railroading. I think the three-clue rule does as well. I agree with you that it’s not always the case, that there are other things the GM can do to shift it. 


Bedrockgames said:


> But that isn't the three clue rule. Nothing about the three clue rule means no matter what you do 'this will be the conclusion".




I don’t really see how a rule designed to get the players to draw the conclusion the GM wants them to make isn’t one that leans toward railroading. 

Again, I’m not saying it’s absolute. But do you see how there’s an element of that in there? 



Bedrockgames said:


> That is fair but I have never met a GM who told us we couldn't do something because of our alignment (at most they let us know a certain action could lead to an alignment shift, but never had anyone clamp down and say you can't take action X).




Ugh I have, though it was many years ago and we were all pretty young and unpolished as players/GMs. I still see people bring that kind of stuff up from time to time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Such investigative type adventures are very susceptible to railroading. They tend to be linear and many elements are predetermined. It takes some real effort to work against these elements pushing things a specific way.
> 
> I’m not saying it’s impossible. But these things lend themselves to railroading. I think the three-clue rule does as well. I agree with you that it’s not always the case, that there are other things the GM can do to shift it.




Again I would have to emphasize that a large portion of the people Alexander was writing to at the time, were very interested in avoiding railroads. I actually picked up investigations as an alternative to things like railroady adventure paths because it offered a much more open structure and much more freeform way of the players engaging the adventure. For me the Three Clue Rule was a big part of making that happen at a my table. 

Some of the stuff he was reacting to was focused on more linear type scenes in investigations. I just don't see it as lending to more railroading. It is simply about making sure there is a good speed of information for all of the features of the mystery. In fact if you read the whole article he pretty much talks about how a mystery isn't supposed to be about following a bread crumb trail. He is pretty much advocating for the opposite of a linear mystery adventure. 

Now perhaps a mystery adventure done in this way is too constrained for your taste. That is fair. I can't tell you what you should think about a particular adventure approach or structure. But it isn't a railroad.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t really see how a rule designed to get the players to draw the conclusion the GM wants them to make isn’t one that leans toward railroading.
> 
> Again, I’m not saying it’s absolute. But do you see how there’s an element of that in there?




I really do not see it. Because when he says conclusions he is literally just talking about the key details at the heart of the mystery (who the killer is, what their nature is, etc). I don't see what is railroady about deciding key details about a villain and then making sure that information is findable in the adventure. It does presuppose that the players are interested in engaging the mystery but that is because he is trying to give a tool for doing a successful mystery.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I quite agree with this in the Quantum Monster sense; where the GM is meta-changing things behind the scenes in direct reaction to what the players/PCs do. In my view a GM doing this risks making the whole game inauthentic, not just the here-and-now choice.




I think that the more instances of this kind of stuff in play, the less authentic play will be. I believe that’s what @pemerton meant in the OP. 


Lanefan said:


> I don't agree in cases where it's already set that each choice leads to, say, nothing (the two dead ends off the T, for example); here the choice is perfectly authentic, but ultimately turns out to be meaningless.




I don’t know about that. There’s nothing true about the decision, right? No elements relevant to a character, no clues about what’s down each path, no hint at consequences, no actual consequences… hard to see what’s authentic about it. Seems mostly like bad design. 



Lanefan said:


> I'm not 100% on board here, in that IME many players/PCs are more than capable of arriving at a different and-or "erroneous" conclusion even after getting all three clues; and then chasing that red herring to the ends of the setting and back.
> 
> That said, I'm not that big a fan of leading them by the nose at the best of times; given the choice between that and them getting stuck on something because they missed or misinterpreted a clue or some info, I'd rather they get stuck and have to figure it out - or, even, abandon it; as that's another quite realistic option.




Sure, it’s not a certainty. But it’s certainly steering things. It may not be a hard right turn, but it’s at least a little nudge to the wheel. 

It reminds me of something I was thinking about in regard to a campaign of Spire that I just wrapped up with my group. I made sure that any and all prep I did was about the situation now and the players involved, and never ever planned anything sequentially. I never committed to what was next for the PCs. Never anything like “once the PCs realize that the corpse fruit is being alchemically turned into the drug ambrosia, then they will confront the retroengineers responsible” or “once they speak to Trill the addict in Threadneedle Square, then they’ll go to The Sisters’ compound”. 

Investigative adventures can be difficult to not sequence like that. I think if the GM has steps in mind…this will happen and then this which leads to that… that’s problematic (if we’re valuing player freedom and that sort of thing). The GM shouldn’t be deciding what’s next.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hillfolk is very good at drama series emulation. I've really enjoyed the sessions I've had with it. I ran it once and played in it a number of times. Running it was pretty cool. I ended up cludhing my own combat system onto it for a wuxia campaign, and used the methods for scenes (which is what most of the campaign entailed) for the rest. A lot of wuxia gets treated as a 50+ episode drama series and I wanted to go for that. It succeeded quite well. If you want a game that would make for a very good Breaking Bad, Babylon Five, or I, Claudius campaign, Hillfolk is a good choice in my opinion.
> 
> I see the three clue rule as a way of preventing choke points in an investigation. Its just a method for avoiding the classic "What if the players miss a crucial clue" problem (which not everyone thinks is a problem, but if you find it to be one either the three clue rule or the approach taken in Gumshoe are both quite good solutions, from two entirely different angles). I don't think anything about the three clue rule squelches significant decisions.



I think the three clue thing is deeper than that. If you HAVE to salt clues all over the place like that, then I think there's a kind of play going on that is pretty limited in what it can do in terms of character exploration.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> For heaven's sake - _uninformed does not equate to meaningless_!




Uninformed means that the meaning of the subsequent events does not arise from the _act of choosing_.

If the GM has a selection of rooms, and, as characters walk through the dungeon, the GM rolls a die to choose what room is next, clearly, the players are not actually making a choice.  If no choice is made, that choice cannot be meaningful.

Same situation, but the GM hands the die to the players - again, they are not making a choice, so there is no meaningful choice.

Same situation, but the GM hands a piece of paper to the players, with 5 random letters on it, and tells them to choose.  The letters are free of semantic content, so there is no relevant _thought process_ to choose one over another.  If there is no relevant thought process, the determination is arbitrary - no different than a random choice, which we have already determined is not actually a choice, and so has no meaning.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is fair but I have never met a GM who told us we couldn't do something because of our alignment (at most they let us know a certain action could lead to an alignment shift, but never had anyone clamp down and say you can't take action X).



I've done so occasionally in traditional games... but only due to a forcibly changed alignment or a magic weapon. In the case of magic weapons, always with an Ego test.

I've seldom needed to...


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.
> 
> There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.





pemerton said:


> For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.



hawkeyefan, thanks for the kind post!

Where I referred to _genuine choices that say something_, you've referred to choices and actions _mattering_. There's overlap in our two formulations, but maybe not strict synonymy. With my use of "saying something", and also my use of _authenticity_ as a key notion, I think I might be putting more emphasis on a particular _way_ that things can matter - their role in expression, revelation etc in a type of interpersonal, creative context.

Does that make sense?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> If the thread had been "I think railroading leads to a lack of meaningful choice, and these games in particular are good at evading railroads" no one would have batted an eye





hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know about that. I think that the chances may have been better, I’d grant that. But I think plenty would still argue the point because of the perceived slight toward D&D and traditional play. Even though none of the methods cited as problematic are essential to that kind of play.



My experience has been that, in any thread in which it is asserted that a system like AW or BW are particularly good at evading railroads, many posters not only bat their eyes but vociferously deny the contention.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> My experience has been that, in any thread in which it is asserted that a system like AW or BW are particularly good at evading railroads, many posters not only bat their eyes but vociferously deny the contention.




I don't doubt those systems are good at evading railroads. That seems to be part of the intention behind many of those systems.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think the three clue thing is deeper than that. If you HAVE to salt clues all over the place like that, then I think there's a kind of play going on that is pretty limited in what it can do in terms of character exploration.



Again see my responses to Hawkeye on this particular point, but I would just repeat all the three clue rule is doing is dealing with the details at the heart of the mystery. It isn't about getting the players to the spot the GM wants. It is about about to manage clues emanating from the heart of a mystery: for every 'conclusion' that can be drawn about the killer (i.e. he is a werewolf, he is a deeply religious, he is good friends with the victim, etc), you should make sure there are three clues related to that. Further the guidelines in the three clue article also talk about this simply being a safety net, not a straight jacket, that you should engage his corollary of Permissive Clue Finding: "if the players come up with a clever approach to their investigation, you should be open to the idea of giving them useful information as a result". 

All the three clue rule is is a handy rule of thumb, along with some basic advice on how mysteries function, in order to prevent a problem people often had with mystery adventures. And it is not about structuring the mystery adventure in a linear way or leading the players from point A to point B. The only thing that is fixed at all is there is a mystery with objective facts at the hearts of it (so the players have something to solve), but they can go about discovering those details however they want, and they can take that information and use it however they want (i.e. there isn't a set piece climax waiting for them with the killer). It is a pretty non-railroad approach to adventure design in my opinion:



> But, in point of fact, this type of simplistic “A leads to B leads to C leads to D” plotting is not typical of the mystery genre. For a relatively simplistic counter-example, let’s return to Sherlock Holmes in A Study in Scarlet:
> 
> WATSON: “That seems simple enough,” said I; but how about the other man’s height?”
> 
> ...




Now this may not be everyone's cup of tea. And I think the three clue rule, like anything else, can be overused, over relied upon (you need other tools and techniques if you want to run mystery adventures). But I ran mysteries and investigations almost exclusively for many, many years (still run them from time to time) and I've done so with a strong desire to avoid railroading the PCs. The three clue rule for me, and the advice in the article, has always been one of the more helpful ones on investigations. And I never found it steered anything towards railroads or towards limiting character exploration in some way. Now as I said before it isn't trying to solve the problem of "players don't have meaningful choices", nor is it trying to solve the problem of railroading, but it is clearly written towards people who were interested in avoiding railroads (that is why he talks about the problem of the breadcrumb trail). 

Really I don't know what else one would want the three clue rule to do in order to make it less railroady or place less limits on character exploration. Obviously it is different from a game like Hillfolk, which I have also run a mystery with (and equally obviously the three clue rule is advice, not a game system, but I think it assumes you are using something more like Call of Cthulhu or D&D). With Hillfolk, the way a mystery would be handled is totally different because the players can assert details about NPCs and events that happened int he past and make them so through dialogue (there are methods to countermand this, but basically I as a player can say "But I heard John was seen at the docks drenched in blood last friday" and that pretty much means it happened. This approach also avoids railroads, but it also means you can't have an objective mystery at the heart of the adventure (which is fun, but also a totally different mystery solving experience). You can have an objective thing like at the start of the adventure a body of the sect leader is found in his room. But as you play the background information can be informed by ideas the players present trough their dialogue. That increases player freedom to explore but it also puts limits on things because everyone knows the mystery at the heart isn't nailed down but is in flux, so it means how you portray your character and how the GM portrays NPCs has to account for that unknown (which is limiting because it get into portraying motives). Neither approach is a railroad though. Fundamentally which approach is better is more about what you want in a mystery adventure than about whether or not you are interested in evading railroads or enhancing meaningful choice


----------



## clearstream (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.
> 
> There are methods that don’t promote that kind of authentic play. Railroading, the three clue rule, and the like. These lead to choices and actions that don’t have all that much impact on play.
> 
> I don’t really get who would disagree with this. I feel like disagreeing with it means that folks can share examples of railroading that somehow allows for the kind of authenticity that’s being talked about.



A thought on that is to ask whether a focus on exploring/expressing personal authenticity _in itself_ does anything to guarantee personal authenticity? A person may dissemble on any topic, _including _sincerity.

An explanatory model I find appealing is that suggested by Miguel Sicart (in the context of ethics in games.) He suggests that to be a player is to adopt a mental duality, i.e. we become our characters _without_ ceasing to be conscious of ourselves as players. For example, we take actions "in character" without being unaware of how we would act in the real world. In RPG we are committed to a sort of _simulation_ (simulated personhood), a sustained pretence in imitation of a person who is not ourselves and may not exist. I think that is as true of BitD as it is of D&D, and that word - _simulation _- is an important one. Each player can simulate their character with _or without _any special adherence to personal authenticity.

That may seem regressive, but I believe it reveals two concerns. Firstly, a person who simulates may persuade those around them of their personal authenticity, without that guaranteeing they possess or even have any interest in such qualities. Consequently, a game that does not overtly create space for or lead players to focus on exploring/expressing personal authenticity may be no less likely a circle within which to find them doing so. _Simulated _behaviour is not identical to genuine behaviour.

I think it is right to say that story games set out to lessen the character-player duality that I described above. So must a player of BitD be guaranteed to evince greater personal authenticity than a player in D&D? I don't call actors liars, even given their specific skill is to portray a falsehood with every appearance of personal authenticy. That is, I draw clear lines between simulation and personal authenticity, and I seem to think that the former can be done with/without the latter. Seeing as I do not equate simulation with personal _inauthencity_, can I really turn around and equate simulation in circumstances of lessened duality with any greater personal authenticity? It would come down to what I think the results of lessened duality are.

I can say that in story games, character is brought nearer to player and through mechanisms promoting autonomous conscious choice space is defined, expanded, or perhaps outright created in which player is more _able _to simulate _themself_-as-character. (This is the antithesis of immersionist play, which is driven by creativity, curiousity, delight in discovery, and empathy.) Given their methods and focus it seems right to say that story games bring players to notice and question how they might simulate in ways that do not transgress and ideally expound however they construct _themselves_.

For those with concerns about the shade that might cast, I think one can safely say that it does nothing at all to promise that any player is/is-not more personally authentic... not even in their play. It may attempt to put a player's personal authenticity more on display, but again "a person may dissemble on any topic". Games like BitD can do nothing to avoid false simulation - although I think in their context they demand and reveal personal authenticity - they may even inadvertently encourage insincerities. Games like D&D take simulation on face value (appropriately enough.)

I think that for some gamers, "story" games can lean into behaviours that feel (to them) _inappropriate_ in the context of "play". I find myself sometimes wincing at clumsy or painful simulation. These are the risks, I suppose, that @Campbell might have been writing of. In any case, this would in the end accept the OP's argument, at least to the extent of conceding that they call for that behaviour. I could therefore conclude with the following

Personal authenticity is perforce a property of a player, not a character
Where player is united with character, then we should see their personal authenticity more visibily inside the magic circle
Where player is separate from character, their personal authenticity remains implicated in their choices of what their character says and does
To the extent that player is simulating character, they perforce translate what is personally authentic to them into what their character says and does, so if their character is imagined to be psychologically and culturally different from them, they can only guess at what would count as personally authentic for that character: such guessing doesn't rest on whether player personal authenticity is/is-not on display inside the magic circle
Crucially, not setting out to explore/express personal authenticity is _not the same as_ not choosing actions in any context with more rather than less, better rather than worse, personal authenticity. (As an aside, this thread really helped highlight for me some of the virtues of immersionism.)

NOTE EDITS of bullet points. It's a complex topic! There are only interim conclusions in the interests of advancing our conversation. Not final destinations.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. What you think of as _counselling_, I think of as friendship, collaboration and genuine conversation.




If you are trying to avoid having folks thin Snarf is right in his assessment, this maybe isn't a good way to do it.  Putting this together with the prior writing yields, "My game is about friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation, other games squelch those things!"  This is a weird thing to say to people on a messageboard traditionally centered on D&D news, among people who have developed lifelong, authentic friendships playing D&D.  You get pushback largely because the truth of their lived experiences belie your assertions.

Game rules do not force "genuine" or "authentic" emotional and psychological engagement.  One can be a fakey poseur just as easily playing Blades in the Dark or D&D. 

And the psychological safety required for genuine and authentic interactions is not generated by the rulesets, either.  They are a function of the people at the table demonstrating that they give a crap about each other, and demonstrating that they will respect personal boundaries and needs, which, again, the rules do nothing to enforce either way.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> What if a character has a Belief that "I will always choose the right-hand path!" And a player, by choosing to go right, manifests that Belief in play. Depending on other features of the game being played, the procedures adopted, etc, this might be meaningful. And might connect in some fashion to authenticity.
> 
> Or flip it around: if that character's player chooses to go left despite the Belief, maybe they are setting things up for some kind of character epiphany, or are inviting the GM to "bring it on".
> 
> This is why I think that these sorts of examples of decision-making need a lot of context to be provided before we are able to talk about their relationship to meaning, authenticity etc.



Well, I agree, and we did explore that a bit in some later posts than the one you quoted, though not in the terms you put it here. I think, as per my later statements, that the problem I have is really with the word 'choice'. What choice is there when you have no information? Sure, you can PICK 'left' or 'right', and you can instill it with some sort of meaning or plot significance or something. I don't think its necessary in most play to even discuss the 'decision' though (again, I touched on 4e's skip to the good stuff) BUT you have posited a situation where the PCs have BROUGHT meaning to it, and created a choice where none was inherent. Presumably in a game of the type you are pointing to this T intersection would be deliberately placed by the GM in the course of play, framed in as we say, specifically for the purpose of challenging the PC's belief. In fact, its impact will be enhanced, I would think, by making it apparent that their 'always go right' choice is WRONG, or at least appears so at first glance. This could also be an outcome of mechanics, a Dungeon World Discern Realities check might throw a 6- and the character is consequently wrong, and may change their belief (although DW doesn't actually have 'beliefs' as a specific mechanism in this sense).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think understanding the nature of the choice makes it authentic (again that makes it informed). But in terms of whether it has meaning? That is more about whether the choice was a genuine one where my deciding to do A or deciding to do B had impact and significance. So I think that could apply to a very large range of choices



I think what makes a choice authentic is that it IS informed. I mean, you would, outside the context of an RPG discussion, probably consider the phrase 'authentic choice' to indicate something where the chooser is using their volition to determine a course of action, taking various things into consideration, and that the choice is consequential, right? I think in that context 'genuine' would generally come across as fairly synonymous with authentic too.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> No, just an intentional tautology saying that if you're informed then you're informed and that's it; in an attempt to make the point that the presence or non-presence of information at the time a choice is made has no relevance to the level of meaningfulness that choice in hindsight turned out to carry.
> 
> And to throw in another pebble: all of this assumes one can trust the information one has available; and-or that the information is correct.  A choice can seem meaningful at the time it is made and lose all meaningfulness later once it becomes apparent the information used to make that choice was faulty, or even intentionally outright false.
> 
> Extreme example: all the signs, omens, divinations, foreshadowing, etc. point to the left door being disaster and the right door being highly rewarding; yet when each is opened there is nothing of consequence or relevance behind either one.  This is the flipside of my earlier point that a choice's meaningfulness cannot be known until later: the same holds true for a choice's ultimate meaning_less_ness.



I am going to say that I find your use of the term 'meaningful' to be inaccurate. I think you mean 'consequential'. In your last example here you have an inconsequential choice, which I would call a FALSE CHOICE, and indeed it isn't meaningful. I'd note that the information being provided, being wrong, isn't really information at all though, its deception or simply incompetence perhaps. There never was a genuine choice, both doors lead nowhere. I don't think this really says anything except what we have been saying all along, genuine/authentic choice requires consequence. Again, in the ordinary use of English this is widely understood, as the phrase "You leave me with no real choice" is perfectly understood by all.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I quite agree with this in the Quantum Monster sense; where the GM is meta-changing things behind the scenes in direct reaction to what the players/PCs do.  In my view a GM doing this risks making the whole game inauthentic, not just the here-and-now choice.
> 
> I don't agree in cases where it's already set that each choice leads to, say, nothing (the two dead ends off the T, for example); here the choice is perfectly authentic, but ultimately turns out to be meaningless.
> 
> ...



Right, I don't think 'three clue' (or just a game with clues in it in general) is a 'railroad'. I think its a puzzle! You may or may not solve the puzzle. I do think that a puzzle which has 'choke points' in it where you can't proceed past a certain point without some information or a mcguffin is a bit of bad design though. An ideal puzzle, like a good murder mystery, presents a bunch of clues, and you, the 'detective', have to decide when and if you have sufficient information to make an accusation which is correct. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, more clues will make this easier. A really skilled mystery creator will also draw the suspects with enough authenticity that the player can use his or her intuition (or I suppose this can be a mechanic) such that they 'get a feel for' who might be included or eliminated in the suspect list. This also might interact with clues, like the maid seems innocent, until you happen to spy her exposing her cruel and psychopathic personality! 

BUT, the existence of a 'clue driven' process wherein the clues and their proper interpretation are the sole purview of a GM or writer is itself a type of play. It can be quite genuine/authentic when used well, within a certain limited scope. The more open process where the formation and solving of the mystery is the subject of in-the-moment framing will focus more reliably on the characterization side though, as such things as clues become of secondary importance (IE the 'detective' may be confronted with evidence that his sister is the killer, in game mechanical terms the fact 'is my sister' CAUSED 'evidence of guilt'). Now the focus is on something like "Do I stay true to my ethos as a crime solver, or do I save my sister whom I love." 

I'm not going to engage in the exercise of trying to call one more or less genuine than the other.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Jul 29, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Uninformed means that the meaning of the subsequent events does not arise from the _act of choosing_.
> 
> If the GM has a selection of rooms, and, as characters walk through the dungeon, the GM rolls a die to choose what room is next, clearly, the players are not actually making a choice.  If no choice is made, that choice cannot be meaningful.
> 
> ...



I think their point was that informed can be insufficient (to meaning). Sure, if your choice isn't informed it isn't (really) a choice, but a choice (informed or otherwise) isn't meaningful unless other criteria are met (in particular, that the net outcome meaningfully differs based on which choice is made). At least that was my takeaway.


pemerton said:


> hawkeyefan, thanks for the kind post!
> 
> Where I referred to _genuine choices that say something_, you've referred to choices and actions _mattering_. There's overlap in our two formulations, but maybe not strict synonymy. With my use of "saying something", and also my use of _authenticity_ as a key notion, I think I might be putting more emphasis on a particular _way_ that things can matter - their role in expression, revelation etc in a type of interpersonal, creative context.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Not to me, at least. Once again, we are back to these nebulous terms genuine, authentic(ity), and 'saying something,' without a clearer and more cohesive thesis on how you mean them, or how various playstyles engender them better than others. I've followed fairly well multiple peoples' takes on what they think you meant in the OP (and so if someone got it perfectly, that would be useful informatin), so I know I'm not just too dumb for these concepts (too daft to understand your clear communications still a distinct possibility), but I as of yet am in no way confident I know what you did actually mean.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Really I don't know what else one would want the three clue rule to do in order to make it less railroady or place less limits on character exploration. Obviously it is different from a game like Hillfolk, which I have also run a mystery with (and equally obviously the three clue rule is advice, not a game system, but I think it assumes you are using something more like Call of Cthulhu or D&D). With Hillfolk, the way a mystery would be handled is totally different because the players can assert details about NPCs and events that happened int he past and make them so through dialogue (there are methods to countermand this, but basically I as a player can say "But I heard John was seen at the docks drenched in blood last friday" and that pretty much means it happened. This approach also avoids railroads, but it also means you can't have an objective mystery at the heart of the adventure (which is fun, but also a totally different mystery solving experience). You can have an objective thing like at the start of the adventure a body of the sect leader is found in his room. But as you play the background information can be informed by ideas the players present trough their dialogue. That increases player freedom to explore but it also puts limits on things because everyone knows the mystery at the heart isn't nailed down but is in flux, so it means how you portray your character and how the GM portrays NPCs has to account for that unknown (which is limiting because it get into portraying motives). Neither approach is a railroad though. Fundamentally which approach is better is more about what you want in a mystery adventure than about whether or not you are interested in evading railroads or enhancing meaningful choice



Right, I think there are at least three sorts of situations/processes that people are drawing from. There's the linear sort of A -> B -> C kind of thing. In that case there's an obvious and strong utility to the 3 clue rule, because you better get the 'keys' to pass B and get to C while you are at A, or else things break down. As you say, most mysteries are not of this form, at least decent ones aren't. So in a mystery that is more like the game 'clue' where you run around a 'sandbox' and gather clues you could employ the 3 clue rule, but there's no linearity to stick to, aside from a sort of basic time sequence of events. THIRDLY we could have what you call out in Hillfolk, and would be a principled and intended kind of flow in a PbtA mystery game, I would imagine. The Players statements about things can establish facts, or at the very least interact with the game principles/agenda to insure that the GM introduces said facts. My previous example of the detective and his sister would be a likely kind of situation to arise in a hypothetical PbtA of this kind. From what I know of Dramasystem it might produce that kind of result as well, though I haven't really been much exposed to games built on that engine.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 29, 2022)

Figured I’d drop this in here as it seems apt to the conversation:

Here are two ways to contrast the nature of and implications upon play of “locked in” backstory like 3 Clue Rule:

Take AW/DW/ST and Read a Person (RAP) and Open Your Mind (OYM) and their derivatives and any playbook specific stand-ins:

*SITUATION A*

1) We’ve got a situation with no Threat that has already been built out from prior play (so Impulse, tags, moves pending).

2) Players make RAP and OYM to actually build out the situation and the Threat before them. The Threat is an in-situ (authentic) creation of RAP + OYM + AQ&UtA (Ask Questions and Use the Answers).

*SITUATION B*

1) We’ve got a Threat that has emerged from prior play. Players either already know the Threat Impulse, tags, moves or they make RAP + OYM to (a) uncover them and (b) open up/amplify their move space to act next.

2) Players in AW are like Wizards in D&D. They have a tremendous amount of fiat power via playbook and move design so they can “rewire/orient” the situation /Threat toward their own designs upon the fiction (rather than being constrained by play and conversation undergirded by task resolution + actor stance + limited in “meta-scope” prowess + GM decides ethos).

————-

A2 and B2 create both a very different sort of participant headspace and a very different process of play than something like “3 clue rule where PCs aren’t effectively D&D Wizards.”

Not better.

Different.

And by the by, the outputs (the post-play narratives) of AW Situation A, AW Situation B, and a game undergirded by 3 Clue Rule may very well all be the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It reminds me of something I was thinking about in regard to a campaign of Spire that I just wrapped up with my group. I made sure that any and all prep I did was about the situation now and the players involved, and never ever planned anything sequentially. I never committed to what was next for the PCs. Never anything like “once the PCs realize that the corpse fruit is being alchemically turned into the drug ambrosia, then they will confront the retroengineers responsible” or “once they speak to Trill the addict in Threadneedle Square, then they’ll go to The Sisters’ compound”.
> 
> Investigative adventures can be difficult to not sequence like that. I think if the GM has steps in mind…this will happen and then this which leads to that… that’s problematic (if we’re valuing player freedom and that sort of thing). The GM shouldn’t be deciding what’s next.



I would go further than what you set out in your last two sentences here. In the OP I mentioned the "three clue rule". I see "node based design" as a variation of the same thing.

I'm not contradicting you, but perhaps pushing the implications of your point a little further than you intended. (Or maybe not - perhaps you can see why I push further in the way that I do.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

Umbran said:


> If you are trying to avoid having folks thing Snarf is right in his assessment, this maybe isn't a good way to do it.  Putting this together with the prior writing yields, "My game is about friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation, other games squelch those things!"



I think you may be confusing X => Y with Y => X.

Your post appeared to suggest that notions of _revelation_, _responsibility_, _honesty_, _trust_ belong in the specialised zone of _counselling_. My response is that they are central to such commonplace (but not therefore trivial) things as friendship and conversation.



Umbran said:


> And the psychological safety required for genuine and authentic interactions is not generated by the rulesets, either.



Think about joining a poetry writing-and-reading club. And contrast that with joining, say, a chess club. They're both clubs. You might make friends at either of them. You might hope to improve your technique at either of them. But the nature of the activity participants are invited to engage in is different, from the point of view of authenticity.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Presumably in a game of the type you are pointing to this T intersection would be deliberately placed by the GM in the course of play



Even if the GM has not been deliberate, a player might seize the bull by the horns - as it were - an work with what they've been given.

This relates also to my replies to @kenada, about how "pure" sandboxes can become something else.

Authenticity doesn't have to flow from the GM. In fact, having written that down, I think the notion that it would do so is probably self-contradictory!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think this is really what was meant by GM enforced alignment. I don't think alignment in and of itself is the issue, it's when the GM enforces behavior of players based on alignment. The idea that a character could shift alignment in some way... either at the player's wishes, or at the GM's suggestion based on what the character's done... doesn't seem inauthentic as it relates to the discussion.



By GM-enforced alignment I would certainly include what you say, but also am intending to capture play in which the GM more-or-less unilaterally tells player what the moral meaning of their action declarations for their PCs is.

There are curious borderline cases here, whose existence is I think an offshoot of trying to reconcile AD&D's alignment techniques with authentic play: the player declares action X for their PC, the GM responds that it is an evil act, and the player in turn responds that it is nevertheless the right and warranted thing to do and follows through.

I can think of two possible "logical" structures to the situation I've just described. As I'll explain, I think one is typically a more apt characterisation.

(1) The situation is one of what Walzer calls "dirty hands" - situations in which _a_, even _the only_, warranted choice is an evil one. Walzer's go-to example of this is what he calls "supreme emergency" in wartime, which morally permits departure from the rule against killing civilians (his example is British terror-bombing of Germany prior to the US entering the war, which brought defeat of Germany by morally permissible means within the scope of feasible action). Characteristic of such situations is that the warranted choice is still understood to carry its moral taint.

(2) The situation is one in which the labels of "good" and "evil" are more-or-less rejected, either outright, or at least in the way they are being applied in this situation. Nietzsche is a strident exemplar of this, but there are slightly milder variants: Bertrand Russell, for instance, would talk about women being permitted to do "wicked" things once they got the vote, and he meant "wicked" in some conventional sense which he himself (being a suffragist) rejected.

I think the RPG situation I've described is characteristically like (2) rather than (1): the players (and their characters) repudiate the "conventional" moral labels that are being managed and applied by the GM, as "spokesperson" for "the gameworld". And so retain the conviction that what they are doing actually is morally permissible (contra a dirty hands analysis) and is classified as _evil_ only within a framework that they have rejected (or, perhaps, transcended).

(2)-type situations are closely connected to notions of authenticity.

I've done a fair bit of RPGing involving (2)-type situations myself, in both RM and 4e D&D, but not as a way of coping with or "sublimating" AD&D alignment techniques: I've made it clear that the god's moral framework is just that, and left it an open question for the players to choose their PCs' orientation towards the gods. I see this as, structurally although not in terms of content, a little bit like the "beyond just sandboxing" phenomenon that I discussed with @kenada a bit upthread.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> What if a character has a Belief that "I will always choose the right-hand path!" And a player, by choosing to go right, manifests that Belief in play. Depending on other features of the game being played, the procedures adopted, etc, this might be meaningful. And might connect in some fashion to authenticity.
> 
> Or flip it around: if that character's player chooses to go left despite the Belief, maybe they are setting things up for some kind of character epiphany, or are inviting the GM to "bring it on".



A question that raises for me is that supposing a player has an aim of exploring/expressing personal authenticity, and writes a belief that they do not have "I will always choose the right-hand path!" How can they pursue a belief that they do not have authentically? It requires them to choose actions (for their character) that they would personally not choose. It seems to require inauthenticity.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Even if the GM has not been deliberate, a player might seize the bull by the horns - as it were - an work with what they've been given.
> 
> This relates also to my replies to @kenada, about how "pure" sandboxes can become something else.
> 
> Authenticity doesn't have to flow from the GM. In fact, having written that down, I think the notion that it would do so is probably self-contradictory!



Yeah, I would say that the whole concept of authenticity is a bit like the old saw about indecency, you know it when you see it but it is impossible to completely define, and subjective. It seems most worthwhile to discuss what techniques are favorable to its appearance and which are not, vs any sort of formulation of what 'is and is not' authentic.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> By GM-enforced alignment I would certainly include what you say, but also am intending to capture play in which the GM more-or-less unilaterally tells player what the moral meaning of their action declarations for their PCs is.
> 
> There are curious borderline cases here, whose existence is I think an offshoot of trying to reconcile AD&D's alignment techniques with authentic play: the player declares action X for their PC, the GM responds that it is an evil act, and the player in turn responds that it is nevertheless the right and warranted thing to do and follows through.
> 
> ...



I am not sure why you would think less of the potential for authentic play with situation 1. You brought up the real world situation of UK Bomber Command during WWII and this is an interesting one. Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travis Harris is usually credited with planning, and certainly advocated for, the mass bombing of civilian targets by the RAF in the 1942-45 time frame. There is NO memorial to this man. While RAF Bomber Command has been memorialized, Harris was not only forgotten, he was virtually ostracized and the British government has remained largely silent in his regard. He was advanced to the peerage and received some honors, but alone amongst all the WWII supreme commanders of Allied Forces he was THE only one who was not made a peer in 1946 (Churchill later insisted that he accept a Baronetcy). His command were also denied certain service medals, particularly by the French and Germans. While he was definitely not punished or entirely ostracized, he was shut out from government service and certain explicit recognition, and later UK governments have expressed deep unease regarding such things as the bombing of Dresden.

I would think that this sort of thing would be rather interesting RP territory, at least for some! It is certainly the sort of logic under which many acts of what are later considered 'evil' have been performed. Often such situations are utilized in an 'off screen' sort of technique, like PCs dealing with the consequences of past events, or the actions of themselves or family members, etc. in some previous time frame.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think what makes a choice authentic is that it IS informed. I mean, you would, outside the context of an RPG discussion, probably consider the phrase 'authentic choice' to indicate something where the chooser is using their volition to determine a course of action, taking various things into consideration, and that the choice is consequential, right? I think in that context 'genuine' would generally come across as fairly synonymous with authentic too.




Again, I think we've gone in circles on what the terms mean here. It is probably better to dig into what we are actually talking about. Depending on what aspect of 'authentic' one is leaning into it certainly might tilt more in the direction you are pointing to. But I do think what I am pointing to is a middle territory that is important and gets glossed over with dividing things this way.  If we are using authentic to mean real or genuine, I would still say if the stakes are profound enough, even if your choice isn't informed, it is a genuine choice. Your decision, even if it wasn't a product of you reasoning through what option is likely to yield what result, still resulted in something of significant consequence. Getting on the plane and not getting on the plane (if the plane ends up crashing) would have been a genuine choice in my life, even if I had no way of knowing there was anything wrong with the plane. Arguably the process by which I arrived at my decision was less interesting and less a result of any significant deliberation (though even there it could have been the result of me wrestling with fear of flying issues). I am not saying there isn't a difference between that and between a more informed choice that also has significant consequences. But I see there being three basic types of choice: 1) meaningless (the GM decides what is behind the door or the mechanics decide regardless of what you choose), 2) meaningful (the choice is a real choice between two objective outcomes even if you don't have much information to go by), 3) informed and meaningful (you have more information helping you make a choice about which door to choose), 

That is why I used the real world example of taking the bus versus driving to work. I think part of why authentic versus inauthentic choice the way it is being used here falls short for me (apart from deciphering what is meant by authentic), is you miss that. Again I am not saying load your adventures with doors A and B with something horrific that cannot be deciphered beyond one of them. I am saying you need that range, and to me, one of the things that makes it meaningful is that the GM wasn't playing tricks behind the scenes, or just deciding regardless of what I chose. And again, even if I don't know what is beyond the door, I make tons of little decisions leading up to the opening of the door that are more informed (by my experience, my characters personality, etc). So even the most reductive example (door A versus door B) is going to have a lot more going on in terms of choice than just "I pick door B". 

That said, I do think you are pointing to another important distinction. Which is there is clearly a difference between the door A and B example and something more emotionally or morally weighty (like a character who has to choose between saving the President or his wife for example in a terrorism scenario, or a character who has to choose between loyalty to his friends or loyalty to the law). My point is just there is a spectrum of choices that are significant with different degrees of the player being informed about them (most are probably going to reside somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, many will be more malleable and subject to the players trying to discern more: in the Door A and B example, deciding to listen at the door might yield relevant information, but it might not if what aways is just a mechanical trap). My argument for including choices with less information is the way they can enhance excitement, surprise and suspense. And I don't think including such choices in any way makes a game more railroady or makes characters less able to have development (though I would say if the GM just flat out says "nothing the players can do yields any information, no matter what" then you are getting into railroad territory). 

For me personally a good campaign has a mixture of choices type 2 and 3.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

clearstream said:


> A question that raises for me is that supposing a player has an aim of exploring/expressing personal authenticity, and writes a belief that they do not have "I will always choose the right-hand path!" How can they pursue a belief that they do not have authentically? It requires them to choose actions (for their character) that they would personally not choose. It seems to require inauthenticity.



