A Question Of Agency?

[AbdulAlhazred]

You have the ideal of fairness, and there is subjectivity there, but I think there is a difference between a GM striving for it, and one who doesn't (and I mean genuinely striving for it, which my experience with a GM like Rob is you can sense it at the table). There is also a difference between a GM who succeeds more at achieving that state at the table than one who doesn't (there are GMs who are consistently regarded as more fair than others). Further, having done plenty of competitive sports, even in the sports arena, fairness is often disputed because everyone is investing emotions in outcomes, seeing the event from slightly different points of view, etc. Just because that fairness is not going to be universally agreed upon, is hard to achieve, and perhaps an impossible goal to attain in its 'platonic form', it is still a horizon you can move towards, and again, there is a difference between a referee who strives to be fair in sports and one who simply calls things based on who he wants to win. So a GM, in my view can be more fair, or less fair in a given moment, and when people throw up this argument about how its just 'spin', I just don't think that matches what I have seen through the years. Or at the very least, it dismisses a concept that does actually matter, based on it being more complicated than this GM is fair and that one isn't.

I have an interesting question: What is 'fairness'? I mean, how do we define fairness in an RPG? Is it even really a meaningful kind of thing to define? Not that I dispute that people have some sort of notion, just how can we possibly define it? Let me elaborate a bit (sorry, I know I'm a tedious guy, lol).

We can clearly measure fairness in competitive refereed games, the measure is simple. The referee uniformly applies the same rules and rulings to each competitor and team (if relevant). A football referee consistently calls out of bounds in a repeatable way on every player, calls goals, etc. all in accordance with the rules. If judgment is required, IE was that a foul; then they generally apply their judgment in a consistent way, such that every participant is consistently called when other objective observers would agree (mostly) with the ruling.

Now, in an RPG, there is (generally speaking) no opposition. There aren't two teams to consistently favor evenly and objectively. So that is one observation. Maybe we can then fall back here on judging the participants consistently, even though they are not opponents. That seems like a reasonable measure to me. I think we can put this part to bed, at least provisionally. Some people might observe that the GM runs the 'bad guys', and insist that fairness include judging their actions consistently. This part gets a bit odd, and I think I will touch on it again later.

The real stumbling point, IMHO, comes when we analyze fairness in more detail. It requires a thing who's fairness is to be judged, AND a criteria upon which that judgment will be made. In some cases RPGs certainly can provide these things. The 'thing to be judged' must logically consist of some fictional and/or mechanical 'circumstance' within the game. That is 'something happens', and we judge it. It also requires a criteria for that judgement. In the sports game analogy that is the rules of the game (and possibly things like what is 'sportsmanlike behavior' which aren't fully spelled out). In the case of an RPG, what is this criteria? There are a few cases:

1. It is a matter of rules - clearly if there are mechanics then they should be applied consistently, or at least applied consistent with the principles of play (which might supersede rules in the narrow sense, as in how D&D allows a DM to throw out 'nonsense results' in classic D&D).

2. It is a matter of fiction - this is the other branch in my taxonomy of circumstances to be judged. It is here that classic notions start to run into problems. We have only principles, but are they enough? In fact this begins to illustrate the main reason why classic Gygaxian D&D had any rules at all, because fictional parameters have no objective reality, and even their subjective reality is only as clearly articulated as the DM has bothered to write up, and as clearly understood as the players conception of it. So what basis do we have here for fairness?

I'll go even further, even category 1 isn't really objective, because the whole objectivity of the rules is based on fiction and subjective factors in the first place! So I don't even think we can form this ontology to begin with. For example, In Dungeon World it is stated that a 'surprise attack' against an unprepared opponent isn't even something that the rules adjudicate, it is simply fiction and in the basic case said opponent is simply slain. This is highly subjective, even though it is a 'rule'. Clearly it might be considered fair in some cases, and not in others, at least by some players. So rules really depend on fiction. I'd note that games like 3.x and 4e tried to mitigate this in combat to a degree with VERY complete rules, battle maps, etc., but the problem still exists to an extent.

