Authenticity in RPGing

[Bedrockgames]

I felt that the OP was fairly clear. I also don't think it’s nearly as contentious as some have taken it.

When you frame approach X as encouraging authenticity (a clear good) and other approaches as squelching it, it will lead to contention. I don't think there is much mystery here

 

[hawkeyefan]

When you frame approach X as encouraging authenticity (a clear good) and other approaches as squelching it, it will lead to contention. I don't think there is much mystery here

Why? Is there someone who would be offended at the idea that a railroad eliminates authentic choice?

Most folks seem to look at railroading as something to be avoided. Those that are for it don’t seem to care about player choice.

When we start to move away from as severe an example as railroading and toward things like the three clue rule, then I can see things are less black and white. But again, I haven’t seen anyone cite the three clue rule as a means of promoting authentic choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why? Is there someone who would be offended at the idea that a railroad eliminates authentic choice?

Two issues I think, it wasn't just framed as authentic choice, it was framed as authenticity, as people being true to who they are as people (the use of the word authentic, at least as I read it in the OP) went beyond something like 'meaningful choice' and into deeper territory, which is why I think people initially took issue: it isn't a matter of taking offense, it just feels like the wrong term for a play style

That said, if what was meant was meaningful choice. No I am not offended. But I do understand the push back because he wasn't just attacking railroads. The language was

The flipside of this is that the effect of railroading and all its variations (the "three clue rule", GM-enforced alignment, adventures that work by the players figuring out what the GM has in mind as the solution, etc) is to squelch authenticity. The parameters of play have already been set.

The three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out are being described as variations of railroading (presumably a number of other things also fall under that categorization).

So I think it is entirely reasonable when someone invokes play A as authentic, and play B as inauthentic (and not just inauthentic but also a railroad) that you get a reaction

 

[Bedrockgames]

Most folks seem to look at railroading as something to be avoided. Those that are for it don’t seem to care about player choice.

If the thread had been "I think railroading leads to a lack of meaningful choice, and these games in particular are good at evading railroads" no one would have batted an eye

 

[Bedrockgames]

. But again, I haven’t seen anyone cite the three clue rule as a means of promoting authentic choice.

The issue is, I think, very few people would agree with the OP's assertion that it squelches it

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, I think even if just comes down to you making a 50/50 call, the choice is meaningful because the consequences were death. I agree it isn't an informed choice. But it is a very real choice and it wasn't a meaningless choice in way it would have been had, were this an RPG, the GM simply said 1 in 2 chance, which ever direction you choose a car T bones you, because in that instance which direction you choose doesn't matter at all, in the former instance which direction you choose very much mattered (it wasn't a puzzle to crack, your choice may come down to a whim on your part, but it mattered). And that is a very far end of the extreme of the choice not being informed.

I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.

Most choices will fall on a spectrum (another example you may have some indication things are a miss: i.e. you hear on the radio a bank got robbed three blocks from Wyoma Square to something even more informed like you see series of bad omens the closer you get to the bus). But I think even when the choice is essentially made in a vacuum there is a large difference between one where your choice is going to result in disaster or a normal day; and one where your choice has no input into that. The former I would label a meaningful choice.

I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.

Now, I agree, there's a whole range of how informed someone is. A rumor, a faint bad smell, a map that says "do not go this way!" (but may be a trick), and so on and so forth. Nor would I expect choices to generally be perfectly transparent either, certainly they never are in the real world. However, if we have this no-information situation certainly the 'choice' cannot do any work in terms of informing the quality of our role play, right? I mean, I am not learning anything meaningful about my character, or establishing anything meaningful about her, if I simply say "meh, I always go left..." Sure, its a fact, but we can't conclude anything much from it.

