A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

It certainly doesn't seem like very engaging play. It is less like a game and more like play-acting.

Some would call that roleplay

So I suppose it depends on if you find roleplay (or at least this kind of roleplay) engaging or if it's just the game you find engaging.

That was why I called it 'color' and not salient to the play of the game. Again, I think it is fine RP and not to be disparaged on that basis. I would like to point out that something like Burning Wheel wouldn't inhibit this type of play either. Launcelot could have a "Lusts after the Queen" belief, that could be established at the start of play by the player.

If the game is about roleplaying then roleplaying is salient to the game. You have an odd notion that the game is only about whatever the mechanics dictate.

 

[FrogReaver]

I noted that it is basically the same as the Gygaxian principle that the players don't devise the 'traps in the dungeon'. I would say this IS the Czege Principle, but clearly Gygax understood this concept long before Czege came along. I think it is in fact antecedent to D&D, the reason the referee existed in Chainmail was to dissociate the enforcement of the conditions of play from the interests of the players. Boardgames do this by simply having a complete set of rules that govern all game actions.

So nothing other than that principle?

 

[prabe]

It certainly doesn't seem like very engaging play. It is less like a game and more like play-acting. That was why I called it 'color' and not salient to the play of the game. Again, I think it is fine RP and not to be disparaged on that basis. I would like to point out that something like Burning Wheel wouldn't inhibit this type of play either. Launcelot could have a "Lusts after the Queen" belief, that could be established at the start of play by the player.

Of course, in BW such things WILL be tested, that's part of the expected flow of the game, so even if the player doesn't do something on that basis, the GM will surely act on it soon enough! I guess even in that game you could simply have an undocumented 'urge' that your character acts on, it isn't like its against the rules. It would simply be less likely that a scene would arise where it would become possible to act on.

Do you see the difference between "established at the start of play by the player" and "imposed (for lack of a better word) on the character during play"? If a player makes something like that as important as Beliefs apparently are in BW, then I think the GM is obligated to treat it like something the player wants to play with. Dropping something like that on someone mid-game ... that's not something they asked for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, well, if you were to depict any milieu based on Medieval Europe in anything like a realistic fashion you'd have to also depict an almost complete lack of gender equality too, amongst other things. The fact is, we don't do that, we just project our modern values back onto the economic and technological conditions of the past and then we can act like modern people with modern problems, but in this pretend world.

I think the difference is you could end up with something that looked similar to those while clipping out some of the unpleasantness. Rome without slavery virtually isn't Rome. Its actually appalling how much of their culture was wrapped around it once you dig down even an inch.

This is a whole other swamp that arises when people start talking about verisimilitude and whatnot, but in the current context it is irrelevant. Suffice it to say that practical play pretty much necessitates this in order to comport ourselves in a way which we find ethically acceptable (speaking for myself at least).

I understand (and agree) with the general principal, I just think there are contexts where that isn't a workable solution; you either engage with some of the bad elements of the setting or avoid the setting. You don't have to embrace them, but you at least have to acknowledge them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some would call that roleplay

So I suppose it depends on if you find roleplay (or at least this kind of roleplay) engaging or if it's just the game you find engaging.




If the game is about roleplaying then roleplaying is salient to the game. You have an odd notion that the game is only about whatever the mechanics dictate.

Well, if I just wanted to roleplay and not play a game, why would I get out my RPG rules? I don't need rules to roleplay. I enjoy the game element, AND the roleplay element, so we all invented a type of RPG where they are truly both equally important. Every part of one of these games is both roleplay AND game. It seems like a lot of what you describe involves them being two separate things. I note that comes up often, so for example @Lanefan often describes long rules-free RP sessions. The game he is describing involves decoupled RP which has no 'game' to it. Again, the players may then "decide they want to do X" based on something they roleplayed their characters talking about. That's fine, and that might establish some new fiction. It just didn't involve 'game' in any sense. There wasn't any tension. I include these 'interludes' in my own rules, but there they serve exactly this purpose of simply allowing some plot color to be established. Later the GM can use that to frame scenes where risk is taken.

I see risk as a central part of RPGs, in general. It is a central part of story telling, there is conflict, something is at stake. You can have a sort of narrative without that, but it is not capable of 'coming to a head'. At best it is sort of like a Soap Opera, where you know that no matter what happens the characters will be back next week.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you see the difference between "established at the start of play by the player" and "imposed (for lack of a better word) on the character during play"? If a player makes something like that as important as Beliefs apparently are in BW, then I think the GM is obligated to treat it like something the player wants to play with. Dropping something like that on someone mid-game ... that's not something they asked for.