I don't think the criteria is what is authentic for the PLAYER, most of us would not do 99.9% of the things that are depicted in RPGs. A belief in taking the right-hand path is of course a bit simplistic, but in a magical world it could easily be a superstition or a way of signaling allegiance to some sort of divine power or something. Why would this belief/superstition be inauthentic just because the player doesn't ACTUALLY hold the same? When acting in character they certainly, authentically, act as if this is a part of their mental makeup. If it is supported by mechanics, then they participate in that level as well, and might, as @pemerton suggests, decide to contravene that belief for some reason. Now, the reasons for doing that might be an interesting point of discussion here, I'd go for an examination of what exactly to call that!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> hawkeyefan, thanks for the kind post!
> 
> Where I referred to _genuine choices that say something_, you've referred to choices and actions _mattering_. There's overlap in our two formulations, but maybe not strict synonymy. With my use of "saying something", and also my use of _authenticity_ as a key notion, I think I might be putting more emphasis on a particular _way_ that things can matter - their role in expression, revelation etc in a type of interpersonal, creative context.
> 
> Does that make sense?




Absolutely. I realize a lot of my comments have been more adjacent to that, but I understand what you mean. 

I see it in the broader sense of the players having an authentic means to interact with the game, and meaningful choices being one way to accomplish that. 



pemerton said:


> I would go further than what you set out in your last two sentences here. In the OP I mentioned the "three clue rule". I see "node based design" as a variation of the same thing.
> 
> I'm not contradicting you, but perhaps pushing the implications of your point a little further than you intended. (Or maybe not - perhaps you can see why I push further in the way that I do.)




I do see it. I’m expect folks may share examples of play that may contradict the idea. I think I view such methods as having a tendency toward limiting authenticity rather than a certainty. 

Do you think it’s more the latter?

I’m thinking of my recent Spire campaign. I absolutely initiated the game with an investigation. The PCs were members of a clandestine revolutionary organization (this is always the default premise for the game), and they were tasked with finding out what had happened to another cell of their group that had been wiped out by the powers that be.

So the initial idea is that they were to solve this mystery… what had the previous group learned or been up to that got them pinched and killed? Very similar basic set up to any number of games… I can imagine Call of Cthulhu or Delta Green having a similar set up, or any game where the PCs are members of/employed by an organization.

However, I didn't really care if that mystery ever got solved. All I really wanted was for the PCs to go to the district in question and  start investigating. Once they did that, they’d become embroiled in all kinds of things that were going on, and they’d make bonds there that would influence how they’d act and view things and so on. 

I wasn’t concerned with maintaining the initial mystery and to keeping the game about that “adventure”.

And I don’t think the game would have went where it did had I tried to do that. 



pemerton said:


> By GM-enforced alignment I would certainly include what you say, but also am intending to capture play in which the GM more-or-less unilaterally tells player what the moral meaning of their action declarations for their PCs is.




I think the alignment system was a bit too rigid in the AD&D era and that led to many GMs doing what you describe. I prefer alignment to be a more loose descriptor. I like when it has some heft to it, but not when it’s so absolute that a GM would say something like “you’re Lawful Good, no way would you agree to breaking into the farrier’s shop, even if you expect he may be a cultist of Orcus” and the like. I think this is less common these days, but obviously my take is purely anecdotal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I would go further than what you set out in your last two sentences here. In the OP I mentioned the "three clue rule". I see "node based design" as a variation of the same thing.
> 
> I'm not contradicting you, but perhaps pushing the implications of your point a little further than you intended. (Or maybe not - perhaps you can see why I push further in the way that I do.)




Node based design and the three clue rule are not synonymous though. I haven't personally used much of the node based adventure ideas so I can't speak to it as well as I can the three clue rule. But Alexander has a wide range of play advice and often mixes in one set with the other (so if I recall he incorporates three clue rule into his article on node based design, but also points out it can be pretty chaotic to add the three clue to a plotted campaign). Another thing worth mentioning is one of his key pieces of advice in that piece links to his "Don't prep plots, prep situations" which is something a lot of people who were reading that and involved in discussions with Alexander at the time were doing (Clash Bowley has similar posts on this concept). The idea there is it is actually more work and more of a hassle to prep plots, scenes, events that the players are expected to go through (even if those are more complex than a linear set of nodes) and you should just prepare situations 

This takes us pretty far afield of the three clue rule or the OP but this is his description of prepping situations rather than plots: 



> *PREPPING WITHOUT PLOTS*
> 
> Don’t prep plots, prep situations.
> 
> ...





> A situation, on the other hand, is merely a set of circumstances. The events that happen as a result of that situation will depend on the actions the PCs take.
> 
> For example, a plot might look like this: “Pursuing the villains who escaped during last week’s session, the PCs will get on a ship bound for the port city of Tharsis. On their voyage they will spot a derelict. They will board the derelict and discover that one of the villains has transformed into a monster and killed the entire crew… except for one lone survivor. They will fight the monster and rescue the survivor. While they’re fighting the monster, the derelict will have floated into the territorial waters of Tharsis. They will be intercepted by a fleet of Tharsian ships. Once their tale is told, they will be greeted in Tharsis as heroes for their daring rescue of the derelict. Following a clue given by the survivor of the derelict, they will climb Mt. Tharsis and reach the Temple of Olympus. They can then wander around the temple asking questions. This will accomplish nothing, but when they reach the central sanctuary of the temple the villains will attempt to assassinate them. The assassination attempt goes awry, and the magical idol at the center of the temple is destroyed. Unfortunately, this idol is the only thing holding the temple to the side of the mountain — without it the entire temple begins sliding down the mountain as the battle continues to rage between the PCs and villains!”
> 
> ...




He also has a whole series on hex crawls and a number of other approaches. He is just interested in tools and structure in general (personally I find his more broad advice much easier to incorporate into my campaigns than the extremely detailed step by step articles like node based design: just my preference, I know plenty of people who like the more detailed stuff).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I think we've gone in circles on what the terms mean here. It is probably better to dig into what we are actually talking about. Depending on what aspect of 'authentic' one is leaning into it certainly might tilt more in the direction you are pointing to. But I do think what I am pointing to is a middle territory that is important and gets glossed over with dividing things this way.  If we are using authentic to mean real or genuine, I would still say if the stakes are profound enough, even if your choice isn't informed, it is a genuine choice. Your decision, even if it wasn't a product of you reasoning through what option is likely to yield what result, still resulted in something of significant consequence. Getting on the plane and not getting on the plane (if the plane ends up crashing) would have been a genuine choice in my life, even if I had no way of knowing there was anything wrong with the plane. Arguably the process by which I arrived at my decision was less interesting and less a result of any significant deliberation (though even there it could have been the result of me wrestling with fear of flying issues). I am not saying there isn't a difference between that and between a more informed choice that also has significant consequences. But I see there being three basic types of choice: 1) meaningless (the GM decides what is behind the door or the mechanics decide regardless of what you choose), 2) meaningful (the choice is a real choice between two objective outcomes even if you don't have much information to go by), 3) informed and meaningful (you have more information helping you make a choice about which door to choose),
> 
> That is why I used the real world example of taking the bus versus driving to work. I think part of why authentic versus inauthentic choice the way it is being used here falls short for me (apart from deciphering what is meant by authentic), is you miss that. Again I am not saying load your adventures with doors A and B with something horrific that cannot be deciphered beyond one of them. I am saying you need that range, and to me, one of the things that makes it meaningful is that the GM wasn't playing tricks behind the scenes, or just deciding regardless of what I chose. And again, even if I don't know what is beyond the door, I make tons of little decisions leading up to the opening of the door that are more informed (by my experience, my characters personality, etc). So even the most reductive example (door A versus door B) is going to have a lot more going on in terms of choice than just "I pick door B".
> 
> ...



Yeah, as I say, I'm not especially against 'Door A or B' sorts of situations. I just don't see them as really offering much in terms of choice, and thus its hard to say that the 'choice' part of it is relevant to character development, etc. The consequences attaching to which door you opened are of course a whole other story, but I'd ascribe these developments to that and not the fact that you had to randomly pick a door. There's of course a 'surprise factor', but does that even attach to the random choice at all? I mean, its equally a surprise if a trap goes off regardless of the existence of another door. Sure, you may experience the "gosh I was unlucky" feeling, and that's fine I'm not against that either, though I don't think it is typically very profound (I guess a player could spin that into a belief that their character feels unlucky all the time, which might be interesting later). 

In terms of their being a wide variety of levels of information, sure. I didn't really state that there's some level that makes things qualitatively different, though perhaps people will feel that there is. I suspect if they do feel that way it will be particularized to the person and situation. As a general principle though, I am in the school of always providing some sort of information where consequent choice is on the table. It may be that this information would have to be sought, and thus might not actually be available as things have played out, and it can surely be incomplete, or even sometimes wrong (and that would probably be a whole other type of situation). So, indeed there is a large middle ground in terms of what comes up in games.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think the alignment system was a bit too rigid in the AD&D era and that led to many GMs doing what you describe. I prefer alignment to be a more loose descriptor. I like when it has some heft to it, but not when it’s so absolute that a GM would say something like “you’re Lawful Good, no way would you agree to breaking into the farrier’s shop, even if you expect he may be a cultist of Orcus” and the like. I think this is less common these days, but obviously my take is purely anecdotal.



In the early days, when we DID use alignment, maybe back in the '70s and early '80s, I seem to remember thinking of it as more of an in-setting thing. In other words the GODS interpret the actions of the PCs and make calls as to what THEY think about it, and that's reflected in the alignment on the character sheet. If they decide you changed alignment, then the negative effects of such judgment come down on you, authored by them. Of course mortals can also police behavior under the notion of upholding their deity's beliefs, or of trying to avoid a more general form of punishment for transgressions. I always assumed that, for low level PCs at least, this is the form that alignment conflict would take, and there might be various ways it could play out (maybe the gods agree with the PC, maybe the people and the PC break with the gods, etc.). 

Not that any of that got around the real issue, which was the impossibility of game participants agreeing as to what was what. However, if a GM is impartial on that score they COULD use alignment in a pretty story-driving way.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In the early days, when we DID use alignment, maybe back in the '70s and early '80s, I seem to remember thinking of it as more of an in-setting thing. In other words the GODS interpret the actions of the PCs and make calls as to what THEY think about it, and that's reflected in the alignment on the character sheet. If they decide you changed alignment, then the negative effects of such judgment come down on you, authored by them. Of course mortals can also police behavior under the notion of upholding their deity's beliefs, or of trying to avoid a more general form of punishment for transgressions. I always assumed that, for low level PCs at least, this is the form that alignment conflict would take, and there might be various ways it could play out (maybe the gods agree with the PC, maybe the people and the PC break with the gods, etc.).
> 
> Not that any of that got around the real issue, which was the impossibility of game participants agreeing as to what was what. However, if a GM is impartial on that score they COULD use alignment in a pretty story-driving way.




Yeah, alignment by itself isn’t an issue. And it can certainly be the inspiration for meaningful play. 

I think that in my experience, it really only mattered to a small subset of classes, and therefore a small subset of characters. Like the paladin… always at risk of losing like 90% of his cool stuff if he does anything that could be considered evil. 

And while I get that… it’s the tradeoff of those abilities… I think a lot of GMs felt that this needed to be applied (at least to some extent) across the board. We can’t have the fighter and wizard just behaving any way they like if the paladin can’t… and while we can’t take away their abilities, we can block them from certain actions based on alignment. 

That was more my experience with this kind of thing. It wasn’t always terrible, but it could stop a player from doing what they felt the character would do based on a two word descriptor that’s pretty wide open to interpretation.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, alignment by itself isn’t an issue. And it can certainly be the inspiration for meaningful play.
> 
> I think that in my experience, it really only mattered to a small subset of classes, and therefore a small subset of characters. Like the paladin… always at risk of losing like 90% of his cool stuff if he does anything that could be considered evil.
> 
> ...



Well, I can only speak to AD&D, it doesn't ever say the GM can or should block a character action. It simply lays out the basic default consequences of alignment change. Various classes build on that, adding more penalties. I admit, there are also 'restrictions' on classes like the Thief, who is not supposed to be 'good'. Its unclear how that is supposed to work, but one option is simply to consider those to be an INITIAL restriction when the character is created, and during play that can change. I mean, OK, GMs may have interpreted things differently, but that seems consistent with the game text, and does work. As you say, the problems are more 'table' than 'game', but certainly the whole system kind of begs to create issues. I have certainly witnessed a few myself.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In the early days, when we DID use alignment, maybe back in the '70s and early '80s, I seem to remember thinking of it as more of an in-setting thing. In other words the GODS interpret the actions of the PCs and make calls as to what THEY think about it, and that's reflected in the alignment on the character sheet. If they decide you changed alignment, then the negative effects of such judgment come down on you, authored by them.



This would make more sense in a monotheistic system though. If the alignment is just "opinion of the gods" then in a world with multiple gods I'd expect there to be some serious disagreement.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Such investigative type adventures are very susceptible to railroading. They tend to be linear and many elements are predetermined. It takes some real effort to work against these elements pushing things a specific way.




I don't really think they're any more prone to railroading that other adventures.  The PCs are still in control of how the proceed and conclude the investigation.  I'm working on a scenario for Blade Runner, a murder mystery, and the meaningful decisions won't have anything to do with finding clues.  The meaningful decisions come from deciding what to do with those clues.  In my scenario, the PCs get to decide the fate of a replicant named Casey.  Knowing he did nothing wrong, do they capture/kill him as their boss demands which is bad for their humanity but good for their career?  Or do they allow him to escape in the San Diego reclaimation zone and sleep easy at night?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't really think they're any more prone to railroading that other adventures.  The PCs are still in control of how the proceed and conclude the investigation.  I'm working on a scenario for Blade Runner, a murder mystery, and the meaningful decisions won't have anything to do with finding clues.  The meaningful decisions come from deciding what to do with those clues.  In my scenario, the PCs get to decide the fate of a replicant named Casey.  Knowing he did nothing wrong, do they capture/kill him as their boss demands which is bad for their humanity but good for their career?  Or do they allow him to escape in the San Diego reclaimation zone and sleep easy at night?




One of the reasons I like investigations and mysteries is they are very easy if you want to avoid linear or railroad adventures. I have met people who want something more like Scene A to Scene B to Scene C, but the impression I get is most players and most GMs who do investigations like having an openness to how the scenario is approached by the party.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know about that. There’s nothing true about the decision, right? No elements relevant to a character, no clues about what’s down each path, no hint at consequences, no actual consequences… hard to see what’s authentic about it. Seems mostly like bad design.



Might be bad design, sure, but even though the decision both appears at the time to be and later turns out to be meaningless and-or irrelevant, it's still IMO authentic in its making.  Not that in the long run it matters. 


hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it’s not a certainty. But it’s certainly steering things. It may not be a hard right turn, but it’s at least a little nudge to the wheel.
> 
> It reminds me of something I was thinking about in regard to a campaign of Spire that I just wrapped up with my group. I made sure that any and all prep I did was about the situation now and the players involved, and never ever planned anything sequentially. I never committed to what was next for the PCs. Never anything like “once the PCs realize that the corpse fruit is being alchemically turned into the drug ambrosia, then they will confront the retroengineers responsible” or “once they speak to Trill the addict in Threadneedle Square, then they’ll go to The Sisters’ compound”.
> 
> Investigative adventures can be difficult to not sequence like that. I think if the GM has steps in mind…this will happen and then this which leads to that… that’s problematic (if we’re valuing player freedom and that sort of thing). The GM shouldn’t be deciding what’s next.



Partial dis/agreement here.  The GM should have some ideas as to what comes next and maybe even have those ideas written down such that if things do progress as intended she's ready to seamlessly flow into the next phase.  BUT - and here's the key bit - the GM's ideas on what might come next have to be considered as expendable in the face of whatever off-path things the players/PCs cause to happen next.

The problems IMO arise when the GM won't allow their ideas to be expendable.

I'm running a mystery right now, as it happens.  The PCs have been asked to find out what became of another adventuring group who went into an empty Roman-villa-like manor house and simply never came out.  



Spoiler



There's a nasty chute trap in there behind a few secret doors that teleports anyone falling in into a prison cell a hundred miles away or so; someone in the previous party fell in and the rest more cautiously followed, and of five adventurers three got killed at the other end, one escaped into some caverns, and one switched sides and joined the enemy out of self-preservation.  The PC group are more powerful than the first lot and thus have a better - though not certain - chance of a better outcome.



Adventure design critics would probably flay this thing sideways were I ever to write it out in publishable form: most of the villa's rooms are empty and trashed (the previous group took out the foes and treasure), the clues that point to there being more to this place than first appears are quite subtle and easily missed, there's a few cases where missing one clue or element means they simply can't access part of the place, and it's very possible they'll fail outright in that they might never find the key thing noted in the spoilered bit.

And I'm fine with all of that.  If they succeed then I know what comes next, and if they don't I'm ready and able to wing it from there as they figure out what to do next, whether there or elsewhere.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Uninformed means that the meaning of the subsequent events does not arise from the _act of choosing_.



Correct, yet again here the information level at time of choosing and the ultimate meaningfulness of the choice are not related.


Umbran said:


> If the GM has a selection of rooms, and, as characters walk through the dungeon, the GM rolls a die to choose what room is next, clearly, the players are not actually making a choice.  If no choice is made, that choice cannot be meaningful.



As the players aren't in fact making the choice here (other than to cede the choice-making power to the GM) this example isn't germaine.


Umbran said:


> Same situation, but the GM hands the die to the players - again, they are not making a choice, so there is no meaningful choice.



The players are in fact making two choices here: 1 - to continue exploring rather than turn back or stop or abandon the dungeon, and then 2 - to cede the where-to-explore-next choice-making power to the die.  This does allow them to blame the die if things go wrong later, I suppose, but the meaningfulness of the choice - made for them by the die at their request - still won't and can't be known until (maybe much) later.


Umbran said:


> Same situation, but the GM hands a piece of paper to the players, with 5 random letters on it, and tells them to choose.  The letters are free of semantic content, so there is no relevant _thought process_ to choose one over another.  If there is no relevant thought process, the determination is arbitrary - no different than a random choice, which we have already determined is not actually a choice, and so has no meaning.



Ah, but have we determined that a random choice has no meaning, though?  I certainly haven't.  A completely random choice can in hindsight turn out to be highly meaningful; and this meaningfulness is not changed by the fact the choice was randomly made at the time.  You might, for example, randomly decide to take a different bus one day throgh flipping a coin, and on that bus meet the love of your life; and thus in hindsight a random choice becomes the most meaningful decision you ever made.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Such investigative type adventures are very susceptible to railroading. They tend to be linear and many elements are predetermined. It takes some real effort to work against these elements pushing things a specific way.




It pays to read a bit in systems specifically designed to do investigative scenarios - like Ashen Stars, or most other Gumshoe variants.  While there are elements that are pre-determined (who or what location has a given piece of information) they only become railroads when they are set up as "Clue 1 -> Clue 2 -> Clue 3...," which is, well, a newbie mystery-adventure-writing mistake.  Set them up as a _web_, rather than a chain, and there's no railroad.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I am going to say that I find your use of the term 'meaningful' to be inaccurate. I think you mean 'consequential'.



I've already stated upthread that I consider those two terms to be synonymous.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> In your last example here you have an inconsequential choice, which I would call a FALSE CHOICE, and indeed it isn't meaningful. I'd note that the information being provided, being wrong, isn't really information at all though, its deception or simply incompetence perhaps. There never was a genuine choice, both doors lead nowhere. I don't think this really says anything except what we have been saying all along, genuine/authentic choice requires consequence. Again, in the ordinary use of English this is widely understood, as the phrase "You leave me with no real choice" is perfectly understood by all.



"You leave me with no real choice" simply shows the chooser has enough information* to foresee some potential outcomes of whatever options are available, and of those options only one has potential outcomes beneficial (or at least clearly less worse) to the chooser.

Whether any of those potential outcomes - good or bad - would in fact come out real won't and can't be known until after the choice is made.

* - which may or may not be accurate or true.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jul 29, 2022)

With the caveat that I haven’t read the entire thread, what exactly is “authenticity” in this context? Authentic what?

I would know how to parse the phrase authentic gospel music. Or authentic mont d’or cheese. Or an authentic Renoir. Or authentic tears. 

But WTF is authentic roleplaying?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 29, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't really think they're any more prone to railroading that other adventures.  The PCs are still in control of how the proceed and conclude the investigation.  I'm working on a scenario for Blade Runner, a murder mystery, and the meaningful decisions won't have anything to do with finding clues.  The meaningful decisions come from deciding what to do with those clues.  In my scenario, the PCs get to decide the fate of a replicant named Casey.  Knowing he did nothing wrong, do they capture/kill him as their boss demands which is bad for their humanity but good for their career?  Or do they allow him to escape in the San Diego reclaimation zone and sleep easy at night?




It sounds like a cool scenario and very suitable for the setting. But it sounds like you already have the defining decision set. It’s all building toward that… do they let Casey go or take him in? This decision also seems to rely on them learning the fact that Casey is innocent.

I would not say this is a railroad. I would say that if I played Blade Runner, this would be the kind of scenario I’d expect and I’d be onboard. But it does make certain assumptions about the way the game will go.



Lanefan said:


> Might be bad design, sure, but even though the decision both appears at the time to be and later turns out to be meaningless and-or irrelevant, it's still IMO authentic in its making.  Not that in the long run it matters.
> 
> Partial dis/agreement here.  The GM should have some ideas as to what comes next and maybe even have those ideas written down such that if things do progress as intended she's ready to seamlessly flow into the next phase.  BUT - and here's the key bit - the GM's ideas on what might come next have to be considered as expendable in the face of whatever off-path things the players/PCs cause to happen next.
> 
> ...




Well I think it’s all about knowing the myriad elements involved so when the players do X, you know what factions Y and Z are going to do. You’re responding to them. 

There’s a half baked thought that’s been in my mind during this discussion about discovery versus revelation, and how each feels to the players and how each impacts play. I haven’t quite worked it out, though. 



Umbran said:


> It pays to read a bit in systems specifically designed to do investigative scenarios - like Ashen Stars, or most other Gumshoe variants.  While there are elements that are pre-determined (who or what location has a given piece of information) they only become railroads when they are set up as "Clue 1 -> Clue 2 -> Clue 3...," which is, well, a newbie mystery-adventure-writing mistake.  Set them up as a _web_, rather than a chain, and there's no railroad.




Yeah, I’ve read and played Gumshoe games…Trail of Cthulhu, mostly, but I picked up Night’s Black Agents and the Dracula Dossier because the idea intrigued me and I wanted to see how it worked. 

So let’s take the Dracula Dossier as a good example. It’s an investigation scenario. I think I’d say that it constitutes the kind of web you’re talking about. There’s an abundance of information to use. Maybe too much, honestly. 

But there’s so much because a lot of it is alternate takes. There are multiple ways to portray the conspiracy and how the different characters fit into it. A lot has been done to try and prevent the game from becoming a railroad. It could still easily be done given the nature of it. 

Investigations need not be railroads, but they do seem susceptible given how many elements are predetermined.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It could still easily be done given the nature of it.




But, is that meaningful?  Isn't it true that _anything_ could easily be done as a railroad?  Try to name a genre that couldn't be easily done as a railroad, and tell us why you think the genre is somehow railroad-resistant.



hawkeyefan said:


> Investigations need not be railroads, but they do seem susceptible given how many elements are predetermined.




Again, if _everything_ is susceptible, this is not special.

I ran Ashen Stars for my regular group for several years - I used many of the published adventures for it, and not a single one of them was a railroad in design.  It took no effort on my part to make the scenarios non-linear in construction.

Now, Ashen Stars has an ethos from its inspirational material - every mystery has, at its end, an ethical conundrum or choice the PCs will have to make.  While eventually you expect every group to solve the mystery, how they get there, and what they do when they get there, are not on rails.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I would not say this is a railroad. I would say that if I played Blade Runner, this would be the kind of scenario I’d expect and I’d be onboard. But it does make certain assumptions about the way the game will go.



Sure, but I make certain assumptions about every game I run.  Sometimes it bites me in the butt, but if the players are given the quest to go recover the Cheese Wheel of Destiny I can usually count on them to try to recover it.  And, hell, you never know, maybe they'll suprise me in Blade Runner by trying to get the replicant off planet or contact the replicant underground.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 29, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think the criteria is what is authentic for the PLAYER, most of us would not do 99.9% of the things that are depicted in RPGs. A belief in taking the right-hand path is of course a bit simplistic, but in a magical world it could easily be a superstition or a way of signaling allegiance to some sort of divine power or something. Why would this belief/superstition be inauthentic just because the player doesn't ACTUALLY hold the same? When acting in character they certainly, authentically, act as if this is a part of their mental makeup. If it is supported by mechanics, then they participate in that level as well, and might, as @pemerton suggests, decide to contravene that belief for some reason. Now, the reasons for doing that might be an interesting point of discussion here, I'd go for an examination of what exactly to call that!



I feel that's a reasonable view, but it has the consequence of calling out that personal authenticity canot be the "authenticity" we're talking about. We _might_ be discussing what I've labelled "simulation": the impression that an imagined persona is acting in a way we would count personally authentic... for a real person; notwithstanding that we're guaranteed the player is essentially -  and _successfully_ - dissembling.

You might want to say that being able to act as if you genuinely hold beliefs you do not hold is a sign of personal authenticity. I don't find that an especially attractive idea. It would seem to let in that the con artist is counted more genuine than the person who is always openly and stubbornly true to themselves. Maybe there is theory for theatre that can help disssolve this paradox?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 30, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I feel that's a reasonable view, but it has the consequence of calling out that personal authenticity canot be the "authenticity" we're talking about. We _might_ be discussing what I've labelled "simulation": the impression that an imagined persona is acting in a way we would count personally authentic... for a real person; notwithstanding that we're guaranteed the player is essentially -  and _successfully_ - dissembling.
> 
> You might want to say that being able to act as if you genuinely hold beliefs you do not hold is a sign of personal authenticity. I don't find that an especially attractive idea. It would seem to let in that the con artist is counted more genuine than the person who is always openly and stubbornly true to themselves. Maybe there is theory for theatre that can help disssolve this paradox?



Yeah, I'd have to leave that for others, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about acting and such. I think what we might be able to say is that the authenticity must be experienced by the participants in the game, but it is ABOUT the characters and how play explores them and reveals them? I guess here @pemerton expressed something about this. So, the question is then perhaps, can the player "grab the bull by the horns" and say something authentic about their character?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

clearstream said:


> A question that raises for me is that supposing a player has an aim of exploring/expressing personal authenticity, and writes a belief that they do not have "I will always choose the right-hand path!" How can they pursue a belief that they do not have authentically? It requires them to choose actions (for their character) that they would personally not choose. It seems to require inauthenticity.



You've set up a needlessly strong case to raise your supposed paradox.

Go back to the GM's narration of the PC coming to a T-intersection. The player knows that there is no T-intersection - it's just imaginary! So how can they authentically reason about it? Hence authentic RPGing is per se impossible!

The dissolution of the paradox in my case also dissolves it in your case: the player is creating, and imagining. And in doing so is able to (or, at least, may aspire to) express themself authentically.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I am not sure why you would think less of the potential for authentic play with situation 1.



I don't. I'm offering an actual empirical diagnosis of a certain pattern of RPG play: when the players assert that what they are doing is right/warranted although "the cosmos" (via the GM) labels it evil, their understanding of their circumstance is typical an instance of (2) - like Nietzsche, they reject the labels the cosmos is placing upon them - rather than (1).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 30, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't. I'm offering an actual empirical diagnosis of a certain pattern of RPG play: when the players assert that what they are doing is right/warranted although "the cosmos" (via the GM) labels it evil, their understanding of their circumstance is typical an instance of (2) - like Nietzsche, they reject the labels the cosmos is placing upon them - rather than (1).



I think its more likely to be an instance of 1 "yeah, guys we're going to have to get our hands dirty here, we can't let these orc children grow up! I know its murder, but its us or them!"


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think its more likely to be an instance of 1 "yeah, guys we're going to have to get our hands dirty here, we can't let these orc children grow up! I know its murder, but its us or them!"




Anybody just watch _The Orville_, Season 3, Episode 9?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jul 30, 2022)

Every time I play a solo, GM-less RPG it turns into a total railroad.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I’m expect folks may share examples of play that may contradict the idea. I think I view such methods as having a tendency toward limiting authenticity rather than a certainty.
> 
> Do you think it’s more the latter?



I think my views here are probably a bit harder than yours! That's in part because I'm still waiting for the play examples that will contradict the idea. Mostly when I see accounts of node-based design, the three clue rule and similar techniques they are all about ensuring that a certain set of situations, and/or consequences, comes to pass. The players don't provide the stakes of, or the motivations for, the action that is the focus of play.



hawkeyefan said:


> I’m thinking of my recent Spire campaign. I absolutely initiated the game with an investigation. The PCs were members of a clandestine revolutionary organization (this is always the default premise for the game), and they were tasked with finding out what had happened to another cell of their group that had been wiped out by the powers that be.
> 
> So the initial idea is that they were to solve this mystery… what had the previous group learned or been up to that got them pinched and killed? Very similar basic set up to any number of games… I can imagine Call of Cthulhu or Delta Green having a similar set up, or any game where the PCs are members of/employed by an organization.
> 
> ...



That doesn't sound like "three clue" or "node based" play.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 30, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think its more likely to be an instance of 1 "yeah, guys we're going to have to get our hands dirty here, we can't let these orc children grow up! I know its murder, but its us or them!"





Umbran said:


> Anybody just watch _The Orville_, Season 3, Episode 9?



Ep 5 has a good one, too..
Ep 8 is very much a "get the hands dirty here" moment...
Ep 9 is Seth finally making the big message a sledgehammer upside the head.
There are so many "dirty hands" moments


Spoiler: The Orville s3e5



The concert for deniability for returning Topa to female, and Isaac doing the surgery.





Spoiler: The Orville s3e8



Raiding an ally's base to stop them from doing what their law requires, and one's own prohibits.
The Union realizing that the Moclan either must change or leave, and doing it, even tho' it risks survival of the quadrant, if not the whole galaxy





Spoiler: The Orville s3e9



The Moclan being forced by Teleya (Michaela McManus) to accept a female in cocommand...
Admiral Perry (Ted Danson) Betraying the union... because he doesn't believe killing all the Kaylon to be genocide, let along unacceptable Genocide
The Union's Anti-Kaylon device, built by Kaylon defector Isaac (Mark Jacson) & Kaylon-hating Ens. Burke (Anne Winters)...
the Union asking the Kaylon to help recover/destroy the device...
The Kaylon agreeing
Ens Burke's valor...
The Kaylon joining the union...


If one hasn't seen it, The Orville is a great show! It is, however, in the classic SF mode of being a commentary on the writers' collective views of modern society...
Episodes 6, 8, & 9 of season three all show themes of getting the hands dirty to do the right thing... different ways..
I've had sessions hit that level of emotional impact... not many... but a few.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, alignment by itself isn’t an issue. And it can certainly be the inspiration for meaningful play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It wasn’t always terrible, but it could stop a player from doing what they felt the character would do based on a two word descriptor that’s pretty wide open to interpretation.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> In the early days, when we DID use alignment, maybe back in the '70s and early '80s, I seem to remember thinking of it as more of an in-setting thing. In other words the GODS interpret the actions of the PCs and make calls as to what THEY think about it, and that's reflected in the alignment on the character sheet.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if a GM is impartial on that score they COULD use alignment in a pretty story-driving way.



Here's Vincent Baker from DitV (pp 143-4):

In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing - whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever - based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.

In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ’em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.

Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then _I won’t tell you what I think_. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.​
I don't know if Baker is the first RPG author to make this point. I'd more-or-less reached the same conclusion in the late 1980s: for authentic play, I want the players to express their conception of what morality demands, not try and work out what someone else's (ie the GM's) conception of that is. (As I posted upthread, my type-(2) situations are a version of this, where players play authentically while scorning conventional/cosmological judgement in a little replication of Nietzsche.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> By encounter I just mean any interaction the GM decides to give you with an owl bear. The GM would have decided by salient (which I think is implied by fiat). Again in this example I wasn't worried about what conditions needed to be met, my point was even in a case where the GM has total power to decide that you face an owl bear, that doesn't seem affect the authenticity of my character (certainly you could say its unfair, its not the best procedure, it is heavy handed, it imposes on agency if the GM isn't considering conditions). It was more a point about how I am not seeing where authenticity is the issue. I am not saying the GM declaring an Owl bear encounter "because" is a good practice. I just don't see how a GM even doing that is particularly relevant to the authenticity of play and of your characterization of your character.



As per my reply upthread to @kenada, the OP is referring to authenticity on the part of the participants, not the authenticity of the characters they depict.

I don't think it is possible to talk about the authenticity of play, in the context of the GM having declared (say) "You see an owlbear rushing towards you!", if we don't know anything about why the GM said that, where it comes from in the game play, what is significance is for the player(s) to whom it's said, etc.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, is that meaningful?  Isn't it true that _anything_ could easily be done as a railroad?  Try to name a genre that couldn't be easily done as a railroad, and tell us why you think the genre is somehow railroad-resistant.




No, I don’tthink that any game can easily be run as a railroad. I think some games… or rather some methods… are more susceptible than others. 



Umbran said:


> Again, if _everything_ is susceptible, this is not special.
> 
> I ran Ashen Stars for my regular group for several years - I used many of the published adventures for it, and not a single one of them was a railroad in design.  It took no effort on my part to make the scenarios non-linear in construction.
> 
> Now, Ashen Stars has an ethos from its inspirational material - every mystery has, at its end, an ethical conundrum or choice the PCs will have to make.  While eventually you expect every group to solve the mystery, how they get there, and what they do when they get there, are not on rails.




Sure. As I said, I’m not saying that it must be so. And I don’t think of the three-clue rule as being as severe as railroading. I do think that it’s there to help guide the game, though, and I can see how that may contradict with authenticity. 

I’ve never played Ashen Stars, though, so I have no experience with it. How do the published adventures function? How do they work without forcing things a certain way?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 30, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think my views here are probably a bit harder than yours! That's in part because I'm still waiting for the play examples that will contradict the idea. Mostly when I see accounts of node-based design, the three clue rule and similar techniques they are all about ensuring that a certain set of situations, and/or consequences, comes to pass. The players don't provide the stakes of, or the motivations for, the action that is the focus of play.




I see your point. I just expect there would still be other opportunities for the authentic kind of expression by participants even if there are moments of play without that opportunity. 



pemerton said:


> That doesn't sound like "three clue" or "node based" play.




Yeah, I didn’t deploy any of those methods. I introduced the mystery just to give the players motivation to get started and interact with the NPCs. I could have very easily tried to keep the game focused on the story of the previous cell and why they’d been discovered and killed. I could have planted clues about that in different areas, I could have had other elements point back to that, and so on. I didn’t want to do that, though. I just wanted to see what the llayers would have the characters do.

What we all got was, I expect, very much along the lines what you’re talking about. Each of the three PCs had quite a journey, nothing that anyone would have predicted based on the basic premise of learning what happened to the previous cell. Things went in all kinds of directions. And although they did eventually learn about the other cell, by that point it was almost an afterthought compared to their other goals and priorities at that point.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I see your point. I just expect there would still be other opportunities for the authentic kind of expression by participants even if there are moments of play without that opportunity.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I've bolded the bit where you state the purpose of the mystery in your game.

And here is what I posted in the post that you replied to, with a bit that I think of as crucial bolded:



pemerton said:


> Mostly when I see accounts of node-based design, the three clue rule and similar techniques they are all about ensuring that a certain set of situations, and/or consequences, comes to pass. *The players don't provide the stakes of, or the motivations for, the action that is the focus of play.*



I think that the degree to which play tends towards what I've bolded of yours will tend to correlate, inversely, with the degree to which it tends towards what I've bolded of mine.

The most interesting formal attempt I know of in a published RPG system to trade on this inverse correlation is Marvel Heroic RP, where the context for the action is supposed to be the four-colour action the GM frames the PCs into, but the key stakes of, and motivations for, the action are supposed to be supplied by the players via their interpretation of their PCs' Milestones.

Whether the system pulls this off in the thorough-going way that it seems to want to I'm still not sure about - it's actually quite a crunchy system and generally the players, as their PCs, don't want the baddies to win; whether the significance of Milestones in the overall system compensates for this isn't something I have a firm view on, although I'm prepared to say it's not an obvious failure. And in any event I think it's a clever thing to try, in the context of setting out to emulate a certain feel of Marvel comics by exploiting the allocation of participant roles that is distinctive of RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 30, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Here's Vincent Baker from DitV (pp 143-4):
> 
> In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing - whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever - based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.​​In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ’em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.​​Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then _I won’t tell you what I think_. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.​
> I don't know if Baker is the first RPG author to make this point. I'd more-or-less reached the same conclusion in the late 1980s: for authentic play, I want the players to express their conception of what morality demands, not try and work out what someone else's (ie the GM's) conception of that is. (As I posted upthread, my type-(2) situations are a version of this, where players play authentically while scorning conventional/cosmological judgement in a little replication of Nietzsche.)




Baker’s description does a good job of getting the idea across. (Not really surprising with him!)

The bit about the GM’s ideas not being binding in the game world seems key. Without that, all that the GM has in relation to the morality of the characters is an opinion. 



pemerton said:


> I think that the degree to which play tends towards what I've bolded of yours will tend to correlate, inversely, with the degree to which it tends towards what I've bolded of mine.