The point, ultimately, being we need some sort of informed decision making. I think, personally, informed agenda setting is even better. You can get a version of that in, say, a sandbox, we go to the castle or the temple, and we have reasons for choosing one or the other. The most powerful version, in a character development sense, would be "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" That can be a fun way to pull in what the players are looking to do, and is part of what I think something like Dungeon World is about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this as I think we've both made the strongest cases for why we feel this way and still don't see eye to eye. Again I would point to how I feel in the moment of making the choice: knowing there is meaning in it, it can be an important and consequential decision, even if I can't decipher anything beyond having a choice between A and B. Whereas I know the GM is just flipping a coin no matter what door I pick, then suddenly my decision feels quite different (certainly a lot of the tension evaporates for me). And it leads to hindsight like "Had I picked door A all those years ago, I might be a very different man today". Again, I agree it is not an informed choice. I would just agree with the distinction made between meaningful and informed choices.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.

To go left or right is still a choice though. And that choice can be very significant. It might not reflect your intellectual ability to make good choices. It might not be the product of deep rumination over a variety of pros and cons. But it is a choice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just literally don't grasp how this is logical in any way whatsoever. Sorry. There's absolutely no difference between me saying "Gosh, I have no idea I'll randomly choose to go left" vs "I flip a coin, heads is left." I mean, I don't say this to argue with you, it is simply not sensible to me, I can't grasp how they differ in any way.

I mean, sure what action you took has CONSEQUENCES, but I dispute characterization of it as a 'choice'. No choosing was involved in a case where there was nothing to go on. To call random stochastic firing of neurons as choice reduces the term to meaninglessness IMHO.

To be fair, I get the argument that it emotionally feels different. If you of your own free will say say "I'll do X instead of Y" and even if you don't really have information about about consequences of X and Y, you probably in some level are more invested in that than if someone just randomised it. If it turns out that X had terrible consequences you might blame yourself and think "if only I had chosen Y" even you really couldn't have known at the moment. People behave like this in the real life all the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now, I agree, there's a whole range of how informed someone is. A rumor, a faint bad smell, a map that says "do not go this way!" (but may be a trick), and so on and so forth. Nor would I expect choices to generally be perfectly transparent either, certainly they never are in the real world. However, if we have this no-information situation certainly the 'choice' cannot do any work in terms of informing the quality of our role play, right? I mean, I am not learning anything meaningful about my character, or establishing anything meaningful about her, if I simply say "meh, I always go left..." Sure, its a fact, but we can't conclude anything much from it.

One thing to keep in mind is I don't think this uninformed but consequential choice should be the default or the preferred dilemma in an RPG. I just think it is one that has its uses like any other type of choice. I wasn't really making an argument in terms of the quality of RP it brings. I think its main value is in the excitement and surprise it can bring into play. That said, sure it can inform the quality of your role-play. You learn how your character deals with potentially risky dilemmas with very little information. That does tell you something about the character (does the character just kick open the door? does he convince someone else to open it? does he take every possible precaution? Does he leave the dungeon in search of more information?). There are certainly going to be other types of choices that illuminate your character more than that, but is isn't empty when it comes to characterization. And the consequences of the choice could certainly contribute meaningfully to the RP (for example if he chooses door B and has his arm squashed to pulp a dire elephant).

The point, ultimately, being we need some sort of informed decision making. I think, personally, informed agenda setting is even better. You can get a version of that in, say, a sandbox, we go to the castle or the temple, and we have reasons for choosing one or the other. The most powerful version, in a character development sense, would be "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" That can be a fun way to pull in what the players are looking to do, and is part of what I think something like Dungeon World is about.

Hey I agree, you need some informed decision making. I would even say more informed decision making is the best case (I just think there is room for the door A and B situations too). In terms of whether sandboxes or a game where you can declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" leads to either more meaningful choices or a more authentic experience, I am not persuaded. I think there is a lot to say for games that do the latter. I just have found sandboxes have a lot of meaningful choices and the fact that you can't declare "I think there's a temple of my patron god Rumple over to the east, and I have heard they need help!" can in some cases make those choices more meaningful. I don't play Dungeon World, but I do play Hillfolk, and there is a degree of immersive roleplaying that is definitely one of its strong suits (and it does the whole "I think there's a temple of my patron god..." thing). But your choices are meaningful in a different way than they are in a sandbox. It is very hard to compare them cleanly. They are just very different experiences. I wouldn't label one more authentic or having more meaningful choices than the other. I certainly wouldn't say it is the most powerful version of creating informed choice making. Same goes for character development.