Authenticity in RPGing

[Lanefan]

We'll just have to hard disagree. See, I cannot imagine how one would call a choice 'meaningful' when we can go back and say "well, at the time you made this choice, if the two branches had been swapped, there's no reason you would have made the opposite choice." Its just a meaningless roll of some dice. If my choices are no better than that, no more informed than that, then you've reduced my entire experience to nothing but random chance. Nothing is more meaningless than just rolling some dice and getting told what happens next.

For heaven's sake - uninformed does not equate to meaningless!

Uninformed is nothing more than what it says on the tin: uninformed. And yes, uninformed choices can make for boring play; I'm not arguing against that.

But even ignoring the amount of available information, there is no way to tell how meaningful a choice will be if that choice has any possibility of consequences down the line that are not yet obvious. You could have all kinds of information at your disposal, or you could have none, and its presence or absence wouldn't and couldn't affect the meaningfulness of the choice because at the time the choice is made its ultimate degree of meaningfulness has not yet been determined.

The only thing an informed choice can give you over an uninformed one is some insight into the choice's potential meaningfulness; as in, the information may allow you to see or predict some possible consequences of the different options.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I responded to this a bit in my previous post. I think if someone is making the case that the three clue rule squelches a virtue of play, it is more on the person taking that position to make their case than on people to defend the three clue rule. At least it needs to be made clear why they think the three clue rule squelches important choice making. I think something like the three clue rule is pretty neutral on this front. It isn't aiming to actively promote it, but doesn't detract from it. And it can be used to promote meaningful choice. Its reason for existing isn't to solve the problem of a lack of meaningful choice, but to solve the problem of investigative bottle necks (and it is a direct response to the Gumshoe 'systems' approach by offering an 'adventure structure' approach).

So if someone has a choice to make, what will make that choice authentic? I would think that they're not deceived about the nature of the choice, and they reasonably understand the nature of the choice and its implications.

Would you agree with that?

That's how I've approached this part of the conversation.

So take that and then think of the three-clue rule. The rule states "for any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include three clues."

What does this do? It works to keep play (typically investigative type play) on track. It works to ensure that the players will find the information they need in order to proceed to the next scene. It's already determined what the next scene will be. The conclusion is already decided by the GM. It's right there in the rule.

Does that sound as authentic as the players taking actions and gaining information and then deciding what to do next or how? It doesn't to me.

I don't know if I'd consider the three-clue rule full on railroading because I can imagine examples that still play out differently than expected by the GM even when deployed, but it's certainly closer to railroading than not. Chances are certainly higher that play will go the way the GM has decided it will go. I mean... it's designed to do exactly that.

Again here I think authentic play doesn't work well as a term. But if we are talking meaningful choice, I definitely think D&D alignment rules can be used to enhance that (for reasons I stated in my other post). Obviously alignment is one of the more divisive concepts in D&D so some people don't like it, or won't agree. But taking away meaningful choices or reducing authenticity isn't a problem I have found with it (I have certainly encountered other issues with alignment, such as how individual alignments are defined). I found it to be a very powerful tool in Ravenloft, precisely because it makes moral choices meaningful on a level that impacts the characters physical form.

I don't think this is really what was meant by GM enforced alignment. I don't think alignment in and of itself is the issue, it's when the GM enforces behavior of players based on alignment. The idea that a character could shift alignment in some way... either at the player's wishes, or at the GM's suggestion based on what the character's done... doesn't seem inauthentic as it relates to the discussion.

Barring actions based on alignment was more how I took that. Again, I don't think alignment is an issue, but I can see how the GM taking too firm a stance on it could be an issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So if someone has a choice to make, what will make that choice authentic? I would think that they're not deceived about the nature of the choice, and they reasonably understand the nature of the choice and its implications.

I don't think understanding the nature of the choice makes it authentic (again that makes it informed). But in terms of whether it has meaning? That is more about whether the choice was a genuine one where my deciding to do A or deciding to do B had impact and significance. So I think that could apply to a very large range of choices

 

[aramis erak]

I agree with you, but this is at least partly a semantic disagreement. It think "informed choice" is better term than "meaningful choice" if that's what one means, as it is less ambiguous.

Without the differential outcomes, the choice is of no value. Quantum monster. Go left, he's left; go right he's right. Even if the color differs from the rooms, the choice has no value, and thus no real meaning can be attached to it from the outside view.

And I'd say, based upon Pemerton's terms, my "meaningful choice" is pretty much, if not a direct synonym, close enough for the discussion. And, to be blunt, the same criteria have been used by many. A sampling from the non-ed side...