So the more the GM provides the motivation, the less the players will, which is what you think will reduce authenticity of the kind you describe? I think that makes sense if I’ve followed correctly. 

Spire is an interesting example in that sense, because the game has a default premise of the characters being secret revolutionaries. How that manifests can vary quite a bit, I expect, but it does set a general kind of goal for the characters. I don’t think it’s so strong as to lock play in to a specific path. I think it could do so if the premise is enforced too heavily. 

But that basic premise is absolutely about prompting players to decide the morality of their characters. To put them in situations that may be quite difficult and to see what they do. I think this speaks to your ideas about morality and authenticity, but it cones from a motive, however loosely defined, that comes from without.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jul 30, 2022)

So if I'm following this argument, the "authenticity" refers to the difference between being bound by the DM's morality and being free to express one's own ideas.  So the former is "authentic" in that it's what you, the player, want to do, as opposed to what the DM is asking/telling you to do.

While I see that there is a difference there, I struggle with the word "authentic".  I'm pretty sure I recall @pemerton arguing in other threads in favor of systems where internal thoughts (i.e., whether a PC can be persuaded by an NPC) are dictated by game rules.  How is the player's choice of morality "authentic" but the player's choice of persuadability is _in_authentic?

There's also a subtext here (not least in the choice of nomenclature) that the version being labeled "authentic" is somehow superior to other forms.  Again, I acknowledge the difference between the two approaches, although it probably is not binary but a spectrum, but I can't see how one is inherently better than the other.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As per my reply upthread to @kenada, the OP is referring to authenticity on the part of the participants, not the authenticity of the characters they depict.



My feeling is that I cannot separate RPGs on the basis of the personal authenticity of the participants, as surely I must concede that any player could be approaching whatever play is underway with personal authenticity. I think it has to be about the game as vehicle for the content of what is expressed.



pemerton said:


> I don't think it is possible to talk about the authenticity of play, in the context of the GM having declared (say) "You see an owlbear rushing towards you!", if we don't know anything about why the GM said that, where it comes from in the game play, what is significance is for the player(s) to whom it's said, etc.



Without at all contradicting what you say here, I wonder if what could be going on - the "authenticity" that @Campbell might seem to be describing - is the inclusion of emotional content in the conversation? So that in what might be called "authentic" play I must be silent on the personal authenticity of the player as person, but I will see that the emotional content of their conversation has verisimilitude (exactly the right word in this context.)

It requires empathy - or an attempt at empathy - with an imagined person, different from oneself. So as to present what I might count as personally authentic to them. And it requires the courage to be vulnerable... to make mistakes. Putting it on the line, as @Campbell might say.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So the more the GM provides the motivation, the less the players will, which is what you think will reduce authenticity of the kind you describe? I think that makes sense if I’ve followed correctly.
> 
> Spire is an interesting example in that sense, because the game has a default premise of the characters being secret revolutionaries.



Yes to the first sentence; but also, and following on from the second - the GM can do the job that they have to do (given the distinctive division of participant roles that is typical in RPGing) by doing something other than providing motivation and stakes. They can, for instance, provide context and framing. That is also what you said about your Spires mystery (well, it's my paraphrase of what you said) which is what I bolded in quoting your earlier post.

And I suggested MHRP as an example (or at least an interesting attempt at testing the limits) of how far the GM might go in providing context and framing without crossing over into motivation and stakes, where the boundary is "policed" by an element of system design (ie the role of PC Milestones).

Am I still making sense?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 30, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Yes to the first sentence; but also, and following on from the second - the GM can do the job that they have to do (given the distinctive division of participant roles that is typical in RPGing) by doing something other than providing motivation and stakes. They can, for instance, provide context and framing. That is also what you said about your Spires mystery (well, it's my paraphrase of what you said) which is what I bolded in quoting your earlier post.
> 
> And I suggested MHRP as an example (or at least an interesting attempt at testing the limits) of how far the GM might go in providing context and framing without crossing over into motivation and stakes, where the boundary is "policed" by an element of system design (ie the role of PC Milestones).
> 
> Am I still making sense?




Yeah, absolutely. 

I know we’ve talked about this before as the makers of Spire straight lifted the milestone system from MHRP for their game Heart. They fittingly renamed them “Beats”, but they otherwise function very similarly. 

It’s a great way to give players some ability to determine how play will go and to give the GM an idea on what kind of content to include.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 31, 2022)

clearstream said:


> It requires empathy - or an attempt at empathy - with an imagined person, different from oneself. So as to present what I might count as personally authentic to them. And it requires the courage to be vulnerable... to make mistakes. Putting it on the line, as @Campbell might say.



Not all players, nor even all RPGs, have players play as others than themself. A few (Trauma, End of the World series) in fact make playing oneself the default assumption. (Trauma's English version includes a number of tests and forumulae.)

At one point, Marc Miller gave a way of writing oneself up as a Traveller character...


----------



## MGibster (Jul 31, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> At one point, Marc Miller gave a way of writing oneself up as a Traveller character...



I wonder how useful a human resource professional would be in Traveller...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Here's Vincent Baker from DitV (pp 143-4):
> 
> In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing - whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever - based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.​​In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ’em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.​​Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then _I won’t tell you what I think_. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.​
> I don't know if Baker is the first RPG author to make this point. I'd more-or-less reached the same conclusion in the late 1980s: for authentic play, I want the players to express their conception of what morality demands, not try and work out what someone else's (ie the GM's) conception of that is. (As I posted upthread, my type-(2) situations are a version of this, where players play authentically while scorning conventional/cosmological judgement in a little replication of Nietzsche.)



As I said, this was in a MUCH earlier stage of our gaming. IIRC the conclusion was something along the lines of "OK, this kind of works, alignment is now basically just an element of the framing, part of the puzzle, behave THIS way or pay a price to behave some OTHER way. It was fairly obvious that using this kind of stick (Gary was very fond of sticks) to beat on players was not getting us where we wanted to be. So, for a LONG LONG time there was the "Oh, just write your alignment down, its nothing but a play aid" phase, which treats it like just another background element "Yeah, I'm EVIL!" but you could just basically do whatever. There might be consequences, but they were purely fiction, alignment change penalties and such weren't a thing. That pretty quickly evolved to "don't even bother to write it down..." Frankly I don't remember if people did or didn't put down an alignment in our 4e games. Probably it got filled out on CB simply because it would keep nagging you, but 4e works pretty much like we did, you can write it down, but it doesn't actually have any mechanical game significance.

I mean, if I run a 4e game now, people can say whatever about alignment, as GM I don't really care... I don't think it would be BAD for some NPC to bring it up in terms of their ethos and preferences, but its not materially different from something like a town that hates wizards.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 31, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As I said, this was in a MUCH earlier stage of our gaming. IIRC the conclusion was something along the lines of "OK, this kind of works, alignment is now basically just an element of the framing, part of the puzzle, behave THIS way or pay a price to behave some OTHER way.



This is what very classic alignment looks like to me: being chaotic or evil opens up a certain space of action declaration but in exchange for costs (worse reaction and loyalty adjustments; less access to healing magic).

I think that by the mid-80s it's doing something pretty different, close to what Baker described in the text I quoted.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, for a LONG LONG time there was the "Oh, just write your alignment down, its nothing but a play aid" phase, which treats it like just another background element "Yeah, I'm EVIL!" but you could just basically do whatever. There might be consequences, but they were purely fiction, alignment change penalties and such weren't a thing. That pretty quickly evolved to "don't even bother to write it down..." Frankly I don't remember if people did or didn't put down an alignment in our 4e games. Probably it got filled out on CB simply because it would keep nagging you, but 4e works pretty much like we did, you can write it down, but it doesn't actually have any mechanical game significance.
> 
> I mean, if I run a 4e game now, people can say whatever about alignment, as GM I don't really care... I don't think it would be BAD for some NPC to bring it up in terms of their ethos and preferences, but its not materially different from something like a town that hates wizards.



Alignment in 4e, or "just write it down", is different from what Baker describes and from what I mentioned in the OP - as it is not _GM-enforced_.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 31, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I wonder how useful a human resource professional would be in Traveller...



Depends. If it's a mercs game? Quite. Bonuses to determining the actual skills of potential hires and new hires.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Alignment in 4e, or "just write it down", is different from what Baker describes and from what I mentioned in the OP - as it is not _GM-enforced_.



It can be; in many cases, it has been.
It's been variable how GMs approach it from early on; by 1981, many were ignoring it, many paid some lip service to it, many were enforcing it with just the XP penalties for violating it, and a few tracking it. 

DragonLance Adventures for AD&D 1E provided a tracking mechanism for the good/evil axis; not a few, myself included, used that mode for both axes. I traced the graph in the back of the core onto graph paper. Marked them on the graph.

Force & Destiny uses a not very good tracking of a single axis morality. (As written, it's hard to not climb.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 31, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It can be; in many cases, it has been.



I don't think that 4e D&D makes any provision for GM enforcement of alignment. And I think @AbdulAlhazred, in describing a "just write it down" approach to alignment, is similarly meaning that there is no GM enforcement.



aramis erak said:


> DragonLance Adventures for AD&D 1E provided a tracking mechanism for the good/evil axis



Yes. Gygax had a similar idea with the character alignment graph in his PHB. I would consider this a version of GM-enforced alignment.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This is what very classic alignment looks like to me: being chaotic or evil opens up a certain space of action declaration but in exchange for costs (worse reaction and loyalty adjustments; less access to healing magic).



Well, I think it was, in our case, acting as something directly analogous to an environmental constraint. So, it would have been something like "Sure, the good-aligned fighter can gut the orc child, but he knows that by the canon of Atur this is an evil act and he'll be inflicted with punishment for violating Atur's commandments (which he has opened himself up to by declaring his Lawful Goodness at the start of play)." Its no different from "and you decide to walk off the cliff, take 4d6 falling damage!" I'm not saying anything about it being good or bad for RP. OTOH, looked at that way the player is clearly responding to a piece of fictional position by, say, sparing the orc child. Now, I agree that said action may be speaking less to the character's moral position than to his sense of self-preservation! We did tire of this sort of play fairly quickly as far as I recall, certainly by the early '80s. 

As for the 'trade offs' in mechanical terms... meh, I pretty much recollect that when we played our 'evil campaign' where everyone was a humanoid, the general consensus was that healing was a perfectly fine option, as long as it furthered your own ends.


pemerton said:


> I think that by the mid-80s it's doing something pretty different, close to what Baker described in the text I quoted.
> 
> Alignment in 4e, or "just write it down", is different from what Baker describes and from what I mentioned in the OP - as it is not _GM-enforced_.



Well, exactly. As I say, we just gave up on any sort of milieu where the concept was that some 'force' or other might punish you from on high for this or that action. Now you are more free to examine actual moral questions, for instance, that arise out of situations in play vs ones that arise out of some universal determination that certain actions will garner you hurt or not. It was an incremental improvement that D&D itself took MUCH longer to arrive at that we did (like, by 1986 at the latest, as I am 100% certain we thought OA and Alignment were not compatible at all whatsoever, lol).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Depends. If it's a mercs game? Quite. Bonuses to determining the actual skills of potential hires and new hires.



I detect some Schlock Mercenary leaking into our peanut butter flavored Ovalquick, errrr RPG discussion


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that 4e D&D makes any provision for GM enforcement of alignment. And I think @AbdulAlhazred, in describing a "just write it down" approach to alignment, is similarly meaning that there is no GM enforcement.
> 
> Yes. Gygax had a similar idea with the character alignment graph in his PHB. I would consider this a version of GM-enforced alignment.



Indeed... the  4E DMG1 includes no RP-based XP, only overcoming encounters, combat, and quest.
Only clerics and paladins have clear mechanical rewquirements; those are in the PHB.
Given no other levers, the GM imposing restrictions on alignment violations is the only viable rules driven approach given just core 3 books.

It does note in a variety of the sample encounters in the DMG that various bits are affected mechanically by alignment... so the level of enforcement isn't nil in the rules, just very, very low.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 31, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Not all players, nor even all RPGs, have players play as others than themself. A few (Trauma, End of the World series) in fact make playing oneself the default assumption. (Trauma's English version includes a number of tests and forumulae.)



Would you say then that the personal authenticity of a player can be seen in RPG play in the case that the player is playing themself?

I think the OP means to include RPGs in which players are normally not playing as themselves, such as Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World. So that is what my comments relate to, although it perhaps does shed some light to think about playing-as-self in this context.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 31, 2022)

I don't think there is any enforcement of alignment in 5e either. Mechanically alignment interacts with couple of magic item and one monster and one spell. It does basically nothing and thus it is super easy to remove.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 31, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So the more the GM provides the motivation, the less the players will, which is what you think will reduce authenticity of the kind you describe? I think that makes sense if I’ve followed correctly.



Following on what @AbdulAlhazred has written, I feel motivation can arise in two senses, one of which inspires rather than stifles.

In one sense, which perhaps you are thinking of, the GM says what the character thinks. For example, they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you won't do X_" or they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you must do Y._"

In the sense I am thinking of, a "motivation" is simply that: "a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way." My character learns that there is an arcane tower to the west, so they have a reason to go west. They don't have to do so. Our imagined game world could contain entities who embrace certain principles and expect their followers to do the same. If my character is such a follower, then they know those principles. GM does not say what I have to do about that, but perhaps is happy to describe the penance imposed on followers who stray. My character thus has reason to adhere to our order's morality (as handed down by our god), but does not have to do so.

I haven't played Spire, but I read that "Spire is a roleplaying game about desperate revolutionary dark elves caught up in a secret war against the high elves, or aelfir, who rule the towering city of Spire." I don't assume the intent is to say what characters think or do as "desperate revolutionary dark elves" - that's up to the players. Perhaps the campaign that I briefly outlined above is about our characters' struggles against our order's dogmatic constraints... just as those dark elves are struggling against the high elves in Spire. In both cases, our play benefits from the presence of motivations (in fact, it's hard to see why we would do anything without them!)

Motivations in the first sense are stifling. In the second sense they are inspiring... and, I moot, essential.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 31, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Following on what @AbdulAlhazred has written, I feel motivation can arise in two senses, one of which inspires rather than stifles.
> 
> In one sense, which perhaps you are thinking of, the GM says what the character thinks. For example, they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you won't do X_" or they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you must do Y._"




I think it’s more a case of “You’re a revolutionary dark elf… what does that mean to you?”

There being no “correct” answers probably relates to what @pemerton means by authentic. My answer is mine, your answer is yours, and each is true.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 31, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it’s more a case of “You’re a revolutionary dark elf… what does that mean to you?”
> 
> There being no “correct” answers probably relates to what @pemerton means by authentic. My answer is mine, your answer is yours, and each is true.



@pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 31, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> @pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?




You’ve never read a post on ENWorld where someone said something like “no evil PCs allowed; my games are about the PCs being heroes and so that’s what I expect from the players”?

There are many variations on the above, some less severe some more so, but I think the gist is common enough I’m surprised to hear anyone doubt it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 31, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> You’ve never read a post on ENWorld where someone said something like “no evil PCs allowed; my games are about the PCs being heroes and so that’s what I expect from the players”?
> 
> There are many variations on the above, some less severe some more so, but I think the gist is common enough I’m surprised to hear anyone doubt it.



Yes I have. But how is that not just part of the premise of the game, and how it is any more "authenticity eroding" than any other limitation implied by the premise?

Mind you, personally I usually wouldn't prefer so broadly stated premise on that area, though of course specific campaign ideas might require something like that.

In fact, I think that authentically emulating certain concepts requires establishing such things. For example if one wants to play a Star Trek TNG inspired game then the authenticity requires that the characters are rather moral people.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jul 31, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes I have. But how is that not just part of the premise of the game, and how it is any more "authenticity eroding" than any other limitation implied by the premise?




I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so. 

Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing. 

So if we take a premise that starts more narrow than “adventurers”… perhaps outlaws or spies or constables… it certainly sets certain constraints on play. But it doesn’t dictate morality in any way. It doesn’t eliminate any avenue for the players to take within the premise. I can be a noble outlaw or a cold-blooded bastard. I can be a devoted, loyal spy or I could be compromised, playing all sides against one another. I could be a decent cop or bad lieutenant. 

Having a premise is one thing. Dictating behavior beyond the premise is another. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> Mind you, personally I wouldn't usually prefer so broadly stated premise on that area, though of course specific campaign ideas might require something like that.




I think some may. Super heroes would immediately come to mind. Or similar concepts that typically have simplistic portrayals of morality, like Star Wars and the like. Not that there can’t be exceptions; there are plenty of examples of each that don’t have the simple good vs. evil. 

Most, I think, don’t require that as much. But yes, there are some that do. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> I fact, I think authentically emulating certain concepts requires establishing such things. For example if one want to play a Star Trek TNG inspired game then the authenticity requires that the characters are rather moral people.




That’s a good example, actually, for a couple of reasons.  First, I think what you’re talking about is more about setting authenticity, which is a different thing. But I think it can result in the same kinds of restrictions. 

I played in a short lived Star Trek Adventures game. It was short lived because the GM has much more reverence for the setting than any of the players did. For example, when one player expressed interest in playing an android, the GM denied the request because he had chosen the setting to be around the time of The Next Generation (he knew the exact year) and there was only one android at that time, Data. 

So I think that got us off on the wrong foot, and we all kind of bucked at some of the constraints. My character was a kind of minor officer who’d had disciplinary issues (this was determined through a lifepath generator on Modiphius’s website). The other characters wound up as similar outcast types. 

To me, the premise was clear. If this was going to be a Star Trek show it would be “Star Trek: Renegades” or “Star Trek: Outcasts”, something like that. The GM didn’t see it and instead kept trying to force us into the “proper” Federation conduct and procedures. Needless to say, the game fell apart. 

There was conflict between the GM and the players about  how the characters must behave. Instead of finding a way to resolve that conflict, the GM simply kept trying to enforce his ideas. And the game ended.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 31, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.
> 
> Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.
> 
> ...




Most games don't have alignment. But even in D&D, most iterations of alignment are not about controlling player behavior. They can do what they want. There may be in game consequences (if the GM tracks your alignment and you start as LG but the GM feels you become NE, that could impact something like what abilities you have access to, or if you are able to use a certain artifact, and it might impact how certain beings interact with you). And even in D&D, how it is dealt with is often resolved by the group as a whole. Now there could be a legitimate disagreement between the GM and the player about whether an action is good, but the 'authentic' thing to do in that instance is to reject the cosmos' labeling and continue on, dealing with any consequences that get thrown your way. There is certainly something to be said for defying the gods in a game like this. 

There is I think a very good discussion to be had on alignment. I am not fully seeing the authenticity issue here though. In the real world there are constraints and even things people might call cosmic injustices. You can still be your authentic self by going against the grain. There are consequences but I think having a price to staying authentic is somewhat more interesting anyways

I do think Pemerton is making a valid point about how some games do things in terms of giving players the power to set stakes and so forth. And arguably when you take constraints away from someone, maybe you are better able to glimpse who they really are (but even then a part of me says, no it's when what you want is thwarted that your true self is visible: maybe it is a bit of both).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 31, 2022)

On the subject of "Only heroes in my game". I think that is a thing mainly to maintain social cohesion. I have seen some GMs online who say it to impose their own sense of morality, so I am sure it exists in that form too, but most instances where I have seen it, it appears to be either out of a desire to keep the group from devolving into infighting or out of a desire to make sure players aren't doing anything that might anger or offend someone else at the table (my guess is a lot 'only heroes' campaigns come from having experienced stuff like players killing each others characters or stealing from one another). 

Personally I like have more drama and conflict in the party sometimes, and with the right group, allowing 'all alignments' can work. But I also have had groups where it wouldn't have worked. And anything put down as a constraint was not a product of me imposing my will but trying to mediate the dynamics in the group so that everyone felt comfortable. 

On more focused campaigns, I think those are often more about the discussion before hand: Hey would you want to do an all escape convict campaign? Some premise that seems like it could fuel a campaign is usually what seems to generate. But it requires everyone at the table all wanting to do it (or the players initiating that focus during play and the GM going with it).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Following on what @AbdulAlhazred has written, I feel motivation can arise in two senses, one of which inspires rather than stifles.
> 
> In one sense, which perhaps you are thinking of, the GM says what the character thinks. For example, they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you won't do X_" or they say "_As a revolutionary dark elf you must do Y._"
> 
> In the sense I am thinking of, a "motivation" is simply that: "a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way." My character learns that there is an arcane tower to the west, so they have a reason to go west. They don't have to do so. Our imagined game world could contain entities who embrace certain principles and expect their followers to do the same. If my character is such a follower, then they know those principles. GM does not say what I have to do about that, but perhaps is happy to describe the penance imposed on followers who stray. My character thus has reason to adhere to our order's morality (as handed down by our god), but does not have to do so.



And I think that this would not really tick the box of the OP in terms of being very authentic. That is, the motivation to do X or not do Y is external. It is, as I pointed out in a previous post, largely similar to the restrictions imposed by things like the walls of a dungeon. Maybe if you REALLY want you can take a pickaxe to that wall, but the GM is pretty much saying "you don't want to do that, you want to follow my hallway." Now, obviously, a lot of real life is pretty much like this too, so its not NECESSARILY inauthentic either, its just that it won't be 'deep' in any RP sense. I don't kill spiders because if I do Lolth will curse me and I'll suffer an alignment penalty (or something). A more authentic kind of RP would pit my love of my life as a loyal servant of Lolth with my desire to protect my family from being killed by spiders. NOW we're into something a bit more interesting, there's an internal conflict, something profound for the character will come out of this. Simple alignment adherence need not enslave us to the whims of the GM, any more than any other established element of setting will, but it isn't very deep either.


clearstream said:


> I haven't played Spire, but I read that "Spire is a roleplaying game about desperate revolutionary dark elves caught up in a secret war against the high elves, or aelfir, who rule the towering city of Spire." I don't assume the intent is to say what characters think or do as "desperate revolutionary dark elves" - that's up to the players. Perhaps the campaign that I briefly outlined above is about our characters' struggles against our order's dogmatic constraints... just as those dark elves are struggling against the high elves in Spire. In both cases, our play benefits from the presence of motivations (in fact, it's hard to see why we would do anything without them!)
> 
> Motivations in the first sense are stifling. In the second sense they are inspiring... and, I moot, essential.



Right, so maybe we're saying the same thing? I would call alignment, at best, not a help in terms of giving us real character development opportunities. At most if it is unenforced it is background. OTOH something like Spire's premise is pretty much NECESSARY to produce interesting conflict, though it isn't required that it arise out of a setting conceit as it does in Spire's case. DW is more general in that the premise of a specific game (beyond the fantastic world of heroic PCs) can and should be decided as part of the process of play.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> @pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?



If you are running through A1 through A4 Against the Slavelords, there is a pretty hard-coded premise. Your characters ARE the enemies of the Slavelords, who ARE evil villainous slave takers. At no point in the entire 4 module series (what today we would call an AP) is this premise explored, and certainly its characterization of the situation is never challenged. The PCs are offered no other motives that I can recall aside from just "these are bad guys, go get 'em" (I didn't come up with a copy of A1 in my rummaging in my cabinet so I am not positive exactly what the text says). The GM could toss in the obvious "find your lost relative/love interest/ally/friend" of course, but its not like the whole thing really cares about that. As written such an NPC won't figure into the actual story in a material way.

My point being, this is totally 100% classic D&D, and modern modules like Descent into Avernus or whatnot seem to have pretty much exactly the same structure. In fact the exact same criticisms have been leveled against it many times! I don't think it is hard at all to understand @pemerton's point when considering this sort of classic play, is it?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.
> 
> Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.
> 
> ...



Even within the milieu of classic Star Trek there's far more that would make sense than simply playing super upstanding regulation characters! I mean, consider Captain Merrick from the Roman Empire planet episode. Granted he's portrayed as washing out of Star Fleet, but he's not exactly made of Kirk-like material. Even Spock goes off the reservation in The Managerie. The original (FGU?) Star Trek RPG had the characters being fairly 'cut and dried' out of the gate, but even there you'd always get hit by some weird scenario straight out of TOS that was going to make you have to figure out how to bend the rules into a pretzel, just like Jim Kirk!


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 31, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Would you say then that the personal authenticity of a player can be seen in RPG play in the case that the player is playing themself?
> 
> I think the OP means to include RPGs in which players are normally not playing as themselves, such as Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World. So that is what my comments relate to, although it perhaps does shed some light to think about playing-as-self in this context.



In my experience, players don't want to play themselves as anything less than a super hero...
So authenticity is already flown out the door do to their own lack of self-honesty.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Even within the milieu of classic Star Trek there's far more that would make sense than simply playing super upstanding regulation characters! I mean, consider Captain Merrick from the Roman Empire planet episode. Granted he's portrayed as washing out of Star Fleet, but he's not exactly made of Kirk-like material. Even Spock goes off the reservation in The Managerie. The original (FGU?) Star Trek RPG had the characters being fairly 'cut and dried' out of the gate, but even there you'd always get hit by some weird scenario straight out of TOS that was going to make you have to figure out how to bend the rules into a pretzel, just like Jim Kirk!



If you're talking FGU's 1978 _Starships & Spacemen_, it's not got anything that describes player-intended behavior (IE, no psych nor alignment) other than class and species; it does indeed have some odd encounters, some of which are more like the original Lost In Space than Star Trek. It only prescribes behavior by reward - XP awards differ by class. What a security officer gets XP for isn't the same list as the Doctor or Engineer. It's also not labeled as Trek, even tho' it was intended as a trek RPG. 

If you're talking the 1984 licensed one, _Star Trek: The Roleplaying Game_, that's by FASA, and again, has no player-intended behavior indications other than species. Nor does it even have XP to shape behavior. The only behavioral restrictions are by species. 

The first license I'm aware of was Heritage Models' _Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier_... 1978, same time frame as FGU.
It lacks any significant story suggestions; it's sample mission is essentially a refluff of _The Galileo Seven_. It's rules are almost purely ground combat; no encounter tables, no ship rules. (yes, I'm looking at it. I have not run it.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 31, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And I think that this would not really tick the box of the OP in terms of being very authentic. That is, the motivation to do X or not do Y is external. It is, as I pointed out in a previous post, largely similar to the restrictions imposed by things like the walls of a dungeon. Maybe if you REALLY want you can take a pickaxe to that wall, but the GM is pretty much saying "you don't want to do that, you want to follow my hallway." Now, obviously, a lot of real life is pretty much like this too, so its not NECESSARILY inauthentic either, its just that it won't be 'deep' in any RP sense.



The OP was talking about authenticity in RPGing, rather than authenticity in life! Of course it's possible to talk about the latter too, but that's more contentious, for what I think are obvious reasons. But there are different conceptions out there of what it means to respond, authentically, to the "hallways" we find ourselves in as we live our lives (contrast eg Marcus Aurelius, Zen scripture, and Sartre).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 1, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Having a premise is one thing. Dictating behavior beyond the premise is another.




I don't see any reason the GM can't say "This campaign is going to be about playing X type characters; if you do things to move outside of what would put you in the category of X (whether that's getting you ejected from a group that X defines or simply move away from where X is going on) I'm not going to bother to keep following your character."

So in practice, having and sticking to a premise may not dictate behavior directly, but it does say that you're not going to reposition the spotlight of the campaign if you move out of it.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there's extremely sharp lines on how the characters can think about things, but there can be sharp lines on what they can do and, effectively, still stay in the campaign.

As an example, if you're got a group of characters who are a member of a particular organization and do some kind of task (enforce laws, fight enemies, investigate anomalies, whatever) the organization is going to have some rules.  You may be able to get away with bucking some of those rules subtly for a while, but the chances are you won't get to indefinitely, and when you're done it doesn't matter what the character does (whether he's ejected from the organization or imprisoned), he's effectively no longer operating in the context of the campaign, even though he at least theoretically still exists in the setting.

(There's a potential case of a character who leaves the organization and still interacts with the other characters still within it, but I think that's a borderline enough case that it can mostly be ignored).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 1, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> If you are running through A1 through A4 Against the Slavelords, there is a pretty hard-coded premise. Your characters ARE the enemies of the Slavelords, who ARE evil villainous slave takers. At no point in the entire 4 module series (what today we would call an AP) is this premise explored, and certainly its characterization of the situation is never challenged. The PCs are offered no other motives that I can recall aside from just "these are bad guys, go get 'em" (I didn't come up with a copy of A1 in my rummaging in my cabinet so I am not positive exactly what the text says). The GM could toss in the obvious "find your lost relative/love interest/ally/friend" of course, but its not like the whole thing really cares about that. As written such an NPC won't figure into the actual story in a material way.



Part of that is because modules in that era expected the DM to build the backstory around why the PCs were there rather than come with that backstory already baked in.  IMO this is a great thing about the old modules - they jsut give us the adventure itself and leave the rest to us.

With the A-series, the bespoke-to-table backstory could be anything from "A PC's friend/relative was taken as a slave, we're the rescue mission" to "We work for one group of slavers and they've asked us to take out this other group" to "We blundered into the hideout in A1 and one thing led to another" to who knows what?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 1, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> There being no “correct” answers probably relates to what @pemerton means by authentic. My answer is mine, your answer is yours, and each is true.




I like this, and can agree to the use of “authentic.”

But it’s also how I GM and play _every_ RPG, so using it distinguish between RPGs, instead of just play styles, seems odd to me. But maybe the OP just meant that some games more actively support…through guidance and/or mechanics…this style?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 1, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> You’ve never read a post on ENWorld where someone said something like “no evil PCs allowed; my games are about the PCs being heroes and so that’s what I expect from the players”?
> 
> There are many variations on the above, some less severe some more so, but I think the gist is common enough I’m surprised to hear anyone doubt it.




I get that argument, and yet it’s one thing to be specific/insistent about how a specific race would react to a specific situation, and another to have general guidelines of behavior (regardless of lineage/background). 

Is it inauthentic to ask that players don’t engage in torture and human trafficking? I mean, maybe by some definition it is. But I don’t think wanting to run a campaign where players are expected to play (potentially flawed) heroes is categorically different. 

I’m coming at this topic as somebody who has always been very uncomfortable with evil players/campaigns. I can’t even choose the evil path when playing solo RPG video games.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I get that argument, and yet it’s one thing to be specific/insistent about how a specific race would react to a specific situation, and another to have general guidelines of behavior (regardless of lineage/background).
> 
> Is it inauthentic to ask that players don’t engage in torture and human trafficking? I mean, maybe by some definition it is. But I don’t think wanting to run a campaign where players are expected to play (potentially flawed) heroes is categorically different.
> 
> I’m coming at this topic as somebody who has always been very uncomfortable with evil players/campaigns. I can’t even choose the evil path when playing solo RPG video games.




Not to mention there's the whole problem of what it means to "authentically role play."

There are many people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that in order to play a character as they want to, they have to have full control of the character's actions. In fact, there are those who demand to play such games (for example, people who have had bad histories involving consent issues). 

To label only games where players are required to act out in roleplay according to the rules (and or "social mechanics") as opposed to the players' conception of the character as "authentic" seems like it is either asking for trouble, or ensuring that it will exclude any actual conversation with the vast majority of people that play TTRPGs.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not to mention there's the whole problem of what it means to "authentically role play."
> 
> There are many people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that in order to play a character as they want to, they have to have full control of the character's actions. In fact, there are those who demand to play such games (for example, people who have had bad histories involving consent issues).
> 
> To label only games where players are required to act out in roleplay according to the rules (and or "social mechanics") as opposed to the players' conception of the character as "authentic" seems like it is either asking for trouble, or ensuring that it will exclude any actual conversation with the vast majority of people that play TTRPGs.




Agreed.  

As I mentioned up-thread, I think the questions being explored here are interesting, I just would like to see a less judgmental terminology.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Agreed.
> 
> As I mentioned up-thread, I think the questions being explored here are interesting, I just would like to see a less judgmental terminology.




The other, related, issue is that there is already a rich vocabulary exploring these issues (roleplaying and choice). If nothing else, the Nordic larp tradition has reflected on these concepts a great deal, and there is a substantial amount of scholarly work on these ideas (not all of it in English, unfortunately).


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Aug 1, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.
> 
> Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.
> 
> ...



But certainly some premises imply some sort of morals? Why is this any more of a problem than implying character occupation or a setting tech level?



hawkeyefan said:


> I think some may. Super heroes would immediately come to mind. Or similar concepts that typically have simplistic portrayals of morality, like Star Wars and the like. Not that there can’t be exceptions; there are plenty of examples of each that don’t have the simple good vs. evil.
> 
> Most, I think, don’t require that as much. But yes, there are some that do.



I don't think it is necessarily needs to be simplistic, though I agree that the usual D&D "no evil alignment" is simplistic, due the alignment in itself being simplistic.




hawkeyefan said:


> That’s a good example, actually, for a couple of reasons.  First, I think what you’re talking about is more about setting authenticity, which is a different thing. But I think it can result in the same kinds of restrictions.
> 
> I played in a short lived Star Trek Adventures game. It was short lived because the GM has much more reverence for the setting than any of the players did. For example, when one player expressed interest in playing an android, the GM denied the request because he had chosen the setting to be around the time of The Next Generation (he knew the exact year) and there was only one android at that time, Data.
> 
> ...



What happened was a miscommunication about the premise. You note that I especially said "TNG inspired Star Trek" i.e. about elite Starfleet personnel on a ship during the height of "evolved future humans" thing. That is different than more deconstructionist approach like for example DS9. Now it is perfectly possible that not everyone cares for such nuances, and thus it is unwise to set the premise so tightly. But premise is more than the setting; it can say something about what sort of people the characters are, and to explore certain premises authentically it must.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 1, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> In my experience, players don't want to play themselves as anything less than a super hero...
> So authenticity is already flown out the door do to their own lack of self-honesty.
> 
> If you're talking FGU's 1978 _Starships & Spacemen_, it's not got anything that describes player-intended behavior (IE, no psych nor alignment) other than class and species; it does indeed have some odd encounters, some of which are more like the original Lost In Space than Star Trek. It only prescribes behavior by reward - XP awards differ by class. What a security officer gets XP for isn't the same list as the Doctor or Engineer. It's also not labeled as Trek, even tho' it was intended as a trek RPG.



I don't recall S&S being much like Star Trek, though honestly I have not really seen it played in practice. It was a rather obscure game.


aramis erak said:


> If you're talking the 1984 licensed one, _Star Trek: The Roleplaying Game_, that's by FASA, and again, has no player-intended behavior indications other than species. Nor does it even have XP to shape behavior. The only behavioral restrictions are by species.



This game was the first really significant Star Trek RPG and the one I'm discussing. While it is, in fairly classic early '80s RPG tradition, lacking in highly explicit character motivation/direction/restriction there is a VERY strong setting and it is abundantly clear in this game that Star Fleet doesn't put up with monkey business. Should your character go off the rails and do 'whatever', they will certainly be court martialed and face dismissal from the service, at the very least. There was some provision for playing non-Star Fleet characters, IIRC but not a lot. So basically, given that the rest of the party is probably still on your ship, you basically become an NPC at that point. That's assuming you don't get dropped on that psycho rehabilitation penitentiary world! So, I don't really agree with you, though it isn't perhaps spelled out in explicit mechanical terms, you are one of the good guys in FASA ST, or else!


aramis erak said:


> The first license I'm aware of was Heritage Models' _Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier_... 1978, same time frame as FGU.
> It lacks any significant story suggestions; it's sample mission is essentially a refluff of _The Galileo Seven_. It's rules are almost purely ground combat; no encounter tables, no ship rules. (yes, I'm looking at it. I have not run it.)



The Heritage game was rather poorly known. I really have not even seen a copy of the thing, and I was pretty into that stuff. Gamescience actually put out quite a bit of early Trek stuff, including the first star ship combat rules, and there were some semi-official RP rules associated with that. I forget all the details. Anyway, Heritage's ST game didn't even cover ships, all action takes place on a planet or using the ship/shuttles/etc as plot devices only, and the rules are basically "D&D in Space" with 3d6 based 6 attribute characters. IIRC the game was really intended to have the players run the bridge crew of the Enterprise. It wasn't a particularly successful or innovative game, and thus the FASA Star Trek is really the first complete usable RPG set in that milieu.

Also, FASA Star Trek was published in 1982, so it is still a fairly early game and there wasn't much of a gap between the Heritage and FASA versions. I'm pretty sure we played it a good bit in college when we got bored of AD&D.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 1, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I don't see any reason the GM can't say "This campaign is going to be about playing X type characters; if you do things to move outside of what would put you in the category of X (whether that's getting you ejected from a group that X defines or simply move away from where X is going on) I'm not going to bother to keep following your character."
> 
> So in practice, having and sticking to a premise may not dictate behavior directly, but it does say that you're not going to reposition the spotlight of the campaign if you move out of it.
> 
> ...



