Authenticity in RPGing

[hawkeyefan]

I think I would say "System can and often does matter, but it isn't the only thing, and there are ways to solve problems beyond just mechanics or system". I think what sometimes happens though is people see that and they read something more like "System is meaningless" which is far from my position.

I think part of the issue is also what people tend to think of as "the system". Like if the rules say that the GM decides how X comes about, then that's part of the system, I'd say. Others may not agree if there are no game mechanics involved. But I think the division of authority and who gets to decide what and how, falls under "the system".

I think the common element of the games cited in the OP as promoting authenticity is the role of the GM being limited in ways. Ways that don't allow for the methods that are cited as squelching authority. The GM isn't really able to railroad or use the three-clue rule or node-based adventures or predetermine the solutions to problems in those games. They just don't function that way.

I think what also comes into play here, and we've even seen it in this thread, some games are meant to be played in a specific manner, with specific processes in place for the participants to follow. Other games, with D&D notably being among them, have wiggle room in how the processes are applied or how they work. Then you have other games that are almost entirely modular, like GURPS, you use the rules you'd like to build the setting/game you want.

So there's an expectation that games can be altered by whatever means to bridge any difference. And although I think some differences can be bridged, I also think there are some that cannot.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You are considerably more optimistic than I am given your last sentence here.

My response has been my email sig for a long long time...

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

 

[hawkeyefan]

"I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic."

I would say that people should be able to discuss things with authenticity! That people be able to make real, genuine points ... in threads, that say something - individually, and if enWorld is working properly, together.

The flipside of this is threads, such as this one, that squelch authenticity. The parameters of discussion have already been set.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Because I try to have friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation when I post; not simply set arguments that elevate my games above others. YMMV.

Did you say to yourself "Self, I'm gonna post a comment that fails on multiple levels... not only will it not help the conversation, but it will also be dripping with sarcasm, which is pretty inauthentic"?

Well done.

 

[niklinna]

I fully appreciate where you are coming from, but I was listening to the play of that BitD game the other day that @Campbell and @Nik et al are players in. So the scene that @Manbearcat outlined earlier where Nik's character was in Six Towers stalking the Spirit Warden guy while there was a Circle assassin nearby and he was testing some sort of spark thingy, etc.; that scene arose ENTIRELY out of a player driven process, the GM had ZERO to do with its evolution! The player chose how to construct his character, the players collectively chose the nature of the crew, its connections, goals, capabilities, etc. Everything in that scene arose, without any particular GM prep or 'engineering'. I mean, yes, sometimes the GM said something like "Oh, OK, you know this guy, he's a Red Sash leader..." or whatever. So Manbearcat, as GM, can put in play specific 'color', but the actual need for a contact or a victim, or a vice purveyor, or whatever, comes out of a combination of the premise and the specific choices and actions of the players during play. Furthermore it bears directly on the fundamental premise of the game, that the PCs are rogues living in a dangerous milieu choosing to engage in hazardous criminal enterprises.

There's a through line there, from premise -> player choices -> GM scene framing which is fundamentally, causally at the table, different from even the most entirely pure sandbox or "curated in the moment" low prep play in a game structured like 5e. Now, maybe some of the GMs that make statements of equivalency to the above in their 5e play are really departing seriously from 5e's default structure/process/premises and doing what something like BitD 'just does' (assuming you run it roughly as intended). I certainly can't say, and am not trying to cast doubt on anything said here by anyone. It is IME, not the way the 5e designers envisaged the game being used, and you'll have to 'jigger the system' a bunch to really get it to work well, but I'm not that jerk who says "You cannot be telling the true story" simply because it is a remarkable and unusual story. I can just say that the action in that BitD game was utterly stock BitD from what I can tell (it was the first game I've sat in on, so I'm not a big expert on that system yet).

I'm not an expert on the system, either, but I will say that the scene did not arise "ENTIRELY" out of a player-driven process, not by a mile. I was asked what my character was doing, on his own, and I said he was out on the prowl for someone to kill in a general area. The GM responded by framing a scene in a specific location with a crowd of people from named factions, completely unrelated to my stated interest, and spun a couple additional curveballs out of that. I was in reaction mode from then on, and not particularly happy in the moment with my decisions or the outcomes. Perhaps I should have been able to roll with that better, but I had stated that I was expecting to find some solitary individual to hunt, and that got dashed right off the bat.

None of it seemed prepped, though. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, some of the details that emerged seemed like things my character should have known beforehand, and would most definitely have affected my early decisions had I known then beforehand. That last bit shows a lack of system expertise on my part—I had built up an idea of what I felt should happen, and it did not happen, knocking me off balance mentally for the rest of the scene. In that way, I was attempting to curate a script as a player, and it was interfering with my ability to be authentic in the moment.