Meaningful choice requires the following four components:

• Awareness - The player must be somewhat aware they are making a choice (perceive options)
• Gameplay Consequences – The choice must have consequences that are both gameplay and aesthetically oriented
• Reminders – The player must be reminded of the choice they made after thay made it
• Permanence - The player cannot go back and undo their choice after exploring the consequences

Meaningful Choice in Games: Practical Guide & Case Studies

Meaningful choices pull at players' heart strings, making them look inside themselves. These choices are remembered as deeply emotional experiences, the moments that turn a game into art. But how do you create them?

www.gamedeveloper.com

Choice categories

There are as many choices in games as there are games themselves. But meaningful choices are broken down into four main areas:

• -Awareness: the player has to know that a choice can be made
• -Consequences: the player’s choice has to be accurately represented in the game
• -Reminders: the player has to be reminded of the choice after they make it
• -Permanence: the player cannot go back and undo their choice (after seeing its effects)

Meaningful Choices — University XP

Helping a player make informed and meaningful choices is part of what makes good games great. Those meaningful choices provide the player weight and substance to their player experience. But often in the pursuit of creating interactive and engaging experiences, we often fall into the trap of creatin

www.universityxp.com

Good games have many meaningful choices — ones that actually matter and have a real impact on how the game turns out. Many designers fall into the trap of providing meaningless choices. One of the bigger examples is in a game with vehicles where the choice of vehicle is strictly cosmetic; if you have vehicles that all drive the exact same way, it’s as if you didn’t have a choice at all. Another common mistake comes with imbalanced choices; in a shooter, if you have twenty weapons but one is clearly better than the others, your choice is pretty much always going to be that one and again it’s as if you didn’t have a choice at all.

Jon Back’s, from Jon Back’s Creative Geek YouTube Channel[ii], points out that for choice to exist, you need information, as a complete lack of information about the consequences of your choice collapse the idea of choice into just randomness. On the other side, having complete information about the consequences of your choice creates a situation where one of the possible choices will be recognized as the right one, thus again creating a situation where there is no real choice to be made. It is when you have some information and some hidden aspects at the same time, that you need to start thinking.
This is what creates meaningful choice. As James Portnow clarifies: “A choice is meaningful when the decision-making process is not arbitrary.”. For James, the player must have ways to weight in their options. They don’t need to know the full consequences of it, but they need to believe that they have something to base their decision on and that there will be future consequences based on their choice.

Meaningful Choices and Space of Possibility in Board Games:

In this article I will explore the game design theory behind the choice in games, and how important is meaningful choice to make good games.

www.thegamersage.com

The careful crafting of player experience through a system of interaction is critical to the design of meaningful play. Yet, just what makes an interactive experience "meaningful"? We have argued that in order to create instances of meaningful play, experience has to incorporate not just explicit interactivity, but meaningful choice.
-Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, Rules of Play - Game Design Fundamentals

Ibid. Bolding original
Meaningful choice is a term of art in game design, with well established criteria.
@Lanefan - your tautology of "informed is a prerequisite of informed" I'm presuming is a temporary braincramp and you left off "choice" from the end. If not, then it's impossible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think understanding the nature of the choice makes it authentic (again that makes it informed). But in terms of whether it has meaning? That is more about whether the choice was a genuine one where my deciding to do A or deciding to do B had impact and significance. So I think that could apply to a very large range of choices

My point is that if the choice isn’t actually a choice, then it’s not authentic.

The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about.

Again, I don’t think that it must always be so, but I think it clearly leans that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So take that and then think of the three-clue rule. The rule states "for any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include three clues."

What does this do? It works to keep play (typically investigative type play) on track. It works to ensure that the players will find the information they need in order to proceed to the next scene. It's already determined what the next scene will be. The conclusion is already decided by the GM. It's right there in the rule.

This isn't what the three clue rule is for. It isn't about going to the next scene. The conclusion you want the PCs to make, isn't necessarily a scene (when Alexander talks about scenes it is in his discussion of Gumshoe and the Esoterrorists (which are structured around scenes). Alexander is more concerned with chokepoints in adventures and what kind of information players are able to find in order to arrive at conclusions that are important to solving the mystery. So a conclusion he gives an example of is "The killer is a werewolf". That is one of several conclusions about the killer in the mystery (the other two are he is a former lover and his confession can be found at the butcher shop where he works). Each of those conclusions would have three clues. But he also mentions being open to solutions the players themselves come up with:

With that in mind, you should consciously open yourself to permissive clue-finding. By this I mean that, if the players come up with a clever approach to their investigation, you should be open to the idea of giving them useful information as a result.

I don't anything about the GM deciding these features of the mystery take away from meaningful choice on the part of the players.