Can we simply rely on 'principles of play' to always tell us what is fair and unfair? That might work, but many games don't articulate these, and they are rarely made explicit at the table. So, in a lot of cases we might go back and 'forensically' analyze some circumstance and decide if it was adjudged fair or not, but given the dependence on fiction and judgment of fiction, it is doubtful this will end very many cases of dispute (maybe where someone was confused about something).

So, I come back to the question, what would you all consider fairness to be, and how can one adjudge styles of play on its basis when it is such a slippery concept?

 

[Aldarc]

@Bedrockgames, is my addendum to your earlier statement regarding skilled play accurate to your sensibilities? That might be more productive for our purposes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have an interesting question: What is 'fairness'? I mean, how do we define fairness in an RPG? Is it even really a meaningful kind of thing to define? Not that I dispute that people have some sort of notion, just how can we possibly define it? Let me elaborate a bit (sorry, I know I'm a tedious guy, lol).

We can clearly measure fairness in competitive refereed games, the measure is simple. The referee uniformly applies the same rules and rulings to each competitor and team (if relevant). A football referee consistently calls out of bounds in a repeatable way on every player, calls goals, etc. all in accordance with the rules. If judgment is required, IE was that a foul; then they generally apply their judgment in a consistent way, such that every participant is consistently called when other objective observers would agree (mostly) with the ruling.

Now, in an RPG, there is (generally speaking) no opposition. There aren't two teams to consistently favor evenly and objectively. So that is one observation. Maybe we can then fall back here on judging the participants consistently, even though they are not opponents. That seems like a reasonable measure to me. I think we can put this part to bed, at least provisionally. Some people might observe that the GM runs the 'bad guys', and insist that fairness include judging their actions consistently. This part gets a bit odd, and I think I will touch on it again later.

The real stumbling point, IMHO, comes when we analyze fairness in more detail. It requires a thing who's fairness is to be judged, AND a criteria upon which that judgment will be made. In some cases RPGs certainly can provide these things. The 'thing to be judged' must logically consist of some fictional and/or mechanical 'circumstance' within the game. That is 'something happens', and we judge it. It also requires a criteria for that judgement. In the sports game analogy that is the rules of the game (and possibly things like what is 'sportsmanlike behavior' which aren't fully spelled out). In the case of an RPG, what is this criteria? There are a few cases:

1. It is a matter of rules - clearly if there are mechanics then they should be applied consistently, or at least applied consistent with the principles of play (which might supersede rules in the narrow sense, as in how D&D allows a DM to throw out 'nonsense results' in classic D&D).

2. It is a matter of fiction - this is the other branch in my taxonomy of circumstances to be judged. It is here that classic notions start to run into problems. We have only principles, but are they enough? In fact this begins to illustrate the main reason why classic Gygaxian D&D had any rules at all, because fictional parameters have no objective reality, and even their subjective reality is only as clearly articulated as the DM has bothered to write up, and as clearly understood as the players conception of it. So what basis do we have here for fairness?

I'll go even further, even category 1 isn't really objective, because the whole objectivity of the rules is based on fiction and subjective factors in the first place! So I don't even think we can form this ontology to begin with. For example, In Dungeon World it is stated that a 'surprise attack' against an unprepared opponent isn't even something that the rules adjudicate, it is simply fiction and in the basic case said opponent is simply slain. This is highly subjective, even though it is a 'rule'. Clearly it might be considered fair in some cases, and not in others, at least by some players. So rules really depend on fiction. I'd note that games like 3.x and 4e tried to mitigate this in combat to a degree with VERY complete rules, battle maps, etc., but the problem still exists to an extent.

Can we simply rely on 'principles of play' to always tell us what is fair and unfair? That might work, but many games don't articulate these, and they are rarely made explicit at the table. So, in a lot of cases we might go back and 'forensically' analyze some circumstance and decide if it was adjudged fair or not, but given the dependence on fiction and judgment of fiction, it is doubtful this will end very many cases of dispute (maybe where someone was confused about something).

So, I come back to the question, what would you all consider fairness to be, and how can one adjudge styles of play on its basis when it is such a slippery concept?

Sounds like you have an issue with the concept of fairness in general and not just in rpgs. Virtually everything you bring up about fairness applies to fairness in any setting.

