Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

When it comes down to playing with the right people indie games are no more rigorous than any highly social game. First and foremost they require a measure of empathy, compassion and understanding. Secondly they require an interest in what the other players have to say and a desire to actively contribute to the play space in a mostly collaborative way, but there can also be a measure of competition without there being conflict. We have social interactions all the time without meaningful conflicts of interest. These are games best played among friends and people you trust. They can bring you closer together and don't necessarily have to be like deep man. Dungeon World is generally not that deep. Apocalypse World can be deep or shallow.

There are multiple mainstream games I would not play with just anybody.

I would not play Poker with just anybody.
I would not play Cards Against Humanity with just anybody.
I would not play Diplomacy with just anyone.
I would not play Basketball with just anyone.
I would not play Game of Thrones with just anyone.
I would not raid in World of Warcraft with just anyone.
I would not play Overwatch with just anyone.

Despite their best efforts to protect the experience I would not play most mainstream role playing games with just anyone. I think efforts to resolve player conflicts of interest through game design largely fail to do so and has the social risk of possibly leading to toxic environments because without the weight of meaningful social expectations play can sometimes become degenerative. Because I am not allowed to judge you in light of social expectations you can do anything that is not actively quashed by the GM. Because there is no social transparency it becomes socially difficult to speak up when my desires and unspoken expectations are not being met.

I am not saying it will lead to degenerative play - only that it is possible. I have experienced it sometimes and not experienced it other times. I have experienced it far more frequently in video games that attempt to mitigate social risks. I would much rather raid in a high pressure environment with people I trust and value than play casual content with those I do not.
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I am not a fan of how aggressively you are framing your arguments. I have made it clear I am only interested in speaking to my own experiences. I feel like I have approached this discussion with openness and empathy. If you feel I have not done so please let me know. However, I would appreciate it if you would approach my analysis with the same sort of charity I have tried to approach other posters with in this thread. If you will not I do not feel like I can continue to directly address your posts.

I also am no fan of what feels like attempts to shame posters who do not share your mainstream values. I hope I am wrong in my reading of this. The continued broad appeals to popularity, social cohesion, and traditional authority structures does not seem like an attempt to reach understanding or celebrate diversity. It feels like you are trying to tell me what I should value and not engaging with me from the perspective of what I do value. I guess I am asking what your motivation is here.

Do you want me and others like me to not take part in the hobby?
Do you want us to share your values?
Is sharing the values of the dominant culture a requirement for participation?
Should I not speak up for my own desires and interests?
Should we go back to our own respective corners and only discuss things with people who share our cultural values?

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I am not a fan of how aggressively you are framing your arguments. I have made it clear I am only interested in speaking to my own experiences. I feel like I have approached this discussion with openness and empathy. If you feel I have not done so please let me know. However, I would appreciate it if you would approach my analysis with the same sort of charity I have tried to approach other posters with in this thread. If you will not I do not feel like I can continue to directly address your posts.

Okay I'm a little lost here... how am I framing my arguments aggressively?? I am contrasting and critiquing (and have even invited those that prefer the indie playstyle to critique them from their perspective as well, and basically was told those who don't prefer them should critique) but where have I been aggressive?

I also am no fan of what feels like attempts to shame posters who do not share your mainstream values. I hope I am wrong in my reading of this. The continued broad appeals to popularity, social cohesion, and traditional authority structures does not seem like an attempt to reach understanding or celebrate diversity. It feels like you are trying to tell me what I should value and not engaging with me from the perspective of what I do value. I guess I am asking what your motivation is here.

I am speaking to what I feel are the strengths and advantages of my playstyle while also speaking to what I feel are the disadvanatages of the indie playstyle(s) being presented... in the same way you have. Should I take offense you implied traditional playstyles are in-authentic? I didn't... just asked for an explanation on what exactly the claim means. Who am I trying to shame and where is an example of this because again I'm lost as to where this is coming from?

Do you want me and others like me to not take part in the hobby?
Do you want us to share your values?
Is sharing the values of the dominant culture a requirement for participation?
Should I not speak up for my own desires and interests?
Should we go back to our own respective corners and only discuss things with people who share our cultural values?