Even so, the scene revealed new things about my character that everybody found interesting and entertaining, and it will be cool to explore and develop that through play as we go on, and as my system and playstyle expertise improve. Maybe I should have pushed back and said, "Hang on, I said I went out to hunt; I ignore this to-do and move on to a quieter area." Maybe I should have resisted the consequence of the killer ghost and made it a non-threat. Maybe I've learned too well to avoid shutting things down like that, though, so that impulse perhaps served me poorly. Maybe I should have just immediately walked up to the group and informed them about the Silver Nails sniper, then the ghost never would have existed, but something entirely different would have unfolded. Maybe I could have moved to take out the sniper myself (he was focused hard on the view through his rifle scope, after all). There were a lot of options—more than I could process in fact!

(An additional factor is that I was taking notes for the session, and I tend to take pretty detailed notes. I have had trouble doing this with Blades in the Dark before, as things are subject to revision. I might have done better to leave off the note-taking while I had the spotlight so that I could focus more authentically on the action. I'll certainly keep that in mind for future sessions.)

(Edited for clarity.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Did you say to yourself "Self, I'm gonna post a comment that fails on multiple levels... not only will it not help the conversation, but it will also be dripping with sarcasm, which is pretty inauthentic"?

Well done.

There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.

But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.

But yes, I am sure that there will come a day when someone wants to have a good-faith conversation that doesn't start with, "My games involve authentic genuine choices with friendship, and your games involve squelching authenticity."

At some point, if you wanted to have a good conversation about why certain games promote things you like, discuss the things you like. Don't start by saying, "My games are awesome, and your games suck. Let's discuss!"

Again, given that you (and the OP) spent a great deal of time defending comments about how the rest of us are "brain damaged" and similar to survivors of sexual assault, and you literally could not understand why we might view that negatively ... I get that you don't see that the OP is talking about other games negatively. But on this- I'll take my own opinion. Thanks!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not an expert on the system, either, but I will say that the scene did not arise "ENTIRELY" out of a player-driven process, not by a mile. I was asked what my character was doing, on his own, and I said he was out on the prowl for someone to kill in a general area. The GM responded by framing a scene in a specific location with a crowd of people from named factions, completely unrelated to my stated interest, and spun a couple additional curveballs out of that. I was in reaction mode from then on, and not particularly happy in the moment with my choices or the outcomes. Perhaps I should have been able to roll with that better, but I had stated that I was expecting to find some solitary individual to hunt, and that got dashed right off the bat.

None of it seemed prepped, though. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, some of the details that emerged seemed like things my character should have known beforehand, and would most definitely have affected my early decisions had I known then beforehand. That last bit shows a lack of system expertise on my part—I had built up an idea of what I felt should happen, and it did not happen, knocking me off balance mentally for the rest of the scene. In that way, I was attempting to curate a script as a player, and it was interfering with my ability to be authentic in the moment.

Even so, the scene revealed new things about my character that everybody found interesting and entertaining, and it will be cool to explore and develop that through play as we go on, and as my system and playstyle expertise improve. Maybe I should have pushed back and said, "Hang on, I said I went out to hunt; I ignore this to-do and move on to a quieter area." Maybe I should have resisted the consequence of the killer ghost and made it a non-threat. Maybe I've learned too well to avoid shutting things down like that, though, so that impulse perhaps served me poorly. Maybe I should have just immediately walked up to the group and informed them about the Silver Nails sniper, then the ghost never would have existed, but something entirely different would have unfolded. Maybe I could have moved to take out the sniper myself (he was focused hard on the view through his rifle scope, after all). There were a lot of options—more than I could process in fact!

(An additional factor is that I was taking notes for the session, and I tend to take pretty detailed notes. I have had trouble doing this with Blades in the Dark before, as things are subject to revision. I might have done better to leave off the note-taking while I had the spotlight so that I could focus more authentically on the action. I'll certainly keep that in mind for future sessions.)

Well, I was trying to speed read my brandy new PDF of BitD and create a character at the time, so I might also have missed a few salient bits... So, yeah, your character went 'hunting' and what he found wasn't exactly what he was hoping to find. OTOH it was all drawn from setting details, the crew's relationship numbers, a (I presume) idea on the GM's part that your Weird Whisper character would be a good one to get tangled up with a ghost (and also this follows from both the crew's 'haunts', which includes Six Towers, and the fact that Six Towers is particularly haunted). I think the part about the guy you stalked being a Spirit Warden with some weird electromagical tech gizmo might also follow from the Weird Whisper theme. It felt pretty organic, though the whole thing with the Silver Nails sniper was kind of out of the blue. Its worth noting that you simply didn't take the bait on that part, and Manbearcat just went with where you were leading in terms of what you engaged with.

I haven't actually looked through the notes, yet. I really should because I think I also missed a few details in other places.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.

But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.

