Authenticity in RPGing

[pemerton]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Fenris-77]

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]

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.