1. It doesn't matter to me, I don't play with you. If you enjoy it by all means yes, if you don't then I'd recommend stopping but it doesn't have a practical effect on me or my gaming

2. Again it doesn't matter to me.

3. Huh? When did I assert anything like this? Apparently not since people with various playstyles have been participating...

4. Shouldn't I as well... this is all about preferences, right?

5. I'm getting the impression it's only ok if we discuss it as long as you can critique my playstyle but I can't give my own critiques as far as your playstyle is concerned. Is that the case?

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I address mainstream games I am speaking in terms of a particular cultural context. I am specifically speaking of the dominant culture within our greater community.

I get that, but it's such a niche little sub-culture of the nerd sub-culture, that even thinking of it having a 'dominant' sub-sub-sub-culture against which a discriminated-against even nichier sub-sub-sub-culture is valiantly struggling just doesn't resonate with me - and does confuse me, just a bit, every time.

I choose not to frame it in terms of the traditional culture because it does not represent the roots of the game (the war gaming culture)

It seems to be centered around D&D, and D&D was the first RPG to emerge from wargaming. Wargaming is different now than it was then, of course.

But, yeah, the paradigm around D&D and other RPGs that have stuck around since the 70s & 80s could be reasonably termed 'traditional,' in the context of a hobby that only goes back to 1974.

It also nicely dovetails into the relationship between indie and mainstream movements in other media. That includes elements like authenticity vs. mass appeal, the role of social cohesion in the culture, and openness to experience vs. assumed tropes and structures. I am not claiming cultural superiority here.

Maybe that's part of the issue. An indie movie really is an upstart little thing with few resources, maybe shot on a weekened or a years-long labor of love, with a budget of 5 figures down to nuthin', while a mainstream blockbuster might have a budget in the hundreds of millions. You really are talking a vast gulf in resources and in mass appeal.

The difference between an indie game and the relative 500lb gorilla of D&D is one guy's labor of love, vs one guy's day job who can outsource some of the work. It's just not a vast gulf. Indie RPGs are not the little guy vs d20 RPGs' evil corporate mass-market empire - RPGs, even the biggest of 'em, are the little guy.

I was responding to an argument [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] made up thread where he claimed indie gamers had a narrow specific definition of fun and were seeking some refined perfect thing... I want a more varied and dynamic experience, not less of one. I want more creative risks. I want more collaboration and less individual design.

Nod. Indie games aren't niche because they try to have limited appeal, but because they're nipping at the fringes of a very small market. There might be millions of people out there who would love the next new indie game, but they'll never hear of it, never try it, and that game will languish in obscurity. That's just a market reality, it has nothing to do with how good a hypothetical game might be.

Is it your contention that I should not hold a distinction between these things?

Maybe that the mainstream-media vs indie-media is not the best metaphor for the distinction.

Is it your contention that I should not speak on these distinctions?

Yeah, sorta. I think our little hobby is too intent on sub-dividing itself for various reasons that would be better served by finding common ground and appreciating any such distinctions rather than drawing stark lines based on them and sorting ourselves into camps.
My experiences with the edition war may have something to do with my attitude, there.

Do you have a less contentious framing that I should use that still gets to the heart of my concerns?

I suggested several alternatives to 'mainstream.'
But the whole topic is all about contentious framing. The Role v Roll flamewars of UseNet led to the Threefold Theory, led to the Forge and GNS and the big model, and it was all about being contentious, and putting other TTRPGers in boxes.
I can't imagine I can undo 20 years of that with a couple of more-considerate labels - they'll just take on the same kind of connotations in a little while, anyway.

I do not want to have a debate over what set of approaches are strictly better. I also do not think we should avoid discussion of our differences.

Seems like that's a fine line.

If unity means celebrating the diversity of perspectives, approaches, and games within the hobby while discussing our differences with respect for each other I am all for it.

Cool with that, hope to see it happen some day... I get that you're trying and not being met very close to half-way for the most part, and it can't seem fair that I'd take issue with something as trivial seeming as labels with you, and not with the other side.

I just had that reaction to 'mainstream' the first time you used it, and it's not going away.

RPGs aren't mainstream. I don't feel like there can be said to be a mainstream within the tiny outsider hobby, there's a top-seller with mainstream recognition, but that's more to do with business realities than with the hobby.

