Authenticity in RPGing

[Dioltach]

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]

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]

Somewhat weighted?

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



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.

This. Bravo!

 

[Jer]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 that turn a game into art. But how do you create them?

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]

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 that turn a game into art. But how do you create them?

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.

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]

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]

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.