GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[clearstream]

I have said several times now that I don't feel "morals" is an appropriate word to use in this context.

I think I get it. The word "morals" implies ethics. Hence your preference for "precepts".

There are some ethical principles that I uphold in play - to do with how one treats other players and the way one represents anything that has parallels in the real world. Those probably don't "inform" my play in the sense being principally considered here.

 

[pemerton]

There are some background or higher level principles that can change how folk grasp and uphold anything a designer writes down. For instance, a designer can write down "follow the rules" and a given GM might have the principle "change whatever game text I like." The latter would authorise that GM to erase or revise "follow the rules". Thus plain language alone is not conclusively normative.

<snip>

In the end, the designer can only advise how they believe others might achieve the play they had in mind.

The first quoted paragraph implies that the second is false.

 

[pemerton]

It's often overlooked that the possibility of "playing in the wrong way" implies that there is more than one way to play.

I don't think this is often overlooked at all. I think it's trivially obvious to everyone.

There is no need for rules in circumstances where there are no choices as to conduct.

 

[Umbran]

I think I get it. The word "morals" implies ethics. Hence your preference for "precepts".

Not quite. "Morals" implies a judgement of how good a person you are being. That's not generally appropriate in this context. Playing in a given style is not usually a moral question, but an aesthetic one.

I mean, I'll grant that it is morally wrong to sexually harass someone at the gaming table. But it is morally wrong to sexually harass people, in general. That's not a moral guidance for your play, specifically, but just for living.

"Ethics" are the rules we institute to help us stick to moral actions.

"Precepts" are concepts or rules we use to guide behavior or choices, but in modern use it is less often about morals. "Principles", like "design principles" would probably be fine, too.

There are some ethical principles that I uphold in play - to do with how one treats other players and the way one represents anything that has parallels in the real world. Those probably don't "inform" my play in the sense being principally considered here.

Yes. Those ethical principles probably apply both at the gaming table, or at lunch with coworkers. They aren't about gaming.

 

[Darth Solo]

Having fun is my maxim and I impose it on the group whether I'm playing or running. Not 'Tyrannical Fun' - i like rules when they're funful - but the fun a group can have even when losing the game. There's other reasons to play games like to pass the time or to learn exactly how to play the game or to make money. Of those i'd most want to be having fun.

 

[clearstream]

Not quite. "Morals" implies a judgement of how good a person you are being. That's not generally appropriate in this context. Playing in a given style is not usually a moral question, but an aesthetic one.

I mean, I'll grant that it is morally wrong to sexually harass someone at the gaming table. But it is morally wrong to sexually harass people, in general. That's not a moral guidance for your play, specifically, but just for living.

"Ethics" are the rules we institute to help us stick to moral actions.

"Precepts" are concepts or rules we use to guide behavior or choices, but in modern use it is less often about morals. "Principles", like "design principles" would probably be fine, too.

Yes. Those ethical principles probably apply both at the gaming table, or at lunch with coworkers. They aren't about gaming.

On a narrow technical point, it's not clear to me whether we can or cannot make a reasonable argument that a given principle is a gaming principle iff it applies solely in the context of gaming.

To know that, we'd have to know all principles that folk bring to gaming and we'd have to see that this set had no members that applied to anything other than gaming. On surface, that doesn't sound like a sure thing.

Alternatively, we'd need some argument to justify excluding principles as gaming principles just because they also applied in another context. But what is that justifying argument? I don't currently see why gaming should be privileged that way.

 

[clearstream]

The first quoted paragraph implies that the second is false.

What I said was -

There are some background or higher level principles that can change how folk grasp and uphold anything a designer writes down. For instance, a designer can write down "follow the rules" and a given GM might have the principle "change whatever game text I like." The latter would authorise that GM to erase or revise "follow the rules". Thus plain language alone is not conclusively normative.

And I suggested that -

In the end, the designer can only advise how they believe others might achieve the play they had in mind.

In discussion with @AbdulAlhazred I went on to say

As you say, what might count as the "proper rules" is something recognised by a sample of people who have agreed on an interpretation. As you're defining it then, normative has local application... but what comes to bring that sample of people to all agree? What happens if whatever that is, is passed on to others? Wouldn't they then be foreseen to come into agreement with the sample?

Which intentionally implies that a designer can seek to pass on to others whatever it is that helps them see what to count as the "proper rules". These are exactly "the background or higher level principles that can change how folk grasp and uphold anything a designer writes down."

Here, designers will imply or evoke those principles through - inter alia - stating them outright and implying them in their game text. They'll attempt to draw folk toward understanding the rule as they intend it to be understood. In the end, advising others in a way that they believe will bring those others to achieve the play that they had in mind.

Very often today, a published RPG will include principles and agenda. Peterson's The Elusive Shift shows that these were very much discussed in the past, but they weren't often formalised in the game text.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think this is often overlooked at all. I think it's trivially obvious to everyone.

Other than formalists, of course. I go by what I read in games studies papers and forums discussing games. Often I read folk talking about a game as if there is a right way to play and other ways don't count as playing the game (the formalist position, essentially.) They often also seem to fail to notice the benefits of considering incorrect or abnormal ways to play.

It's true that there has been an increasingly strong voice given to the view that there are multiple "right" ways to play TTRPGs. Formalist positions seem more common in relation to the rules of sports. Perhaps because of the stakes involved.

There is no need for rules in circumstances where there are no choices as to conduct.

In discussion on rules and meaning there's certainly a notion that it ought to be possible to not follow the rule, but what of constitutive rules?

Constitutive rules are necessitated in order to constitute the activity, not because there are choices as to conduct. Without the rule, there would be no conduct that counted as the constituted activity.

It's often overlooked that the possibility of "playing in the wrong way" implies that there is more than one way to play.

What counts then as incorrect play, if anything? It's so far been suggested that it is where norms prevail in a group and a participant transgresses those norms. Based on their prevailing norms, the group sees what the constituted activity ought to look like. When they see something that does not look like that, they call it incorrect.

For a constitutive rule - where the activity did not preexist the rule - how did anyone know the proper way? I think they base it on how they have followed previous rules, and the designer's advice if any.

From there, it can become hard for them to see that incorrect play is not always a case of the transgressor seeing their "proper" way to play the rule, and playing it improperly. What they call incorrect play includes the case where their supposed transgressor sees a different proper way to play the rule, and plays it - that way - properly. This is what I was getting at. The implications are useful, for example both aspects (norms to rely on, rule novation) facilitate game design.

 

[Jahydin]

I think I just thought of another one: I encourage meta-gaming!

I think it neat players know to use fire on trolls and how many hps a kobold has.

Again, not everyone's cup of tea and I understand.

 

[Umbran]

On a narrow technical point, it's not clear to me whether we can or cannot make a reasonable argument that a given principle is a gaming principle iff it applies solely in the context of gaming.

I'm not making any formal logical assertions - "iff" does not apply. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I laced my points with words like "generally", because I expect someone who really wanted to could find an exception here ore there, and I don't feel that'd be a constructive way to talk about the subject - an exception here or there does not justify a general lexical choice.

I am trying to make a reasonable argument, and reasonable arguments don't have to rest solely on formal logical absolutes for their support.

Simply put - empirical evidence on this site is that people are already more than willing to treat each other poorly over how we pretend to be elves. Adding a conversational convention that would enable and incentivize calling each other "immoral!" over liking "damage on a miss" or whatever such thing is not something I can support.

And I don't need the idea that we must be able to categorize ideas a "strictly" gaming ones to hold that position.