Character's aren't unchanging monoliths! Their beliefs can be a legitimate part of the game state. Sure, when a player says his character believes something, then the GM takes that at face value (any issues would be resolved before play I guess). That doesn't make them sacrosanct. Playing to see what happens, and putting those beliefs to the test can mean that they change, or that the PC acquires additional ones. Some can disappear too. I assume in @pemerton's example of the Naga there's probably some 'remove curse' that can be applied... I mean, characters have all sorts of attributes in D&D, and we don't consider any of those sacrosanct. I mean, it would be thought harsh if the GM took away points in attributes, but there are certainly mechanics which do that. Likewise levels (XP, HP), treasure, anything. I don't see the difference here. Just as with anything in a game, it should all be done in accordance with the rules. This is a major reason to have rules, so we can all agree that certain things are 'kosher' in the game, or not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the difference is you could end up with something that looked similar to those while clipping out some of the unpleasantness. Rome without slavery virtually isn't Rome. Its actually appalling how much of their culture was wrapped around it once you dig down even an inch.



I understand (and agree) with the general principal, I just think there are contexts where that isn't a workable solution; you either engage with some of the bad elements of the setting or avoid the setting. You don't have to embrace them, but you at least have to acknowledge them.

But we don't. If you even gave lip service to Medieval customs about women, property, marriage, etc. then all female characters would be reduced to virtual slavery! They can't own property, they can't make contracts, they cannot travel or take any action outside the home without approval, escort, etc. (I mean, this is a broad section of history, I'm sure there are some variations). Women had SOME rights, but those were mostly meant to protect their families and inheritance, not themselves.

These factors were deeply woven into the structure of Medieval society, they weren't superficial things. To remove them or ignore them is to utterly change the whole nature of that society. That's fine, we can make up fantasy societies that are different, and I don't have a problem with that, but IMHO it is laughable to invoke some sort of logic of verisimilitude where some element of Medieval Europe is used to justify something in 'Forgotten Realms' when they are so utterly different at a fundamental level (despite some set trappings).

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, if I just wanted to roleplay and not play a game, why would I get out my RPG rules? I don't need rules to roleplay. I enjoy the game element, AND the roleplay element, so we all invented a type of RPG where they are truly both equally important. Every part of one of these games is both roleplay AND game. It seems like a lot of what you describe involves them being two separate things. I note that comes up often, so for example @Lanefan often describes long rules-free RP sessions. The game he is describing involves decoupled RP which has no 'game' to it. Again, the players may then "decide they want to do X" based on something they roleplayed their characters talking about. That's fine, and that might establish some new fiction. It just didn't involve 'game' in any sense. There wasn't any tension. I include these 'interludes' in my own rules, but there they serve exactly this purpose of simply allowing some plot color to be established. Later the GM can use that to frame scenes where risk is taken.

I see risk as a central part of RPGs, in general. It is a central part of story telling, there is conflict, something is at stake. You can have a sort of narrative without that, but it is not capable of 'coming to a head'. At best it is sort of like a Soap Opera, where you know that no matter what happens the characters will be back next week.

A bit one true wayist IMO - Telling someone they might as well be not playing an rpg at all because their preferences don’t align with yours. That’s not cool.

much more to say on this post but I’ve got a few things I must do first.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, if I just wanted to roleplay and not play a game, why would I get out my RPG rules? I don't need rules to roleplay. I enjoy the game element, AND the roleplay element, so we all invented a type of RPG where they are truly both equally important. Every part of one of these games is both roleplay AND game. It seems like a lot of what you describe involves them being two separate things. I note that comes up often, so for example @Lanefan often describes long rules-free RP sessions. The game he is describing involves decoupled RP which has no 'game' to it. Again, the players may then "decide they want to do X" based on something they roleplayed their characters talking about. That's fine, and that might establish some new fiction. It just didn't involve 'game' in any sense. There wasn't any tension. I include these 'interludes' in my own rules, but there they serve exactly this purpose of simply allowing some plot color to be established. Later the GM can use that to frame scenes where risk is taken.

I see risk as a central part of RPGs, in general. It is a central part of story telling, there is conflict, something is at stake. You can have a sort of narrative without that, but it is not capable of 'coming to a head'. At best it is sort of like a Soap Opera, where you know that no matter what happens the characters will be back next week.

In @Lanefan's game, though, there are rules to the roleplay -- it's the GM decides what happens. This is a highly ad-hoc and informal ruleset that vests all authority over resolution in one person, so results in low agency play, but it can be a lot of fun with engaged players.

Aside from this, I'm slightly confused as to why the definition of roleplaying has come up -- it has very little to do with player agency.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But we don't.

As I said, I don't think all situations are parallel here. You obvious do. There's no point in further conversation on it.