Authenticity in RPGing

[Bedrockgames]

To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.

Yes and this matters a great deal for characterization

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.

I accept that some people would feel that way. I have to say, when faced with this sort of decision my answer is pretty much uniformly to just pick up a d6 and roll it.

And to elaborate a tiny bit, as a GM I consider this sort of stuff to fall into the category of things that 4e DMG admonished GM's to "skip over and get to the interesting part." Yes, you navigated a mazy twist of corridors, they all looked the same and you wandered around for a while before eventually coming out here... Its not that I wouldn't even say to the players "hey, there seem to be east and west trending directions, which one do you pick?" OTOH I consider this to be 'color', fairly inconsequential detail that just builds a more satisfying picture of a detailed environment vs something that means anything in play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out are being described as variations of railroading (presumably a number of other things also fall under that categorization).

So I think it is entirely reasonable when someone invokes play A as authentic, and play B as inauthentic (and not just inauthentic but also a railroad) that you get a reaction

But aren’t they? Don’t those methods undermine choice?

If the thread had been "I think railroading leads to a lack of meaningful choice, and these games in particular are good at evading railroads" no one would have batted an eye

I don’t know about that. I think that the chances may have been better, I’d grant that. But I think plenty would still argue the point because of the perceived slight toward D&D and traditional play. Even though none of the methods cited as problematic are essential to that kind of play.

The issue is, I think, very few people would agree with the OP's assertion that it squelches it

But no one has demonstrated that, have they? No one has said “here’s how the three clue rule promotes authentic play” or “this is how I use alignment to do it”.

As you say, most arguments are about the choice of words rather than the actual premise.

I would love if someone offered a take about the three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out the GM’s predetermined solution (I added that last bit back in because I think it’s essential) that somehow explained how they led to authentic play.

 

[pemerton]

I think there’s something more fundamental happening in the OP rather than “authentic” being just a euphemism for “narrativist”. If the characters set out to discover what’s out there, then they can’t also help but discover something about themselves as they face adversity. That seems to be exactly what @pemerton is saying in his second post explaining his use of authenticity.

Authenticity: the property of being authentic. Authentic: issuing from and being true to the self; thus, revealing (something about, some aspect of) the self.​

I haven't read all the overnight posts, but just wanted to respond to one aspect of this. If I've read it correctly (which I may not have - see previous sentence) it's talking about the characters.

But the bit that you quote from me was talking about participants in the RPG endeavour. That post did go on to say something about characters too, but flagged it as conjectural at best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One thing to keep in mind is I don't think this uninformed but consequential choice should be the default or the preferred dilemma in an RPG. I just think it is one that has its uses like any other type of choice. I wasn't really making an argument in terms of the quality of RP it brings. I think its main value is in the excitement and surprise it can bring into play. That said, sure it can inform the quality of your role-play. You learn how your character deals with potentially risky dilemmas with very little information. That does tell you something about the character (does the character just kick open the door? does he convince someone else to open it? does he take every possible precaution? Does he leave the dungeon in search of more information?). There are certainly going to be other types of choices that illuminate your character more than that, but is isn't empty when it comes to characterization. And the consequences of the choice could certainly contribute meaningfully to the RP (for example if he chooses door B and has his arm squashed to pulp a dire elephant).

Right, I mean, I don't have an issue either with a PC being confronted with "OK, you lack any good information here, how do you deal with that?" That's a reasonable dilemma to hand to someone. So, in the context of, say, the gradual exploration of a locale or something like that it takes on this other character of opening up many choices of strategy. One of them could be "blindly go forward in some direction" and I agree THAT is a consequential choice that can tell us a lot about the character, etc. (it could also factor in a different way where 'skilled play' is expected, so some system differences could be germane there too).

Hey I agree, you need some informed decision making. I would even say more informed decision making is the best case (I just think there is room for the door A and B situations too). In terms of whether sandboxes or a game where you can declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" leads to either more meaningful choices or a more authentic experience, I am not persuaded. I think there is a lot to say for games that do the latter. I just have found sandboxes have a lot of meaningful choices and the fact that you can't declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" can in some cases make those choices more meaningful. I don't play Dungeon World, but I do play Hillfolk, and there is a degree of immersive roleplaying that is definitely one of its strong suits (and it does the whole "I think there's a temple of my patron god..." thing). But your choices are meaningful in a different way than they are in a sandbox. It is very hard to compare them cleanly. They are just very different experiences. I wouldn't label one more authentic or having more meaningful choices than the other. I certainly wouldn't say it is the most powerful version of creating informed choice making. Same goes for character development.

I guess overall I'm certainly not admonishing GMs to avoid ever creating a "shrug, I guess we can go through door A or B" low-information choice either. It is just one of those things that I wouldn't think of as a key part of play in any sense.

Otherwise I think we have reasonably similar opinions here. I mean, there is clearly a qualitative difference between a pre-stocked sandbox and something like DW or Hillfolk (I guess, I'm not too knowledgeable about that game itself really, but it sounds like it has some player facing narrative elements). Honestly, I don't even have a personal issue with old-fashioned dungeon-maze just go around bashing random doors play either myself. I think the OP is mostly saying "this is not so deep." When it comes to something like the 'three clues rule' I think he's just mentioning that as a technique that GMs are supposed to use to get the players to send their PCs to the spt which is most convenient for the GM, so kind of removing much significance from their decisions, sort of like a 'quantum ogre'.

 

[kenada]

I haven't read all the overnight posts, but just wanted to respond to one aspect of this. If I've read it correctly (which I may not have - see previous sentence) it's talking about the characters.