 

[Lanefan]

Factor in mine or @Lanefan's 'adversarial players' and you might have a recipe for disaster.

Calling my crew 'adversarial' paints us in a slightly misleading light, though it has its moments of truth.

In general, I'd say as players:

- we enjoy the game having mystery to it, both in its play* and in how it is run**; and while we generally subscribe to the idea that the DM's word is law we also trust those DMs to be open to fair criticism and good ideas.
- we see the game world as something to be - each to a greater or lesser extent - explored, changed, conquered, immersed in, and full of potential for adventure and derring-do; while also realizing it is a living breathing thing that existed long before our PCs ever got to it and will continue to go on existing long after we leave (unless we break it; it's happened).
- we see our characters as small fish in a very big pond and no matter how big we eventually get there's always going to be bigger fish, and some of them will try to defeat us. We are not special snowflakes. We do not have plot protection, or immunity from death, or from level loss or any other disaster. The game world is filled with dangers and we either have to fight those dangers (PCs vs. the world, hence players vs. DM) or succumb to them.
- while we're aware that some aspects of realism must be sacrificed in order for the game to be and remain playable, in situations where there's a choice between realism and "gamism" we usually prefer (or choose) the more realistic approach for reasons of believability, consistency (with the real world), and immersion.
- we recognize that first and foremost it's the DM's game, if for no other reason than while a game can usually survive the departure of a player no game can survive the departure of its DM. That said, we also trust the DM to be both willing and able to hit whatever curveballs we can pitch; and on the flip side we also accept that now and then the DM is likely going to railroad us as we trust that such is being done in the good faith intention of producing a better play experience.

* - some may frown on secret backstory but we'd think there's something very wrong if there wasn't any; part of the long-term fun lies in uncovering the secret backstory and then trying to integrate ourselves into it should we so desire
** - were I not a DM myself I probably wouldn't want to know anything about what goes on behind the screen or what's involved in "producing" the table experience.

I hope this puts some context around some of what I've been posting in here.

Lan-"where's my beer? where's my dice? there's orcs to be killin'!"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Authenticity is a strange phenomenon - in general, and also in contemporary times, when mass producers aim to sell people stuff by way of mass marketing with the pitch that buying the stuff will make the individual authentic/give the individual an authentic experience.

OK, I'm with you so far.

That said, I think there is some sort of difference between (say) attending a life performance and listening to a recording of one.

This one's quite simple - there are numerous clear differences, not least of which is that one doesn't usually get live performances played in one's own home (you have to go to where the performance is) but one can easily stay at home for a recorded performance (it comes to you).

Or between being served a really nice home-made cake and being served a really nice store-bought cake.

But this one is an absolutely perfect analogy to what we're talking about here with regards to illusionism.

If I'm sitting at a dinner table and someone puts a piece of cake in front of me that turns out to be the best cake I've ever had, does it really matter in that moment of enjoyment where it came from or who made it? Of course it doesn't. I'm just enjoying eating the cake, end of story.

Sure, I might ask afterwards in hopes of getting some more in the days that follow; but at the time It. Just. Doesn't. Matter.

And the same is true if I'm sitting at a table playing an excellent and fun D&D game. Does it matter in that moment how everything came together to produce that game, or that the DM's casting illusions all over the place? Not in the slightest! I'll just enjoy it in that moment, for at that moment what matters is that moment and little to nothing more. The in-the-moment experience is authentic.

Lan-"there's probably some corny song lyrics in there somewhere...sorry 'bout that"-efan

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]

Absolutely. Game mechanics and formal principles are not strictly necessary to achieve similar results. You can get there in D&D. The games I have been talking about are based on principles, techniques, and processes used in running games like D&D. It just that the game will not help you and in some cases will actively fight you. More importantly without the formalized principles on a social level the other players might fight you, particularly if there is a lack of social transparency. You have to work harder at it.

I mean you can absolutely get there on a pure role playing level through vigorous creative agreement with unspoken principles, no mechanisms or reward structures besides the social ones, and no defined player roles. It won't really be a role playing game, but it will be deeply collaborative. Social transparency and formal principles definitely help. In many ways this sort of principled free form role playing is much more flexible than any role playing game. We're just having a conversation with no constraints besides the ones you naturally impose. There are bunches of people who do this stuff online who never play role playing games.

