Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8146396" data-attributes="member: 85870">So I realize I'm going back a bunch of pages in this thread, but there were some points I wanted to address from one of [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s responses.I've brought up the notion of the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox" target="_blank">Abilene paradox</a>" now a few times. I bring it up again, because this seems to fundamentally speak to the core premise of that logical construct.Your statement seems to imply that the desire of any player to pursue a character-driven goal is fundamentally an imposition on the other players, including the GM. By its very nature, it's "impinging upon the fun" of the group.But suppose, just for a moment, that deep down, all of the players in the group actually wanted the option to pursue character-driven goals? But since no one has talked about it within the group, or consulted with GM on what they want, everyone believes that all of the other players are in the same boat. "Well, I'd really like to pursue Character Goals X and Y, but I guess this isn't really that kind of game . . . . Guess I'll just play along, and maybe I'll just have fun bashing orcs, I guess."If the focus of play is on things other than "stuff the player cares about in relation to the character and the nature of the fiction," then what else is it focused on? As players, are we just to assume that character-driven goals are always secondary "to the fun"? What if "the fun" is pursuing those goals?One of the points of the Abilene paradox is that if the current decision path is going to lead to no one being happy, then all things being equal, it's better to make a decision that makes at least one of the participants happy. If all of the other participants aren't going to be happy regardless, why not allow for at least one participant to enjoy the process?Historically, the desire to allow characters to pursue character-driven goals has been significantly reduced/truncated by 1) GM concerns about "playing what I've prepared" / desire to maintain fidelity to a pre-scripted story, 2) a largely specious desire to "maintain the illusion to the fidelity of objective reality" within the fiction, and 3) the simple fact that if the GM is having fun, it negates the core principle of the Abilene paradox --- the GM's ALWAYS having fun running the game, even if none of the other participants are really allowed to pursue character-driven goals, because of 1, 2, and 3.Sure. So it's better to just deny all players that opportunity, for the "fun of the game"? How does this even make sense? If I'm a player being forced to subsume my character's interests in the face of other agendas/needs, how does it make any difference if I'm subsuming that desire to serve the GM's needs, or the needs of another player to actually explore their character-driven goals? Why not subsume my desires to serve the need of the other players occasionally? In "traditional" D&D play, I'm already subsuming it to the will of the GM, so how is it any different, other than at least one player actually gets to enjoy exploring their character goals?Truly, I don't mean to offend, but this feels radically short-sighted, to the point of obtuseness. "Can that question ever be truly answered, other than by hindsight?"Yes. By actually looking and asking for a character background. By looking at the type of character the player is running. By watching and observing how the character (through the player's investment) actually examines/explores/interacts with the fiction. There's hundreds of ways to be clued in to this.Example from a Savage Worlds game I played in (did not GM) last year, based in the Shaintar campaign setting:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I specifically gave my character the background of escaped slave from the northern empire.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I took the "Enemy" hindrance, with a strong, specific dislike for a particular "secret police" organization of that empire (the major force behind the slave trade).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I specifically sought out and fought against multiple slave companies as a prime agenda.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I specifically took magic spells that allowed for information gathering, with the intent of ferreting out slave organizations.</li> </ul>Everything on my character sheet screamed, "I want to go after the evil northern empire and their slave trade."And instead ended up doing a year-long, oft-tedious "setting tour" of Shaintar.Not true. Not true at all. If, as a player, I'm going to pursue a character-driven goal, I'm going to assume there will be obstacles relevant to that pursuit. Why on earth would I assume the end state its, "Okay, you win, evil slavers defeated! Now let's go hang out with the Gray Rangers because that's what the GM has prepped!"When you're not even willing to consider the notion that "narrative first" is an acceptable mode of play, it's easy to see why you're not interested in mechanics that increase player agency.</blockquote>

Verification