 

[Lanefan]

Hell, sometimes a GM in a game like 5E will ask the player to make a roll and not even tell them what for! The game leaves the question of how player facing all this is up to the GM. The players may be totally in the dark about any or all of it.

Haven't we all seen examples along the lines of the below?

GM: Hey, Mike, give me a roll for Gor.
Mike: Oh boy....what kind of roll?
GM: Don't worry about that for now....just a d20.
Mike: Okay....ugh, now I'm nervous. Something's going on. (Rolls a d20) I got a 17!
GM: Okay, cool.
Mike: What happens? Do I notice something?
GM: Nothing as far as you can tell. What do you want to do?

I've seen that kind of thing all the time.

I do this kind of thing all the time, for one of two reasons:

--- it's a false roll, to help disguise real rolls. Whether there's something to be nervous about or not, Mike's "now I'm nervous" reaction above is exactly what I want.
--- there's something going on that the PC, and by extension player, is as yet unaware of; and on a poor roll (which 17 would be: in my game lower is better for things like knowledge or perception) I want to keep it that way.

I make no apologies for this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, but Enlightened Despotism or Enlightened Absolutism are the terms typically most associated with the rulership of monarchs like Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, and Emperor Joseph II. It does seem to describe how many "traditional" GMs have described their benevolent, caretaker roles or even relationship to their players. Maybe not in this thread, where the goal seems to be pretending that players have absolute freedom under their reigns, but it does come up considerably in other threads about other topics, wherein one can see the gloves come off about players who threaten that authority.

I've only meant it in the sense of the impression that I get that anything which implies that the GM's position is less than that of unlimited authority within the game, and usually 'source of all knowledge and circumstance' is cast negatively. There are various theories and approaches to this deprecation, but it is extraordinarily consistent. You can virtually hard classify people in a thread like this by whether they will accept ANY notion of de jure grant of authority to players beyond "move my characters limbs, lips, and declare what checks he makes." Granting that there are a few people whom I have seen switch sides of the fence when they play certain games, or there was @Ovinomancer who's totally changed his opinions, it is a pretty stark divide.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have an interesting question: What is 'fairness'? I mean, how do we define fairness in an RPG? Is it even really a meaningful kind of thing to define? Not that I dispute that people have some sort of notion, just how can we possibly define it? Let me elaborate a bit (sorry, I know I'm a tedious guy, lol).

We can clearly measure fairness in competitive refereed games, the measure is simple. The referee uniformly applies the same rules and rulings to each competitor and team (if relevant). A football referee consistently calls out of bounds in a repeatable way on every player, calls goals, etc. all in accordance with the rules. If judgment is required, IE was that a foul; then they generally apply their judgment in a consistent way, such that every participant is consistently called when other objective observers would agree (mostly) with the ruling.

Now, in an RPG, there is (generally speaking) no opposition. There aren't two teams to consistently favor evenly and objectively. So that is one observation. Maybe we can then fall back here on judging the participants consistently, even though they are not opponents. That seems like a reasonable measure to me. I think we can put this part to bed, at least provisionally. Some people might observe that the GM runs the 'bad guys', and insist that fairness include judging their actions consistently. This part gets a bit odd, and I think I will touch on it again later.

The real stumbling point, IMHO, comes when we analyze fairness in more detail. It requires a thing who's fairness is to be judged, AND a criteria upon which that judgment will be made. In some cases RPGs certainly can provide these things. The 'thing to be judged' must logically consist of some fictional and/or mechanical 'circumstance' within the game. That is 'something happens', and we judge it. It also requires a criteria for that judgement. In the sports game analogy that is the rules of the game (and possibly things like what is 'sportsmanlike behavior' which aren't fully spelled out). In the case of an RPG, what is this criteria? There are a few cases:

1. It is a matter of rules - clearly if there are mechanics then they should be applied consistently, or at least applied consistent with the principles of play (which might supersede rules in the narrow sense, as in how D&D allows a DM to throw out 'nonsense results' in classic D&D).

2. It is a matter of fiction - this is the other branch in my taxonomy of circumstances to be judged. It is here that classic notions start to run into problems. We have only principles, but are they enough? In fact this begins to illustrate the main reason why classic Gygaxian D&D had any rules at all, because fictional parameters have no objective reality, and even their subjective reality is only as clearly articulated as the DM has bothered to write up, and as clearly understood as the players conception of it. So what basis do we have here for fairness?