Right, the FASA Star Trek game came up. There are no rules dictating character behavior in the game, per se, but the PCs are definitely Star Fleet starship crew, so they are rather constrained by the conception of such. If your character fails to adhere generally to that ethos they will quickly become an NPC, effectively. Of course, as TOS amply demonstrates, there is wide latitude for ship's officers to interpret those rules, and positive results can go a long ways towards making transgressions which can be explained in those terms OK. So the PCs definitely have a lot of freedom to act and the intent seems to be that their ability to succeed and ability to uphold those values will be put in conflict (certainly the adventures try to do that, as I recall).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. As I said, I’m not saying that it must be so. And I don’t think of the three-clue rule as being as severe as railroading.




So, the three-clue rule, in my experience, has diddly to do with railroading.  It has to do with information flow.  The three clue rule can be stated simply as, "The party will typically miss two out of every three clues as to what is going on."  

Having a thing be true in the world (like, "The Duke Killed the King,") is as much a railroad as the very much sandboxy bit - "There's a dragon living in the Dragontooth Mountains (go figure)."  



hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve never played Ashen Stars, though, so I have no experience with it. How do the published adventures function? How do they work without forcing things a certain way?




So, in Ashen Stars, mysteries are handed to the PCs as jobs they can take on and get paid.  They are told, in essence, "Something bad (insert some details) happened in the Foo System.  Go find out who or what is responsible, and deal with it, and you'll get paid."

A major problem with many seemingly railroady mysteries - there's a _chain of clues_, and one clue leads to the next specific clue, and the final clue leads to the answer.  And that makes it a railroad.  Ashen Stars avoids that by having a large web of information, and many routes through that web to get to the actual answer of what the devil is actually going on.  So, when the characters show up, there's a whole slew of places to investigate and people to talk to to get information, not one specific path.

Then, at the end, by design there's always a big ethical conundrum of what to do with the truth.  The situation always has political, moral, or ethical complications, for which there is no one right answer.  So, while anyone playing the adventure goes through that one point of The Truth, how they get there is up to them, and what they do after that is also up to them.  So, no railroad.

Writing one of these does take some effort, as you can't lay down a straight line of clues to the result.  If you crib from some famous mystery (like, say, a Sherlock Holmes story) you'll have the issue that the story is the result of Sherlock taking his path through the web, and it will _look_ like a linear story, and if you just replicate that, you're on a railroad.  You have to fill out the rest of the web that Sherlock *didn't * go to, to create a non-railroad experience.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> There is I think a very good discussion to be had on alignment. I am not fully seeing the authenticity issue here though. In the real world there are constraints and even things people might call cosmic injustices. You can still be your authentic self by going against the grain. There are consequences but I think having a price to staying authentic is somewhat more interesting anyways




I think it depends, and I'm trying to avoid any absolutes... I don't think any of this must always be the case or anything. 

So I ran a campaign of Blades in the Dark using the Flame Without Shadow playtest, which has the players playing Bluecoats and Investigators... the cops of the setting. 

So that's a constraint, right? But it's one about which each player may have something to say. They may have good ideas about cops, they may have bad ideas about cops (and probably more importantly just societal power structures and classism and so on, in general), or very likely, they may have a mix of good and bad ideas. What they have to say about that premise and the concepts involved is up to them. 

If I say "the premise is that you're all good cops", then I've limited what they have to say. Does that mean they can't have something authentic to say? No. But it's more narrow. Now, instead of being about law enforcement in general, it's more likely to be something like "what's it like to be the one good cop amongst a corrupt department" or similar. 

We need an initial premise for there to be even a topic about which players may have something to say. Then we can further constrain that topic or not. If we do, we're narrowing the band of what the players may have to say. 

Again, I don't think it's a matter of "all the authenticity, or none!" or anything so severe. But I do think that some methods we use in play are going to promote or limit this authenticity.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Even within the milieu of classic Star Trek there's far more that would make sense than simply playing super upstanding regulation characters! I mean, consider Captain Merrick from the Roman Empire planet episode. Granted he's portrayed as washing out of Star Fleet, but he's not exactly made of Kirk-like material. Even Spock goes off the reservation in The Managerie. The original (FGU?) Star Trek RPG had the characters being fairly 'cut and dried' out of the gate, but even there you'd always get hit by some weird scenario straight out of TOS that was going to make you have to figure out how to bend the rules into a pretzel, just like Jim Kirk!




I would have thought so, too! Not least because I used a lifepath generator offered by the makers of the game to come up with my character's backstory and history in the Federation. I have no idea about the specific examples you've offered, but I didn't expect that I was doing anything that really contradicted the setting. And I'm sure that with other GMs who were perhaps not so stringently devoted to the setting, it would not have been an issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it depends, and I'm trying to avoid any absolutes... I don't think any of this must always be the case or anything.
> 
> So I ran a campaign of Blades in the Dark using the Flame Without Shadow playtest, which has the players playing Bluecoats and Investigators... the cops of the setting.
> 
> ...




Sure but they may also not be trying to say anything with their choices as well. A player who plays a crooked cop for example, might be making no commentary on law enforcement or the morality of law enforcement whatsoever, they could just be doing a character study with their character, or simply taking a kind of character they saw in a movie who interested them. 

But this isn't really what I meant by constraints in this particular post (I did talk about focused premises elsewhere though so it is a fair subject). Here I was thinking more how in the face of external pressures (i.e. you having your own conception of the good, or of what is just, but all the people in the setting, or even the gods of the setting, being against you, yet you can still make the authentic choice to defy those forces. 

I think that applies to examples where alignment can have the effect of taking away a class ability, not making a particular magic item work for you, or, like the Ravenloft example I pointed to, where the setting itself responds to your actions and physically and spiritually changes you. If you authentically believe the Dark Powers are evil, that the GM is buying into a bogus dichotomy of good and evil (for instance that your choices were all for the greater good or were the most good you could choose in the moment), you can continue down that path in defiance and I think that really does recast the whole experience. 

Where I would agree is systems where a player is told by the GM they have to behave a certain way. I can see the gray area here. In D&D, even if the GM isn't forcing a player to do or not to do something, but are enforcing alignment restrictions in other ways: taking away a paladin ability for example, it feels like the GM has more authority. But I think one can disagree with the GM and allow that to be played out through their character if they seeking authenticity in play. I also think in most groups I have been in GMs will rarely not try to build some kind of consensus around what the various alignments mean (in some cases that means the group arrives at its own understanding, in others it may mean you have players who are willing to participate in the thought experiment of a world that has the GMs understanding of the morality as cosmic forces even if they think the description of Neutral Good falls flat and doesn't work.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I don't see any reason the GM can't say "This campaign is going to be about playing X type characters; if you do things to move outside of what would put you in the category of X (whether that's getting you ejected from a group that X defines or simply move away from where X is going on) I'm not going to bother to keep following your character."




There's no reason a GM can't say that. It's perfectly fine to do so. It just means that whatever potential there may have been for the players to bring Y to the table is now gone, and whatever they bring must be about X. Which may or may not be a problem for any given group, or any given case of X and Y. 



Thomas Shey said:


> So in practice, having and sticking to a premise may not dictate behavior directly, but it does say that you're not going to reposition the spotlight of the campaign if you move out of it.
> 
> This doesn't necessarily mean that there's extremely sharp lines on how the characters can think about things, but there can be sharp lines on what they can do and, effectively, still stay in the campaign.
> 
> ...




Sure! I think it all depends. If the premise of play is to be cops or whatever, then there is the potential that if a character stops being a cop, then they may no longer be in play. Or at least, not in the same capacity or to the same extent. I think there are a number of factors that matter here, with the primary being if this applies to one character or all, how the game plays and if it supports rotating focus and/or player characters who are not strictly working together as a team. There are other factors for sure, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind. 

In my campaign of Spire, the characters all began play as members of the Ministry of Our Hidden Mistress, a clandestine revolutionary organization that resists the rule of the High Elves (this is the default assumption of the game). They collectively form a cell of this organization, and answer to a magister, who is their handler. By the end, one PC was effectively excommunicated and the other two were tasked with eliminating him. This was an element of play for enough sessions that I wouldn't classify the game as not supporting this kind of play. 

I wouldn't say that would be true of all RPGs. The D&D game I'm playing in currently wouldn't really support that because the focus of the action is on the location the party is exploring, and there is very little reason for us to split up for more than a short period. This doesn't mean that it can't be done in D&D, just that given the focus of our specific D&D game, these kinds of elements simply aren't on the table. The methods the GM is using, the nature of the game, the focus of play, and importantly, the expectations of the players... none of these are being used that way. 

As a player in that game, I'm not saying much about anything in the way that @pemerton has described in this thread. But that's not a bad thing... I'm not really looking to do so.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> There's no reason a GM can't say that. It's perfectly fine to do so. It just means that whatever potential there may have been for the players to bring Y to the table is now gone, and whatever they bring must be about X. Which may or may not be a problem for any given group, or any given case of X and Y.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! I think it all depends. If the premise of play is to be cops or whatever, then there is the potential that if a character stops being a cop, then they may no longer be in play. Or at least, not in the same capacity or to the same extent. I think there are a number of factors that matter here, with the primary being if this applies to one character or all, how the game plays and if it supports rotating focus and/or player characters who are not strictly working together as a team. There are other factors for sure, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind.




I recently finished up a campaign where my players were constables and I gave them full freedom to set their own moral course. They started out pretty righteous but by the end they had effectively become drug kingpins. In this campaign had they fully abandoned their posts, we would have just shifted the focus of the campaign to their new direction.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I like this, and can agree to the use of “authentic.”
> 
> But it’s also how I GM and play _every_ RPG, so using it distinguish between RPGs, instead of just play styles, seems odd to me. But maybe the OP just meant that some games more actively support…through guidance and/or mechanics…this style?




Sure... that's why I think the focus has been on methods used rather than specific games. 



Bill Zebub said:


> I get that argument, and yet it’s one thing to be specific/insistent about how a specific race would react to a specific situation, and another to have general guidelines of behavior (regardless of lineage/background).
> 
> Is it inauthentic to ask that players don’t engage in torture and human trafficking? I mean, maybe by some definition it is. But I don’t think wanting to run a campaign where players are expected to play (potentially flawed) heroes is categorically different.
> 
> I’m coming at this topic as somebody who has always been very uncomfortable with evil players/campaigns. I can’t even choose the evil path when playing solo RPG video games.




No, I don't think that having specific topics like torture or human trafficking banned is a bad thing. The only exception would be one where the game was about something connected strongly to those topics. So I can see an international spy type game may touch on ideas of torture and its efficacy, and the toll that it may take on those who engage in it, and so on. Do I think any spy game must include this? No, of course not. It depends on the vibe that's being sought and what the point of play is.

The topic of torture came up in my Spire campaign. We didn't focus on it in detail and we kind of just did the fade to black type thing, but it was a pretty important thing and it took a toll on one of the characters (he gained the Fallout: "Haunted- you've been deeply affected by a traumatic experience. Whenever faced with a similar experience, take 1d6 Mind stress to be able to act."). 

It all depends on what game and the genre and premise. For my Spire game, I knew that the players were okay with the topics that were likely to come up, and I think those topics are kind of complicated and difficult, and I was interested to see what they'd have their characters do. It is a very different game than our D&D game.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But certainly some premises imply some sort of morals? Why is this any more of a problem than implying character occupation or a setting tech level?




It's not a problem. I think if we take away the negative connotation and instead just look at it without the good/bad lens, it's pretty easy to see that "cops" is a premise, and "incorruptible cops" is also a premise, but it is more narrow. 

That's it, really.  



Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think it is necessarily needs to be simplistic, though I agree that the usual D&D "no evil alignment" is simplistic, due the alignment in itself being simplistic.




I mean simplistic in the way that the morality of many super-hero stories are... they boil down to right or wrong, good or evil. I don't say simplistic as a negative. Just that they avoid or remove the morally gray areas. 

Again, not all super-hero stories do this... they are many exceptions. 




Crimson Longinus said:


> What happened was a miscommunication about the premise. You note that I especially said "TNG inspired Star Trek" i.e. about elite Starfleet personnel on a ship during the height of "evolved future humans" thing. That is different than more deconstructionist approach like for example DS9. Now it is perfectly possible that not everyone cares for such nuances, and thus it is unwise to set the premise so tightly. But premise is more than the setting; it can say something about what sort of people the characters are, and to explore certain premises authentically it must.




Our game was a starship right after the beginning of TNG. I don't know all the setting particulars. 

There certainly was a miscommunication about the premise, but I don't know if I'd say that's the exact problem. I think the players all accepted the general premise that was presented to us initially. I don't think any of us expected for this friction to come up. None of us were doing anything beyond what we'd expect to see in Star Trek. But the GM felt differently, and had very strong feelings about what Star Trek means as a genre and so on. 

I don't think the GM was expecting us to kind of approach things the way we did, and I don't think we thought that would be a problem, especially having used the lifepath character generator to craft the PCs. This wasn't something that was obvious until we began play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, the three-clue rule, in my experience, has diddly to do with railroading.  It has to do with information flow.  The three clue rule can be stated simply as, "The party will typically miss two out of every three clues as to what is going on."




I think it tends to go further, no? The implication in the way you've chosen to word it is that clues are necessary. 

Again, I'm not saying that the three-clue rule is the equivalent of railroading. I'm saying that they have something in common; to keep the game moving towards a specific path or goal. 



Umbran said:


> Having a thing be true in the world (like, "The Duke Killed the King,") is as much a railroad as the very much sandboxy bit - "There's a dragon living in the Dragontooth Mountains (go figure)."




I don't think either of those things are railroads. I believe that each could be used by the GM to force a certain sequence of play. But I don't think that must be the case. 



Umbran said:


> So, in Ashen Stars, mysteries are handed to the PCs as jobs they can take on and get paid.  They are told, in essence, "Something bad (insert some details) happened in the Foo System.  Go find out who or what is responsible, and deal with it, and you'll get paid."
> 
> A major problem with many seemingly railroady mysteries - there's a _chain of clues_, and one clue leads to the next specific clue, and the final clue leads to the answer.  And that makes it a railroad.




So when I said that investigative type of games tend to be susceptible to railroading, or to the GM forcing a certain path, you disagreed. But right here you clearly describe what I was talking about. 



Umbran said:


> Ashen Stars avoids that by having a large web of information, and many routes through that web to get to the actual answer of what the devil is actually going on.  So, when the characters show up, there's a whole slew of places to investigate and people to talk to to get information, not one specific path.




So when I said that it takes effort to make an investigation not feel railroady, you disagreed. But right here you clearly describe the effort taken to make this investigation not a railroad. 



Umbran said:


> Then, at the end, by design there's always a big ethical conundrum of what to do with the truth.  The situation always has political, moral, or ethical complications, for which there is no one right answer.  So, while anyone playing the adventure goes through that one point of The Truth, how they get there is up to them, and what they do after that is also up to them.  So, no railroad.
> 
> Writing one of these does take some effort, as you can't lay down a straight line of clues to the result.  If you crib from some famous mystery (like, say, a Sherlock Holmes story) you'll have the issue that the story is the result of Sherlock taking his path through the web, and it will _look_ like a linear story, and if you just replicate that, you're on a railroad.  You have to fill out the rest of the web that Sherlock *didn't * go to, to create a non-railroad experience.




Sure, I can see that. Again, I don't think that investigations must be railroads. And I don't think the three-clue rule is the same as railroading. 

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as you seem to think.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 2, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yup! That's exactly what I did. The word _authenticity_ is, I'll freely admit, perhaps somewhat weighted.



As is "That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something..."  The implication there is that GM driven games don't involve choices in play that "say something". The OP is full of language practically designed to start an argument with the other side, rather than explore the kinds of games @pemerton enjoys.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> As is "That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something..."  The implication there is that GM driven games don't involve choices in play that "say something". The OP is full of language practically designed to start an argument with the other side, rather than explore the kinds of games @pemerton enjoys.



You'll notice I absented myself from the discussion? There's a reason for that. The phrase 'the other side' is a part of that. Im not interested in a discussion that presupposes that framework. Whether or not I think that was the intent in the OP is quite secondary at this point to my distaste for rehashing a tired back and forth.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Again, I'm not saying that the three-clue rule is the equivalent of railroading. I'm saying that they have something in common; to keep the game moving towards a specific path or goal.




The three clue rule is simply about addressing the problem of the players not being able to go in any direction because they don't have information about the mystery in question. I don't think it is about keeping it moving towards a specific goal or path. It is just about it not grinding to a halt. A railroad on the other hand is "I have a destination in mind and you will reach that destination". There being truth at the heart of a  mystery and the players having fair access to clues about that truth, that doesn't lead to a particular path, scene, etc. It just leads to a conclusion (the killer is Roy Sanderson, a 500 year old vampire who likes baseball and murdered his victims at Fenway Park, he is particularly vulnerable to holy water). The 'specific path or goal' in a railroad is going to be a particular confrontation with that vampire or a series of encounters leading up to that confrontation. But in this scenario, they can do whatever they want with that info once they've assembled it and assessed it. There is almost no way for the GM to even predict what path they are going to take here. They could do something odd like bring a priest to bless his tap water, or they might phone a notable vampire hunter tell him all the details, then take off; they might confront him at a baseball game, phone the police or victims family and tell them they know who the killer is then call it a day, say 'screw it, we didn't know vampires were involved' and get out of dodge, formulate an elaborate plan to where the mayor asks Sanderson to throw first pitch and have sprinklers filled with holy water ready to go once he steps on the grass, try to redeem the vampire, etc. Sure, the solution has a good chance of involving holy water and a good chance of involving the murderer (unless they've uncovered other weaknesses, or they don't want to destroy him for some reason). But that is still quite far afield from how a railroad ought to go.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 2, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> You'll notice I absented myself from the discussion? There's a reason for that. The phrase 'the other side' is a part of that. Im not interested in a discussion that presupposes that framework. Whether or not I think that was the intent in the OP is quite secondary at this point to my distaste for rehashing a tired back and forth.



Sure, and I'm not trying to get into that back and forth, either.  That's why I worded it like I did, rather than start arguing with the OP.  I was just pointing out that the OP isn't really designed to get a discussion of his preferred playstyle going, but rather it was inflammatory to the point of practically being designed that way.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> There's no reason a GM can't say that. It's perfectly fine to do so. It just means that whatever potential there may have been for the players to bring Y to the table is now gone, and whatever they bring must be about X. Which may or may not be a problem for any given group, or any given case of X and Y.




Oh, it absolutely does exclude things.  I'm just prone to stepping into this one because I've seen people literally say that except for open-ended sandboxes where any character or group of characters can do anything and, barring in-setting responses making it impossible, the campaign should go on, and if it can't/doesn't, its not really an RPG (and some of them seem to feel if the setting is such that in-setting responses can make this impossible, its not appropriate for an RPG).   That seems to reserve the term for pretty small corner of campaign types.



hawkeyefan said:


> Sure! I think it all depends. If the premise of play is to be cops or whatever, then there is the potential that if a character stops being a cop, then they may no longer be in play. Or at least, not in the same capacity or to the same extent. I think there are a number of factors that matter here, with the primary being if this applies to one character or all, how the game plays and if it supports rotating focus and/or player characters who are not strictly working together as a team. There are other factors for sure, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind.




Sure.  I ignored some of those (rotating focus because, frankly, unless you've set up the game to do that from the get-go--and I don't see a reason to do so strongly on a regular basis, though I've done so with some games where it was a necessity in the past--I don't see some reason to suddenly start just because someone has taken actions that will move his character out of the avowed focus of the campaign) because when operate they make my point moot.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> If I say "the premise is that you're all good cops", then I've limited what they have to say. Does that mean they can't have something authentic to say? No. But it's more narrow. Now, instead of being about law enforcement in general, it's more likely to be something like "what's it like to be the one good cop amongst a corrupt department" or similar.



I feel like narrowness isn't an issue in works of fiction, because the space is limitless at every point. Folk seem capable of taking the most narrow premise, and expanding it to fill a complex and fascinating work. And the most open premise can result in something vacuous. It's hard to explain, but I actually feel the narrowness or otherwise of the premises has potentially no interaction with the authenticity of the player's interpretation.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 2, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I feel like narrowness isn't an issue in works of fiction, because the space is limitless at every point. Folk seem capable of taking the most narrow premise, and expanding it to fill a complex and fascinating work. And the most open premise can result in something vacuous.* It's hard to explain,* but I actually feel the narrowness or otherwise of the premises has potentially no interaction with the authenticity of the player's interpretation.




_Writing free verse is like playing tennis without a net._


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I recently finished up a campaign where my players were constables and I gave them full freedom to set their own moral course. They started out pretty righteous but by the end they had effectively become drug kingpins. In this campaign had they fully abandoned their posts, we would have just shifted the focus of the campaign to their new direction.




That's fine if its what you want to do, but I'm usually putting a campaign together to run a specific kind of game (which can have broad or narrow scope) and often if the campaign is going to veer off too far from that, I can't be arsed (and sometimes even if I'd be willing in principal, if I'm using a game system that is pretty unsuited for whatever direction they're trying to take it in I'm not going to bother hammering nails with a wrench--this happened with a Morrow Project game I ran some years ago where the players were starting to lean into what I refer to as "property management" elements; I don't have an intrinsic objection to those, but if I'm going to do that I want a system where either it already has some subsystems to assist with it, or I've had time to put them together before the campaign started).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The three clue rule is simply about addressing the problem of the players not being able to go in any direction because they don't have information about the mystery in question. I don't think it is about keeping it moving towards a specific goal or path. It is just about it not grinding to a halt.




If something is not moving toward a specific goal, then I don't know why we'd worry about things grinding to a halt. All of this is assuming that the players want to solve the mystery, or that the characters need to, for some reason in the fiction. That solving the mystery is the goal of play (however temporary a goal it may be). 

But let's just imagine that they may not solve the mystery, or may decide not to for some reason. If that's the case, what purpose would the three-clue rule provide? 



Bedrockgames said:


> There being truth at the heart of a mystery and the players having fair access to clues about that truth, that doesn't lead to a particular path, scene, etc. It just leads to a conclusion (the killer is Roy Sanderson, a 500 year old vampire who likes baseball and murdered his victims at Fenway Park, he is particularly vulnerable to holy water).




Sure, I don't think that having specific facts be set before hand means you're railroading players or anything like that. I think setting up a web of information as @Umbran described, or an information rich environment as (I think) @Campbell mentioned, is a step toward avoiding this. I think the three-clue rule is a very basic way to set up this kind of environment, but I don't think it does enough on its own. I think the GM being open to multiple paths... even ones not set ahead of time... is a big step as well. 

I think where it may get into the kind of troublesome territory here (assuming that this matters to people, there would be plenty of GMs and players who wouldn't look at any of this as troublesome or problematic) is when there are a finite number of clues that are strung together in such a way as to promote a pretty linear path... the web being incredibly simple, with minimal options. So if we miss clues 1 and 2, we find 3, which brings us to scene B, and so on. Again, not all investigations are like this, but it's like the template. 




Bedrockgames said:


> The 'specific path or goal' in a railroad is going to be a particular confrontation with that vampire or a series of encounters leading up to that confrontation. But in this scenario, they can do whatever they want with that info once they've assembled it and assessed it. There is almost no way for the GM to even predict what path they are going to take here. They could do something odd like bring a priest to bless his tap water, or they might phone a notable vampire hunter tell him all the details, then take off; they might confront him at a baseball game, phone the police or victims family and tell them they know who the killer is then call it a day, say 'screw it, we didn't know vampires were involved' and get out of dodge, formulate an elaborate plan to where the mayor asks Sanderson to throw first pitch and have sprinklers filled with holy water ready to go once he steps on the grass, try to redeem the vampire, etc. Sure, the solution has a good chance of involving holy water and a good chance of involving the murderer (unless they've uncovered other weaknesses, or they don't want to destroy him for some reason). But that is still quite far afield from how a railroad ought to go.




I don't know if I agree with that. Certainly he may predict a possible confrontation at Fenway or some other element of baseball coming up, or the use of holy water against the vampire. Many of the options that you suggest maybe possible, but many depend on either what has previously been established in play (the famous vampire hunter) or the ability of a player to introduce elements to play ("can I use my Connections ability to establish that I know a famous vampire hunter?")

The context of the game in question and how it functions will always be a huge influence here.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 2, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I feel like narrowness isn't an issue in works of fiction, because the space is limitless at every point. Folk seem capable of taking the most narrow premise, and expanding it to fill a complex and fascinating work. And the most open premise can result in something vacuous. It's hard to explain, but I actually feel the narrowness or otherwise of the premises has potentially no interaction with the authenticity of the player's interpretation.




The problem is that there are postures from which people play that are not as constrained as a typical written character.  While the latter may be developed in a somewhat freeform way that the writer takes, he's still aiming the character at at least a general sort of end (though he may not be sure exactly what that is until he gets there).  People absolutely _can_ play that way, but there are many who don't, and don't want to.  A more constrained campaign setup is more likely to leave them in the metagame conflict between playing their character in a way that seems authentic to them or staying in the campaign.  This is more likely to be avoided if they and the GM involved were on the same page at the point when the character was created, but it isn't a certainty, and often that "being on the same page" isn't a given.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if I agree with that. Certainly he may predict a possible confrontation at Fenway or some other element of baseball coming up, or the use of holy water against the vampire. Many of the options that you suggest maybe possible, but many depend on either what has previously been established in play (the famous vampire hunter) or the ability of a player to introduce elements to play ("can I use my Connections ability to establish that I know a famous vampire hunter?")
> 
> The context of the game in question and how it functions will always be a huge influence here.




But that was just a random example. If they don't know a famous vampire hunter, then maybe they find a local vampire hunter. The point is they might try to shift the load to someone else with more expertise than them. Unless the GM is thwarting everything they are attempting, at some point I presume they should be able to find some candidate like this (even if the GM puts up resistance to them contacting the top vampire hunter in the world). Maybe there are games where that could be an issue. I think in a typical RPG it isn't a problem (and three clue rule is written with stuff like Call of Cthulhu and D&D in mind). And, importantly, even if they fail at this, the point was just you can't predict how they are going to approach the situation. I am not saying every approach will automatically work out


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> If something is not moving toward a specific goal, then I don't know why we'd worry about things grinding to a halt. All of this is assuming that the players want to solve the mystery, or that the characters need to, for some reason in the fiction. That solving the mystery is the goal of play (however temporary a goal it may be).
> 
> But let's just imagine that they may not solve the mystery, or may decide not to for some reason. If that's the case, what purpose would the three-clue rule provide?




The three clue rule assumes solving the mystery is a thing. I grant that is a goal I suppose, but I think a goal like "solving the mystery" especially if it is a goal the players themselves have chosen to engage is different from the kinds of goals a GM might be tempted to railroad towards. Here I am thinking the GM is planning on a big confrontation in the middle of Fenway Park inspired by the Dirty Harry football field scene with the Vampire. But in the mystery case that the three clue rule is taking about it isn't building up to some big scene like that. The clues are just in service to the core mystery. There isn't any particular destination to railroad towards (there is solving the mystery but that isn't really a destination in the way the football scene is).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The point is they might try to shift the load to someone else with more expertise than them.




Going back to Ashen Stars for a moment, as that's my key example - shoving responsibility onto someone else is generally a possibility, but there are consequences.  You might not get paid if you do that, and you have bills if you want the ship to keep flying.  You might take a hit to your reputation, which means you may not get paid as much for the next job.

And, remember that there's always an ethical question?  Yeah, that.  Bailing on an ethical responsibility doesn't usually work out well, if only because if you aren't going to be the most ethical folks around, surely the people you hand the issue off too have no reason to be _better_ than you, now do they?



Bedrockgames said:


> The three clue rule assumes solving the mystery is a thing. I grant that is a goal I suppose, but I think a goal like "solving the mystery" especially if it is a goal the players themselves have chosen to engage is different from the kinds of goals a GM might be tempted to railroad towards.




In Ashen Stars, it is part of the game conceit that you are a bunch of troubleshooters for hire.  If you're not on board with finding answers to problems, you don't play the game at all.

And the characters need to get paid.  Troubleshooting is a high-risk, high reward occupation, and generally pays enough.  Other things the PCs take on probably aren't enough to play for the ship and cyberware upkeep they've got.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Going back to Ashen Stars for a moment, as that's my key example - shoving responsibility onto someone else is generally a possibility, but there are consequences.  You might not get paid if you do that, and you have bills if you want the ship to keep flying.  You might take a hit to your reputation, which means you may not get paid as much for the next job.
> 
> And, remember that there's always an ethical question?  Yeah, that.  Bailing on an ethical responsibility doesn't usually work out well, if only because if you aren't going to be the most ethical folks around, surely the people you hand the issue off too have no reason to be _better_ than you, now do they?




I don't know Ashen Stars well. Is there a built in mechanic in the game for unethical actions having consequences or is that more just how you run the game (just genuinely curious here). 

These things are all very campaign and situation dependent though I think (and system dependent). Both in terms of evaluating the ethics and in terms of whether the players being unethical leads to consequences. If it is a game setting where you have cosmic forces of good and evil, so say a Ravenloft campaign as I am most familiar with its method for handling that, there well could be consequence for allowing evil to happen by relinquishing your responsibility to do something. In a modern day morally gray setting? Maybe. Like you say there may be direct consequences of doing the unethical thing but the real world sometimes rewards the unethical and punishes the ethical, so it can really depend

Whether the players shifting responsibility to someone else is an ethical problem, that I think is interesting territory in a game. Arguably the expectation is the players are the heroes and should face the evil themselves, but there is a case to be made that it would be less ethical to do that if they find out the villain is a supernatural creature they are ill-equipped to handle. In that case, contacting a more appropriate person or group to manage the threat is probably very ethical. If I find a bear roaming my neighborhood, there isn't anything unethical about me going inside my house and calling the animal control and police because I know nothing about bears and might make the situation worse if I try to intervene myself. 



Umbran said:


> In Ashen Stars, it is part of the game conceit that you are a bunch of troubleshooters for hire.  If you're not on board with finding answers to problems, you don't play the game at all.
> 
> And the characters need to get paid.  Troubleshooting is a high-risk, high reward occupation, and generally pays enough.  Other things the PCs take on probably aren't enough to play for the ship and cyberware upkeep they've got.




Which I think ties with what I am saying. There was a minimum buy in here to be solving the mystery so presumably that is the goal.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 2, 2022)

clearstream said:


> While I feel the wording choices are unfortunate, I don't think it is right to cast it as jargon. The third bullet in the definition of "authentic" that Google returns with is
> 
> (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.
> And we do commonly speak of a person as being "authentic" in that sense. @pemerton explained they meant
> ...



I don't think you should have to he a philosophy major in order to understand what someone means.  That definition is not the one most commonly used in conversation, and when posting I think that conversational English should be what is used.  That way most of the people reading your post will be able to understand and/or relate to it.

Writing a post using terminology/jargon that you'd find in a thesis isn't helpful here. It's going to cause confusion and arguments as terms people commonly understand to mean one thing, are being used to mean another.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know Ashen Stars well. Is there a built in mechanic in the game for unethical actions having consequences or is that more just how you run the game (just genuinely curious here).




So, as mentioned, if they punk on a job, they may not get paid, and are apt to take a hit to Reputation.  These are mechanical.  

There are two ways that handing off the ethical issue can become a problem for the PCs.

One is mechanical - once they take a job, negative outcomes during and resulting from it are often hits to their Reputation.  So, if they find, say, a weapon of mass destruction, and hand that off to someone who sells it to the highest bidder or uses it, that can come back at them via Reputation.  If they find someone appropriate, it can work out, but it isn't guaranteed.

There's also the non-rules-dependent issue of narrative consequences.  The setting is very much like Star Trek, but an alien force came in and kicked the Federation's butt, and it has fallen apart.  The result is a political swamp of forces vying for power and control.  It is not an infinitely deep ocean where you can dump crap into the setting and nothing happens as a result.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't think you should have to he a philosophy major in order to understand what someone means.  That definition is not the one most commonly used in conversation, and when posting I think that conversational English should be what is used.  That way most of the people reading your post will be able to understand and/or relate to it.
> 
> Writing a post using terminology/jargon that you'd find in a thesis isn't helpful here. It's going to cause confusion and arguments as terms people commonly understand to mean one thing, are being used to mean another.




I was a philosophy minor and I am only half following it 

This conversation did remind me a little of this:


----------



## TBeholder (Aug 2, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule",



There’s a good analysis of “three clue rule” and pitfalls on The Alexandrian blog.


pemerton said:


> GM-enforced alignment,



That’s just weird.


pemerton said:


> adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc)



The Alexandrian also identifies this among the root causes of railroad problems and offers more flexible variations of a structured adventure (on the page linked above, see links under “Further Reading”).

As to the less-structured ones, there are always sandboxes.



pemerton said:


> I would go further than what you set out in your last two sentences here. In the OP I mentioned the "three clue rule". I see "node based design" as a variation of the same thing.



It’s not only not the same thing, it’s not the same _type of_ thing. Linear (railroad) and node designs are structure. The “three clue rule” is a basic principle of redundancy, which in itself does not demand any specific structure. It can be applied to fully linear railroad or to node structure gone full bingo table.
Node design is not one-dimensional, so it also allows to distribute redundant connections wider, making it both more reliable and more natural looking.
In a linear adventure all 3 clues lead from A to B. If the players missed or misinterpreted AB1, they still can find AB2 and AB3. Redundancy! But the bottleneck is only slightly wider: what if the players misinterpreted or accidentally destroyed AB1 and then ran off before discovering AB2 and AB3? Now GM has only 2 choices: let them walk into a dead end and wait until they’ll retrace their steps to just the right spot or start making choo-choo noises. Neither sounds like much fun for anyone involved.
In a node based adventure, if the players messed up at A and lost clue AE, they’ll still have a chance to grab BE or CE later, in different circumstances. Meanwhile, they also can do something optional, but meaningful for the plot without advancing from this critical point to that critical point. And their choice to move from A to B or C is not fake (lol, dead end, try again), it can actually affect the course of adventure. Much better.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I ran a campaign of Blades in the Dark using the Flame Without Shadow playtest, which has the players playing Bluecoats and Investigators... the cops of the setting.
> 
> So that's a constraint, right? But it's one about which each player may have something to say. They may have good ideas about cops, they may have bad ideas about cops (and probably more importantly just societal power structures and classism and so on, in general), or very likely, they may have a mix of good and bad ideas. What they have to say about that premise and the concepts involved is up to them.
> 
> If I say "the premise is that you're all good cops", then I've limited what they have to say. Does that mean they can't have something authentic to say? No. But it's more narrow. Now, instead of being about law enforcement in general, it's more likely to be something like "what's it like to be the one good cop amongst a corrupt department" or similar.



Consider your more narrow premise - "you're all good cops". Who gets to - is obliged to, in and via play - to express a conception of what it is to be a good cop?

In DitV, the premise of play is that the PCs respond to sin and injustice, in their capacity as religious enforcers. They have to express a conception of what constitutes sin, and what sort of response it deserves.

*********************

RPGing can generate pressures that push against authenticity.

By chance recently I've been in a thread or two that describe 4e D&D skill challenges as "players looking for excuses to roll their best stat/skill". The picture of play that this description creates, for me at least, is that the players are sacrificing an authentic conception of the fiction, and what their PC might do in it given their fictional positioning, for the expedience of mathematical success.

I would expect tables at which that sort of expedience predominates to have trouble with the rule in Agon that gives the player final say over whether or not their description of what their PC is doing makes their PCs' epithet (a type of free descriptor that every PC has) applicable, such that a bonus die is added to the player's dice pool. (The same rule applies to other descriptors that can grow the dice pool, but in those other cases - adding a Divine Favour die and a second Domain die - there is a resource cost, of spending a point of Divine Favour or a point of Pathos respectively, and so expedience does not push all one way.)

Designing, and adjudicating, a RPG so that the imperatives of play favour authenticity over expedience is not trivial. It's not magical or mystical either! But I think it does require a certain sort of approach and perhaps a certain sort of "ethos" from everyone at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The three clue rule is simply about addressing the problem of the players not being able to go in any direction because they don't have information about the mystery in question. I don't think it is about keeping it moving towards a specific goal or path. It is just about it not grinding to a halt.





hawkeyefan said:


> If something is not moving toward a specific goal, then I don't know why we'd worry about things grinding to a halt. All of this is assuming that the players want to solve the mystery, or that the characters need to, for some reason in the fiction. That solving the mystery is the goal of play (however temporary a goal it may be).



I was going to post the same things as what @hawkeyefan has posted here.

The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players _need_ (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.


----------



## TBeholder (Aug 2, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Consider your more narrow premise - "you're all good cops". Who gets to - is obliged to, in and via play - to express a conception of what it is to be a good cop?
> 
> In DitV, the premise of play is that the PCs respond to sin and injustice, in their capacity as religious enforcers. They have to express a conception of what constitutes sin, and what sort of response it deserves.



What exactly is the alternative? Roll completely random characters with random motivations, half of which obviously should not have any interest in the given adventure? “My character… huh… I guess he just sits here and smokes weed”. What would be the point of this?


pemerton said:


> RPGing can generate pressures that push against authenticity.