Just as an example, I use the three clue rule all the time, and while I do map out the clues and there locations, none of these key to or lead to any scenes. It is just a handy way of knowing where the evidence is.

Does that sound as authentic as the players taking actions and gaining information and then deciding what to do next or how? It doesn't to me.

I answered this in my previous paragraph but I would say "Yes it does". It is all about making sure the players have a greater range of ways to obtain information and make choices about that information. At the very least, I would say it doesn't squelch meaningful choice.

I don't know if I'd consider the three-clue rule full on railroading because I can imagine examples that still play out differently than expected by the GM even when deployed, but it's certainly closer to railroading than not. Chances are certainly higher that play will go the way the GM has decided it will go. I mean... it's designed to do exactly that.

That seems like an overly broad definition of railroad to me. If "there is a killer in this mystery adventure, and the GM has decided who and what that killer is, and what evidence that killer left" is a railroad, then I don't think we have a functional definition of railroad.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan - your tautology of "informed is a prerequisite of informed" I'm presuming is a temporary braincramp and you left off "choice" from the end. If not, then it's impossible.

No, just an intentional tautology saying that if you're informed then you're informed and that's it; in an attempt to make the point that the presence or non-presence of information at the time a choice is made has no relevance to the level of meaningfulness that choice in hindsight turned out to carry.

And to throw in another pebble: all of this assumes one can trust the information one has available; and-or that the information is correct. A choice can seem meaningful at the time it is made and lose all meaningfulness later once it becomes apparent the information used to make that choice was faulty, or even intentionally outright false.

Extreme example: all the signs, omens, divinations, foreshadowing, etc. point to the left door being disaster and the right door being highly rewarding; yet when each is opened there is nothing of consequence or relevance behind either one. This is the flipside of my earlier point that a choice's meaningfulness cannot be known until later: the same holds true for a choice's ultimate meaninglessness.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about.

But that isn't the three clue rule. Nothing about the three clue rule means no matter what you do 'this will be the conclusion". It is just about making sure information and evidence is available to the optimal level in a mystery. It comes out of a criticism of mysteries that they tended to crash if the players missed a vital clue. And it was a response to the popularity of Laws solution, which some people liked, but some people, like Alexander, wanted a non-mechanical solution.

Now there is an argument to be made for the players being able to miss clues. I think that is something that should also be in play. But at the time the three clue rule was written there was a lot of heated discussion about mysteries flaming and I understand why he framed it the way he did (to maximize his persuasiveness: but a lot of the people who picked up the three clue rule were specifically an audience of GMs who were actively trying to avoid railroads.

When I use three clue rule, I usually also have a timeline of events and disasters that can unfold if the mystery isn't solved or if the killer is allowed to roam (and it is adjustable depending on how the actions might impact the choices made by NPCs in the adventure). I don't care if the players solve the mystery. If they don't I often structure it so something interesting still happens and it also creates a consequence for making certain choices during play. I am also open to things going in totally different directions depending on what the players do.

 

[Lanefan]

My point is that if the choice isn’t actually a choice, then it’s not authentic.

I quite agree with this in the Quantum Monster sense; where the GM is meta-changing things behind the scenes in direct reaction to what the players/PCs do. In my view a GM doing this risks making the whole game inauthentic, not just the here-and-now choice.

I don't agree in cases where it's already set that each choice leads to, say, nothing (the two dead ends off the T, for example); here the choice is perfectly authentic, but ultimately turns out to be meaningless.

The “no matter what you do, this will be the conclusion” element of the three-clue rule is what I’m talking about.

I'm not 100% on board here, in that IME many players/PCs are more than capable of arriving at a different and-or "erroneous" conclusion even after getting all three clues; and then chasing that red herring to the ends of the setting and back.

That said, I'm not that big a fan of leading them by the nose at the best of times; given the choice between that and them getting stuck on something because they missed or misinterpreted a clue or some info, I'd rather they get stuck and have to figure it out - or, even, abandon it; as that's another quite realistic option.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think this is really what was meant by GM enforced alignment. I don't think alignment in and of itself is the issue, it's when the GM enforces behavior of players based on alignment. The idea that a character could shift alignment in some way... either at the player's wishes, or at the GM's suggestion based on what the character's done... doesn't seem inauthentic as it relates to the discussion.

Barring actions based on alignment was more how I took that. Again, I don't think alignment is an issue, but I can see how the GM taking too firm a stance on it could be an issue.

That is fair but I have never met a GM who told us we couldn't do something because of our alignment (at most they let us know a certain action could lead to an alignment shift, but never had anyone clamp down and say you can't take action X).