Authenticity in RPGing

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."

All of them.

In his second post in the thread, in case it was unclear, he elaborated in response to someone else-

"To me, RPGs are first and foremost games. The DM creates a scenario, and the players try to make their way through it. There are goals and challenges. I don't want "collaborative storytelling"." That's a crystal-clear statement of a different conception of RPGing. You're absolutely correct to see it as contrasting with the OP.

Right there (and this is before we get into, of course, DitV, Sorcerer, and the other points of reference that always get trotted out) we see that the dichotomy referred to in the OP is clear-

There are two types of RPGs; "non-GM driven RPGs {are} those RPGs {with} authenticity. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together."

The other RPGs? The ones that "work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution" .... well, they "squelch authenticity."

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

Not true. Look above- it's pretty clear. He divides RPGs into two types, and one type squelches authenticity. It's not very hard, at all, to discern.

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.

No, it's not a takedown. It's the accurate observation that it's not conducive to having a productive conversation. Just like saying ...

Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING; quoting someone who is using a sexual assault metaphor

(This is Mr. Edwards justifying his remark that people who played other games, like D&D, are brain damaged.)

Now for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage).

Not a great way to get people to want to discuss things, eh?

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.

If you don't understand why people don't want have a discussion with you given that framing, I'm not sure what would help. It's like you asking someone, "When did you stop beating your spouse?" and then getting annoyed that they are refusing to engage in the premise.

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

As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.

Or, in the alternative, when people stop defending the comment. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).

Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Is everyone supposed to do this? Which opinions, points of view, and terms are subject to a need to disclaim?

Entirely up to the individual. If you want to use a value-laden word in a new way without first explaining it, and don’t mind people rejecting your ideas and turning the thread into a debate about your word choice, you are 100% free to go that route.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."

All of them.

In his second post in the thread, in case it was unclear, he elaborated in response to someone else-



Right there (and this is before we get into, of course, DitV, Sorcerer, and the other points of reference that always get trotted out) we see that the dichotomy referred to in the OP is clear-

There are two types of RPGs; "non-GM driven RPGs {are} those RPGs {with} authenticity. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together."

The other RPGs? The ones that "work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution" .... well, they "squelch authenticity."



Not true. Look above- it's pretty clear. He divides RPGs into two types, and one type squelches authenticity. It's not very hard, at all, to discern.



No, it's not a takedown. It's the accurate observation that it's not conducive to having a productive conversation. Just like saying ...

Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING; quoting someone who is using a sexual assault metaphor

(This is Mr. Edwards justifying his remark that people who played other games, like D&D, are brain damaged.)

Not a great way to get people to want to discuss things, eh?



If you don't understand why people don't want have a discussion with you given that framing, I'm not sure what would help. It's like you asking someone, "When did you stop beating your spouse?" and then getting annoyed that they are refusing to engage in the premise.



As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.

Or, in the alternative, when people stop defending the comment. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).

Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.

What does something that some guy (Ron Edwards) who has not even been mentioned in this thread, have to do with anything?

 

[Bedrockgames]

As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.

Or, in the alternative, when people stop defending the comment. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).

Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.

I don't think anyone is owed an apology here. I disagree with Pemerton's OP but he was just expressing a strong opinion about games. And in these kinds of discussions, and not saying this was the case, I expect a certain amount of kayfabe to be in play sometimes (especially if there is a long standing disagreement). I do think its understandable why there was pushback. But for me, this isn't that different than seeing a movie with a bunch of friends and having a spirited disagreement over whether it was a good movie, or whether its message was a worthy one (with a lot of "That movie sucked, and here is why...." and "Your crazy, that was amazing, and here is why".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What does something that some guy (Ron Edwards) who has not even been mentioned in this thread, have to do with anything?

The inability of some people to see why pejorative language and putting other people down makes conversation difficult.

If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.

....Also, and while it isn't important ... OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....

Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala Ron Edwards, all techniques that promote authenticity (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think anyone is owed an apology here. I disagree with Pemerton's OP but he was just expressing a strong opinion about games. And in these kinds of discussions, and not saying this was the case, I expect a certain amount of kayfabe to be in play sometimes (especially if there is a long standing disagreement). I do think its understandable why there was pushback. But for me, this isn't that different than seeing a movie with a bunch of friends and having a spirited disagreement over whether it was a good movie, or whether its message was a worthy one (with a lot of "That movie sucked, and here is why...." and "Your crazy, that was amazing, and here is why".

Sorry, that was a specific issue related to the past comment.

"Authenticity" and "squelching authenticity" is loaded and unfortunate, and not conducive to conversation with others; but not wrong or evil.