I'll go even further, even category 1 isn't really objective, because the whole objectivity of the rules is based on fiction and subjective factors in the first place! So I don't even think we can form this ontology to begin with. For example, In Dungeon World it is stated that a 'surprise attack' against an unprepared opponent isn't even something that the rules adjudicate, it is simply fiction and in the basic case said opponent is simply slain. This is highly subjective, even though it is a 'rule'. Clearly it might be considered fair in some cases, and not in others, at least by some players. So rules really depend on fiction. I'd note that games like 3.x and 4e tried to mitigate this in combat to a degree with VERY complete rules, battle maps, etc., but the problem still exists to an extent.

Can we simply rely on 'principles of play' to always tell us what is fair and unfair? That might work, but many games don't articulate these, and they are rarely made explicit at the table. So, in a lot of cases we might go back and 'forensically' analyze some circumstance and decide if it was adjudged fair or not, but given the dependence on fiction and judgment of fiction, it is doubtful this will end very many cases of dispute (maybe where someone was confused about something).

So, I come back to the question, what would you all consider fairness to be, and how can one adjudge styles of play on its basis when it is such a slippery concept?

I am sorry but we just have a fundamental disagreement here. And I think I explained my position clearly in my response that you quoted. If that isn't sufficient for you, it isn't sufficient for you. But even in sports, the concept of fairness is murky and contested, and people can dissect it until you get the sense that is isn't possible to achieve (especially if they hold up a ideal of it that is unattainable). There are things that a ref cannot see and sense, referees are humans not computers, and the language of rules in sports can be quite imprecise. I don't think the fact that sports often are about two competing sides, makes it all that much easier to adjudicate fairly. I completed in plenty of martial arts tournaments, and each of those had three judges scoring, and a ref, and the judges rarely had the same scores. Refs made calls that people disputed all the time. But, there were more fair and less fair referees.

In terms of what fairness means for RPGs, you will never come to a universally agreed upon set of principles. Ever. Just look at the differences of opinions in this thread alone. What you will have are different criteria set up by different styles and groups (it is like having different leagues, where we agree on different rulesets and different criteria for implementing those rules).

And many events that have referees and judges, are not as 'objective' as a sport like football. There are poetry contests, there are debate societies, there are art and music competitions with judges. This idea of being a fair arbiter of something exists in a lot of places, and the fact that there is no perfectly fair arbiter, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for being fair arbiters. To toss up your hands and say 'its useless, we must simply constrain it through system', seems weird to me. Sure if you want to take a systems approach to encouraging fair arbitration in games, go for it. But that isn't for everyone or every group. And for people who don't rely on systems, well they are going to want tools and discussion on how to be a fair arbiter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames, is my addendum to your earlier statement regarding skilled play accurate to your sensibilities? That might be more productive for our purposes.

I'd need to think about that statement to be honest

 

[Aldarc]

I'd need to think about that statement to be honest

Fair. Please take your time. You have mentioned how skilled play informs your games several times in this thread. My own impression from at least OSR is that "skilled play" likely does impact when and how the mechanics come into play, though what skilled play looks like in such a game may require further clarification.

 

[Lanefan]

So as a player of games for a choice to be considered meaningful in the scope of gameplay it should relate back to what I am trying to achieve as a player. It might be provided by the game or provided by the player. It's also not about quantity here, but quality. A choice that has more of an impact on whether I achieve my goals is more meaningful than a bunch of choices which barely impact my ability to achieve my objectives.

Thing is, this presupposes you have goals and-or objectives on a bigger scale than simply play in the moment and deal with the here-and-now, e.g. kill this Orc before it kills me, and let the future take care of itself.

Not all players (and not even all GMs!) share this approach.

 

[Campbell]

Thing is, this presupposes you have goals and-or objectives on a bigger scale than simply play in the moment and deal with the here-and-now, e.g. kill this Orc before it kills me, and let the future take care of itself.

Not all players (and not even all GMs!) share this approach.

Then I do not think it is really useful to talk about that activity as a game.