Basic premises are not “pressures that push against authenticity”. They are minimal conventions necessary for an adventure to be meaningful.


> The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players _need_ (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.



Yes. Which is always the case if 

the adventure has a goal and 
some information is necessary to achieve it.
Lack of (2) leaves us with a “dumb arcade” style game (beat up 1000 goblins in small groups, then beat up Goblin Boss). Which isn’t big on meaningful choices.
Lack of (1) leaves us with a full sandbox game. Which is full of meaningful choices, but it’s the opposite of a discrete adventure.
Also, with this process of elimination you are playing “guess my invisible hoops to jump through”… while decrying anything that involves a GM offering the players any hoops to jump through.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I was going to post the same things as what @hawkeyefan has posted here.
> 
> The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players _need_ (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.




Sure but that is just more information. It isn't an event or a scene or a place the players need to go. It is just the complete picture of what the mystery was (i.e. Who committed the crime). Like I said, that is something. But it isn't like it is all pointing towards a set piece. Now you can use this to set up clues that would lead the players scene to scene or towards some final showdown if you wanted to. 

Like I said a mystery has some basic buy in: solving the mystery. In order to solve the mystery you do need to find clues pointing to the culprit. Importantly the clues the GM comes up with aren't all that exists. Again, permissive clue finding is important here. And there well may be clues beyond the ones the GM thought of but would be entirely findable by certain PC actions if the GM has enough awareness of the backstory to adapt as players seek clues out.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 2, 2022)

TBeholder said:


> What exactly is the alternative?



To what?


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 3, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _Writing free verse is like playing tennis without a net._



You do a lot better?  I used to play tennis in high school and I have to say, if the net was gone I would have done better.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The three clue rule assumes solving the mystery is a thing. I grant that is a goal I suppose, but I think a goal like "solving the mystery" especially if it is a goal the players themselves have chosen to engage is different from the kinds of goals a GM might be tempted to railroad towards.




That’s interesting.

If GMs didn’t expect or worry about players “solving” a mystery, and instead just set up mysteries that exist in the world, then the pressure is off to ensure the players are successful.

Then if along the way some mysteries happen to get solved it’s genuinely rewarding.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That’s interesting.
> 
> If GMs didn’t expect or worry about players “solving” a mystery, and instead just set up mysteries that exist in the world, then the pressure is off to ensure the players are successful.
> 
> Then if along the way some mysteries happen to get solved it’s genuinely rewarding.




Sure if you are running a sandbox or more open campaign you can do that 

But the three clue rule is just about individual mystery adventures. It isn’t really factoring in the broader campaign structure


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure if you are running a sandbox or more open campaign you can do that
> 
> But the three clue rule is just about individual mystery adventures. It isn’t really factoring in the broader campaign structure




Even with the broader campaign structures, you can have campaigns that are mostly (at least in part) about solving mysteries.  A lot of modern day monster-hunter campaigns lean into that pretty heavily, for example.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Even with the broader campaign structures, you can have campaigns that are mostly (at least in part) about solving mysteries.  A lot of modern day monster-hunter campaigns lean into that pretty heavily, for example.




Of course. There are a lot of campaigns like that. I am running a modern monster hunt campaign right now.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I would have thought so, too! Not least because I used a lifepath generator offered by the makers of the game to come up with my character's backstory and history in the Federation. I have no idea about the specific examples you've offered, but I didn't expect that I was doing anything that really contradicted the setting. And I'm sure that with other GMs who were perhaps not so stringently devoted to the setting, it would not have been an issue.



Yeah, the first 2 series TOS and TNG focus almost exclusively on the bridge crew and generally portray them as very highly accomplished upholders of the values of Star Fleet (though not always beyond reproach). So I can see how someone might just fixate on nothing but reproducing that exact scenario. As you said, there was rather a mismatch in premise there. I haven't played the newest Trek RPG, but I'm guessing it is a bit more narrativist in its approach than the older ones?


----------



## andreszarta (Aug 3, 2022)

Ah, friends, wait for me! This totally sounds like a kind of conversation I'd enjoy, but it's going to take me a while to catch up. Aaaaaahh.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Oh, it absolutely does exclude things.  I'm just prone to stepping into this one because I've seen people literally say that except for open-ended sandboxes where any character or group of characters can do anything and, barring in-setting responses making it impossible, the campaign should go on, and if it can't/doesn't, its not really an RPG (and some of them seem to feel if the setting is such that in-setting responses can make this impossible, its not appropriate for an RPG).   That seems to reserve the term for pretty small corner of campaign types.




Yeah, I don’t tend to try and exclude games from being considered RPGs. I’m a large umbrella guy when it comes to that. 



Thomas Shey said:


> Sure.  I ignored some of those (rotating focus because, frankly, unless you've set up the game to do that from the get-go--and I don't see a reason to do so strongly on a regular basis, though I've done so with some games where it was a necessity in the past--I don't see some reason to suddenly start just because someone has taken actions that will move his character out of the avowed focus of the campaign) because when operate they make my point moot.




Right. So that’s like a little give and take, right? 

Sometimes, players may not have their characters do what they may want them to do because of real life concerns… so no on splits the party so that everyone can remain involved, and so on. 

Isn’t that a case of the player allowing the game structure to squelch his authenticity in that moment? 

As for rotating focus, I think it’s far easier to do it than many tend to think. I mean, we always do it to some extent with rounds and turns and so on. It’s really not much more difficult to rotate scenes as needed. 

So a game having the ability to do that… or the GM and players being able to do that… is something that enables authenticity.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, I don't think that having specific facts be set before hand means you're railroading players or anything like that. I think setting up a web of information as @Umbran described, or an information rich environment as (I think) @Campbell mentioned, is a step toward avoiding this. I think the three-clue rule is a very basic way to set up this kind of environment, but I don't think it does enough on its own. I think the GM being open to multiple paths... even ones not set ahead of time... is a big step as well.
> 
> I think where it may get into the kind of troublesome territory here (assuming that this matters to people, there would be plenty of GMs and players who wouldn't look at any of this as troublesome or problematic) is when there are a finite number of clues that are strung together in such a way as to promote a pretty linear path... the web being incredibly simple, with minimal options. So if we miss clues 1 and 2, we find 3, which brings us to scene B, and so on. Again, not all investigations are like this, but it's like the template.



I think its all deeper than any of this. It isn't about TECHNIQUE, its about effect, and openness to seeing what will come out in play. The failed Star Trek campaign is a perfect, though obviously extreme, example: the GM simply wasn't open, didn't open up and play the gig. Instead he had his little script and the players were there to say the lines. So, the more linear and the more one-dimensional the conception and allowed direction of the game, the more its likely to just be empty of that spark, which you cannot really easily describe but which comes when a game is truly open in some sense, open to itself.

The only REAL discussion is "what techniques really work better or worse for that?" Its pointless to try to split hairs in terminology or run around debating value judgments that aren't important. How do you get that spark? IME, and I've run and played a LOT of different games with a pretty decent variety of people, the PbtA principle 'Play to find out what happens' is the most succinct way to describe it that I know of. Everyone, doing that together, with no holdouts, can, maybe not will but can, produce that. It could happen playing B2, it is fairly likely to happen playing BitD, I think.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem is that there are postures from which people play that are not as constrained as a typical written character.  While the latter may be developed in a somewhat freeform way that the writer takes, he's still aiming the character at at least a general sort of end (though he may not be sure exactly what that is until he gets there).  People absolutely _can_ play that way, but there are many who don't, and don't want to.  A more constrained campaign setup is more likely to leave them in the metagame conflict between playing their character in a way that seems authentic to them or staying in the campaign.  This is more likely to be avoided if they and the GM involved were on the same page at the point when the character was created, but it isn't a certainty, and often that "being on the same page" isn't a given.



Well, I think the more narrow the concept, the more likely a game is to be less extended in duration. If the PCs must be the beat cops, so to speak, in a bad neighborhood, well that opens up a lot of conceptual space, but at some point it is quite likely at least some of them will move on beyond the boundaries of the game concept and it will end. There's also likely to only be a certain amount of stuff you can do in a really narrow premise/milieu before people have started to run out of things to do. Its like cop shows, they start out with just 'cop stuff' but by the end of season 2 all the character's girlfriends, kids, the mafia, whatever is all wrapped up in it and it starts to break down, or at least you have to kind of reinvent the premise to keep it going.

I mean, even D&D runs into this. The PCs loot dungeons, but pretty soon they're bored of that, and they start building castles, starting wars, whatever. 

I definitely suspect this BitD campaign is going to get like that, the characters will soon mine out the easy material associated with their concepts and the game premise. Its flexible enough that play can probably continue through a bunch of sessions, but the structure of the game is not going to let you do just anything with it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But that was just a random example. If they don't know a famous vampire hunter, then maybe they find a local vampire hunter. The point is they might try to shift the load to someone else with more expertise than them.




No worries, I knew it was a random example… I just ran with it to point out how a game functions will impact the options available. 

To continue with your example… I’ve played plenty of games where if the presence of the famous vampire hunter had not already been established, then no way is that happening. And given that many games rely on the GM to introduce elements like that, this may not always be an option. 

If the game in question functions in such a way that the player has some means to introduce this famous vampire hunter… either a skill check of some sort or maybe a class ability… then it’ll be an option for the players. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Unless the GM is thwarting everything they are attempting, at some point I presume they should be able to find some candidate like this (even if the GM puts up resistance to them contacting the top vampire hunter in the world). Maybe there are games where that could be an issue. I think in a typical RPG it isn't a problem (and three clue rule is written with stuff like Call of Cthulhu and D&D in mind). And, importantly, even if they fail at this, the point was just you can't predict how they are going to approach the situation. I am not saying every approach will automatically work out




I don’t really disagree with most of what you say here, except I think GMs can predict what players will do a reasonable amount of the time. Or at least can reasonably narrow things down to a few possibilities. I think this is how most games that typically get classified as traditional tend to work. You prep the most obvious next steps. 

We’re not always right, though… and when people point this out they always say “the players threw a real curve ball at me” and the like.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Consider your more narrow premise - "you're all good cops". Who gets to - is obliged to, in and via play - to express a conception of what it is to be a good cop?
> 
> In DitV, the premise of play is that the PCs respond to sin and injustice, in their capacity as religious enforcers. They have to express a conception of what constitutes sin, and what sort of response it deserves.



And this is really what I meant, and I think ultimately in a macro sense, what PbtA's 'play to find out' means. If the GM is the one who defines what 'good cop' IS and anyone who doesn't conform to that conception is expelled from the force, then we have a pretty shallow and inauthentic kind of play. At best the players either muddle along, or are uninterested in exploring the concept in the first place. At worst it goes like that Star Trek blowup, the players throw up their hands as the GM keeps insisting they have to enact his conception of the premise or else.

I'm not terribly familiar with DitV, though it gets used as an example pretty often, but it certainly is both narrow in premise and milieu, and yet entirely open in terms of how that plays out. I'm guessing its not a game one plays long campaigns of however.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I was going to post the same things as what @hawkeyefan has posted here.
> 
> The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players _need_ (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.



Right, and that is likely to involve play proceeding in a somewhat fixed direction, instead of playing to find out where it goes. There could be other dimensions to things, so its not an absolute, but we're generally in the territory of "GM maps out the general course of play."


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

TBeholder said:


> What exactly is the alternative? Roll completely random characters with random motivations, half of which obviously should not have any interest in the given adventure? “My character… huh… I guess he just sits here and smokes weed”. What would be the point of this?
> 
> Basic premises are not “pressures that push against authenticity”. They are minimal conventions necessary for an adventure to be meaningful.
> 
> ...



I would suggest giving a PbtA/FitD type of narrativist game a play and then see if you update this view.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That’s interesting.
> 
> If GMs didn’t expect or worry about players “solving” a mystery, and instead just set up mysteries that exist in the world, then the pressure is off to ensure the players are successful.
> 
> Then if along the way some mysteries happen to get solved it’s genuinely rewarding.



Right, and I don't think @Bedrockgames is at all wrong either. I just think that its pretty interesting when the real underlying object of the game isn't necessarily the going around and gathering the clues and solving the mysteries, but what that means for and does to the PCs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Consider your more narrow premise - "you're all good cops". Who gets to - is obliged to, in and via play - to express a conception of what it is to be a good cop?




Right! I’d expect everyone involved to have ideas on that… and I’d expect there to be significant overlap, but then also some conflicts. 





pemerton said:


> In DitV, the premise of play is that the PCs respond to sin and injustice, in their capacity as religious enforcers. They have to express a conception of what constitutes sin, and what sort of response it deserves.




Dogs is a great example since the characters are the ones who are determining those things… they decide what’s a sin and how it should be punished.  So in that sense, everything they do in service of their mission is righteous. 

But can’t the characters disagree? Don’t the beliefs of the players act as a kind of sounding board that gives the game some additional context? 

It seems like there are more layers to it.




pemerton said:


> RPGing can generate pressures that push against authenticity.
> 
> By chance recently I've been in a thread or two that describe 4e D&D skill challenges as "players looking for excuses to roll their best stat/skill". The picture of play that this description creates, for me at least, is that the players are sacrificing an authentic conception of the fiction, and what their PC might do in it given their fictional positioning, for the expedience of mathematical success.
> I would expect tables at which that sort of expedience predominates to have trouble with the rule in Agon that gives the player final say over whether or not their description of what their PC is doing makes their PCs' epithet (a type of free descriptor that every PC has) applicable, such that a bonus die is added to the player's dice pool. (The same rule applies to other descriptors that can grow the dice pool, but in those other cases - adding a Divine Favour die and a second Domain die - there is a resource cost, of spending a point of Divine Favour or a point of Pathos respectively, and so expedience does not push all one way.)




I find that it’s a kind of reverse psychology thing… give the players the freedom to make these choices, and they’ll be stricter to themselves than I’d probably be. A lot of people can’t imagine this because many games have conditioned participants to seek any and all advantages. But my experience has taught me otherwise… I simply don’t need to police players in that way. 



pemerton said:


> Designing, and adjudicating, a RPG so that the imperatives of play favour authenticity over expedience is not trivial. It's not magical or mystical either! But I think it does require a certain sort of approach and perhaps a certain sort of "ethos" from everyone at the table.




Absolutely. I think it’s a combination of the game and the participants.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, the first 2 series TOS and TNG focus almost exclusively on the bridge crew and generally portray them as very highly accomplished upholders of the values of Star Fleet (though not always beyond reproach). So I can see how someone might just fixate on nothing but reproducing that exact scenario. As you said, there was rather a mismatch in premise there. I haven't played the newest Trek RPG, but I'm guessing it is a bit more narrativist in its approach than the older ones?




I’ve heard it described as such, but I didn’t really find it to be very narrative in approach. It does have what many consider to be meta-currencies in the form of Momentum and Threat. For some people, meta-mechanics like that are what makes a game narrativist. 

I thought it played pretty traditionally. But, as I said, we had a GM very devoted to the setting… so perhaps there was something we were missing. 

It’s the 2d20 system from Modiphius, which they use for lots of games. I’ve heard Dune is more narrative, but the rest (Conan, John Carter, Fallout, Mutant Chronicles) seem pretty traditional. I could certainly be wrong, though. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think its all deeper than any of this. It isn't about TECHNIQUE, its about effect, and openness to seeing what will come out in play. The failed Star Trek campaign is a perfect, though obviously extreme, example: the GM simply wasn't open, didn't open up and play the gig. Instead he had his little script and the players were there to say the lines. So, the more linear and the more one-dimensional the conception and allowed direction of the game, the more its likely to just be empty of that spark, which you cannot really easily describe but which comes when a game is truly open in some sense, open to itself.
> 
> The only REAL discussion is "what techniques really work better or worse for that?" Its pointless to try to split hairs in terminology or run around debating value judgments that aren't important. How do you get that spark? IME, and I've run and played a LOT of different games with a pretty decent variety of people, the PbtA principle 'Play to find out what happens' is the most succinct way to describe it that I know of. Everyone, doing that together, with no holdouts, can, maybe not will but can, produce that. It could happen playing B2, it is fairly likely to happen playing BitD, I think.




Yes, I agree that it’s about technique. Examples of which may or may not be a component of a given RPG, and when they’re not, then it’s the participants that matter.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players _need_ (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.



One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.

The very definition of a mystery is that something unexplained either is happening or has happened; and to solve that mystery one has to acquire enough information to explain what was previously unexplained.

Which means yes, if the goal of the game is to solve a mystery the players/PCs do in fact need to acquire the information needed in order to achieve that goal.  The three-clue idea is merely one suggested means of presenting that information.

If done right, the only time it can become a railroad is if the GM won't allow the PCs to fail should their information gathering prove fruitless.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2022)

TBeholder said:


> What exactly is the alternative? Roll completely random characters with random motivations, half of which obviously should not have any interest in the given adventure?



Sounds pretty much like standard procedure around here. 

I've rolled up some of my own PCs at complete random in the past - random stats, species, class, background, family, etc. - and a few of 'em worked out pretty damn well in the long run.


TBeholder said:


> “My character… huh… I guess he just sits here and smokes weed”. What would be the point of this?



Well, at least you'd be putting the 'high' in High Elf.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.



The _Brindlewood Bay_ mystery mechanic provides an obvious alternative, as much as it isn't for everyone. Gumshoe changes the framing of how clues are collected too.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 3, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _Writing free verse is like playing tennis without a net._



Perhaps, but what I wanted to follow up was my thought that


> the narrowness or otherwise of the premises has potentially no interaction with the authenticity of the player's interpretation.




Folk have been discussing choice, and I do think genuine choice is involved; but not what I will non-pejoratively call the superficial choice that is being focused on. I come to that conclusion by thinking about theatre actors. We talk about authenticity of theatrical acting in a way that seems identical to the use of the word in the OP. Through application of techniques and principles, the actor explores/expresses something that feels true.

The actor does not choose their character. Who that character is, is decided for them. They are a good-hearted wood cutter, say. They do not choose their situation, nor how it will unfold. That is decided for them, in the script. They don't even choose what words they will say.

We might say that actors can't act authentically - it's simply wrong to apply that word to them even if a quick google turns up titles like "Act Authentically, An Actor's Workout". Or we might say that actors can act authentically, and roleplayers can act authentically, but the two are different... in which case one looks forward to an explanation of the difference. Or I suppose we might say that neither are authentic, perhaps taking the "simulation" line of argument I assayed earlier.

Or if we accept actors can act authentically, and this is using the word in the same sense as in this thread, then it seems to me that a lot of the foregoing discussion has focused on the wrong kind of choice. Superficial choice, not genuine choice.


----------



## chaochou (Aug 3, 2022)

Narrativist games are those which _allow the players to address their chosen premise_. In this description, premise is not a synonym for genre. It does not mean 'Star Trek' or 'Cops on the Beat' or 'Fantasy freebooters looking for fortune'.

In this description it means addressing specific statements or questions - _created by the players through the development of initial situation and then extended into play_ - such as 'Cops faced with temptation always end up corrupt' or 'Given our space station is irrevocably doomed, will I reconcile with my estranged father or are the wounds too deep?'

In this type of play, authenticity comes from the players' choices of the specific premise which interests them, and the actions they take to resolve the conflicts which drive at the premise they are exploring. So, for example, if I'm playing with the idea of finding out if 'Cops faced with temptation always end up corrupt?' the focus isn't on whether I succeed at arresting some criminal or gang, it's about whether I become compromised or corrupted doing it.

Authenticity, in the sense I had from the OP, is about giving the players the freedom and responsibility to develop and push at the premise(s) they've developed, and then saying something individual and truthful through their words and actions as the beliefs they want to express get tested by the conflicts which arise through the game.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, the first 2 series TOS and TNG focus almost exclusively on the bridge crew and generally portray them as very highly accomplished upholders of the values of Star Fleet (though not always beyond reproach). So I can see how someone might just fixate on nothing but reproducing that exact scenario. As you said, there was rather a mismatch in premise there. I haven't played the newest Trek RPG, but I'm guessing it is a bit more narrativist in its approach than the older ones?



Yes, a bit. 
It also uses 2 metacurrencies under 3 names, and metacurrency spends to add NPCs mid scene...

But it also has specified by the player Beliefs and rewards for adhering to them, and different rewards for challenging them. The GM can likewise impose "directives"... which work like beliefs, but shared across the party, and carrying additional mechanical penalties for challenging them.

Many choices get made due to mechanical concerns.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> The _Brindlewood Bay_ mystery mechanic provides an obvious alternative, as much as it isn't for everyone. Gumshoe changes the framing of how clues are collected too.




Gumshoe uses a different _mechanic_ than other games, but it doesn't "reframe" in the sense that, as Lanefan says - you are trying to solve a mystery, and need information to do that.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Even with the broader campaign structures, you can have campaigns that are mostly (at least in part) about solving mysteries.  A lot of modern day monster-hunter campaigns lean into that pretty heavily, for example.




I was wandering off-topic a bit, but just suggesting that solving the mysteries doesn’t have to be the goal of having mysteries.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, and that is likely to involve play proceeding in a somewhat fixed direction, instead of playing to find out where it goes.




The _very first line_ of Blades in the Dark is, "_Blades in the Dark_ is a game about a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of a fantasy-industrial city."

The first two sentences of Ashen Stars are, "_Ashen Stars_ is a game of mystery and adventure set in a gritty space opera universe.  You play freelance law enforcers solving problems for pay in the Bleed, a war-ravaged frontier of colonized space."

It seems to me that both of these give "direction" - in BitD, the PCs are going to do crime.  In Ashen Stars, they are going to be solving problems and mysteries for pay.  As pemerton noted above, in Dogs in the Vinyard, the PCs are religious enforcers.  You expect them to be out there enforcing rules against sin.

In none of these games are you "playing to find out" doing _whatever strikes the player's fancy_ - there is an general direction.  Blades in the Dark characters are not going to form a country-western band and take off across country with a talking jackrabbit in a camper-equipped pickup truck they call the "Smystery Smachine"...

So please put a leash on that "play to find out" thing - because the games do so on their first pages.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Gumshoe uses a different _mechanic_ than other games, but it doesn't "reframe" in the sense that, as Lanefan says - you are trying to solve a mystery, and need information to do that.



Well, I think to be fair the mechanics for clue collection in Gumshoe represents a pretty dramatic move in the direction of addressing some of the flaws in the 'you need the clues' approach to mystery solving.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, I think to be fair the mechanics for clue collection in Gumshoe represents a pretty dramatic move in the direction of addressing some of the flaws in the 'you need the clues' approach to mystery solving.




Sure.  But Lanefan's point still holds.  The characters do have to go out there gather and use clues to solve a mystery.  That "direction" is not removed from the game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I don’t tend to try and exclude games from being considered RPGs. I’m a large umbrella guy when it comes to that.




It didn't seem likely from past posts--but just not one of those things I let wander on by, you know?



hawkeyefan said:


> Right. So that’s like a little give and take, right?
> 
> Sometimes, players may not have their characters do what they may want them to do because of real life concerns… so no on splits the party so that everyone can remain involved, and so on.
> 
> Isn’t that a case of the player allowing the game structure to squelch his authenticity in that moment?




Sure.  Honestly, you can make an argument that any time any sort of metagame consideration is factored in, that it steps on authenticity.  That's why its usually a good idea to construct the character in the first place so certain sorts of common and ongoing metagame considerations are already going to be how the character rolls, and just accept a few of the others.  I think the pursuit of authenticity at all cost is fundamentally hostile to making games work (even old-school RGFA simulationists understood that sometimes you just have to let it go for practical reasons).



hawkeyefan said:


> As for rotating focus, I think it’s far easier to do it than many tend to think. I mean, we always do it to some extent with rounds and turns and so on. It’s really not much more difficult to rotate scenes as needed.




As I said, I've done it.  I don't entirely agree with your conclusion here.  But possibly its a case of your conclusion being correct if you append "for some people and groups" to the end of that.



hawkeyefan said:


> So a game having the ability to do that… or the GM and players being able to do that… is something that enables authenticity.




It does, but again, at a price.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I think the more narrow the concept, the more likely a game is to be less extended in duration.




I dunno, man.  I wouldn't say my more narrow campaigns have had a shorter lifespan than my more broad ones.  Often the limiting factors in campaign length in my experience have to do with things largely outside the structure of the campaign itself.




AbdulAlhazred said:


> If the PCs must be the beat cops, so to speak, in a bad neighborhood, well that opens up a lot of conceptual space, but at some point it is quite likely at least some of them will move on beyond the boundaries of the game concept and it will end. There's also likely to only be a certain amount of stuff you can do in a really narrow premise/milieu before people have started to run out of things to do. Its like cop shows, they start out with just 'cop stuff' but by the end of season 2 all the character's girlfriends, kids, the mafia, whatever is all wrapped up in it and it starts to break down, or at least you have to kind of reinvent the premise to keep it going.




Well, that also turns on pace-of-resolution on a strategic level.  If there are, say, eight significant things that need to be resolved in the campaign, but each of them takes six sessions to resolve, that's still a nearly year long campaign at a session-a-week speed.  There are plenty of games that don't last longer than that no matter what they're about.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> The _Brindlewood Bay_ mystery mechanic provides an obvious alternative, as much as it isn't for everyone. Gumshoe changes the framing of how clues are collected too.




There are also other methods for minimizing the amount of dead ends you get.  Chill 3e had a mechanism where success or failure on information gathering turned on how fast you were accumulating data and how much was red herrings, but what it wouldn't do was leave you with _nothing_.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I was wandering off-topic a bit, but just suggesting that solving the mysteries doesn’t have to be the goal of having mysteries.




True.  I was just noting that a lot of games that are not avowedly about solving mysteries still need you to do so to proceed with what they _are_ about.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.
> 
> The very definition of a mystery is that something unexplained either is happening or has happened; and to solve that mystery one has to acquire enough information to explain what was previously unexplained.
> 
> ...



Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.




Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from having a process where, effectively, the PCs construct the mystery as they go and create the solution.  It might not be _satisfactory_ to some people, but if the point is to explore the process rather than the mystery itself, its still valid.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.




_The Mystery of Edwin Drood_, for example...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Gumshoe uses a different _mechanic_ than other games, but it doesn't "reframe" in the sense that, as Lanefan says - you are trying to solve a mystery, and need information to do that.



Sure, but not every game does that thing the same way or with the same challenges, so perhaps a more granular look makes sense.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from having a process where, effectively, the PCs construct the mystery as they go and create the solution.  It might not be _satisfactory_ to some people, but if the point is to explore the process rather than the mystery itself, its still valid.




So, let me talk about the Fate-based _Atomic Robo RPG_ for a moment.

There isn't a whole lot of light between "solve a mystery" and "solve a science-fiction problem".  Characters have to gather information, come to conclusions, realize what's up, and give some pseudoscientific gobbledigook about a solution and roll dice.

In Atomic Robo, they lift the burden of what is actually happening from the GM.  The GM says that humongous, building sized ants are rampaging towards Las Vegas!  What will we do??!?  The GM does not have to know how humongous, building-sized ants _work_, or what their vulnerabilities are, or lay clues as to how the humongous ants can be defeated.  There is, instead, a brainstorming mechanic, in which the sciencey characters get their heads together, spitball some ideas, build on each other's ideas, and come up with a helpful result (in Fate terms, they produce a known Aspect of the thing in question that can be tagged for bonuses).

This works for what it does, because we can be honest and note that even if the GM has a doctorate in entomology, they are going to get something _wrong_ - they have to, because real ants can't get that big for real reasons.  The ants are fundamentally inconsistent with the real world, so someone is going to have to wave their hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" or something to make it work.  Might as well let the players do that bit, right?

One imagines we could transfer this to mystery solution, but it fundamentally fails on two counts:
1) In super-science nonsense, you do get to wave your hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" to cover for any inconsistencies.  Satisfying mysteries need internal consistency.

2) Mysteries, as a genre, are about being clever - both the author and the audience.  Just making it all up at the end does not scratch the itch of actually being clever for the GM or the players.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> The _very first line_ of Blades in the Dark is, "_Blades in the Dark_ is a game about a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of a fantasy-industrial city."
> 
> The first two sentences of Ashen Stars are, "_Ashen Stars_ is a game of mystery and adventure set in a gritty space opera universe.  You play freelance law enforcers solving problems for pay in the Bleed, a war-ravaged frontier of colonized space."
> 
> ...



BitD, page 1: "
We *play to find out* if the fledgling crew can thrive amidst the teeming threats of
rival gangs, powerful noble families, vengeful ghosts, the Bluecoats of the City
Watch, and the siren song of the scoundrels’ own vices."

So, yes, there is a premise, as you say, and then we play to find out how that premise plays out. This phrase comes up again a few times:

Page 6: "
No one is in charge of the story. The story is what happens as a result of the situation
presented by the GM, the actions the characters take, the outcomes of the mechanics,
and the consequences that result. The story emerges from the unpredictable collision
of all of these elements. You play to find out what the story will be."

So, we see that the story is 'unfixed', there's no 'adventure path' or such, and we will play to find out what story arises. I'd note that on page 2 it is stated that the player's 'core responsibility' is to "[strive] to bring their character to life as an interesting, daring scoundrel who reaches boldly beyond their current safety and means." Assuming the players fulfill this responsibility they will be playing to find out what happens when they act as criminals and take big risks.

The GM is supposed to "Play to find out what happens" (page 187). Subsequent sections describe how this is meant to happen, emphasizing that the nature of the plot and action falls within the game's assigned genre/milieu but that no set events and actions exist, the players are in charge of what they decide to do. 

The actual game process and such in BitD is designed to produce this sort of action. Mechanically the characters have vices they need to indulge, and are embedded in a milieu where they have basically few choices except to conduct illicit activities. Their actions and the outcomes of those actions will have impacts on the characters through stress, trauma, and harm, as well as the accumulation of coin, contacts, friends, enemies, alliances, and 'skill' progression. The 'crew' they belong to (and you always have one, which is the other PCs) also has a life of its own where it can get bigger, etc. 

So, 'play to find out' isn't about 'play to find out what the premise is', nor is it 'play to find out what the map looks like', its play to find out how the character's, in light of the premise, act and evolve, and what happens to them. Fundamentally this requires that the game in question provide freedom on this axis. All games potentially allow this, but as the Star Trek example showed, specific games in practice don't always do so. We can see from the above that BitD is intended to allow the crew to develop themselves as criminals and carry out 'scores' (which can basically be any sort of criminal action, it doesn't need to be a heist). The crew in the last session (I was behind a bit so I was listening in while I made a PC of my own) got tangled up through some of their contacts with a dispute between the Red Sashes and one of the crew's contacts. The crew are somewhat crazy sounding killers, so they killed! And got paid for it. Clearly they're headed for a life of both short duration and much action... lol.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, but not every game does that thing the same way or with the same challenges, so perhaps a more granular look makes sense.




So, we seem to be talking past each other.  I say this liking Gumshoe, and having run multi-year campaigns of it.  I know exactly what you are talking about.  Yes, we can take your more granular look.

The thing I am objecting to is how this has implicitly been positioned as a _counter_ to what I was saying about reframing.  A more granular look at the system will, instead, establish no change in the overall framing of mysteries in Gumshoe games.  Gumshoe is, in fact, specifically designed to _enable_ the traditional framing of mysteries in a more satisfying way.

If we can agree on that, we can go on with that more granular look at how it accomplishes this.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, let me talk about the Fate-based _Atomic Robo RPG_ for a moment.
> 
> There isn't a whole lot of light between "solve a mystery" and "solve a science-fiction problem".  Characters have to gather information, come to conclusions, realize what's up, and give some pseudoscientific gobbledigook about a solution and roll dice.
> 
> ...



Well, this is essentially the exact approach Brindlewood Bay takes and while it isn't for everyone, as I mentioned, it is awesome and at least in my experience still feels very much like solving a mystery and being clever. I think that last line of yours needs an IMO qualification as it isn't universally true.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, 'play to find out' isn't about 'play to find out what the premise is', nor is it 'play to find out what the map looks like', its play to find out how the character's, in light of the premise, act and evolve, and what happens to them.




I am aware, having picked up my own copy of BitD, that is in reach from where I type, to get my quote.

However, what seems to be pressed here is the idea that _solving a mystery_ is inconsistent with finding out how the characters act and evolve, and what happens to them.  It is not, and I am pushing back on the idea that it is.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, this is essentially the exact approach Brindlewood Bay takes and while it isn't for everyone, as I mentioned, it is awesome and at least in my experience still feels very much like solving a mystery and being clever. I think that last line of yours needs an IMO qualification as it isn't universally true.




Oh, it is awesome, for what it does.  I love the mechanic in Atomic Robo.  What it doesn't do is allow you to cleverly solve a puzzle, because no puzzle exists to solve.  It allows you to creatively stipulate a truth - while this can still be clever, it isn't the same thing.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> One imagines we could transfer this to mystery solution, but it fundamentally fails on two counts:
> 1) In super-science nonsense, you do get to wave your hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" to cover for any inconsistencies.  Satisfying mysteries need internal consistency.
> 
> 2) Mysteries, as a genre, are about being clever - both the author and the audience.  Just making it all up at the end does not scratch the itch of actually being clever for the GM or the players.



I'm not so sure there isn't an analogous approach. Obviously internal consistency would be a type of constraint, but the players could still make stuff up within that constraint, and that could be the 'skilled' part of the game, for example. In terms of 'being clever', it seems like 'creating a consistent set of facts and action' could require being clever too. I mean, no, it probably wouldn't involve the players experiencing the mystery in the same way that the characters do, they'd be at least partly more like writers themselves. A game of this sort might involve some interesting mechanics that mediated how the players interact and maybe ties into what the characters do. Anyway, I think you could use a 'brainstorm' kind of mechanic, though it might be flavored a bit differently than the obvious Atomic Robo reference to 1950's SF movies.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, no, it probably wouldn't involve the players experiencing the mystery in the same way that the characters do




Exactly.  It becomes one more exercise in creative story-building.  The narrative-focused games already have that, in spades.  I'm not sure why one needs to do it yet again, when it doesn't present a fundamentally different experience.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I am aware, having picked up my own copy of BitD, that is in reach from where I type, to get my quote.
> 
> However, what seems to be pressed here is the idea that _solving a mystery_ is inconsistent with finding out how the characters act and evolve, and what happens to them.  It is not, and I am pushing back on the idea that it is.



I don't think solving a mystery is necessarily inconsistent with 'play to find out', you're simply not playing to find out the part that is already predetermined (IE the solution to the mystery). A game of this sort would like to have some other dimension to it in which the finding is happening. Maybe how being exposed to these crimes effects the PCs, or any of a bunch of other possibilities (maybe several of them taken as a general area of exploration). Usually this amounts to some sort of character exploration, motives, personality, etc. OTOH that is not strictly necessary. There simply needs to be this 'open' character to that dimension.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Oh, it is awesome, for what it does.  I love the mechanic in Atomic Robo.  What it doesn't do is allow you to cleverly solve a puzzle, because no puzzle exists to solve.  It allows you to creatively stipulate a truth - while this can still be clever, it isn't the same thing.



I completely agree, although in my personal experience with Brindlewood Bay it does still feel like solving a puzzle (and BB is specifically a mystery solving game). In Brindlewood that's framed by specific (open ended) questions that help focus the group's broad discussion about how the clues fit together. That said, I know that some people bounce off it hard, so there's that too.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> In none of these games are you "playing to find out" doing _whatever strikes the player's fancy_ - there is an general direction.  Blades in the Dark characters are not going to form a country-western band and take off across country with a talking jackrabbit in a camper-equipped pickup truck they call the "Smystery Smachine"...
> 
> So please put a leash on that "play to find out" thing - because the games do so on their first pages.



I know what you mean. In 1958 Roger Callois wrote in "_Les jeux et les homines_":



> One plays only if and when one wishes to. In this sense, play is free activity. It is also uncertain activity. Doubt must remain until the end, and hinges upon the denouement. In a card game, when the outcome is no longer in doubt, play stops and the players lay down their hands. In a lottery or in roulette, money is placed on a number which may or may not win. In a sports contest, the powers of the contestants must be equated, so that each may have a chance until the end. Every game of skill, by definition, involves the risk for the player of missing his stroke, and the threat of defeat, without which the game would no longer be pleasing. In fact, the game is no longer pleasing to one who, because he is too well trained or skillful, wins effortlessly and infallibly.
> 
> An outcome known in advance, with no possibility of error or surprise, clearly leading to an inescapable result, is incompatible with the nature of play. Constant and unpredictable definitions of the situation are necessary, such as are produced by each attack or counterattack in fencing or football, in each return of the tennis ball, or in chess, each time one of the players moves a piece. The game consists of the need to find or continue at once a response which is free within the limits set by the rules. This latitude of the player, this margin accorded to his action is essential to the game and partly explains the pleasure which it excites. It is equally accountable for the remarkable and meaningful uses of the term “play,” such as are reflected in such expressions as the playing of a performer or the play of a gear, to designate in the one case the personal style of an interpreter, in the other the range of movement of the parts of a machine.