One possible pain point with this approach is that in the face of so much unity of player interests it becomes meaningfully difficult to sustain character level conflicts of interest. It can also be socially fraught. We like these characters. We do not want to see bad stuff happen to them. In order for the fiction to be interesting it must. It can be hard to do this fairly and players can become protective of the characters they play. With no one dedicated to put pressure on the characters and sustain conflict players have a convenient release valve on the social layer to ensure tension does not become overly intense.

Another possible pain point is that this approach has a natural inclination towards story advocacy over character advocacy. When advocacy for the fictional world is distributed too much it can lead to internal conflicts of interest that create emotional distance between player and character. This is another convenient release valve.

I feel like principled free form involves somewhat less work than a game that does not help you or fights you. The game will have its own interests that tend to take priority and require more effort to fight against. It is easier to build the right sort of social environment and principles in an environment that already has a good deal of social transparency and shared player interests than in one where that might not be the case. It's also easier to build system through iteration on top of nothing than to twist and contort procedures that are already serving other interests.

This was how Apocalypse World was designed, one move at a time over a principled free form structure to only include the rules that actively serve the interests of play. Vincent Baker's home group is full of free form role players who are deeply skeptical about the need for rules. They played a lengthy Ars Magica game where they scrapped rules altogether.

There's also the bit where we value games as games, something to challenge and test ourselves against, to struggle against and provoke us to do things we would not naturally do. One of the things I want is a social environment that encourages risk taking, real tension, and reward structures that align my interests with my character's interest and the interests of the fiction we are after to make it less hard to immerse while still getting my Mastery (Challenge and Strategy) on.

Even with the right game and right principles it is still not guaranteed. It's just far less effort. There is no panacea that will lead to a compelling experience sans a functioning social layer. You can like try, but that can sometimes lead to unintended consequences and cause some damage to the social layer. In my opinion designs that attempt to resolve player conflicts tend to mask social pain points rather than meaningfully address them.

So you can get there with a game not particularly suited to it, but it is harder.
You can get there with no game at all, but it is also harder. Less hard than an ill suited game in my opinion.
You can get there with a game uniquely designed for it, but you still have to work for it.

 

[Aenghus]

OK, I'm with you so far.

But this one is an absolutely perfect analogy to what we're talking about here with regards to illusionism.

If I'm sitting at a dinner table and someone puts a piece of cake in front of me that turns out to be the best cake I've ever had, does it really matter in that moment of enjoyment where it came from or who made it? Of course it doesn't. I'm just enjoying eating the cake, end of story.

Sure, I might ask afterwards in hopes of getting some more in the days that follow; but at the time It. Just. Doesn't. Matter.

And the same is true if I'm sitting at a table playing an excellent and fun D&D game. Does it matter in that moment how everything came together to produce that game, or that the DM's casting illusions all over the place? Not in the slightest! I'll just enjoy it in that moment, for at that moment what matters is that moment and little to nothing more. The in-the-moment experience is authentic.

This may well work for you and your players, but it wouldn't necessarily work for me, for instance. I'm highly risk adverse as a player and it matters hugely to me how adjudication in a game is actually being carried out, as opposed to how the DM says it is being carried out. I don't want to waste time with my PC attempting tasks that should be reasonable on paper but in effect are impossible because the fix is in and the game is being run on illusionism rather than the ostensible system the referee originally claimed they were using.

Is this the case for me all the time. Hell, no! But it is some of the time, for me, the feeling the gameworld is being run by unknown rules or the unsupported whim of the DM bugs the heck out of me. I'm pretty good at spotting sustained disparities between DM claims and the actuality at this point.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Campbell
I agree with a lot of your last post, for sure. I think the social angle is a big factor, and as we previously discussed, the expectations of all those involved.

You mentioned something that kind of plays into something I mentioned in a reply to pemerton, so I quoted it below.

There's also the bit where we value games as games, something to challenge and test ourselves against, to struggle against and provoke us to do things we would not naturally do. One of the things I want is a social environment that encourages risk taking, real tension, and reward structures that align my interests with my character's interest and the interests of the fiction we are after to make it less hard to immerse while still getting my Mastery (Challenge and Strategy) on.

