A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

What you're struggling with is the "System has its say" component of the play loop. Bluntly:

System says X
+ GM says "go eff yourself System, I want this result"
= Force

But if the GM can choose when to invoke the system in the first place, the distinction is purely academic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think we can square that with @Manbearcat's formulation by stating that what the player ASKED FOR wasn't success, but to 'play to see what happens'. If the 'play' didn't happen (check which was called for being honored) then we're not 'seeing what happens', we're just reviewing what the GM expects/wants to happen.

OK. That I get.

 

[Manbearcat]

But if the GM can choose when to invoke the system in the first place, the distinction is purely academic.

You're exactly right! Which is basically what I've said in this thread multiple times (and many times in other threads):

Games that don't have GM constraining principles and that, in their stead, give the GM mandate (to do exactly what you're describing) are extremely vulnerable to Force/Illusionism! And that is typically by design (pun intended). Force is typically intended to be deployed in those games!

There are also other system-relevant aspects that make a game more or less prone to Force (level of codification, player/table or GM-facing, if the game fundamentally "works" without Force).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For you perhaps that is the case. But try to understand, for some of this, this is what actually makes the game fun (the fact that it is a game)

Well, I don't disagree that randomization of outcomes can be fun. I've played diceless games where I had fun too, so I won't claim it is a requirement, but certainly it adds a fun element to RPGs. I just think that element is more interestingly applied to narrative process vs some kind of 'world model' type of fiction.

Fundamentally my thesis is that EVERYONE who plays RPGs in any sort of 'good faith' at all, is playing some sort of narrative construction game, regardless of whether they explicitly and consciously acknowledge that. There are so many possible choices that can be made that in a game with GM authority over all fiction any attempt to decide that certain things "must obviously happen" or are "likely to happen" or any such construct is really simply a decision based fundamentally on where said decider wants the narrative to go. Given the sheer paucity of detail that exists in even the most elaborate setting by comparison to the real world, this is inevitable. Real world happenings are the summation of 1000's or millions of factors, stretching outward from the nexus of the 'proximate event' in both time and space, ramifying endlessly until you could say that the entire state of the universe is involved.

Yes, we can practically localize things in our everyday lives, but only in a very limited and routine way. We do not really know much about how things got to be how they are, or where they are going from here. We just use some basic heuristics and induction to play the odds. You cannot even do that in most situations faced in RPGs because they are so novel, and they involve such an incompletely devised world. The theoretical ideal is that 'dice take care of that', but this is really only true in a trivial sense. Dice can cover up for the fact that we don't know exactly how slippery or crumbly the rock face is when the rogue climbs it. They cannot produce realistic odds of a plot development happening, because we cannot say that such a development is or is not even possible, except by simply decreeing it so.

Thus, my thesis is, ALL PLAY is fundamentally narrative construction play. I can make this argument from the player side as well. So, really all we can do is make better rules for narrative construction. Anything else is basically addressing what is truly happening at the table as if it was something else. Pretending or misapprehending don't produce the best results. People get sick even if they don't believe in the contagious virus, denial never works. That being said, I don't think people should stop doing what is fun, just that they would find ways to improve their fun if they approached it with wide open eyes during game design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thus, my thesis is, ALL PLAY is fundamentally narrative construction play. I can make this argument from the player side as well. So, really all we can do is make better rules for narrative construction. Anything else is basically addressing what is truly happening at the table as if it was something else. Pretending or misapprehending don't produce the best results. People get sick even if they don't believe in the contagious virus, denial never works. That being said, I don't think people should stop doing what is fun, just that they would find ways to improve their fun if they approached it with wide open eyes during game design.

I've seen the same argument from the side of sandbox and playing a living world. I think this kind of argument just sounds like a dismissal of other styles of play. I get that if you want more narrative play, what you are after here makes sense. What I don't get is the idea that everyone really wants that, even if they don't realize it. You are leading with your conclusion.

I don't think you can compare something as subjective as gameplay to a virus. You are comparing things that can be measured and quantified with things that can't. And in the case of RPGs, it a priori obvious that some people are perfectly content to play without any kind of narrative construction at all. And even if narrative construction is present, that doesn't mean it is a priority at all.

This argument basically accuses people who don't want view games the same way as you do as being crazy or sick

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, we can practically localize things in our everyday lives, but only in a very limited and routine way. We do not really know much about how things got to be how they are, or where they are going from here. We just use some basic heuristics and induction to play the odds. You cannot even do that in most situations faced in RPGs because they are so novel, and they involve such an incompletely devised world. The theoretical ideal is that 'dice take care of that', but this is really only true in a trivial sense. Dice can cover up for the fact that we don't know exactly how slippery or crumbly the rock face is when the rogue climbs it. They cannot produce realistic odds of a plot development happening, because we cannot say that such a development is or is not even possible, except by simply decreeing it so.

No one is claiming the dice can produce realistic odds or that you need to proceed an accurate simulation of the real world. That games don't accurate simulate reality doesn't mean that they are narrative, anymore than a game like Burger Time is narrative.

 

[Campbell]

The authority provided to the GM in games like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World is not absolute authority. It is provisional authority. You are given it in specific contexts in pursuit of specific goals.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First, I don't think anyone knows the answer to this kind of speculation. But I am not sure this is true. I've had experiences I would regard as religious, and I don't think it is dependent on richness (i would argue bleakness can drive someone to that experience just as much as richness). Also once you get into things like depth and complexity, and the concept of immersion it gets wonky. I remember going to Disneyland as a kid and being overwhelmed by the richness and complexity of the sea of lights and people. Just being in the presence of that many people was confusing. I couldn't think straight because all I heard was a cacophony of people talking. This made it all to start to feel like a dream rather than reality (to the point that I was pinching myself and questioning if I was really there). So while richness of the world is important and good, I don't know that you can then port that over to a game or literary experience and say that is what makes it work in terms of being immersive. You can often strip the world down to very essential things and that can still resonate with people on an emotional or even spiritual level (and even be immersive). This seems like a questionable starting point to me when trying to figure out what immersion in a game is

So would your reaction to Disney Land have been the same if instead of being there, you were watching a home video of it? Would that be as immersive as being there and inhabiting that actual space?

For RPGing, the GM is the video, right?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So would your reaction to Disney Land have been the same if instead of being there, you were watching a home video of it? Would that be as immersive as being there and inhabiting that actual space?

For RPGing, the GM is the video, right?

No, I don’t think this is a good comparison. My point was simply that immersion isn’t necessarily dependent on richness, depth or complexity of details —and even the most immersive experience in real life, can feel unreal if those things are in over abundance. Basically this stuff is extremely subjective and hard to distill into a root cause

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, I don’t think this is a good comparison. My point was simply that immersion isn’t necessarily dependent on richness, depth or complexity of details —and even the most immersive experience in real life, can feel unreal if those things are in over abundance. Basically this stuff is extremely subjective and hard to distill into a root cause

I wouldn't disagree with you about most of these observations, I just don't know if they matter all that much to the context.

The richness and depth of the real world was brought up by @pemerton (I believe, anyway, he can correct me if I've misinterpreted) to point out that the richness and depth allow different people to have their own unique perspective.

If you then place some intermediary between people and the world.....a television or a GM......the that richness and depth is simply not possible, and everything depends on that one point of view.