It's intrinsic to game _qua_ game that we play to find out. Therefore one can ask what is meant by the phrase in the context of "story" games? I think in that context it has a special, albeit ambiguous, meaning. Something like "We want stronger rather than weaker powers to decide the narrative." Noted that those powers still make concessions to game text, setting, situation, mechanics, dice rolls.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Oh, it is awesome, for what it does.  I love the mechanic in Atomic Robo.  What it doesn't do is allow you to cleverly solve a puzzle, because no puzzle exists to solve.  It allows you to creatively stipulate a truth - while this can still be clever, it isn't the same thing.




This is assuming that the goal of play is about solving the puzzle. Which is perfectly fine, of course... I play plenty of games that have this or something similar as a goal of some sort... but it's not the goal of all play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 3, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It didn't seem likely from past posts--but just not one of those things I let wander on by, you know?




Sure, I hear you. I've had people dismiss certain games as "not RPGs", so I get where you're coming from. I probably over-apply the term, if anything. It's the sub-categories that are tough to define, categorize, and label, I'd say. 



Thomas Shey said:


> Sure.  Honestly, you can make an argument that any time any sort of metagame consideration is factored in, that it steps on authenticity.  That's why its usually a good idea to construct the character in the first place so certain sorts of common and ongoing metagame considerations are already going to be how the character rolls, and just accept a few of the others.  I think the pursuit of authenticity at all cost is fundamentally hostile to making games work (even old-school RGFA simulationists understood that sometimes you just have to let it go for practical reasons).




I think it depends on a lot of factors.... the preferences of the participants, the game being played, the environment of play (home game, convention, etc.)... probably many more. 

But I think some games are designed with this as the intent, and some are not. 



Thomas Shey said:


> As I said, I've done it.  I don't entirely agree with your conclusion here.  But possibly its a case of your conclusion being correct if you append "for some people and groups" to the end of that.




Sure, that's my experience. I think many people would disagree with me, but I also think that, generally speaking, it's not as difficult as many may think. 



Thomas Shey said:


> It does, but again, at a price.




Perhaps! I expect there are many contextual elements that might matter here, and there could be a tradeoff. I don't know if it must be so, though.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, but not every game does that thing the same way or with the same challenges, so perhaps a more granular look makes sense.



I’m wondering if there is some truth to the following:

1. We each have our preferred play style, whether through conscious and informed choice, habit, or ignorance 
2. Different games more actively support those different play styles. 
3. When we find a game that somehow supports our preferred play style it feels like a bigger and more exciting innovation that it actually is. 
4. When other people with other preferences play that game, they tend to play it the way they play other RPGs.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m wondering if there is some truth to the following:
> 
> 1. We each have our preferred play style, whether through conscious and informed choice, habit, or ignorance
> 2. Different games more actively support those different play styles.
> ...




In fairness, I think that it can be difficult for people who are very used to one style of play to fully understand something that is greatly different. 

And this applies across a lot of different axes; the first time someone who plays D&D tries to learn a diceless game usually interesting. Or the first time a person who is used to games that are DM-driven tries to learn games with more shared control of the fiction. 

But ... yeah, I think (3) is a big one. That said, I think most people would be better off experiencing a wide variety of different types of games.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I completely agree, although in my personal experience with Brindlewood Bay it does still feel like solving a puzzle ...




As an aside - I first heard of Brindlewood Bay last night.  Due to player illness, my Witchlight campaign failed to run, and so we sat around just talking for a while, and it came up.  Really weird coincidence.

That aside - there's some fundamental differences between acts of creation and acts of analysis.  Creation can be framed with things the creation must be consistent with (like, say, in writing a sonnet one must be consistent with the rhyme and meter scheme), but the mental processes underway are not the same as analysis.  Folks for whom the difference matters will bounce off a creation process masquerading as an analysis process.

But anyway, how about we go into that more granular look at Gumshoe, and how it handles mystery?

Old school games typically place the major burden of a mystery on the discovery of clues.  This is typified in Gygaxian searches, in which the player is supposed to specify that they are searching, exactly what they are searching, and how, often in excruciating detail.  If you don't pick the right thing to search, or if you don't get a good roll, you don't find the clue.

In 3e, they lightened this up a bit. The search action declaration is more broad - "I search the room, square by square."  No need to specifically note that you are searching the leg of the bed, that's assumed when you get to that square.  But still, if you fail the roll, you don't find the clue.

This necessitates things like the "Three Clue Rule" - the GM has to assume that the players will get some bad rolls, and will miss clues.  So, if discovering the clues is to be a real option, you need more clues. This is less about railroading than about plain statistics, but I digress...

Given that this can be a little tedious, and given that most GMs are not, in fact, seasoned mystery writers, there's a tendency for the clues to be pretty blatant - the clue is a scroll tube of letters between the Duke and some unknown correspondent, detailing when they are planning to kill the king, or the like.  When you go to the appointed place at the appointed time, you encounter and fight the unknown correspondent, defeat them, and unmask the... Duke's wife!  Or whoever.  Mystery solved!

And, yeah, the results are kind of linear, and are contingent on a specific resolution, so they can feel railroady.  Granted.

Gumshoe looks at satisfying mystery fiction, and notes - rare indeed do the investigators _fail to find_ the clue.  Spock doesn't scan for life forms, fail, and go, "Gee, Captian, I'm sorry, but for some random reason I can't scan my butt with both hands today."  If there are life forms, Spock finds the darned life forms!  What the scan doesn't tell Spock is _why the life forms are relevant_.  Gumshoe proceeds based on the idea that _searching_ for clues is actually kind of tedious, but _thinking through their context and meaning_ can be very interesting.

So, in Gumshoe games, finding clues is easy.  If the character has the right skill, in the right place, and asks, basic relevant information is given, no roll required, no chance of failure.  If there's more information, they can spend a skill point to buy it - again, no chance of failure, only a question of how much they want to invest on getting one set of information.

Without having any concern about what information the players will be able to find, the GM is free to distribute it more widely, in smaller bits that provoke more thought.

With the focus now on thought, rather than search, we are more solidly in the space of exploring how the characters relate to the issues - playing to find out what this means for them, and how they want to proceed with what they discover.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m wondering if there is some truth to the following:
> 
> 1. We each have our preferred play style, whether through conscious and informed choice, habit, or ignorance
> 2. Different games more actively support those different play styles.
> ...




To a degree, yes.  But, I think it is a broad generalization, with all the issues of applying generalizations to individuals.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I completely agree, although in my personal experience with Brindlewood Bay it does still feel like solving a puzzle (and BB is specifically a mystery solving game). In Brindlewood that's framed by specific (open ended) questions that help focus the group's broad discussion about how the clues fit together. That said, I know that some people bounce off it hard, so there's that too.



I love the vibe of Brindlewood Bay, as did my players, though I found after a few sessions the coziness tends to be cloying, even with the Cthulhu mystery cult lurking in the background.  I don't know what it's like as a player, but as a GM it's clear that much of the point of what you are doing is giving out clues so that the players have enough to work with when they go to the theorize move.  In some ways it didn't really matter what the PCs did--they were going to get clues, I was going to make hard moves they they would resist, and the fun would be in playing up the murder she wrote vibe.  It's a fun game for sure!  And an interesting take on the mystery scenario structure.  fwiw brindlewood bay did not feel more authentic than a session of, say, call of cthulhu.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 3, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I love the vibe of Brindlewood Bay, as did my players, though I found after a few sessions the coziness tends to be cloying, even with the Cthulhu mystery cult lurking in the background.



If the coziness wasn't to your taste try _The Between_. Same mystery mechanic but its essentially Penny Dreadful the RPG (so not cozy at all). Great game.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> ...with all the issues of applying generalizations to individuals.




But, but...that's how I navigate a complex world.


----------



## andreszarta (Aug 3, 2022)

Finally! It took me a while to get through all the replies. I’m gonna respond to those things that really caught my eye and could be good jumping points for me to get into this conversation, and also express my overall opinion as to where I stand in the matter. Fortunately for me, I don’t really have to expand on my position at full because* I pretty much agree with all that @hawkeyefan has said *and how he sees different the issues. I suspect we have similar training ? I’ll talk a little bit more about why when we talk about railroading.

So, when it comes to the word _authenticity_ I feel like indeed it was perhaps not the best word to describe the general sense of what you are talking about here @pemerton . Heh, it definitely caused a lot of uproar at the beginning of your thread, but I also don’t think this entirely a fault of your particular use of the word.

People perceiving the word _authenticity_ as threatening to them and their play style were already approaching the conversation from a tribalistic sense, *the same thing they were accusing you of doing.*

Instead, I dunno, maybe they could’ve started by expressing genuine curiosity about what you meant and said:

“That’s interesting, I don’t feel particularly inauthentic when I play OD&D, care to say more?” Instead of presupposing an intent with your use of the word authentic, and getting into this useless diatribe of definitions in the positive, use of jargon and inauthenticity, *maybe* they could’ve been more curious about YOUR experience, YOUR view on the matter, the extent of YOUR use of the word as opposed to fighting to reclaim some sort of “ownership” of the word for themselves to shut you down. Previous beef I suspect? This is the only way I can explain such toxicity from the get-go.
Especially because it took the thread a long while to get out of this useless part of the discussion to really engage in conversation about RPGs which is probably the main objective of this thread (and topic, right?)
Moving on…


I really like how you’ve summarized exactly the experience you are attempting to capture in the term you've chosen to use: *Genuine choices in play that say something individually and together.*

I think this is really at the core of what you mean when you say authenticity...because you said it yourself. People should’ve started debating there. I believe @Umbran did.


Umbran said:


> I don't know what this really means. It sounds poetic, and seems to take a pseudo-moral stance, but doesn't actually tell me what is happening in these games that is somehow missing in others.




However, as opposed to Umbran, I do recognize this framing because it is, very much so, the ideological pursuit of narrativism as a creative agenda by the people who spoused that idea during the years it was very popular (look at Aside GNS for instance). It is something *I experience* in my day to day when playing these games, and I feel comfortable in saying it is based on something real and objective that is different from other games. (Not *missing*, different).

I’d be very happy to provide real accounts of this experience if necessary.

Now, I believe _*authenticity*_, can be found in all the discrete elements of the full statement you made. I believe this might be one of the reasons of many of the disagreements in this thread, because it’s hard to identify *which* aspect is _authenticity _anyone is referring to at any particular moment.

When we talk about *genuine choices*, we probably all mean consequential, meaningful choices, yes?
*Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing?*

If it is, then I posit that *it is not restricted to narrativism, PbtA, FitD, right?* People make meaningful and consequential choices in all types of games! “Didn’t pack torches? Too bad for you guys, dark cave, it’s in my notes.” Certain techniques make these more or less _authentic_ in that sense. A blorby, consistent game world promotes (+) _authenticity_ in these choices. The quantum ogre and other forms of illusionism strips (-) authenticity from them. Disagreements anyone?

When we talk *about saying something*, we mean something human, right? Very frequently in storytelling, this means it’s *thematic*.
*Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing? *Do we need something to be thematic in order for us to say something deep about ourselves (as a society, as individuals)?

For many RPG designers and scholars, theme was the answer on how to make those deep human issues real in play, relying on our capacity as empathy machines to find meaning in thematic storytelling. Certain approaches to gaming might make these more or less authentic in that sense. Playing OSR-style games? Probably not a lot of discussions on deep human issues going around, yes? Playing heavy-trad games like Vampire the Masquerade? Interesting themes floating around, but very poor tools to actually empower players to have something interesting to _say_ about those themes and (in)human issues. Could happen? Sure. Did the game help? Probably not.

Authenticity (+) here could mean that our conversations were deep, thematic, thoughtful, provocative, risky. Authenticity (-) here could mean that there is an absence of these elements, or that they weren't treated with the right kind of contemplation.
Disagreements here?

When we talk about *doing it individually and together*, we are talking about collaboration, meaning that what people contribute _*is for real *_and everyone’s input is taken and listened to. Contributions to the fiction are made in more equal terms.
*Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing?*

Here there is a lot of great theoretical conversation with regards to what constitutes true collaboration, and the level of agency and authorship that any given player has in both the events that happen in the play, but more relevant to your general approach,* to the themes that emerge from play*. Empowerment is a word people have used. Some games empower players contributions to the fiction.

Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala Ron Edwards, all techniques that promote authenticity (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose.

I’m immediately reminded of Vincent Baker’s writings on thematic empowered play as well.

Now, when you take your full statement: Genuine choices in play that say something individually and together, it's discrete do take up a cohesive meaning.

*Genuine choices *with respect to _saying_ something.
*individually and together, *collaboration, with respect to _saying_ something.

There I see an argument for _authenticity _with respect to that goal of play, _saying_ something, that does separate it quite profoundly from genuine choices in other games and collaboration in other games, and might be label as _authentic _under those contingencies.


@Bedrockgames and @hawkeyefan…Very interesting conversation between you two. I personally have to side more with @hawkeyefan  in that the Alexandrian techniques, are at the end of the day a way for the GM to *control* the possible outcomes of play, while perhaps being a bit more freeing in how characters may interact with them (Node-based navigation is quite a different transversal than linear or branching adventures) and it’s that control which becomes the “railroading” @hawkeyefan is talking about. It's an infrequent use of the term railroading, as it typically refers to the linearity of a module.

With most of the the Alexandrian techniques of play, the GM remains the primary decision maker of how a scenario gets resolved. Scratch that. The GM is the primary decision maker *of the kinds of acceptable ways* the scenario could get resolved. They’ve predetermined what the important nodes are, and what the focus of the play is. Play needs to gravitate towards the nodes in order for there to be play at all.

Is it restrictive? Maybe, depends on the game, certainly waymore freeing than the classic linear and branching adventure models.

Authentic? From a meaningful choice perspective, I feel like it promotes authenticity in that the _how_ the resolution of a scenario occurs depends on player choice. From a thematic, player empowered perspective. Not really _authentic_, it's still the GM who decided what the major pieces of the story were. If there isn't presupposition that this is NOT what's happening here, no harm no foul.



Umbran said:


> So, the three-clue rule, in my experience, has diddly to do with railroading. It has to do with information flow. The three clue rule can be stated simply as, "The party will typically miss two out of every three clues as to what is going on."




I’m inclined to agree with this, that it is mainly about information flow. I think, though, that it finds its use in making sure that the information is redundant enough to point the players at the points of interest that the *GM has predefined to be points of interest*. This speaks volumes at the kind of collaboration that inevitably occurs, where the PCs do navigate the scenario _authentically (_meaningful choice), but are not particularly _authentically_ empowered authors of it (thematically).

Similarly, as per @hawkeyefan's example of his Spire game, building these adventure structures limits the possible range of places the story could go to those that are mostly predefined by the GM. This goes beyond notions of a campaign premise; its discovering through play what kinds of embroilments the PC's organically get embedded in and making the game's _aboutness_ be that.


Umbran said:


> Look, I'm a GM, not a qualified group counselor. I am not running a game to get the players to "reveal truths". I'm running a game so they can have some entertainment, and maybe a momentary escape from whatever is weighty in their lives. This is true whatever style of game I am running.



Have you run Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Mountain Witch? Would you say you've run them this way?


Malmuria said:


> And the conditions for friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation resides in...game mechanics and principles?



Oh, absolutely, a gaming system supplants our normal interactions as people, if a game does not have anything to say about it then it leaves it up to the participants to determine either by consensus or accident. If a gaming system has an opinion about this, it can fabricate the right incentives, duties &c to make it a part of the conceit of the game. If a game leaves it up to chance...well it leaves it up to chance.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I find that it’s a kind of reverse psychology thing… give the players the freedom to make these choices, and they’ll be stricter to themselves than I’d probably be.



A relatively minor example: in my long 4e D&D campaign, the player f the wizard/invoker had a feat that granted +2 on skill checks for rituals. I think the intended meaning of the feat was that "ritual" meant _ritual in the technical game element sense_. The player interpreted it to mean _any use of a skill that involves performing/manipulating magical rituals_, which was broader. Given it didn't seem an overly powerful feat, I was happy for him to run with his interpretation, and to decide for himself what sorts of activities did or didn't count as rituals (sometimes he wasn't sure and we'd discuss it; often he had a very firm view one way or the other). The upshot was we got the player developing this little mini-theory of how magic works in the cosmos, what the parameters are of manipulating it in a ritual fashion, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.
> 
> The very definition of a mystery is that something unexplained either is happening or has happened; and to solve that mystery one has to acquire enough information to explain what was previously unexplained.
> 
> Which means yes, if the goal of the game is to solve a mystery the players/PCs do in fact need to acquire the information needed in order to achieve that goal.  The three-clue idea is merely one suggested means of presenting that information.



Here are some posts, from a thread last year about Apocalypse World, that explain how else a mystery might be run:


pemerton said:


> So suppose a player says _I leave home and walk across the compound to see if Isle is hanging around_ (a bit like Marie the Brainer in the "Moves Snowball" example of play). In that example (p 152), the GM tells Marie's player that she finds Isle with Plover and Mill (all NPCs): Baker doesn't tell us what GM move this is, but we can identify it as _offering an opportunity_. But the GM isn't obliged to make that move. Instead, for instance, the GM could _announce offscreen badness_:
> 
> You stroll over to the car shed where you know Isle hangs out, but the shed's been broken into and the car's not there. Isle's not there either: you can see her cap lying in the dust on the ground; and the tyre marks look like someone drove out of there in a hurry!​
> <snip>
> ...





pemerton said:


> suppose that the PC is visiting their savvyhead friend's workshop, and their friend (as established by some prior fiction) isn't home, and the player describes their PC poking around while they wait, and the GM described a few things including the metal box with complicated wiring sitting on the workbench - this is the _psychic maelstrom distillation machine_ that the savvyhead has been working on - and the player of the visiting PC says _I stick my head inside the box! _The situation isn't charged. The player (as their PC) isn't hoping for anything. The GM hasn't established any hint of threat or adversity. As far as the various sorts of approach to establishing fiction in a RPG are concerned, we're in the freest of free narration. But I think that player _has handed the GM the perfect opportunity on a golden plate_. If I was GMing that, I think my next move might be to ask the savvyhead's player what happens! And then building on the answer to that, we might have anything from _inflicting harm_ (some combination of electricity and psychic malice) to _taking away their stuff_ (uh oh - the PC's interference with the delicate machinery seems to have shorted out the flux capacitor!) to _announcing some offscreen badness that the player (as their PC) really didn't want to be the case _(the machine plugs the PC straight into the maelstrom, and they see and hear the "echoes" of Isle's death at the hands of Dremmer's executioner).





pemerton said:


> Right. I gave the imagined example, upthread, of the PC going to Isle's car shed only to find that she's not there, but her cap is lying on the ground and the car is missing.
> 
> Has Isle been kidnappd? Has she eloped? _Maybe_ the GM knows, and has even set up a _countdown till the kidnappers kill Isle_ clock. Maybe the GM doesn't know. It makes no difference to the application of player-side moves. And the only difference it makes to the GM is that instead of simply saying what honesty demands s/he also has to say what prep demands.
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> So first, _how is it being established that one or more people have died? _You seem to be envisaging that the GM is making this part of the fiction: what move are they performing? In what context? Is the GM providing information following _success_ on an attempt of a PC to _open their brain to the world's psychic maelstrom_? Or is this a hard move - the GM, _looking through crosshairs_, is telling a player that a NPC has died? (In front of them here-and-now? As a vision following a failed _opening of the brain_? Some other context?) Or is the GM _announcing offscreen badness _like my example of Isle not being where the PC hoped to meet her?
> 
> Next, _how does the evidence that the killer murdered the person to rile up the PC_ get introduced? Is the GM _announcing future badness _(eg pinned to the body is a half-torn sheet of paper with _You're next, Marie!_ written in blood)? Or is this a case of the GM asking a provocative question and building on the answer: GM: _Why do you think they kidnapped Isle? _Marie's player: _To get at me?_
> 
> ...



As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide _clues_ that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.





Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from having a process where, effectively, the PCs construct the mystery as they go and create the solution.  It might not be _satisfactory_ to some people, but if the point is to explore the process rather than the mystery itself, its still valid.



I have used Cthulhu Dark to run mystery scenarios where the outcome was surprising to everyone at the table (ie me the GM and my friends the players). It's easy enough if you follow AW-type principles combined with a bit of "say 'yes' or roll the dice": when the players declare some action for their PCs you (the GM) either call for a check if that seems appropriate, and depending on how that goes tell them something; or else you just tell them something. Just make sure that the something is not "Nothing happens. Full stop."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 3, 2022)

andreszarta said:


> @Bedrockgames and @hawkeyefan…Very interesting conversation between you two. I personally have to side more with @hawkeyefan  in that the Alexandrian techniques, are at the end of the day a way for the GM to *control* the possible outcomes of play, while perhaps being a bit more freeing in how characters may interact with them (Node-based navigation is quite a different transversal than linear or branching adventures) and it’s that control which becomes the “railroading” @hawkeyefan is talking about. It's an infrequent use of the term railroading, as it typically refers to the linearity of a module.
> 
> With most of the the Alexandrian techniques of play, the GM remains the primary decision maker of how a scenario gets resolved. Scratch that. The GM is the primary decision maker *of the kinds of acceptable ways* the scenario could get resolved. They’ve predetermined what the important nodes are, and what the focus of the play is. Play needs to gravitate towards the nodes in order for there to be play at all.




Keep in mind though, three clue rule and node based design are not at all synonymous as I mentioned. The three clues are merely information pointing to conclusions about the events at the heart of the mystery. Now you can apply that to something more structure like node based design, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, it is perfectly valid. It just doesn't naturally follow from three clue rule because that was more about situations than about following trails of clues.

The Alexandrian writes about a wide variety of adventure structures. So I am just limiting my commentary here to the three clue rule. But he covers so many types of adventure structures on his blog. I would be hesitant to pin them all to one thing 

What is true is he is writing about games  in the Three Clue rule where the GM has the power to decide the background events, to decide through procedure, decision or dice where things go when players present options. But I don't think the fact that the GM has traditional GM authority at all means its railroading. We've had whole threads on plenty of approaches within that style of play that are all about avoiding railroads, and The Alexandrian himself has not been a fan of railroads. Can you give the players different kinds  freedom by changing that dynamic? Sure, you can give them the power and freedom to narrate if you want, for example. Or you can have different procedures in place that limit the GM more. I think with a mystery that produces a very different kind of end result. Not a bad one, just different, and certainly one that also prioritizes not railroading.

I ran a mystery using Hillfolk, and that empowered players to essentially write details about the mystery through their dialogue. It was a lot of fun, and it felt like we were all in an episode of a weekly drama on HBO or something. But in that case, we were writing the mystery together, the players weren't solving the mystery as a puzzle. Those are two very different experiences. Both are fine. But I think holding one up as authentic and the other as inauthentic seems odd. If my interest as a player is in solving a murder mystery, the Hillfolk approach isn't allowing me to authentically solve that puzzle, it is doing something else entirely. If on the other hand, I want to help everyone discover and create a mystery together, then Hillfolk would allow me to be authentic as a co-creator of the mystery.

When you are treating the mystery as a puzzle in a traditional RPG, you can do it as a railroad by forcing the players along. And you can do it in a linear way by having clear paths laid out with clues going from A to B to C. I would argue if these paths are many, and the players can choose all kinds of directions, it isn't a railroad, but it certainly has structures to it. And if you are allowing the players to do whatever they want, even if you have some paths sketched out on a pad, you aren't railroading if the players have total freedom to move around those pathways and find new ones (the paths might just be a set of likely possibilities). But the three clue rule is just about the players awareness of what happened. You do not have to use it to have a trail of clues and Alexander mentions in the article avoiding that and instead prepping situations. So it doesn't even need paths or nodes to work. You can do it by location and scene or node if you want. But you can also do it by clue, and just keep a list of bullets under each clue mentioning who is aware of it, where it might be physically, etc. That doesn't presuppose any pathway on the players part, it just helps you understand where the clue emanates. And if you are using the permissive clue finding caveat (which you are supposed to), those bullets are just likely possibilities, the players might find those clues or even find clues you haven't considered by taking certain actions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide _clues_ that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.




And this is fine. But it produces a very different experience than if there is a backstory that has been established by the GM and the players are trying to figure out what happened. 

I did this in the hill folk mystery I mentioned. It was a lot of fun. Was it a more authentic experience for me? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Maybe more authentic about certain things. I would say it was highly immersive, it allowed everyone to creatively contribute so we were all equally surprised but the final unveiling of the mystery. And that was a good experience. But I find nothing about trying to solve a mystery that has been established, though a character I am playing, as being less authentic. For one thing, I am tending to use my own logic, intuition and puzzle solving skills to work through it. So there is a very authentic expression of my intellect at the table. Whereas in the Hillfolk example, you almost had to fight your own intellect because it was more about what we were all creatively contributing (which I can also say is a form of authenticity, I just don't see either as a particularly more authentic experience). Hillfolk's approach is an effective way around a railroad. Definitely if you are looking to avoid being railroaded, a system like this can be a good choice.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always.



Certainly not always.  Anything unexplained - a haunting, a strange environmental phenomenon, an unexpected and unexplained disappearacne of someone, etc. - all of these count as mysteries even if no crime is involved.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.



Ideally, though - particularly in a mystery scenario - player knowledge as closely as possible equals character knowledge; thus if the solution is in fact discovered then the players will find it out at the same time as their characters.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> This is assuming that the goal of play is about solving the puzzle. Which is perfectly fine, of course... I play plenty of games that have this or something similar as a goal of some sort... but it's not the goal of all play.



True, but in a mystery scenario the solving of said mystery is highly likely to either be the main goal or a side goal; either freestanding or (more commonly) embedded into something bigger.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 3, 2022)

Everyone always frames “play to find out” (PtFO) in player-side terms and fair enough. But its the GM side perks that draw me in.

I get to be a type of curious audience member (while aggressively opposing player goals while bound by rules-integrity) to both the accreting fiction and the peculiarities of my own cognitive space and reactions that I wouldn’t otherwise have access to (because typically life doesn’t come at you that fast or on all of the converging axes that are part and parcel of GMing these games). I think I called it something of a personal Rorschach Test upthread (or perhaps in the last thread). It’s also a bit of a cognitive crucible/challenge (which I enjoy).

So, since Blades is being discussed, here is a quick tale from Monday night’s first session of Blades in the Dark (a game with PCs played by @AbdulAlhazred , @Blue , @Campbell , @kenada , @niklinna ). I could draw out any number of scenes for immediate and downstream consequences upon play, but this one is pretty illustrative.

Opening Free Play/Info Gathering scene for @niklinna ‘s PC who is a Whisper with Weird fetishs for the supernatural (including happily being possessed for kicks) who apparently stalks haunted areas of Duskvol for prey like a vampire might.

I framed a scene for him in the most haunted place in Duskvol (Six Towers - kind of supernatural White Chapel) in this creepy petrified forest filled with rogue spirits, right off the musty canals that separate Brightstone (noble district) and Charterhall (govt and university district).

I broght in prototyped electroplasmic tech being sold on the black market by a Sparkwright Engineer that might be doing work outside of their typical govt-sponsored duties. I brought in creepy Echo stuff (history repeating itself as ghostly manifestations/projections into this world from the Ghostfield). I brought in the Circle of Flames (high-tier antiquarians and the Crew’s most staunch ally given PC/Crew creation) + a Charterhall Uni Spectrology Admin both witnessing the prototype’s unveiling. Finally I had a Silver Nail mercenary (Enemies of The Circle of Flame) in an overwatch position at the top of a ruined and condensed govt building nearby….staring down the iron sights of his long gun (recon or assassination?).

The scene turned out to be nothing about they stuff due to @niklinna and myself’s subsequent conversation + actions he took + dice results + gear deployed + devils bargains/resistance rolls (taken or not taken).  It turned out to be a scene about a notorious serial killer (The Towers Drowner) who plumbed the streets of Six Tower for peer to drown in the canals…died and turned into a feral ghost long long ago. And Skewth’s tango with it (Compel - playbook feature just like it sounds) + the scattering of the secret meeting as a result (we know nothing about what was going on with that tech or the Silver Nails involvement) + Skewth becoming indebted to The Circle of Flame rep who was present.  And the resultant-captured feral ghost now in The Charterhall University Archeology Wing…on display…with a notorious reputation for security lapses.

*Wildly_different_everything* from initial situation framing to final gamestate and fiction based on subsequent conversation and play.

That is quintessential PtFO.

Framing > player focuses on particular thematic stuff > things go sideways > entirely different fiction/downstream setting results > game of spinning plates begins (which would have been very or wholly different than a different set of spinning plates if we played the scene out again with the same opening scene parameters).

We’re not engaged with Sparkwrights or The Silver Nails. No fiction with them. No debts/Faction hits. No prospective Scores. No Setting/Faction Clocks.

As of now all that stuff and those groups are no more than background color…while they, and the tech and whatever was going on there, could have been completely central to immediate and subsequent play.

Now we have in play:

* PC indebted to a powerful ally.

* PC lost a spirit bottle (important part of a Whisper’s Loadout).

* Skewth revealing his haunted proclivities and his Weird (vice) supernatural impulses having a tendency to get him into trouble.

* A Magnitude 2 (Crew it’s Tier 0 to start…so very dangerous) feral serial killer ghost with a short term, one-track memory (that of Skewth escaping as prey and putting him in this predicament) in a porous security wing of an Archeology Exhibit in Charterhall University (will get out if I roll a 6 on my DTA Fortune roll which I will roll every week until it goes boom or something intercedes).

EDIT - We also established this particular Sparkwrights engineer has a penchant for “meddling with kids” (all of the PCs are orphans in one way or another) courtesy of a Devil’s Bargain with Skewth’s “Friend”, a Demon named Setarra.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Here are some posts, from a thread last year about Apocalypse World, that explain how else a mystery might be run:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide _clues_ that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.



That's a lot of text! 

I'm not sure how the savvyhead post fits in, in that there doesn't seem to be much mystery there and it's more one player handing a gold-plated opportunity to another player for some good ol' PvP:

Player 1 (paraphrased) "What happens when I stick my head in this wired box?"
Savvyhead "Your brain hurts.  Then it melts." 

As to the others, there seems a certain Schroedinger-ness to it all in that while there's clues there's no solution; which means there's no way of knowing whether a clue or a conclusion is relevant or a red herring.  In the moment of play it probably doesn't matter - the car, Isle, and some other things have all vanished and we need to figure out what happened - but when looked at from a distance and-or in hindsight (e.g. like we're doing now) there doesn't seem to be any glue holding the mystery together: nobody including the GM knows what really did happen and thus nobody can build a consistent and complete set of accurate clues to go along with the red herrings.

And sure, as a hard move you can bop a PC over the head and have them wake up in a car boot; but doing so also presents a possible hole in the logic: if the ground is soft enough to hold tire tracks (which were specifically noted in the narration) it might also be soft enough to hold footprints, meaning there might have been a) more information to be gleaned from the ground had anyone thought to (or been given the opportunity to) ask about such, and b) some warning or clues that someone may still be there.


----------



## niklinna (Aug 4, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> The scene turned out to be nothing about they stuff due to @niklinna and myself’s subsequent conversation + actions he took + dice results + gear deployed + devils bargains/resistance rolls (taken or not taken).  It turned out to be a scene about a notorious serial killer (The Towers Drowner) who plumbed the streets of Six Tower for peer to drown in the canals…died and turned into a feral ghost long long ago. And Skewth’s tango with it (Compel - playbook feature just like it sounds) + the scattering of the secret meeting as a result (we know nothing about what was going on with that tech or the Silver Nails involvement) + Skewth becoming indebted to The Circle of Flame rep who was present.  And the resultant-captured feral ghost now in The Charterhall University Archeology Wing…on display…with a notorious reputation for security lapses.
> 
> *Wildly_different_everything* from initial situation framing to final gamestate and fiction based on subsequent conversation and play.
> 
> That is quintessential PtFO.



Ain't it just.



Manbearcat said:


> Framing > player focuses on particular thematic stuff > things go sideways > entirely different fiction/downstream setting results > game of spinning plates begins (which would have been very or wholly different than a different set of spinning plates if we played the scene out again with the same opening scene parameters).



I have to say there were a few things I would have done differently had I known ahead of time that the park my character was in harbored a tier II murderous ghost...that bit of info came up as a consequence on an Attune dice roll to observe the Sparkwright demo from afar, and I didn't absorb the danger level nearly as well as I should have—I was already overwhelmed by all the info about the demo and the sniper/spy and such, and turned down an opportunity to resist the consequence and make the ghost much less of a threat, which would have allowed me to pursue my own personal interest as a player in crashing that meeting and warning them about the sniper/spy. Mechanically, this also resulted in a nearly maxed-out stress track before the score even began, so there wasn't much I could do mechanically in the "real" part of the game (scare quotes very much intended).

In retrospect, the incident sketched out my character as someone who is blasé about death and danger, much moreso than I originally planned him to be. I'm still absorbing that, as well as my character effectively slipping on a banana peel in his opening scene. He handled it with aplomb, but I'm still smarting from it, two days later!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I know what you mean. In 1958 Roger Callois wrote in "_Les jeux et les homines_":
> 
> 
> It's intrinsic to game _qua_ game that we play to find out. Therefore one can ask what is meant by the phrase in the context of "story" games? I think in that context it has a special, albeit ambiguous, meaning. Something like "We want stronger rather than weaker powers to decide the narrative." Noted that those powers still make concessions to game text, setting, situation, mechanics, dice rolls.



It is generally understood, and very certainly meant to convey in PbtA and its ilk, that the course of the action, consequences, and direction of the game, within its premises, is to be determined solely at the table and not by some other mechanism. Generally speaking it is also largely a result of choices made by players. While it is true that there must be SOME things which are not already preordained in order for an RPG to function in some sense as a game at all, many traditionally structured RPGs put such things as plot, characterization, and motive mostly in the hands of the GM. While this doesn't preclude authenticity in RP, narrativist techniques are more likely to produce those kinds of outcomes. They are specifically designed TO produce those kinds of outcomes.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Ain't it just.
> 
> 
> I have to say there were a few things I would have done differently had I known ahead of time that the park my character was in harbored a tier II murderous ghost...that bit of info came up as a consequence on an Attune dice roll to observe the Sparkwright demo from afar, and I didn't absorb the danger level nearly as well as I should have—I was already overwhelmed by all the info about the demo and the sniper/spy and such, and turned down an opportunity to resist the consequence and make the ghost much less of a threat, which would have allowed me to pursue my own personal interest as a player in crashing that meeting and warning them about the sniper/spy. Mechanically, this also resulted in a nearly maxed-out stress track before the score even began, so there wasn't much I could do mechanically in the "real" part of the game (scare quotes very much intended).
> ...




Yeah, that first 1-3 on the Desperate Compel hurt (I think you Pushed that as well...so 2 stress?).  Then not "buying the serial killer ghost down (Resist) from a higher Magnitude feral spirit to a lower Magnitude little boy who still has his wits and is looking for his mommy (or whatever)" was a pivotal decision/non-move.

Then came the later Resist roll of 2 that earned you 4 more Stress.

Things did not go well for our poor Skewth in the first scene.  That is pretty much the deal with intro characters and 0 Tier Crews in Blades (particularly in 3 Dot Occult Six Towers!).  Its a tough world.

No matter.  Its good stuff because we now get to see him bounce back.  See what stern (and surely insane) stuff he's made of!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Certainly not always.  Anything unexplained - a haunting, a strange environmental phenomenon, an unexpected and unexplained disappearacne of someone, etc. - all of these count as mysteries even if no crime is involved.
> 
> Ideally, though - particularly in a mystery scenario - player knowledge as closely as possible equals character knowledge; thus if the solution is in fact discovered then the players will find it out at the same time as their characters.



I understand that this ideal is an agenda which is commonly held by some, yes. I think it is also possible to get quite close, above @pemerton recounts an Apocalypse World example (with the garage and missing car and NPC) that certainly seems like the player is not informed more than the character. AW does state that the GM should address the CHARACTERS not the players. There are times when you do need to make certain choices out of character, and the GM might ask the player a question, which the answer will not be character knowledge (or might not be). Still, the solution of a mystery could quite easily be based on logically following a chain of evidence. I suspect it often is in these types of game. Probably where it differs from, say, Gumshoe, might be that the resolution is going to be salient to the characters, it will address some premise and that usually is something like DW's "The Player Characters are Heroes" or something like that.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 4, 2022)

We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions._ Play to find out *what happens*_. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. *What happens next*.

It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery. 

The frenetic energy and visceral emotion of something like Dogs in the Vineyard is just different than the slow elaborate buildup, detailed character work and brief crescendos of action that typify the social heavy, character reinforcing play of something like L5R/Vampire.  Which is incredibly different from adventure of the week D&D play centered on group problem solving,

I have no idea why so much virtual ink gets spilled trying to minimize these differences rather than celebrate them.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Aug 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> As to the others, there seems a certain Schroedinger-ness to it all in that while there's clues there's no solution; which means there's no way of knowing whether a clue or a conclusion is relevant or a red herring.  In the moment of play it probably doesn't matter - the car, Isle, and some other things have all vanished and we need to figure out what happened - but when looked at from a distance and-or in hindsight (e.g. like we're doing now) there doesn't seem to be any glue holding the mystery together: nobody including the GM knows what really did happen and thus nobody can build a consistent and complete set of accurate clues to go along with the red herrings.