Even with the right game and right principles it is still not guaranteed. It's just far less effort. There is no panacea that will lead to a compelling experience sans a functioning social layer. You can like try, but that can sometimes lead to unintended consequences and cause some damage to the social layer. In my opinion designs that attempt to resolve player conflicts tend to mask social pain points rather than meaningfully address them.

I occasionally play a game called Microscope. It'd probabyl be considered about as indie as possible. It falls into the category of an RPG, and there is indeed roleplaying that goes on, but its play experience is so far removed from typical tabletop RPG play that I hesitate to use the term.

It's more a collaborative world-building game. There are rules, but not mechanics, and there is no GM and no dice and no prep required to play. There are not PCs in the standard sense, though at times players will adopt the roles of characters in the game.

Without going into too great of detail, play revolves around each player adding a fictional element to a world that they are creating. So they start with a basic premise, and then each player can add or bar an element. Play then goes into turns and each player adds to the world, building on what others have added or coming up with something totally new. Players are free to move forward or backward in the timeline on their turn, zooming in to a very micro level or remaining at the macro if they like. So sometimes play consists of establishing eras along the lines of "the industrial revolution" or they can zoom in to an event like "the conversation between the king and his son that changed everything". It's quite open, and allows for some really creative collaboration.

My description is probably not doing it justice....but it is very fun. However, it's a purely collaborative storytelling experience....so I hesitate to classify it as a game in the sense that we commonly think of them. Your comments of games as games....the element of challenge, or opposition of some sort. To me, that is a valued part of any RPG.

So perhaps it's my experience with Microscope....which I kind of view as player-driven at its absolute, which influences my opinion on games that lean that way. There is no competitive angle that I want in my games...or at least, that's my concern. From descriptions of your game and @pemerton's, it sounds like they're brimming with conflict. But if the collaborative angle overcomes the competitive angle, does that change things?

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]

I tend to value collaboration and cooperation over competition, but I think in the right setup they do not have to be opposing forces. One can enhance the other. Competition over ideas, paths to take the game, to make creative contributions, to come up with strategies, and to build compelling fiction can enhance the collaborative experience. I want to be careful not to conflate conflict between players with competition. I value conflict between characters, but not between players (including the GM). I want conflict in the fiction, but never really at the table.

The sort of competition I am referring to happens internally within teams in sports, World of Warcraft, Overwatch, and also in many free form groups. It's more who can bring the best stuff and showcase their skills than a need to win. I score extremely low on the Achievement Component (Completion, Power) and extremely high on the Mastery Component (Challenge, Strategy). I am deeply social, value both competition and cooperation, value fair play, and skilled play. For me it is all about how you play the game. I don't really care about winning and losing.

I am personally not all that interested in conch passing games like Microscope. I think it's a cool way to build a setting, but does not really feel like a game to me. I also would much rather advocate for a character as my primary interest. I play indie role playing games, but not really those story advocacy games. The closest I came is Fiasco which is still very much about character advocacy in the way we play it. Of course Fiasco is not so much a game without a Game Master as a game with many Game Masters, meaning that we all pretty much take turns being a GM in some way. I like games that have a GM. I just favor the role more as being about advocating for the fictional world and creating interesting fiction to play in than active designer of the game in progress and story advocate.

 

[Campbell]

I am actually more of a fan of tension than conflict. Those moments where characters meet for the first time and we are not sure if there is going to be a fight, tense exchange of words, or if they will find common ground are what I tend to play for. Whether there will be a conflict or not is often just as interesting as the actual conflict. I also highly value ways around conflict. I absolutely hate There Must Be A Fight moments. I want to decide how and when to engage in conflicts as a player. I also highly enjoy those moments of lateral decision making when running games.

My favorite moment in The Blades in the Dark game I am a player in was when we were able to pull off some social maneuvering through adept fictional positioning to make two of our enemies fight each other with a third enemy in between while making one of the first two factions believe we were on their side. We were able to pull in some cool relationship stuff, tension between the player characters, connections to the setting, and cool fiction happened along the way.