Brain damage and sexual assault of minors? That's a whole 'nother level of wrongness.

 

[Lanefan]

Scenery chewing, lol. Yeah, I have to agree. It continues to amaze, and perplex, me to keep hearing all these people vociferously contending that, essentially, system doesn't matter. This argument was settled DECADES ago, like 45+ years ago. Yes it does! Sure, no one specific nut or bolt thing that might take place in one game cannot (generally) come to pass in any game, but to say that means there is all that much similarity is like someone went to Yosemite and found a maple tree and now claims that the forest there is just like every other forest with a maple tree in it. The proposition is not tenable.

The claim isn't that the Yosemite forest is just like all the others; it's that as a maple can and does grow in Yosemite I can a) hop over there to see one rather than go all the way to Canada and b) be confident in an expectation that another can grow there should I or someone else plant (and maybe nurture) it.

The more important claim above is b); in that if it can happen once it can happen again. What this means in RPG terms is that while a given system might not be specifically geared toward a certain style of play, ideally it has enough flexibility and robustness in its design to allow non-standard approaches to work; the (IMO massive) benefit being the table doesn't have to change systems in order to change playstyles.

 

[Lanefan]

Is everyone supposed to do this? Which opinions, points of view, and terms are subject to a need to disclaim? Who decides what that list is? I mean, I understand the intent, but this sort of 'policy' is entirely untenable IMHO. Better for everyone to get used to the notion that there are perfectly well-meaning and decent people with opinions and word use, etc. that is different from yours and learn not to assume the worst whenever you read a post. Obviously that's not going to ever become universal, but frankly I've seen the posters on this forum, and some others, generally evolve in that sense in a positive direction in the last 10-15 years.

Different opinions? Fine. Bring 'em on!

Different word use? Not fine. Thus says the cynic in me whose first thought usually leaps to "What is the underlying and unspoken motive here for using this word in this non-standard way, and-or are the writer's intentions trustworthy in doing so?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's not true. He did mention BiTD and FiTD, but he was referring to "how non-GM driven RPGs (PbtA, FitD, etc) work."

All of them.

In his second post in the thread, in case it was unclear, he elaborated in response to someone else-



Right there (and this is before we get into, of course, DitV, Sorcerer, and the other points of reference that always get trotted out) we see that the dichotomy referred to in the OP is clear-

There are two types of RPGs; "non-GM driven RPGs {are} those RPGs {with} authenticity. That players and GMs make genuine choices, in play, that say something - individually and, if it's working properly, together."

The other RPGs? The ones that "work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution" .... well, they "squelch authenticity."



Not true. Look above- it's pretty clear. He divides RPGs into two types, and one type squelches authenticity. It's not very hard, at all, to discern.



No, it's not a takedown. It's the accurate observation that it's not conducive to having a productive conversation. Just like saying ...

Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING; quoting someone who is using a sexual assault metaphor

(This is Mr. Edwards justifying his remark that people who played other games, like D&D, are brain damaged.)

Not a great way to get people to want to discuss things, eh?



If you don't understand why people don't want have a discussion with you given that framing, I'm not sure what would help. It's like you asking someone, "When did you stop beating your spouse?" and then getting annoyed that they are refusing to engage in the premise.



As previously stated, people are more likely to "get over it" when there has been an apology.

Or, in the alternative, when people stop defending the comment. Or, as done in that thread, saying it was no big deal, because saying that D&D players are brain damaged is no worse than comparing them to drug addicts. (?!?).

Again, "sorry you were offended, get over it," isn't usually a winning approach to life. YMMV.

Okay. All this post does is reaffirm that your responses in this thread haven’t been about the idea expressed in the OP so much as a reaction to many past discussions and ideas. I mean, no one mentioned anything much about Edwards and you’re ranting about the brain damage stuff again.

I’m going to go back to talking on topic instead of about the discussion again. I hope you do the same.

* Edited to add the word much. Apparently, he was mentioned in a post.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, so, setting aside the touchy issue of nomenclature and accepting the word "authenticity" for now, I have a question:

In another thread, I believe on the question of whether or not an NPC should be able to persuade an PC, over the wishes of the player, @pemerton came out strongly in favor of systems in which the mechanics can have influence over PC thoughts/decisions/actions, as opposed to merely determining the success of actions that are completely in control of the player. Some posters (I can't remember if @pemerton was one of them) felt that these sorts of mechanics result in (I paraphrase) "the exploration of personalities that aren't your own" or something to that effect.

Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave? Why does one result in authenticity (as defined in this thread) and the other doesn't? Is it because mechanics are neutral and GMs are not?

This isn't meant as a gotcha. I'm hoping that the answer will help clarify my understanding of this thread.