This reminds me of the series _Lost_.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> nobody including the GM knows what really did happen and thus nobody can build a consistent and complete set of accurate clues to go along with the red herrings.



I don't agree with this claim. It is contradicted by my own experience in GMing Cthulhu Dark.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 4, 2022)

andreszarta said:


> So, when it comes to the word _authenticity_ I feel like indeed it was perhaps not the best word to describe the general sense of what you are talking about here @pemerton . Heh, it definitely caused a lot of uproar at the beginning of your thread, but I also don’t think this entirely a fault of your particular use of the word.
> 
> People perceiving the word _authenticity_ as threatening to them and their play style were already approaching the conversation from a tribalistic sense, *the same thing they were accusing you of doing.*



Maybe it felt a bit like jazz aficionados saying that what jazz has - with all its variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.

That casts shade: it implies that other forms of music - classical say - are inauthentic. Consider the ameliorating statement - all music has authenticity. I think the OP does not intend anything like that. The OP does mean to say that some kinds of music lack authenticity, or have it in lesser degree. They go on to say something like - the flipside of this is that the effect of composition and all its variations *squelch authenticity*. The parameters of play have already been set.

Emphasis mine. The text of the OP has implications that can rightly be engaged with. Demand engagement, really, to get properly into the argument on its merits.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> That casts shade: it implies that other forms of music - classical say - are inauthentic. Consider the ameliorating statement - all music has authenticity. I think the OP does not intend anything like that. The OP does mean to say that some kinds of music lack authenticity, or have it in lesser degree. They go on to say something like - the flipside of this is that the effect of composition and all its variations *squelch authenticity*. The parameters of play have already been set.




I think it is because authenticity is a very subjective thing. I used to play in bands and write music. I have done improv and I have played stuff that I composed, was composed by me and other people, or that was composed hundreds of years ago. Performing any of those is still authentic musical expression IMO. Even when you are improving, your choices are constrained, and even when you are playing something like Bach's air, there are still more choices than people realize. One problem you encounter in improv for example is falling into stereotypical musical thinking. You tend to rely on patterns you've fallen into that are a comfort. People often call this letting your fingers do the work. Sometimes you transcend that and something genuinely new emerges, but I don't think it is as simple as "Improv Jazz is authentic and classical squelches authenticity". Even in Jazz, when people are making 'authentic choices' it's because they know the rules that govern those choices. Your choices are constrained by what is going to sound okay in that moment (and not everything is going to sound good). And this doesn't get into the issue of composition itself. If you are sitting down and thinking about music and writing it, you are also making authentic choices. If a band composes a song together, they are all making authentic choices. They are just taking more time in advance (one of the benefits of which is to avoid stereotypical thinking). That allows you to see choices you might not if you are in the middle of an improv session and need to make it right. Ultimately I think in music both skills are important. You should be able to develop improv skill and be able to compose things in advance and play music composed by people other than yourself (and you are still making very important choices when you do the latter). I wouldn't argue that any of these squelch ones authenticity. Doesn't meant they are the same. Someone who can improv well can think on their feet musically very quickly, knows how to listen in the moment, has powerful command of their instrument, and likely has a pretty good command of music theory (or just a really great musical instinct or cultivated an intuitive understanding of music). You don't have to be an enemy of musical improv to take issue with that characterization. I would imagine all three of these things feel very different to different musicians (when I improv, that feels more like channeling to me, whereas composition feels more like conscious choice: but that is just me, I am sure better improv players feel more aware of their choices than I do). 

I think it really isn't a mystery why people reacted somewhat negatively to the OP. I don't think anyone denies these are all different ways to play the game, that the type of play the OP is advocating is observably different from a sandbox, a three clue mystery, an adventure path or a hex crawl. But the way it is framed is to suggest many of these (all?) squelch authenticity because they are all variations of railroad (I am guessing he wouldn't file sandbox or hex crawl under a variation of railroad but I am not sure, after the three clue discussion). In particular he identifies GM-enforced alignment, adventure where the GM has the solution in mind, and three clue rule as variations of rail road, so of course anyone who plays using the three clue rule, for example, and doesn't consider it railroading is going to take issue.  It comes across as 'my style is authentic and free, your style isn't':



> For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.
> 
> The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) is to squelch authenticity. The parameters of play have already been set.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions._ Play to find out *what happens*_. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. *What happens next*.
> 
> It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery.
> 
> ...




I am not denying they are different, and I am not saying we can't celebrate those differences. I haven't played DitV so I can't comment on that so much, but I've praised Hillfolk at every turn here. It definitely brings a very different kind of immersion than I've encountered in other RPGs. I wouldn't say there aren't other highly immersive styles approaches however, but it does do something very different and I find that powerfully compelling. Like any other approach it also has its trade offs (as I said for mysteries in particular it was great for having us all feel like we were discovering the mystery, and it was cool because it was like we were creatively contributing and writing the mystery but at the same time I we were also deeply immersed in the characters and moment). On the other hand, it didn't feel like we were solving a mystery the way it would if the GM had come up with some kind of backstory event that we needed to puzzle through (which would also be immersive in its own way, and would allow us to be there the moment in its own way as we cracked the case).


----------



## Imaro (Aug 4, 2022)

One of the things I find strange/interesting in these discussions is that the adventure path (or railroad if you prefer) is considered the default D&D 5e play style... but I question that assumption.  I've literally never run a published adventure path (though I have stolen liberally from them both for encounters and idea generators) and in all the games I've joined I've never once played through an adventure path.  In fact the vast majority of D&D streaming doesn't seem to be adventure path play either...  I'm just curious if there is actual evidence (outside of the fact that they are being published by WotC) that this is the predominant playstyle for D&D 5e?


----------



## kenada (Aug 4, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Everyone always frames “play to find out” (PtFO) in player-side terms and fair enough. But its the GM side perks that draw me in.
> 
> I get to be a type of curious audience member (while aggressively opposing player goals while bound by rules-integrity) to both the accreting fiction and the peculiarities of my own cognitive space and reactions that I wouldn’t otherwise have access to (because typically life doesn’t come at you that fast or on all of the converging axes that are part and parcel of GMing these games). I think I called it something of a personal Rorschach Test upthread (or perhaps in the last thread). It’s also a bit of a cognitive crucible/challenge (which I enjoy).



I didn’t appreciate it until recently, but the techniques and principles that support “play to find out” also remove the GM from having to decide what happens. I really like that. I can offer an “impossible” situation, and we can see how the PCs respond to it. That’s not specific to this style of play (e.g., it’s a common trope of OSR play), but I feel like also being the arbitrator creates a risk that whatever ruling I make could feel unfair to the players.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Imaro said:


> One of the things I find strange/interesting in these discussions is that the adventure path (or railroad if you prefer) is considered the default D&D 5e play style... but I question that assumption.  I've literally never run a published adventure path (though I have stolen liberally from them both for encounters and idea generators) and in all the games I've joined I've never once played through an adventure path.  In fact the vast majority of D&D streaming doesn't seem to be adventure path play either...  I'm just curious if there is actual evidence (outside of the fact that they are being published by WotC) that this is the predominant playstyle for D&D 5e?




I think this is accurate. My impression is most typical D&D groups are doing a hybrid of lots of different things. I'm not even sure WOTC is doing adventure path stuff as much anymore. I don't play 5E so I am not current but I keep hearing from players there are more sandbox elements in a lot of the modules, and the one module I have, Castle Ravenloft, definitely seems more open. I do remember there being a lot of adventures back in the early and mid-2000s where everything tended to be pretty linear and they were also structured around encounter challenge levels (which is what I think really tended to keep those adventures on the rails because the idea was you needed to plan out encounters so they provided adequate challenge to a party over the course of play, so you were often encouraged to design adventures around 2 level X encounters, followed by a level Y, encountered, followed by two Level W encounters, and ending with a level Z encounter or something (I don't remember the exact patterns but it was stuff like that which is kind of hard not to do in a linear way). But even with that said, I also remember finding plenty of non-linear, non-road adventures in dungeon (granted not WOTC, but I strongly associate the term adventure path with Paizo). I remember being at my peak "Fed up with linear style adventures" around 2005 or so.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions._ Play to find out *what happens*_. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. *What happens next*.
> 
> It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery.
> 
> ...



I think one of the problems is that it presupposes how these games are run and played in the wild without actually backing up that assertion with any evidence.  When I run a campaign of D&D I definitely don't think it could be summed up as an "adventure of the week...play centered on problem solving" campaign.  If anything that describes a minority of what has taken place in the campaign to date.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2022)

The problem Pemerton ran into right out the gate here is that for simple functionality, he had to use a definition of a term for what he was talking about out the gate.  But the word choice suffers from the curse of almost all word choice in such things; it has semantic loading beyond its literal meaning or even the specific definition he provides.  So people are going to, to one degree or another, react to it on that level (specifically the premise that some play styles provide it better than others) and that's going to fog the ability to have the discussion.

That's always going to be a problem, as any attempt to separate denotational from connotational meanings is, outside of very narrow contexts (which are essentially impossible to produce in a forum thread) a doomed enterprise.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Maybe it felt a bit like jazz aficionados saying that what jazz has - with all its variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.
> 
> That casts shade: it implies that other forms of music - classical say - are inauthentic. Consider the ameliorating statement - all music has authenticity. I think the OP does not intend anything like that. The OP does mean to say that some kinds of music lack authenticity, or have it in lesser degree. They go on to say something like - the flipside of this is that the effect of composition and all its variations *squelch authenticity*. The parameters of play have already been set.
> 
> Emphasis mine. The text of the OP has implications that can rightly be engaged with. Demand engagement, really, to get properly into the argument on its merits.




I mean it's obvious to me this is really a discussion of expressive authenticity and the impact of curation. Basically, the conceit that the more we curate the art we create the less it is a reflection of us as artists and the more it is content for others to take in. There's a lot to be said for the value gained by curation, but there is also something raw, unbound, personal that gets lost.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 4, 2022)

Imaro said:


> I'm just curious if there is actual evidence (outside of the fact that they are being published by WotC) that this is the predominant playstyle for D&D 5e?




That's a valid question, but probably best in another thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I mean it's obvious to me this is really a discussion of expressive authenticity and the impact of curation. Basically, the conceit that the more we curate the art we create the less it is a reflection of us as artists and the more it is content for others to take in. There's a lot to be said for the value gained by curation, but there is also something raw, unbound, personal that gets lost.




I can see both being an authentic expression of an inward experience (one raw and instinctual, the other arrived at more through introspection and contemplation). Sometimes it takes thinking about martial to find the truth you want to express. But there is also something very authentic and primal about expressing an idea without any thought and going purely by feel. It is the zero sum game that makes it an issue. If the OP had said the experience was raw and instinctual, that would make more sense to me.  Even if the OP had said it was a raw and authentic way to play the game. I don't think many would have batted an eye. It is the way this statement gets used to launch the 'those squelch authenticity' argument. It is the  'this is authentic, but those are railroad variations that squelch authenticity' that makes me want to push back against the idea more. Most of my criticism has been on the labeling of three clue rule as a railroad variation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I mean it's obvious to me this is really a discussion of expressive authenticity and the impact of curation. Basically, the conceit that the more we curate the art we create the less it is a reflection of us as artists and the more it is content for others to take in. There's a lot to be said for the value gained by curation, but there is also something raw, unbound, personal that gets lost.




Another issue that has arisen is I think some people would also view this as something of a straw man. They would push back against the idea that these other styles of play and games are more curated. The GM is doing  a lot of improv in these games, the players are reacting in the moment: they are improvising their response. It isn't like they are sitting down before hand to curate what will happen. There may be structure, but even an uncurated jazz performance has structure in the form of modes, scales, key signatures.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 4, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem Pemerton ran into right out the gate here is that for simple functionality, he had to use a definition of a term for what he was talking about out the gate.  But the word choice suffers from the curse of almost all word choice in such things; it has semantic loading beyond its literal meaning or even the specific definition he provides.  So people are going to, to one degree or another, react to it on that level (specifically the premise that some play styles provide it better than others) and that's going to fog the ability to have the discussion.
> 
> That's always going to be a problem, as any attempt to separate denotational from connotational meanings is, outside of very narrow contexts (which are essentially impossible to produce in a forum thread) a doomed enterprise.



Knowing that…and it should be obvious, especially when choosing a word that carries implicit value judgments…it would probably be smart to preface the whole thing with definitions/disclaimer.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Another issue that has arisen is I think some people would also view this as something of a straw man. They would push back against the idea that these other styles of play and games are more curated. The GM is doing  a lot of improv in these games, the players are reacting in the moment: they are improvising their response. It isn't like they are sitting down before hand to curate what will happen. There may be structure, but even an uncurated jazz performance has structure in the form of modes, scales, key signatures.



Well, to be fair I think that in many games there is a significant amount of curation going on in the GMs prep. The extent of that differs dramatically of course from game to game, and I have no comment about the inherent value of it (or lack of it).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, to be fair I think that in many games there is a significant amount of curation going on in the GMs prep. The extent of that differs dramatically of course from game to game, and I have no comment about the inherent value of it (or lack of it).




I think it is fair to say in most games the GM is curating prep material. But I think it is important to also keep in mind Prep material doesn't have to equal what happens in the game (the prepping situations advice in three clue rule for example is more about prepping material so you have a foundation to improvise on as a GM; and afford the players the ability to improvise too). But I think you could liken this, to use the Jazz example, as setting the key more than anything else. And a player can always force a key change (for example by stabbing the king when the GM doesn't expect it)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions._ Play to find out *what happens*_. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. *What happens next*.
> 
> It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery.
> 
> ...



Scenery chewing, lol. Yeah, I have to agree. It continues to amaze, and perplex, me to keep hearing all these people vociferously contending that, essentially, system doesn't matter. This argument was settled DECADES ago, like 45+ years ago. Yes it does! Sure, no one specific nut or bolt thing that might take place in one game cannot (generally) come to pass in any game, but to say that means there is all that much similarity is like someone went to Yosemite and found a maple tree and now claims that the forest there is just like every other forest with a maple tree in it. The proposition is not tenable.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to say in most games the GM is curating prep material. But I think it is important to also keep in mind Prep material doesn't have to equal what happens in the game (the prepping situations advice in three clue rule for example is more about prepping material so you have a foundation to improvise on as a GM; and afford the players the ability to improvise too). But I think you could liken this, to use the Jazz example, as setting the key more than anything else. And a player can always force a key change (for example by stabbing the king when the GM doesn't expect it)



Yeah, I was stepping over the mess of 'well, exactly what prep blah blah'. I'll confine myself to assuming prep and use in good faith in whatever system is in question. Different system actually require different (sometimes vastly different) amount of prep, a fact which is neither good nor bad. In my post above I was using _curate_ in terms of curated fictional supports and framework I suppose, which could be anything depending on the game, but represent fact or something close to it that is GM facing and for the players to discover.

Personally, when I run D&D or another 'high prep' game I'm doing very much what you describe - providing myself a framework of evocative ideas and bits to riff off of and bring in as I need them. I'm also of the RSC school wherein as soon as it hits the table it's the players' to trash as they see fit. You have to kill your darlings (or allow them to be slain).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I have no idea why so much virtual ink gets spilled trying to minimize these differences rather than celebrate them.




Because we, as an overall community, are so fast to tribalism that we must constantly labor against it.

Those differences are most commonly used to divide us.  The first approach we typically use to "celebrate" those differences is to use them to tear down those who are different from us - "squelch authenticity" is right there in the OP!  It was not enough to sing the praises of the preferred style, it was deemed appropriate to try to drag others styles down in the process.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Knowing that…and it should be obvious, especially when choosing a word that carries implicit value judgments…it would probably be smart to preface the whole thing with definitions/disclaimer.




While true, my observation is that it only helps so much; people are _still_ going to react to the connotation.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Imaro said:


> One of the things I find strange/interesting in these discussions is that the adventure path (or railroad if you prefer) is considered the default D&D 5e play style... but I question that assumption.  I've literally never run a published adventure path (though I have stolen liberally from them both for encounters and idea generators) and in all the games I've joined I've never once played through an adventure path.  In fact the vast majority of D&D streaming doesn't seem to be adventure path play either...  I'm just curious if there is actual evidence (outside of the fact that they are being published by WotC) that this is the predominant playstyle for D&D 5e?



Well, my experience with 5e, which I have played a fair amount of, is like one campaign that had 2 modules in it, and a bunch of semi-structured play with a number of encounters/adventures made up by the GM. I think that one pretty heavily focused on stuff that the PCs were trying to do and then that would spin off some GM authored stuff related to it. In the second campaign we were playing in a published setting. I'm not sure how much of the stuff we went through was part of that and what percentage the GM made up, but there was a pretty decent amount of exploring an established map of a level or some buildings, or a neighborhood, etc. Again, we took turns as players kind of defining "OK, now we're going to deal with whatever So-and-so wants/needs." 

So, what IME I would characterize 5e play as would be the GM prepping ahead, sometimes pretty far ahead and sometimes not so far. Play was always PCs exploring GM prepared stuff (maybe now and then we 'went off the ranch' a bit). The stuff we explored generally related to and was in some degree brought into focus by player choices. It wasn't nearly PbtA-style Story Now narrativist play, and I can tell you it lacked that kind of character. It was usually fun, although in some ways I found the process falling a bit short of what I really wanted. On the whole 5e feels like it wants to focus on exploration of setting more than anything else. That seems to be what it is optimally designed for. GM creates setting, PCs explore setting, get the treasures, fight the monsters, act like heroes (or whatever).


----------



## Campbell (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Another issue that has arisen is I think some people would also view this as something of a straw man. They would push back against the idea that these other styles of play and games are more curated. The GM is doing  a lot of improv in these games, the players are reacting in the moment: they are improvising their response. It isn't like they are sitting down before hand to curate what will happen. There may be structure, but even an uncurated jazz performance has structure in the form of modes, scales, key signatures.




From my perspective a lot of the curation comes from the gameplay conceit of the adventure to be completed or mystery we are obligated to solve. A lot of this is usually socially reinforced by the whole play group, usually more strongly by other players than the GM in my experience. Basically, it is the GM who decides what player characters goals should be. There are clues to be found, information players need, etc. We essentially move away from these characters (who have meaningful connections to the setting) in this specific situation and move towards group problem solving or moving through story beats.

I mean I get that there are levels to this stuff, but there are definitely levels to this stuff. It's also not just GMs doing the curation. Players are active hands in curating the adventure gaming experience.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Imaro said:


> I think one of the problems is that it presupposes how these games are run and played in the wild without actually backing up that assertion with any evidence.  When I run a campaign of D&D I definitely don't think it could be summed up as an "adventure of the week...play centered on problem solving" campaign.  If anything that describes a minority of what has taken place in the campaign to date.



I find it telling that the response to "people seem determined to ignore the differences between these types of games" is exactly to once again assert that these differences don't exist. Its like a perfect little capsule of the whole thing. Are you REALLY asserting that system doesn't matter? I mean, I'm sure you've been around this community a long time. You must have some sense of the long history and salient factors in that 'debate'. I personally don't find that kind of position really tenable.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem Pemerton ran into right out the gate here is that for simple functionality, he had to use a definition of a term for what he was talking about out the gate.  But the word choice suffers from the curse of almost all word choice in such things; it has semantic loading beyond its literal meaning or even the specific definition he provides.  So people are going to, to one degree or another, react to it on that level (specifically the premise that some play styles provide it better than others) and that's going to fog the ability to have the discussion.
> 
> That's always going to be a problem, as any attempt to separate denotational from connotational meanings is, outside of very narrow contexts (which are essentially impossible to produce in a forum thread) a doomed enterprise.



You understand that taking your statement literally amounts to "we interpret any term you can use to describe X in a loaded fashion such that it is impossible for you to ever assert, in any language, your opinion about X." I'm not convinced that you've thought that statement through entirely. I would think if we were 'going at it' that the response might be "why are you gatekeeping discussion like this?" Honestly, I'm not trying to be confrontational like that, I'm just pointing it out so I can ask; How are we permitted to have this discussion? I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Another issue that has arisen is I think some people would also view this as something of a straw man. They would push back against the idea that these other styles of play and games are more curated. The GM is doing  a lot of improv in these games, the players are reacting in the moment: they are improvising their response. It isn't like they are sitting down before hand to curate what will happen. There may be structure, but even an uncurated jazz performance has structure in the form of modes, scales, key signatures.



I fully appreciate where you are coming from, but I was listening to the play of that BitD game the other day that @Campbell and @Nik et al are players in. So the scene that @Manbearcat outlined earlier where Nik's character was in Six Towers stalking the Spirit Warden guy while there was a Circle assassin nearby and he was testing some sort of spark thingy, etc.; that scene arose ENTIRELY out of a player driven process, the GM had ZERO to do with its evolution! The player chose how to construct his character, the players collectively chose the nature of the crew, its connections, goals, capabilities, etc. Everything in that scene arose, without any particular GM prep or 'engineering'. I mean, yes, sometimes the GM said something like "Oh, OK, you know this guy, he's a Red Sash leader..." or whatever. So Manbearcat, as GM, can put in play specific 'color', but the actual need for a contact or a victim, or a vice purveyor, or whatever, comes out of a combination of the premise and the specific choices and actions of the players during play. Furthermore it bears directly on the fundamental premise of the game, that the PCs are rogues living in a dangerous milieu choosing to engage in hazardous criminal enterprises. 

There's a through line there, from premise -> player choices -> GM scene framing which is fundamentally, causally at the table, different from even the most entirely pure sandbox or "curated in the moment" low prep play in a game structured like 5e. Now, maybe some of the GMs that make statements of equivalency to the above in their 5e play are really departing seriously from 5e's default structure/process/premises and doing what something like BitD 'just does' (assuming you run it roughly as intended). I certainly can't say, and am not trying to cast doubt on anything said here by anyone. It is IME, not the way the 5e designers envisaged the game being used, and you'll have to 'jigger the system' a bunch to really get it to work well, but I'm not that jerk who says "You cannot be telling the true story" simply because it is a remarkable and unusual story. I can just say that the action in that BitD game was utterly stock BitD from what I can tell (it was the first game I've sat in on, so I'm not a big expert on that system yet).


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 4, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> While true, my observation is that it only helps so much; people are _still_ going to react to the connotation.



The other option is to make up a German-sounding word and claim it means exactly what you want. E.g. _Selbergeist_. According to Jung that means the expression of self while pretending to be Drizzt.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You understand that taking your statement literally amounts to "we interpret any term you can use to describe X in a loaded fashion such that it is impossible for you to ever assert, in any language, your opinion about X."




No, it does not.  Your point here seems hyperbolic, and is apt to not be constructive.  

It means that if you are speaking to a large enough group, you are practically assured that some number of folks in the group are going to have some issue with your opinion/assertion, and that will be a barrier to discussion.  Empirical evidence of this rests in 20+ years of this website, so maybe arguing otherwise is not your best bet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Knowing that…and it should be obvious, especially when choosing a word that carries implicit value judgments…it would probably be smart to preface the whole thing with definitions/disclaimer.



Is everyone supposed to do this? Which opinions, points of view, and terms are subject to a need to disclaim? Who decides what that list is? I mean, I understand the intent, but this sort of 'policy' is entirely untenable IMHO. Better for everyone to get used to the notion that there are perfectly well-meaning and decent people with opinions and word use, etc. that is different from yours and learn not to assume the worst whenever you read a post. Obviously that's not going to ever become universal, but frankly I've seen the posters on this forum, and some others, generally evolve in that sense in a positive direction in the last 10-15 years.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> From my perspective a lot of the curation comes from the gameplay conceit of the adventure to be completed or mystery we are obligated to solve. A lot of this is usually socially reinforced by the whole play group, usually more strongly by other players than the GM in my experience. Basically, it is the GM who decides what player characters goals should be. There are clues to be found, information players need, etc. We essentially move away from these characters (who have meaningful connections to the setting) in this specific situation and move towards group problem solving or moving through story beats.
> 
> I mean I get that there are levels to this stuff, but there are definitely levels to this stuff. It's also not just GMs doing the curation. Players are active hands in curating the adventure gaming experience.



Right. It was very much in my mind with those 5e campaigns I played in to be 'on the team' and respecting the prep and directions which the GM clearly telegraphed (or which we outright discussed outside of play). This was a consistent and strong organizing motivation throughout both campaigns. I'd think, "Oh, OK, now its time to go follow this GM supplied lead that is obviously intended to address something set up for the cleric." Or, "OK, we won't try to investigate this thing over here because that will plainly take us off the currently prepped path, so we'll go on down the tunnel instead of opening the door." Or sometimes it was more explicit than that, like the GM saying "Yeah, while you were away your henchmen awoke the vampire and it took over your castle!" Clearly we're supposed to try to get the castle back... None of those types of consideration would come up in, say a Dungeon World version of that campaign.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I fully appreciate where you are coming from, but I was listening to the play of that BitD game the other day that @Campbell and @Nik et al are players in. So the scene that @Manbearcat outlined earlier where Nik's character was in Six Towers stalking the Spirit Warden guy while there was a Circle assassin nearby and he was testing some sort of spark thingy, etc.; that scene arose ENTIRELY out of a player driven process, the GM had ZERO to do with its evolution! The player chose how to construct his character, the players collectively chose the nature of the crew, its connections, goals, capabilities, etc. Everything in that scene arose, without any particular GM prep or 'engineering'. I mean, yes, sometimes the GM said something like "Oh, OK, you know this guy, he's a Red Sash leader..." or whatever. So Manbearcat, as GM, can put in play specific 'color', but the actual need for a contact or a victim, or a vice purveyor, or whatever, comes out of a combination of the premise and the specific choices and actions of the players during play. Furthermore it bears directly on the fundamental premise of the game, that the PCs are rogues living in a dangerous milieu choosing to engage in hazardous criminal enterprises.




I don't doubt this was their experience. I mentioned Hillfolk as well and that is similar. It is a very good system for producing something that feels like it was pulled right out of a TV show, without having to do a lot of prep (it shifts a lot of GM burden to the players in a way that allows them to contribute to the story outside their characters). I think what I would argue is being more limited to the power your character has in the setting for example, isn't a more curated experience (at least for me). And the amount of power a player can exert on the direction of the campaign is quite powerful in a typical game of D&D if the GM is open, fair and good at making rulings. I think we are getting a little lost in the metaphor of improv versus composed, and curated versus non-curated. Ultimately the issue I had with the OPs framing was not that it presented the systems and styles he was talking about as giving an authentic experience. It was the zero sum game of "This is authentic and those systems that are really just variations on railroads squelch authenticity." Is BitD different from D&D and Call of Cthulhu? Absolutely. Is a mystery adventure using the three clue rule a variation of Railroad and is it a less authentic experience? I don't think so.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> No, it does not.  Your point here seems hyperbolic, and is apt to not be constructive.
> 
> It means that if you are speaking to a large enough group, you are practically assured that some number of folks in the group are going to have some issue with your opinion/assertion, and that will be a barrier to discussion.  Empirical evidence of this rests in 20+ years of this website, so maybe arguing otherwise is not your best bet.



Sure, but the implication that the onus must be on certain posters to take some kind of steps, vs the onus is on other readers to interpret generously, is one I know which side I am likely to fall on. Now, I'll also posit that the response to the, in a large group of readers inevitable, few negative responses might most constructively be to completely ignore them. Pointless debate isn't one-sided, but ideally it will exist at a minimal level to start with.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> From my perspective a lot of the curation comes from the gameplay conceit of the adventure to be completed or mystery we are obligated to solve. A lot of this is usually socially reinforced by the whole play group, usually more strongly by other players than the GM in my experience. Basically, it is the GM who decides what player characters goals should be. There are clues to be found, information players need, etc. We essentially move away from these characters (who have meaningful connections to the setting) in this specific situation and move towards group problem solving or moving through story beats.




Where I would agree with you is that a lot of use of the three clue rule and a lot of play with mysteries is about the group solving the problem (the mystery. I would disagree that the only two alternatives here are moving through story beats or solving that problem. As I said, players can always change key by setting new goals for themselves if they truly want (and how willing they are to do that does come down to reading the room sometimes because these games are a social event: if four players clearly want to solve the mystery and one player truly just wants to Murder Watson and make it a Natural Born Killers campaign, someone reading the room would refrain from going in the more murderous direction). But that has a lot less to do with the three clue rule and mysteries and more about groups who want to stay on focus with a particular aim.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't doubt this was their experience. I mentioned Hillfolk as well and that is similar. It is a very good system for producing something that feels like it was pulled right out of a TV show, without having to do a lot of prep (it shifts a lot of GM burden to the players in a way that allows them to contribute to the story outside their characters). I think what I would argue is being more limited to the power your character has in the setting for example, isn't a more curated experience (at least for me). And the amount of power a player can exert on the direction of the campaign is quite powerful in a typical game of D&D if the GM is open, fair and good at making rulings. I think we are getting a little lost in the metaphor of improv versus composed, and curated versus non-curated. Ultimately the issue I had with the OPs framing was not that it presented the systems and styles he was talking about as giving an authentic experience. It was the zero sum game of "This is authentic and those systems that are really just variations on railroads squelch authenticity." Is BitD different from D&D and Call of Cthulhu? Absolutely. Is a mystery adventure using the three clue rule a variation of Railroad and is it a less authentic experience? I don't think so.



Yeah, and I thought you made some pretty reasonable points. There IS, at least potentially, a continuum. I can just say that I haven't in 40+ years of play, actually experienced a D&D game that got to where the BitD game was the other day. I'm OK with the assertion that maybe once you get to a certain point there's some substantive reason to not formulate your D&D game exactly like, say, Dungeon World, that maybe you like some elements of GM direction and "OK, we'll play an adventure that reflects on PC concerns, but the GM will still draw maps and keys within that context" or whatever is where you want to be. I think there is just a tendency for some people to try to assert that there's no 'air' between that and something like DW or BitD, and I don't think that's the case. I think a more principled stand to take, which seems to be yours, is "Yeah, system matters, these are likely to play differently, and we can say different things about them." The semantic arguments beyond that point are fairly uninteresting to me, or at least I don't perceive any value in wandering in that particular swamp.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> In fairness, I think that it can be difficult for people who are very used to one style of play to fully understand something that is greatly different.
> 
> And this applies across a lot of different axes



"Grog understand. Handaxe is very different from tomahawk, which very different from logging axe, which veeeeery different from greataxe that Grog use to cut heads off of smart people."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, and I thought you made some pretty reasonable points. There IS, at least potentially, a continuum. I can just say that I haven't in 40+ years of play, actually experienced a D&D game that got to where the BitD game was the other day. I'm OK with the assertion that maybe once you get to a certain point there's some substantive reason to not formulate your D&D game exactly like, say, Dungeon World, that maybe you like some elements of GM direction and "OK, we'll play an adventure that reflects on PC concerns, but the GM will still draw maps and keys within that context" or whatever is where you want to be. I think there is just a tendency for some people to try to assert that there's no 'air' between that and something like DW or BitD, and I don't think that's the case. I think a more principled stand to take, which seems to be yours, is "Yeah, system matters, these are likely to play differently, and we can say different things about them." The semantic arguments beyond that point are fairly uninteresting to me, or at least I don't perceive any value in wandering in that particular swamp.




I think I would say "System can and often does matter, but it isn't the only thing, and there are ways to solve problems beyond just mechanics or system". I think what sometimes happens though is people see that and they read something more like "System is meaningless" which is far from my position. 

I think the danger is to look at something like Hillfolk (and I am just leaning on that because I am familiar with it, whereas I can't speak as well on BitD), seeing that it allows players to do things like frame a scene and to establish facts through their dialogue, which granted is giving the player tremendous control (albeit they are constrained by some of the drama conceits of the systems as that is the focus, but they have a lot of control), and then take from the a dichotomy where anything in D&D is a railroad  on one end because it doesn't afford that same level of imperium to the players in terms of narrative authority (and it doesn't place as many limits on the GM, but a game like Hillfolk offers total freedom. Because 1) there are plenty of other ways players can be empowered to help shape the course of a campaign in a traditional game, and 2) while Hillfolk offers players a good deal of power over these things, blurring that line between the character and the setting does have its costs (i.e. a mystery is an entirely different thing in this kind of campaign: it is harder to have an adventure where the players solve a mystery as a problem to be solved). 

I should say I don't think either one is better or worse at mysteries. It really depends on what you want. Some people want to help create  mystery and discover a mystery together, some people want to solve it. If you want to do the former, Hillfolk would be a better system than Cthulhu (at least in the editions I have played), but if you want to solve a mystery, I'd recommend Cthulhu. 

But just because there is a mystery in a Cthulhu campaign, that doesn't mean there has to be one. You can use the three clue rule, you can say I am going to run a bunch of mysteries, but if you tell the players at the start of the session something like: 

"I am interested in finding out what happens as much as you are. I don't want to feel like I am just handing you my notes, so I encourage you to smash the scenery, smash plots, explore your characters personal goals and motives, and I will honor that. I may not do exactly what you want or expect but I will lean in that direction. I am much more interested in something that feels like Fargo than something that feels like Sherlock Holmes." 

You are going to have a very different experience and one where the player goals are more likely to have a large impact on the course of the adventure. Especially if the GM is also rolling everything in the open, not fudging, letting players kill whatever NPC or monster they legitimately can, etc. 

You can also combine these two things. This is something I tried with Hillfolk because it has two types of scenes: Dramatic and Procedural. So we used the Dramasystem from Hillfolk for Dramatic Scenes in a campaign but used my own system (which is more on the trad end) for Procedural scenes (dramatic scenes are more about the internal drama and characters resolving conflicting goals, whereas procedural scenes are more about external things like stealing the Raksha manual from the Zombie Sect headquarters).


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, but the implication that the onus must be on certain posters to take some kind of steps, vs the onus is on other readers to interpret generously, is one I know which side I am likely to fall on. Now, I'll also posit that the response to the, in a large group of readers inevitable, few negative responses might most constructively be to completely ignore them. Pointless debate isn't one-sided, but ideally it will exist at a minimal level to start with.



This is not the first time that the OP has written an OP or posted in that manner.  Far from it.  In another thread he was singing the praises of the ways his playstyle discovers things, while trying to reduce the traditional playstyles to "Playing to discover what's in the GM's notes," which is not only wrong as a general statement of the traditional playstyles, but is phrased very negatively. 

A lot of his ideas are very interesting, but many of his threads seem to quickly break down into playstyle arguments based around his negative phrasing of the traditional playstyles. It's self-sabotaging.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> A lot of his ideas are very interesting, but many of his threads seem to quickly break down into playstyle arguments based around his negative phrasing of the traditional playstyles. It's self-sabotaging.




Piratecat used to have a challenge - "Tell me how awesome your game is _without_ comparing it to any other games."


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions._ Play to find out *what happens*_. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. *What happens next*.



Sure, but "what happens next" can't happen in a vacuum, can it?

There's "whatever already happened" to build on, but doesn't there also need to be an underlying foundation and-or surrounding environment (usually provided by the setting) such that what happens next can make sense within that surrounding environment.


Campbell said:


> It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery.



Which seems odd, as living in the present without a thought for the future probably isn't something a wise character would tend to do.  There's always a bigger picture; and the players of wise characters would, one thinks, want to be able to both keep an eye on that bigger picture and act with it in mind.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> No, it does not.  Your point here seems hyperbolic, and is apt to not be constructive.
> 
> It means that if you are speaking to a large enough group, you are practically assured that some number of folks in the group are going to have some issue with your opinion/assertion, and that will be a barrier to discussion.  Empirical evidence of this rests in 20+ years of this website, so maybe arguing otherwise is not your best bet.




In your role as a mod, I'd have loved to hear your take on the actual point @AbdulAlhazred made in the rest of his post that you cut out. 

Instead, you chose to snip his post down and then admonish him for being hyperbolic. Not as a mod, but just a regular old admonishment. In the same thread where you also told him to "leash it" on a topic you didn't like. 

You avoided the point of a post to focus on hyperbole and to accuse someone of being unconstructive.... while ignoring the constructive question that having a mod's opinion on could potentially actually help conversation. 

I'll post the remainder of his post here sans hyperbole. What would you say about the below?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would think if we were 'going at it' that the response might be "why are you gatekeeping discussion like this?" Honestly, I'm not trying to be confrontational like that, I'm just pointing it out so I can ask; How are we permitted to have this discussion? I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You understand that taking your statement literally amounts to "we interpret any term you can use to describe X in a loaded fashion such that it is impossible for you to ever assert, in any language, your opinion about X." I'm not convinced that you've thought that statement through entirely.




No, I quite have, and you're not far off from my read of it.