But yes, I am sure that there will come a day when someone wants to have a good-faith conversation that doesn't start with, "My games involve authentic genuine choices with friendship, and your games involve squelching authenticity."

At some point, if you wanted to have a good conversation about why certain games promote things you like, discuss the things you like. Don't start by saying, "My games are awesome, and your games suck. Let's discuss!"

Again, given that you (and the OP) spent a great deal of time defending comments about how the rest of us are "brain damaged" and similar to survivors of sexual assault, and you literally could not understand why we might view that negatively ... I get that you don't see that the OP is talking about other games negatively. But on this- I'll take my own opinion. Thanks!

Yeah, I didn't really get the "other people's games suck" out of that. I got that a contrast is being drawn between techniques common in certain games with 'railroading', though no games were mentioned and it didn't seem there was an implication that any specific game or type of game IS railroading. 2 specific techniques were then mentioned, which one can certainly argue about constituting examples of 'railroady' technique, but I think its fair to say they COULD promote "figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution". If you don't start from a position of assuming everyone has a primary goal of dissing you, then you might actually get to have those interesting discussions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I didn't really get the "other people's games suck" out of that. I got that a contrast is being drawn between techniques common in certain games with 'railroading', though no games were mentioned and it didn't seem there was an implication that any specific game or type of game IS railroading. 2 specific techniques were then mentioned, which one can certainly argue about constituting examples of 'railroady' technique, but I think its fair to say they COULD promote "figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution". If you don't start from a position of assuming everyone has a primary goal of dissing you, then you might actually get to have those interesting discussions.

Well, if a person wants to start the conversation by:
(1) Actually having a thesis that is intelligible (as opposed to using vague terms like say "something").
(2) Not justify a set of games known to all for a particular theoretical style as "authentic" and "genuine" while other "squelch authenticity."
(3) Choose to use a different term when every single person who is not the "usual crowd" pushes back on the use of that term.

Sure, maybe. But the onus isn't on me. Over the last few years- how many people do you think have bounced off these conversations? There's a lot of people that are on enworld. And there's a lot of new people. I know- I see them in other threads.

But if you don't see anything wrong with it, there must be nothing wrong with it. So keep on, keepin' on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is no sarcasm. I simply used the same sentence structure in the OP (and the further elaboration). If you think that being able to use the exact same wording to make a diametrically different point sheds light as to what I think about the OP, you are correct.

But that's not sarcasm. There is another term for it, which I am sure you will come up with.

But yes, I am sure that there will come a day when someone wants to have a good-faith conversation that doesn't start with, "My games involve authentic genuine choices with friendship, and your games involve squelching authenticity."

At some point, if you wanted to have a good conversation about why certain games promote things you like, discuss the things you like. Don't start by saying, "My games are awesome, and your games suck. Let's discuss!"

Well, the two games cited in the OP aren't even games that @pemerton plays regularly, if at all, from what I know. And it was more about some of the GMing and playing techniques used in those games.

Nor does he actually mention any games as squelching authenticity. He mentions railroading and its variations.

Maybe people are reading too much into it? Like, they're taking a criticism of something that may be present in their game, and then concluding that it's a total takedown of that game.

I mean, if there is nothing more to what was posted than "your game sux, lulz" why even reply? Just ignore it and move on. If there's something that's actually being said, then maybe try and offer a take on that.

Again, given that you (and the OP) spent a great deal of time defending comments about how the rest of us are "brain damaged" and similar to survivors of sexual assault, and you literally could not understand why we might view that negatively ... I get that you don't see that the OP is talking about other games negatively. But on this- I'll take my own opinion. Thanks!

This is inaccurate. I understood why such words would upset people. What I don't understand is how people can't get over it.

 

[niklinna]

Well, I was trying to speed read my brandy new PDF of BitD and create a character at the time, so I might also have missed a few salient bits... So, yeah, your character went 'hunting' and what he found wasn't exactly what he was hoping to find. OTOH it was all drawn from setting details, the crew's relationship numbers, a (I presume) idea on the GM's part that your Weird Whisper character would be a good one to get tangled up with a ghost (and also this follows from both the crew's 'haunts', which includes Six Towers, and the fact that Six Towers is particularly haunted). I think the part about the guy you stalked being a Spirit Warden with some weird electromagical tech gizmo might also follow from the Weird Whisper theme. It felt pretty organic, though the whole thing with the Silver Nails sniper was kind of out of the blue. Its worth noting that you simply didn't take the bait on that part, and Manbearcat just went with where you were leading in terms of what you engaged with.

There was too much bait—I couldn't take it all! If I hadn't run afoul of that ghost, or had resisted it, I might well have gone after the sniper. We'll never know, though.

I haven't actually looked through the notes, yet. I really should because I think I also missed a few details in other places.

Perhaps!