A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

"suss out what is gamestate relevant at the moment of the decision-point"

What I said (effectively) if you can't do that (the above), then there is a problem with the play (go back to that post for reference; system, GM, players). An easy example is branching corridors in a dungeon where one path leads to danger and the other to sanctuary/objective. This is a decision-point that is supposed to be a meaningful expression of player agency. The gamestate transition hinges upon it. If the players don't feel like they are sufficiently equipped to make that decision (eg it seems arbitrary) then there is a fairly high likelihood that the GM has done a poor job telegraphing clues with subtlety and expressing the gamestate-relevant information to them. Or there is a possibility that the players have just collectively not absorbed it (though significantly less likely). Or, there may be a system problem.

Now that doesn't mean that a session post-mortem isn't useful. Reflection is always useful when it comes to a gaming session. But, if a decision-point isn't meant to be arbitrary, then the conversation at the table should entail (and when it comes to dungeon crawling, the skill in GM framing is giving sufficient information...not too much and not too little...so that the players can play skillfully) the relevant constituent parts required to make an informed decision.

Apologies, I did misread that.

 

[Manbearcat]

For RPG's you've defined gamestates as essentially "plot only" because the only objectives and premises you recognize are plot related.

Not "plot", but relevant to objective/premise of the game. There is no plot in the play loop of Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic (pick delve from menu during Free Play in town > buy equipment and assets or map/retain hirelings > decide loadout > extract as much treasure as possible from ruin > rest and recover > rinse/repeat). But the model under interrogation works perfectly in depicting that type of play.

 

[Manbearcat]

Apologies, I did misread that.

No worries.

 

[Manbearcat]

How do you figure that the description provided doesn’t fit traditional play?




The objective of the game is to slay the vampire Strahd and escape the haunted land of Barovia.



We became lost in the mists. We arrived in Barovia. We could not leave; the Mists seem to be magical in nature, and they seem to keep us in Barovia. We then encountered the Burgomaster of Barovia’s children. This prompts us to head to Castle Ravenloft to confront Strahd.

Everything is building off of what has come before.



The game ends when we confront Strahd in his castle, and either succeed in destroying him and saving Ireena and the other Barovians, or we die trying.

How do you see these factors as not applying to traditional play?

This is exactly right.

This is a strength of Adventure Paths. Designers can literally design and engineer the play paradigm such that it is formatted as an expression of sequential gamestates (exactly as you've done here). And the GM, when reading it, can absorb it exactly that way.

The problem is that this layout (prescripting play as sequential gamestates) simultaneously serves to (a) incentivize GMs to use Force if play doesn't proceed down that designed sequence which (b) fundamentally subverts players' input into play, which, if allowed to propel play authentically, (c) would invariably lead to an emergent sequence of gamestates that diverges from the designer's plan and (d) a different climax and denouement (rather than the phenomena discussed earlier where all of these groups were "somehow" instantiating the exact same climactic battle at the end of the AP!).

This cuts right back to the initiating post and the premise for the thread (and things I've said many many times); "Prep can make slaves of GMs to their pre generated content (be it AP that they've spent money on and time/effort assimilating or their own settings/metaplot/creations) due to the incentive structure alignment."

 

[FrogReaver]

Not "plot", but relevant to objective/premise of the game. There is no plot in the play loop of Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic (pick delve from menu during Free Play in town > buy equipment and assets or map/retain hirelings > decide loadout > extract as much treasure as possible from ruin > rest and recover > rinse/repeat). But the model under interrogation works perfectly in depicting that type of play.

Plot may not be the fully right word but it works for a number of the games mentioned. The point I'm making is that your definition causes you to not recognize certain things as valid game states that are. That's because you've structured your definition of gamestate in such a way that it apriori excludes anything you don't want it to include.

 

[prabe]

This cuts right back to the initiating post and the premise for the thread (and things I've said many many times); "Prep can make slaves of GMs to their pre generated content (be it AP that they've spent money on and time/effort assimilating or their own settings/metaplot/creations) due to the incentive structure alignment."

This is why I prep mostly where things are at the start of the session, with most of the rest being things that seem likely to arise during the session (based on the starting point and my knowledge of how the players are playing those characters). If something doesn't get used, it's no big deal.