Terms are not neutral.  The only way to approach making them neutral is to invent a new one for your purpose.  If you claim a given approach provides a particular thing, the only way people are not going to read that as privileging that approach is if they do not read that thing as virtuous.  You can hose it down a bit by making it clear you're using the thing you're talking about as a term-of-art and defining it, but for the most part the responses you're going to get come in three categories unless you limit yourself to discussing it among people who already accept the premise that the particular approach you're taking is superior in providing it: 1. "No it doesn't" among people who value the thing, 2. "So?" among people who don't care, and 3. "Good!" among people who consider the thing undesirable.

The number of people who do not respond in one of the three ways will be vanishingly small.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would think if we were 'going at it' that the response might be "why are you gatekeeping discussion like this?" Honestly, I'm not trying to be confrontational like that, I'm just pointing it out so I can ask; How are we permitted to have this discussion? I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic.




You're permitted to have it how you wish.  I'm simply pointing out the kind of responses you're getting are, to a large extent, entirely predictable.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'll post the remainder of his post here sans hyperbole. What would you say about the below?





"I mean, I am entirely certain that there are _real, genuine points to discuss_ on this topic."

I would say that people should be able to discuss things with authenticity! That people be able to make real, genuine points ... in threads, that say something - individually, and if enWorld is working properly, together.

The flipside of this is threads, such as this one, that squelch authenticity. The parameters of discussion have already been set.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Because I try to have friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation when I post; not simply set arguments that elevate my games above others. YMMV.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Is everyone supposed to do this?




Anyone who does not want to get push back (potentially heavy pushback depending on the particular point and location), yes.  You don't have to like that, but that's reality.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Sure, but "what happens next" can't happen in a vacuum, can it?
> 
> There's "whatever already happened" to build on, but doesn't there also need to be an underlying foundation and-or surrounding environment (usually provided by the setting) such that what happens next can make sense within that surrounding environment.



Well, first of all, there's no requirement that the environment be limited to only what the PCs have touched. Even in games that advocate low prep, like Dungeon World, prep IS a thing. Its just contingent and meant to supply the GM with a ready source of material to draw from. Other games, like BitD, have pretty complete settings but generally are pretty open about what happens. For instance I don't see anything in BitD's presentation of Doskvol which talks about what is going to happen next. There are some clocks for the other organizations that attach to their goals, and that's about as far as it goes (so we know that the Circle wants to kick Strangwater off the City Council and there's a ticking clock for when that attempt might take place). Note that none of those clocks HAS to be used in play, just that they exist and provide the GM with something he can say. Like if the PCs are somehow interacting with the Circle then the GM has a 'hook' he can play, by saying "Hey, the Circle guy wants you to help him set up Strangwater, can you do this job for him?" 

So, in BitD, yes, there's a setting, and POSSIBLE relationships and plans that NPCs have. What action will actually take place is pretty much just what the PCs engage with. The GM can present stuff, and should if there's a dearth of directions for the crew to go in for some reason, but usually the players can make enough trouble on their own! I mean, its a rich environment of potential trouble to get into, and the PCs have pretty much got built-in reasons to want to not just loaf around (like most of them have expensive vices). 

If we look at Dungeon World, where there is no pregenerated setting at all, the GM will construct fronts, which are pretty much analogous to the organization clocks in BitD, plus the organization descriptions. The other stuff is more open and DW has a bit wider field in terms of the types of actions and locations that might come up. Still, the game is driven in pretty much the identical same way, given some variation in mechanics. Bootstrapping and then running with the momentum of the current situation, with maybe a twist or change of direction here or there, is perfectly workable. Obviously the facts on the ground will continue to accumulate and evolve as the game goes forward, so it will tend to reference 'canon' more over time.


Lanefan said:


> Which seems odd, as living in the present without a thought for the future probably isn't something a wise character would tend to do.  There's always a bigger picture; and the players of wise characters would, one thinks, want to be able to both keep an eye on that bigger picture and act with it in mind.



Yeah, well, the players can describe that bigger picture, or the GM can introduce parts of it as well. The basic concept is just not to feed it to the players as a set of immutable facts that dictate exactly which things can and cannot happen in play. I think we all agree there are some kinds of scenarios that won't be as appealing in this sort of style, perhaps, though I don't think there's anything that cannot, in a narrative sense, happen in a Story Now type of game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, but the implication that the onus must be on certain posters to take some kind of steps, vs the onus is on other readers to interpret generously, is one I know which side I am likely to fall on. Now, I'll also posit that the response to the, in a large group of readers inevitable, few negative responses might most constructively be to completely ignore them. Pointless debate isn't one-sided, but ideally it will exist at a minimal level to start with.




You are considerably more optimistic than I am given your last sentence here.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think I would say "System can and often does matter, but it isn't the only thing, and there are ways to solve problems beyond just mechanics or system". I think what sometimes happens though is people see that and they read something more like "System is meaningless" which is far from my position.




I think part of the issue is also what people tend to think of as "the system". Like if the rules say that the GM decides how X comes about, then that's part of the system, I'd say. Others may not agree if there are no game mechanics involved. But I think the division of authority and who gets to decide what and how, falls under "the system". 

I think the common element of the games cited in the OP as promoting authenticity is the role of the GM being limited in ways. Ways that don't allow for the methods that are cited as squelching authority. The GM isn't really able to railroad or use the three-clue rule or node-based adventures or predetermine the solutions to problems in those games. They just don't function that way. 

I think what also comes into play here, and we've even seen it in this thread, some games are meant to be played in a specific manner, with specific processes in place for the participants to follow. Other games, with D&D notably being among them, have wiggle room in how the processes are applied or how they work. Then you have other games that are almost entirely modular, like GURPS, you use the rules you'd like to build the setting/game you want.  

So there's an expectation that games can be altered by whatever means to bridge any difference. And although I think some differences can be bridged, I also think there are some that cannot.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> You are considerably more optimistic than I am given your last sentence here.



My response has been my email sig for a long long time...

"_The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw_


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> "I mean, I am entirely certain that there are _real, genuine points to discuss_ on this topic."
> 
> I would say that people should be able to discuss things with authenticity! That people be able to make real, genuine points ... in threads, that say something - individually, and if enWorld is working properly, together.
> 
> ...




Did you say to yourself "Self, I'm gonna post a comment that fails on multiple levels... not only will it not help the conversation, but it will also be dripping with sarcasm, which is pretty inauthentic"? 

Well done.


----------



## niklinna (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I fully appreciate where you are coming from, but I was listening to the play of that BitD game the other day that @Campbell and @Nik et al are players in. So the scene that @Manbearcat outlined earlier where Nik's character was in Six Towers stalking the Spirit Warden guy while there was a Circle assassin nearby and he was testing some sort of spark thingy, etc.; that scene arose ENTIRELY out of a player driven process, the GM had ZERO to do with its evolution! The player chose how to construct his character, the players collectively chose the nature of the crew, its connections, goals, capabilities, etc. Everything in that scene arose, without any particular GM prep or 'engineering'. I mean, yes, sometimes the GM said something like "Oh, OK, you know this guy, he's a Red Sash leader..." or whatever. So Manbearcat, as GM, can put in play specific 'color', but the actual need for a contact or a victim, or a vice purveyor, or whatever, comes out of a combination of the premise and the specific choices and actions of the players during play. Furthermore it bears directly on the fundamental premise of the game, that the PCs are rogues living in a dangerous milieu choosing to engage in hazardous criminal enterprises.
> 
> There's a through line there, from premise -> player choices -> GM scene framing which is fundamentally, causally at the table, different from even the most entirely pure sandbox or "curated in the moment" low prep play in a game structured like 5e. Now, maybe some of the GMs that make statements of equivalency to the above in their 5e play are really departing seriously from 5e's default structure/process/premises and doing what something like BitD 'just does' (assuming you run it roughly as intended). I certainly can't say, and am not trying to cast doubt on anything said here by anyone. It is IME, not the way the 5e designers envisaged the game being used, and you'll have to 'jigger the system' a bunch to really get it to work well, but I'm not that jerk who says "You cannot be telling the true story" simply because it is a remarkable and unusual story. I can just say that the action in that BitD game was utterly stock BitD from what I can tell (it was the first game I've sat in on, so I'm not a big expert on that system yet).



I'm not an expert on the system, either, but I will say that the scene did not arise "ENTIRELY" out of a player-driven process, not by a mile. I was asked what my character was doing, on his own, and I said he was out on the prowl for someone to kill in a general area. The GM responded by framing a scene in a specific location with a crowd of people from named factions, completely unrelated to my stated interest, and spun a couple additional curveballs out of that. I was in reaction mode from then on, and not particularly happy in the moment with my decisions or the outcomes. Perhaps I should have been able to roll with that better, but I had stated that I was expecting to find some solitary individual to hunt, and that got dashed right off the bat.

None of it seemed prepped, though. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, some of the details that emerged seemed like things my character should have known beforehand, and would most definitely have affected my early decisions had I known then beforehand. That last bit shows a lack of system expertise on my part—I had built up an idea of what I felt should happen, and it did not happen, knocking me off balance mentally for the rest of the scene. In that way, I was attempting to curate a script _as a player,_ and it was interfering with my ability to be authentic in the moment.

Even so, the scene revealed new things about my character that everybody found interesting and entertaining, and it will be cool to explore and develop that through play as we go on, and as my system and playstyle expertise improve. Maybe I should have pushed back and said, "Hang on, I said I went out to hunt; I ignore this to-do and move on to a quieter area." Maybe I should have resisted the consequence of the killer ghost and made it a non-threat. Maybe I've learned too well to avoid shutting things down like that, though, so that impulse perhaps served me poorly. Maybe I should have just immediately walked up to the group and informed them about the Silver Nails sniper, then the ghost never would have existed, but something entirely different would have unfolded. Maybe I could have moved to take out the sniper myself (he was focused hard on the view through his rifle scope, after all). There were a lot of options—more than I could process in fact!

(An additional factor is that I was taking notes for the session, and I tend to take pretty detailed notes. I have had trouble doing this with Blades in the Dark before, as things are subject to revision. I might have done better to leave off the note-taking while I had the spotlight so that I could focus more authentically on the action. I'll certainly keep that in mind for future sessions.)

(Edited for clarity.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Did you say to yourself "Self, I'm gonna post a comment that fails on multiple levels... not only will it not help the conversation, but it will also be dripping with sarcasm, which is pretty inauthentic"?
> 
> Well done.




There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.

But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.

But yes, I am sure that there will come a day when someone wants to have a good-faith conversation that doesn't start with, "My games involve authentic genuine choices with friendship, and your games involve squelching authenticity."

At some point, if you wanted to have a good conversation about why certain games promote things you like, discuss the things you like. Don't start by saying, "My games are awesome, and your games suck. Let's discuss!"

Again, given that you (and the OP) spent a great deal of time defending comments about how the rest of us are "brain damaged" and similar to survivors of sexual assault, and you literally could not understand why we might view that negatively ... I get that you don't see that the OP is talking about other games negatively. But on this- I'll take my own opinion. Thanks!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'm not an expert on the system, either, but I will say that the scene did not arise "ENTIRELY" out of a player-driven process, not by a mile. I was asked what my character was doing, on his own, and I said he was out on the prowl for someone to kill in a general area. The GM responded by framing a scene in a specific location with a crowd of people from named factions, completely unrelated to my stated interest, and spun a couple additional curveballs out of that. I was in reaction mode from then on, and not particularly happy in the moment with my choices or the outcomes. Perhaps I should have been able to roll with that better, but I had stated that I was expecting to find some solitary individual to hunt, and that got dashed right off the bat.
> 
> None of it seemed prepped, though. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, some of the details that emerged seemed like things my character should have known beforehand, and would most definitely have affected my early decisions had I known then beforehand. That last bit shows a lack of system expertise on my part—I had built up an idea of what I felt should happen, and it did not happen, knocking me off balance mentally for the rest of the scene. In that way, I was attempting to curate a script _as a player,_ and it was interfering with my ability to be authentic in the moment.
> 
> ...



Well, I was trying to speed read my brandy new PDF of BitD and create a character at the time, so I might also have missed a few salient bits... So, yeah, your character went 'hunting' and what he found wasn't exactly what he was hoping to find. OTOH it was all drawn from setting details, the crew's relationship numbers, a (I presume) idea on the GM's part that your Weird Whisper character would be a good one to get tangled up with a ghost (and also this follows from both the crew's 'haunts', which includes Six Towers, and the fact that Six Towers is particularly haunted). I think the part about the guy you stalked being a Spirit Warden with some weird electromagical tech gizmo might also follow from the Weird Whisper theme. It felt pretty organic, though the whole thing with the Silver Nails sniper was kind of out of the blue. Its worth noting that you simply didn't take the bait on that part, and Manbearcat just went with where you were leading in terms of what you engaged with.

I haven't actually looked through the notes, yet. I really should because I think I also missed a few details in other places.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.
> 
> But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I didn't really get the "other people's games suck" out of that. I got that a contrast is being drawn between techniques common in certain games with 'railroading', though no games were mentioned and it didn't seem there was an implication that any specific game or type of game IS railroading. 2 specific techniques were then mentioned, which one can certainly argue about constituting examples of 'railroady' technique, but I think its fair to say they COULD promote "figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution". If you don't start from a position of assuming everyone has a primary goal of dissing you, then you might actually get to have those interesting discussions.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I didn't really get the "other people's games suck" out of that. I got that a contrast is being drawn between techniques common in certain games with 'railroading', though no games were mentioned and it didn't seem there was an implication that any specific game or type of game IS railroading. 2 specific techniques were then mentioned, which one can certainly argue about constituting examples of 'railroady' technique, but I think its fair to say they COULD promote "figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution". If you don't start from a position of assuming everyone has a primary goal of dissing you, then you might actually get to have those interesting discussions.




Well, if a person wants to start the conversation by:
(1) Actually having a thesis that is intelligible (as opposed to using vague terms like say "something"). 
(2) Not justify a set of games known to all for a particular theoretical style as "authentic" and "genuine" while other "squelch authenticity."
(3) Choose to use a different term when every single person who is not the "usual crowd" pushes back on the use of that term.

Sure, maybe. But the onus isn't on me. Over the last few years- how many people do you think have bounced off these conversations? There's a lot of people that are on enworld. And there's a lot of new people. I know- I see them in other threads. 

But if you don't see anything wrong with it, there must be nothing wrong with it. So keep on, keepin' on.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.
> 
> But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.
> 
> ...




Well, the two games cited in the OP aren't even games that @pemerton plays regularly, if at all, from what I know. And it was more about some of the GMing and playing techniques used in those games. 

Nor does he actually mention any games as squelching authenticity. He mentions railroading and its variations.

Maybe people are reading too much into it? Like, they're taking a criticism of something that may be present in their game, and then concluding that it's a total takedown of that game. 

I mean, if there is nothing more to what was posted than "your game sux, lulz" why even reply? Just ignore it and move on. If there's something that's actually being said, then maybe try and offer a take on that. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, given that you (and the OP) spent a great deal of time defending comments about how the rest of us are "brain damaged" and similar to survivors of sexual assault, and you literally could not understand why we might view that negatively ... I get that you don't see that the OP is talking about other games negatively. But on this- I'll take my own opinion. Thanks!




This is inaccurate. I understood why such words would upset people. What I don't understand is how people can't get over it.


----------



## niklinna (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I was trying to speed read my brandy new PDF of BitD and create a character at the time, so I might also have missed a few salient bits... So, yeah, your character went 'hunting' and what he found wasn't exactly what he was hoping to find. OTOH it was all drawn from setting details, the crew's relationship numbers, a (I presume) idea on the GM's part that your Weird Whisper character would be a good one to get tangled up with a ghost (and also this follows from both the crew's 'haunts', which includes Six Towers, and the fact that Six Towers is particularly haunted). I think the part about the guy you stalked being a Spirit Warden with some weird electromagical tech gizmo might also follow from the Weird Whisper theme. It felt pretty organic, though the whole thing with the Silver Nails sniper was kind of out of the blue. Its worth noting that you simply didn't take the bait on that part, and Manbearcat just went with where you were leading in terms of what you engaged with.



There was too much bait—I couldn't take it all!  If I hadn't run afoul of that ghost, or had resisted it, I might well have gone after the sniper. We'll never know, though.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I haven't actually looked through the notes, yet. I really should because I think I also missed a few details in other places.



Perhaps!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, the two games cited in the OP aren't even games that @pemerton plays regularly, if at all, from what I know. And it was more about some of the GMing and playing techniques used in those games.




That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."

All of them.

In his second post in the thread, in case it was unclear, he elaborated in response to someone else-



> "To me, RPGs are first and foremost games. The DM creates a scenario, and the players try to make their way through it. There are goals and challenges. I don't want "collaborative storytelling"." That's a crystal-clear statement of a different conception of RPGing. You're absolutely correct to see it as contrasting with the OP.




Right there (and this is before we get into, of course, DitV, Sorcerer, and the other points of reference that always get trotted out) we see that the dichotomy referred to in the OP is clear-

There are two types of RPGs; "non-GM driven RPGs {are} those RPGs {with} authenticity. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together."

The other RPGs? The ones that "work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution" .... well, they "squelch authenticity."



hawkeyefan said:


> Nor does he actually mention any games as squelching authenticity. He mentions railroading and its variations.




Not true. Look above- it's pretty clear. He divides RPGs into two types, and one type squelches authenticity. It's not very hard, at all, to discern.



hawkeyefan said:


> Maybe people are reading too much into it? Like, they're taking a criticism of something that may be present in their game, and then concluding that it's a total takedown of that game.




No, it's not a takedown. It's the accurate observation that it's not conducive to having a productive conversation. Just like saying ...



Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING; quoting someone who is using a sexual assault metaphor



(This is Mr. Edwards justifying his remark that people who played other games, like D&D, are brain damaged.)


			
				Ron Edwards said:
			
		

> Now for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's _mind_ is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am _very_ familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage).







Not a great way to get people to want to discuss things, eh?



hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, if there is nothing more to what was posted than "your game sux, lulz" why even reply? Just ignore it and move on. If there's something that's actually being said, then maybe try and offer a take on that.




If you don't understand why people don't want have a discussion with you given that framing, I'm not sure what would help. It's like you asking someone, "When did you stop beating your spouse?" and then getting annoyed that they are refusing to engage in the premise.



hawkeyefan said:


> This is inaccurate. I understood why such words would upset people. What I don't understand is how people can't get over it.




As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.

Or, in the alternative, _when people stop defending the comment_. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).

Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Is everyone supposed to do this? Which opinions, points of view, and terms are subject to a need to disclaim?




Entirely up to the individual. If you want to use a value-laden word in a new way without first explaining it, and don’t mind people rejecting your ideas and turning the thread into a debate about your word choice, you are 100% free to go that route.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."
> 
> All of them.
> 
> ...



What does something that some guy (Ron Edwards) who has not even been mentioned in this thread, have to do with anything?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.
> 
> Or, in the alternative, _when people stop defending the comment_. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).
> 
> Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.




I don't think anyone is owed an apology here. I disagree with Pemerton's OP but he was just expressing a strong opinion about games. And in these kinds of discussions, and not saying this was the case, I expect a certain amount of kayfabe to be in play sometimes (especially if there is a long standing disagreement). I do think its understandable why there was pushback. But for me, this isn't that different than seeing a movie with a bunch of friends and having a spirited disagreement over whether it was a good movie, or whether its message was a worthy one (with a lot of "That movie sucked, and here is why...." and "Your crazy, that was amazing, and here is why".


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> What does something that some guy (Ron Edwards) who has not even been mentioned in this thread, have to do with anything?




The inability of some people to see why pejorative language and putting other people down makes conversation difficult.

If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.

....Also, and while it isn't important ... _OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! _In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....

_Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala* Ron Edwards*,* all techniques that promote authenticity* (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose._


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think anyone is owed an apology here. I disagree with Pemerton's OP but he was just expressing a strong opinion about games. And in these kinds of discussions, and not saying this was the case, I expect a certain amount of kayfabe to be in play sometimes (especially if there is a long standing disagreement). I do think its understandable why there was pushback. But for me, this isn't that different than seeing a movie with a bunch of friends and having a spirited disagreement over whether it was a good movie, or whether its message was a worthy one (with a lot of "That movie sucked, and here is why...." and "Your crazy, that was amazing, and here is why".




Sorry, that was a specific issue related to the past comment. 

"Authenticity" and "squelching authenticity" is loaded and unfortunate, and not conducive to conversation with others; but not wrong or evil. 

Brain damage and sexual assault of minors? That's a whole 'nother level of wrongness.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Scenery chewing, lol. Yeah, I have to agree. It continues to amaze, and perplex, me to keep hearing all these people vociferously contending that, essentially, system doesn't matter. This argument was settled DECADES ago, like 45+ years ago. Yes it does! Sure, no one specific nut or bolt thing that might take place in one game cannot (generally) come to pass in any game, but to say that means there is all that much similarity is like someone went to Yosemite and found a maple tree and now claims that the forest there is just like every other forest with a maple tree in it. The proposition is not tenable.



The claim isn't that the Yosemite forest is just like all the others; it's that as a maple can and does grow in Yosemite I can a) hop over there to see one rather than go all the way to Canada and b) be confident in an expectation that another can grow there should I or someone else plant (and maybe nurture) it.

The more important claim above is b); in that if it can happen once it can happen again.  What this means in RPG terms is that while a given system might not be specifically geared toward a certain style of play, ideally it has enough flexibility and robustness in its design to allow non-standard approaches to work; the (IMO massive) benefit being the table doesn't have to change systems in order to change playstyles.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Is everyone supposed to do this? Which opinions, points of view, and terms are subject to a need to disclaim? Who decides what that list is? I mean, I understand the intent, but this sort of 'policy' is entirely untenable IMHO. Better for everyone to get used to the notion that there are perfectly well-meaning and decent people with opinions and word use, etc. that is different from yours and learn not to assume the worst whenever you read a post. Obviously that's not going to ever become universal, but frankly I've seen the posters on this forum, and some others, generally evolve in that sense in a positive direction in the last 10-15 years.



Different opinions?  Fine.  Bring 'em on! 

Different word use?  Not fine.  Thus says the cynic in me whose first thought usually leaps to "What is the underlying and unspoken motive here for using this word in this non-standard way, and-or are the writer's intentions trustworthy in doing so?"


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."
> 
> All of them.
> 
> ...




Okay. All this post does is reaffirm that your responses in this thread haven’t been about the idea expressed in the OP so much as a reaction to many past discussions and ideas. I mean, no one mentioned anything much about Edwards and you’re ranting about the brain damage stuff again.

I’m going to go back to talking on topic instead of about the discussion again. I hope you do the same.

* Edited to add the word much. Apparently, he was mentioned in a post.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 4, 2022)

Ok, so, setting aside the touchy issue of nomenclature and accepting the word "authenticity" for now, I have a question:

In another thread, I believe on the question of whether or not an NPC should be able to persuade an PC, over the wishes of the player, @pemerton came out strongly in favor of systems in which the mechanics can have influence over PC thoughts/decisions/actions, as opposed to merely determining the success of actions that are completely in control of the player.  Some posters (I can't remember if @pemerton was one of them) felt that these sorts of mechanics result in (I paraphrase) "the exploration of personalities that aren't your own" or something to that effect.

Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave?  Why does one result in authenticity (as defined in this thread) and the other doesn't?  Is it because mechanics are neutral and GMs are not?

This isn't meant as a gotcha. I'm hoping that the answer will help clarify my understanding of this thread.


----------



## andreszarta (Aug 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> ....Also, and while it isn't important ... _OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! _In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....
> 
> _Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala* Ron Edwards*,* all techniques that promote authenticity* (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose._





hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, no one mentioned anything about Edwards and you’re ranting about the brain damage stuff again.




I want to own up that did bring up four of Ron Edwards ideas (specifically techniques) as part of my response.

Namely, *kickers*,  *bangs* and* outspoken distributions of authority* as techniques that promote _authenticity_ *in the context of collaboration*, and *intuitive continuity* that goes against _authenticity_ *in the context of collaboration*.

@Snarf Zagyg decision to bring up other unrelated comments of Ron flirts very coquettishly with a fallacy of origins. I would very happily address any objections with regards to the specific ideas I posed .


Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.




I don't know, I think there is a good number of people that have approached this conversation with a healthy level of suspicion about the OP's use of "authentic" and have managed to get a lot from it.

I think the OP himself has gained a wider perspective of what the word _authenticity_ means to others based on the myriad of responses given by many of us that have different experiences roleplaying. Whereas some outright condemn its use, others like me do try to see it in the best light possible as an apt word to describe a _specific_ experience.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 4, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think part of the issue is also what people tend to think of as "the system". Like if the rules say that the GM decides how X comes about, then that's part of the system, I'd say. Others may not agree if there are no game mechanics involved. But I think the division of authority and who gets to decide what and how, falls under "the system".



System: the means by which we work out what happens next.

Given that _what happens next_ is imagined stuff, that is part of a shared fiction, the previous sentence can be restated: _system_ is the set of rules, techniques etc for determining _who gets to contribute to the shared fiction_, when they do so, and what they can contribute.

(I think we're in broad agreement on this.)



Lanefan said:


> Sure, but "what happens next" can't happen in a vacuum, can it?
> 
> There's "whatever already happened" to build on, but doesn't there also need to be an underlying foundation and-or surrounding environment (usually provided by the setting) such that what happens next can make sense within that surrounding environment.
> 
> Which seems odd, as living in the present without a thought for the future probably isn't something a wise character would tend to do.  There's always a bigger picture; and the players of wise characters would, one thinks, want to be able to both keep an eye on that bigger picture and act with it in mind.



You seem to be talking about the content of the fiction: the context and circumstances in which a character makes a decision.

But that leaves it quite open how the fiction is authored, and by whom. Which is what @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @AbdulAlhazred have been discussing in some of their recent posts.

Or to restate much the same point in slightly different terms: there are ways for a player to play a PC who keeps their eye on the bigger picture _other than_ the player keeping their eye on, and responding to, decisions that the GM makes about the content of the fiction.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Bootstrapping and then running with the momentum of the current situation, with maybe a twist or change of direction here or there, is perfectly workable. Obviously the facts on the ground will continue to accumulate and evolve as the game goes forward, so it will tend to reference 'canon' more over time.



I think this is a challenge for RPGing, particularly because of the place of the long-running campaign in RPGing (and there are elements of many RPGs that push towards the campaign as a desired element of play: eg level gain in D&D and DW, but other sorts of rules for PC development/power-ups too). I've experienced it in RM, in Traveller and in Burning Wheel.

I think it's interesting to look at how some games are set up to avoid it. The episodic structure of Agon, or Prince Valiant, is one way. The escalation of tiers in 4e D&D can be seen as another way, although it plays out over a longer time frame.

Given how much we see this issue in other serial fiction - comics, TV shows, movie series, etc - I'm not sure there are simple solutions.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave?



It seems like it would depend on the mechanic.

Suppose a player decides to put at stake whether or not their character will make and keep a promise: that seems different from the GM telling them what their character should do, or what would be proper for their character to do.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 5, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The inability of some people to see why pejorative language and putting other people down makes conversation difficult.
> 
> If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.



Sorry, you really are not the English language police, OK. @pemerton used the term, and used it in a pretty specific way, which he has already subsequently expanded on and explained. Yet here we are on page 21 you've still not moved on? OKAY!


Snarf Zagyg said:


> ....Also, and while it isn't important ... _OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! _In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....
> 
> _Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala* Ron Edwards*,* all techniques that promote authenticity* (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose._



Right, so the merest oblique reference to people you don't like is a heinous crime now that must be flogged. What are you getting out of this?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 5, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Ok, so, setting aside the touchy issue of nomenclature and accepting the word "authenticity" for now, I have a question:
> 
> In another thread, I believe on the question of whether or not an NPC should be able to persuade an PC, over the wishes of the player, @pemerton came out strongly in favor of systems in which the mechanics can have influence over PC thoughts/decisions/actions, as opposed to merely determining the success of actions that are completely in control of the player.  Some posters (I can't remember if @pemerton was one of them) felt that these sorts of mechanics result in (I paraphrase) "the exploration of personalities that aren't your own" or something to that effect.
> 
> ...



Well... are they equivalent things? A mechanic which dictates that, lets say, your character has to pass some check or else become afraid and be unable to take some action, or run away or something, can be interpreted as a kind of genuine experience. A premise and/or setting, say like the BitD one, doesn't seem to me personally to be that similar. It provides a context, and some color, under which the player can make sense of their character's commitments. If this sort of setting, however, exists as an absolute which has the purpose of simply acting as a set of constraints on plot and action it isn't really doing that work, instead it is serving as sort of a goal, that is getting around it and figuring it out.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be talking about the content of the fiction: the context and circumstances in which a character makes a decision.
> 
> But that leaves it quite open how the fiction is authored, and by whom. Which is what @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @AbdulAlhazred have been discussing in some of their recent posts.
> 
> Or to restate much the same point in slightly different terms: there are ways for a player to play a PC who keeps their eye on the bigger picture _other than_ the player keeping their eye on, and responding to, decisions that the GM makes about the content of the fiction.



I forget now who I was replying to with the piece you quoted, but that poster was putting forward the position that play is (ideally*) entirely in the moment without thought as to where things go later; which seemed a bit odd.

It's the big picture - the greater setting - that generates consequences beyond just those in the moment; that doing something _here_ has sparked a reaction over _there_ the ramifications of which the PCs might not know about until some time later.  Example: as part of some unrelated job the PCs capture and later knock off Bugsy Margetts, a local low-life.  What they don't realize is Margetts was a long-time and truly loyal sidekick of Guns Travina, head of The Street Titans gang; and once Trevina and the gang find out who knocked off Bugsy (which might take a while) his killers will likely be in a world o' trouble.....or not, if by sheer luck they've skipped town in the intervening time.....

IMO the big picture can't be drawn by everyone at once.  Too much possibility of conflict e.g. here one player might have seen my above example as the big picture while another might have seen Bugsy as completely irrelevant to anything and a third might big-picture him as an undercover cop or spy.  Assuming competence, leaving the big picture (i.e. the NPCs and setting elements) in the hands of one person does away with these sort of conflicts; much like leaving a movie in the hands of just one decent writer almost invariably gives a better result than one that's written (and rewritten!) by a committee.

* - 'ideally' is what I took as the post's intent-meaning, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 5, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave?  Why does one result in authenticity (as defined in this thread) and the other doesn't?  Is it because mechanics are neutral and GMs are not?




I'm not the people you're addressing this to, but I think there's a good degree of practical difference between the more-or-less predictable effect of game mechanics and how they interact with character decisions, even social an intellectual ones, and the largely black-box elements of a GM getting their oar in to the same.  Whether the difference _matters_ to you is a matter for the individual, but they aren't really the same at least to some of us.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 5, 2022)

For me at least the issue I sometimes I have with morality mechanics like Alignment or Humanity in Vampire is that the GM is fundamentally passing moral judgement which removes the ambiguity needed to really engage with the material as an audience member. By presenting a right answer the audience no longer gets to question or identify with the character.

It's the judgement rather than the constraints that has a chilling effect (for me at times). It could have no impact on how the game is resolved but still mess with my connection to all the player characters (including the ones other players are playing) if the GM was regularly assigning alignment and telling us how we should think about the characters.

Meanwhile Humanity in more recent versions of Vampire feels much better to me because it's more explicitly about how connected they feel to their mortal lives.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 5, 2022)

Campbell said:


> the GM is fundamentally passing moral judgement which removes the ambiguity needed to really engage with the material as an audience member. By presenting a right answer the audience no longer gets to question or identify with the character.
> 
> It's the judgement rather than the constraints that has a chilling effect



This.

For me, there are some related (maybe flow-on?) aspects: being obliged to subordinate my judgement to someone else's can be alienating from my character; and it makes me look at the moral circumstances of the character not through the dimension of _who am I?_ or _what should I do?_ but rather _what will work here?_ or _what am I being invited to do?_


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 5, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I forget now who I was replying to with the piece you quoted, but that poster was putting forward the position that play is (ideally*) entirely in the moment without thought as to where things go later; which seemed a bit odd.
> 
> It's the big picture - the greater setting - that generates consequences beyond just those in the moment; that doing something _here_ has sparked a reaction over _there_ the ramifications of which the PCs might not know about until some time later.  Example: as part of some unrelated job the PCs capture and later knock off Bugsy Margetts, a local low-life.  What they don't realize is Margetts was a long-time and truly loyal sidekick of Guns Travina, head of The Street Titans gang; and once Trevina and the gang find out who knocked off Bugsy (which might take a while) his killers will likely be in a world o' trouble.....or not, if by sheer luck they've skipped town in the intervening time.....
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your thesis there. I think it may be a bit trickier sometimes to have several cooks working the pot, but OTOH there's that much more creative 'juice' focused on it. I mean, most dramatic endeavors have at least a couple of people involved. Movies generally tend to involve a whole team. Novels maybe not so much, but they do almost always have editors and readers providing some feedback at least. 

I believe it is possible, and I think that was touched on some with @Bedrockgames at some point, that there can be types of situations that might be more ideal for, say, a GM to simply put together whole cloth. I don't think there is a LOT which necessarily demands that, but OTOH I don't think every single possible kind of play MUST be totally collaborative either.

IME players are usually pretty adept at reading things and working with each other and a GM, or whatever, to build out some interesting narrative, and generate backstory and whatnot. The vast majority of participants in RPGs are there FOR that kind of thing. I mean, aside from straight up puzzle solving that's pretty much what RPGs bring.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I find it telling that the response to "people seem determined to ignore the differences between these types of games" is exactly to once again assert that these differences don't exist. Its like a perfect little capsule of the whole thing. Are you REALLY asserting that system doesn't matter? I mean, I'm sure you've been around this community a long time. You must have some sense of the long history and salient factors in that 'debate'. I personally don't find that kind of position really tenable.



Where in the entire section that you quoted am I asserting that system doesn't matter?  Where?  If anything...  what I asserted was that just declaring a game's major playstyle A doesn't make it so.  Even the example you provided seemed to indicate that actual AP/pure railroad style play was in the minority for you.  So I'm not sure where you're getting system doesn't matter from.  How about this... point me to the system parts of 5e that directly push one to adventure path play or even adventure of the week type of play.  That's what I'm asking for. something besides a blanket assertion with nothing to back it up.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 5, 2022)

Imaro said:


> Where in the entire section that you quoted am I asserting that system doesn't matter?  Where?  If anything...  what I asserted was that just declaring a game's major playstyle A doesn't make it so.  Even the example you provided seemed to indicate that actual AP/pure railroad style play was in the minority for you.  So I'm not sure where you're getting system doesn't matter from.  How about this... point me to the system parts of 5e that directly push one to adventure path play or even adventure of the week type of play.  That's what I'm asking for. something besides a blanket assertion with nothing to back it up.



Well, OK. I mean, isn't this stuff pretty well known? Without any shadow of a doubt 5e specifically states the roles of DM and players. DM presents all fiction without exception. This fiction is made up of some kind of 'notes' or 'map and key' type information, granting that nothing forbids making something up on the spot if necessary. I don't think any of this is controversial. Now, given that, what kind of play is possible? It doesn't have to be strictly linear, but it is going to be primarily brought to the table, not constructed there. If the DM is responding specifically to the players, in a 'play to find out what happens' kind of paradigm that would involve dynamically framing scenes (maybe not purely, but in a substantive way this kind of handling of fiction will need to be present). But 5e doesn't have any provision for that. So, yes, the core premise and play loop of 5e and how it divides up authority at the table does push towards a game where players navigate fiction produced by, or curated by a GM. 

When I say people seem to be saying system doesn't matter, what I'm pointing out is, you really don't use, and would not most effectively use, 5e to play a game in the style of Dungeon World. 5e's style of resource management will get in the way too. While DW does deal with resources, the principles of play fundamentally allocate it to a different purpose than in 5e, and one that is more narratively flexible. There are other issues but I keep hearing people talking in these threads like its just as easy to go do a game in the style that DW will best support using 5e. It just isn't, they are VERY different games.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 5, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, the two games cited in the OP aren't even games that @pemerton plays regularly, if at all, from what I know. And it was more about some of the GMing and playing techniques used in those games.
> 
> Nor does he actually mention any games as squelching authenticity. He mentions railroading and its variations.



"For me, what those RPGs - with all their variations in details of technique, principles, etc - is _authenticity_. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together.

*The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations* (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) *is to squelch authenticity.* The parameters of play have already been set."

He explicitly calls out non-GM driven RPGs as having authenticity that allows players and GMs to make genuine choices that mean something.  Then he speaks about the flipside and the flipside of non-GM driven RPGs are GM driven RPGs, which he says railroad and squelch authenticity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2022)

*Mod Note:*

22 pages in, and _certain points _are being rehashed over and over again.  Nobody is being persuaded, several people are becoming more agitated…or strident.

I don’t see a point in this particular thread staying open.  HOWEVER, I do see enough merit in the heart of the discussion that icontinued discussion of it would be just fine, assuming the relaunch doesn’t include the loaded terminology that derailed this one from the start.

On BOTH sides of the discussion.  If a relaunched thread goes downhill the same way, moderator action will escalate likewise.


----------