But the bit that you quote from me was talking about participants in the RPG endeavour. That post did go on to say something about characters too, but flagged it as conjectural at best.

I am, and I think I misunderstood or conflated the players with the characters.

 

[pemerton]

The GM being able to decide by fiat that an owl bear encounter takes place

I still don't know what this means.

What are you intending by encounter? Who decided that owlbears are salient? What conditions must obtain in the fiction for the fiat you are imagining to be enlivened? What conditions must obtain at the table for the fiat to be enlivened?

Without the things I've mentioned, and probably others I haven't, being set out, there is not a description of an episode of RPGing that can really be discussed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, I mean, I don't have an issue either with a PC being confronted with "OK, you lack any good information here, how do you deal with that?" That's a reasonable dilemma to hand to someone. So, in the context of, say, the gradual exploration of a locale or something like that it takes on this other character of opening up many choices of strategy. One of them could be "blindly go forward in some direction" and I agree THAT is a consequential choice that can tell us a lot about the character, etc. (it could also factor in a different way where 'skilled play' is expected, so some system differences could be germane there too).

I guess overall I'm certainly not admonishing GMs to avoid ever creating a "shrug, I guess we can go through door A or B" low-information choice either. It is just one of those things that I wouldn't think of as a key part of play in any sense.

Otherwise I think we have reasonably similar opinions here. I mean, there is clearly a qualitative difference between a pre-stocked sandbox and something like DW or Hillfolk (I guess, I'm not too knowledgeable about that game itself really, but it sounds like it has some player facing narrative elements). Honestly, I don't even have a personal issue with old-fashioned dungeon-maze just go around bashing random doors play either myself. I think the OP is mostly saying "this is not so deep." When it comes to something like the 'three clues rule' I think he's just mentioning that as a technique that GMs are supposed to use to get the players to send their PCs to the spt which is most convenient for the GM, so kind of removing much significance from their decisions, sort of like a 'quantum ogre'.

Hillfolk is very good at drama series emulation. I've really enjoyed the sessions I've had with it. I ran it once and played in it a number of times. Running it was pretty cool. I ended up cludhing my own combat system onto it for a wuxia campaign, and used the methods for scenes (which is what most of the campaign entailed) for the rest. A lot of wuxia gets treated as a 50+ episode drama series and I wanted to go for that. It succeeded quite well. If you want a game that would make for a very good Breaking Bad, Babylon Five, or I, Claudius campaign, Hillfolk is a good choice in my opinion.

I see the three clue rule as a way of preventing choke points in an investigation. Its just a method for avoiding the classic "What if the players miss a crucial clue" problem (which not everyone thinks is a problem, but if you find it to be one either the three clue rule or the approach taken in Gumshoe are both quite good solutions, from two entirely different angles). I don't think anything about the three clue rule squelches significant decisions.

 

[Malmuria]

I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.

There are methods that promote authentic play. Authentic meaning that these choices and actions taken matter.

There are methods that don’t promote that kind of authentic play. Railroading, the three clue rule, and the like. These lead to choices and actions that don’t have all that much impact on play.

I don’t really get who would disagree with this. I feel like disagreeing with it means that folks can share examples of railroading that somehow allows for the kind of authenticity that’s being talked about.

Can anyone provide such examples?

So we are talking, once again, about railroads vs sandboxes vs play to find out, only now we have add a new term--authenticity--which has been articulated as being about taking creative risks, saying something, genuine conversation, and friendship. This layer is largely obfuscatory; I don't see what it adds. Here you might direct your call for examples to @pemerton to illustrate exactly what they mean.

Meanwhile, @kenada's example of the Mystara sandbox is a good one. Because the notion, sketched in the OP, that trad play consists entirely in railroaded set pieces, DMs enforcing alignment, games that consist entirely in guessing what the DM is thinking or "DM storytime," is a RPG horror stories caricature. The "participationism" caricature is needed in order to elevate the qualities of other games. So what about the b/x sandbox? Based on previous conversations, I would guess that this would not count as "authentic" play.

Meanwhile, in terms of taking creative risks and collaboration and friendship, think of the new player. The very act of sitting around a table with friends and pretending to be elves and dwarves and maybe doing accents is a huge and awkward risk. It's silly and campy and nerdy, and yet being those things makes one vulnerable. I think that says more about being genuine and taking risks among friends that any particular style of ttrpg.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I still don't know what this means.

What are you intending by encounter? Who decided that owlbears are salient? What conditions must obtain in the fiction for the fiat you are imagining to be enlivened? What conditions must obtain at the table for the fiat to be enlivened?

By encounter I just mean any interaction the GM decides to give you with an owl bear. The GM would have decided by salient (which I think is implied by fiat). Again in this example I wasn't worried about what conditions needed to be met, my point was even in a case where the GM has total power to decide that you face an owl bear, that doesn't seem affect the authenticity of my character (certainly you could say its unfair, its not the best procedure, it is heavy handed, it imposes on agency if the GM isn't considering conditions). It was more a point about how I am not seeing where authenticity is the issue. I am not saying the GM declaring an Owl bear encounter "because" is a good practice. I just don't see how a GM even doing that is particularly relevant to the authenticity of play and of your characterization of your character. If, as others have suggested, you were just saying by authenticity to mean "meaningful choice" then I could see the point there (I still think there is meaningful choice in a reaction, but I appreciate that different procedures, different considerations and different mechanics for arriving at that encounter will have an impact on how meaningful are choices are leading up to it)