 

[FrogReaver]

States are just a way of talking about the flow of the situation in the game from one point to the next and the causal connections that are built in the narrative between them.

That is precisely what a state is and does. The problem is mostly around what should qualify as a distinct state.

 

[Manbearcat]

Plot may not be the fully right word but it works for a number of the games mentioned. The point I'm making is that your definition causes you to not recognize certain things as valid game states that are. That's because you've structured your definition of gamestate in such a way that it apriori excludes anything you don't want it to include.

Its not that "I don't want it."

I'm (and others, as the concept of "gamestates" isn't my own creation) merely trying to ensure the model is consistent with as many game paradigms as possible, internally consistent, and robust. The model doesn't exclude your play. It merely excludes aspects of your play (and the play of almost every game as every game will entail some measure of gamestate-irrelevant aspects of play...including posturing and unhelpful arguments over Block/Charge calls in a game of pick-up basketball). Meanwhile, the constellation of games that gets caught in the orbit of the concept is nearly all (including games that are fundamentally not TTRPGs, up to and including a roll on the mat of Brazillian Jiu jitsu).

Conversely, if I alter the concept to include the things that you're trying to include, it (a) becomes so diffuse as to be almost meaningless while (b) it simultaneously excludes an ENORMOUS number of games which are clearly games.

 

[FrogReaver]

Its not that "I don't want it."

I'm (and others, as the concept of "gamestates" isn't my own creation)

Whether you created it or simply chose to use someone elses definition that they created is a bit beside the point IMO.

merely trying to ensure the model is consistent with as many game paradigms as possible, internally consistent, and robust.

Most of the definition you provided includes a bunch of ultimately subjective qualities. You speak of "fundamentally changed states" as if that's some kind of objective measure. You speak of premise/objectives but only count certain premises/objectives. You speak of marching toward the endgame as if the goal of every game is to have an ultimate winning condition.

There's tons of exclusions there.

The model doesn't exclude your play. It merely excludes aspects of your play

A distinction without a difference?

(and the play of almost every game as every game will entail some measure of gamestate-irrelevant aspects of play...including posturing and unhelpful arguments over Block/Charge calls in a game of pick-up basketball).

Wait - are you posturing that bad referee calls are irrelevant to the game state?

Meanwhile, the constellation of games that gets caught in the orbit of the concept is nearly all (including games that are fundamentally not TTRPGs, up to and including a roll on the mat of Brazillian Jiu jitsu).

Only parts of TTRPG's do. Unless it's a TTRPG with mechanics that allows a player to introduce plot elements, in which case - in which case virtually every bit of that game gets included in the definition.... It's almost like that definition was made for that particular style of game.

Conversely, if I alter the concept to include the things that you're trying to include, it (a) becomes so diffuse as to be almost meaningless while (b) it simultaneously excludes an ENORMOUS number of games which are clearly games.

No. It just means you have to introduce the concept of meaningful gamestates.

In the original Final Fantasy 7 there was a part of a game where you could go on a date with another character. Quite entertaining but totally trivial in relation to anything "important" in the game. If certain choices were made you would get different reactions from those characters later on. In computer game design those choices would definitely be referred to as gamestates even though the overall thrust was trivial to the larger issues in the game.

I think that's part of the disconnect.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd say things that should be gamestates don't qualify via your definition. Let's run through the previously mentioned FF7 example. It actually fails on almost every level of your definition and it's something that pretty clearly should be labeled as a gamestate.

Alright, to attempt to assuage you of your sense of arbitrariness.

Gamestates are sequences of play characterized by the following features:

1) They address the objective/premise of the game.

In final fantasy 7 original - the date scene and subsequent conversations dependent on certain dialog options didn't address the objective/premise of the game.

2) Each sequential gamestate is fundamentally changed (the existing orientation or nature of objects in play are changed in some relevant way - see (1) above) from the prior gamestate.

In final fantasy 7 original the date scene and subsequent conversations dependent on certain dialog options didn't fundamentally change anything about the game except a few dialog options.

3) The gamestate marches inexorably toward the endgame or "game over", terminating when the objective/premise of the game has been resolved.

In final fantasy 7 original the date scene and subsequent conversations dependent on certain dialog options didn't help the game march toward the endgame or resolve the objective/premise.