Authenticity in RPGing

[Bedrockgames]

But aren’t they? Don’t those methods undermine choice?

I don't think they undermine meaningful choice (at least not enforced alignment rules and the three clue: the players needing to figure out the GM's predetermine solution could well impact meaningful choice depending on what you mean exactly by that). With alignment the players are still free to make what moral choices they want in the world. Having rules governing alignment give some cosmic consequences to those choices (which I think can add more meaning to them). A classic example might be a player finding this character slowly gaining an evil alignment through his actions as he takes more and more selfish steps, sacrifices others to get ahead, etc. You are still free to make those choices. Another would be how a place like Ravenloft handled alignment where certain evil actions could attract the dark powers attention and result in players suffering supernatural transformation. My experience with Ravenloft is that added a lot in terms of meaningful choice (as well as characterization and development).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t know about that. I think that the chances may have been better, I’d grant that. But I think plenty would still argue the point because of the perceived slight toward D&D and traditional play. Even though none of the methods cited as problematic are essential to that kind of play.

It is the internet, and a gaming forum, so you are not going to have zero disagreement. Not bat an eye may have been an overstatement. At the same time, when you frame something as a zero sum game, especially if you invoke other styles of play or other systems when praising your own style or your preferred system, you are going to run into more contention. If I just say "Hillfolk is great for drama series emulation" as I did in my other post, people who hate Hillfolk or who think it is not good at drama series emulation (or think there are better options than Hillfolk) might weigh in. If on the other hand I say "Hillfolk is great for drama series emulation, but D&D thwarts drama at every turn" even if there is some truth to D&D not being built with drama emulation in mind, you are going to find yourself contending with fans of D&D who use it in more dramatic campaigns.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would love if someone offered a take about the three clue rule, GM enforced alignment, and adventures the players need to figure out the GM’s predetermined solution (I added that last bit back in because I think it’s essential) that somehow explained how they led to authentic play.

I responded to this a bit in my previous post. I think if someone is making the case that the three clue rule squelches a virtue of play, it is more on the person taking that position to make their case than on people to defend the three clue rule. At least it needs to be made clear why they think the three clue rule squelches important choice making. I think something like the three clue rule is pretty neutral on this front. It isn't aiming to actively promote it, but doesn't detract from it. And it can be used to promote meaningful choice. Its reason for existing isn't to solve the problem of a lack of meaningful choice, but to solve the problem of investigative bottle necks (and it is a direct response to the Gumshoe 'systems' approach by offering an 'adventure structure' approach).

Again here I think authentic play doesn't work well as a term. But if we are talking meaningful choice, I definitely think D&D alignment rules can be used to enhance that (for reasons I stated in my other post). Obviously alignment is one of the more divisive concepts in D&D so some people don't like it, or won't agree. But taking away meaningful choices or reducing authenticity isn't a problem I have found with it (I have certainly encountered other issues with alignment, such as how individual alignments are defined). I found it to be a very powerful tool in Ravenloft, precisely because it makes moral choices meaningful on a level that impacts the characters physical form.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I wouldn't argue that meaningful and informed are synonymous, but I would argue that an uninformed choice is meaningless in the sense that we are discussing here. If you come to the proverbial T in the corridor and NOTHING is known about either branch, nor can be inferred, etc. then no meaningful choice of direction to take can exist, the whole exercise is pointless. The most you can salvage out of it is some sort of statement about the utter helplessness of people and the ultimate futility of free will or some such. I guess that's a legit thing to do in an RPG, but there's little to say about it.

What if a character has a Belief that "I will always choose the right-hand path!" And a player, by choosing to go right, manifests that Belief in play. Depending on other features of the game being played, the procedures adopted, etc, this might be meaningful. And might connect in some fashion to authenticity.

Or flip it around: if that character's player chooses to go left despite the Belief, maybe they are setting things up for some kind of character epiphany, or are inviting the GM to "bring it on".

This is why I think that these sorts of examples of decision-making need a lot of context to be provided before we are able to talk about their relationship to meaning, authenticity etc.

 

[pemerton]

The question I would ask is if this is all-or-nothing, or can it be a toggle? If I see a “railroad” and derail the train, has play become more “authentic” if we decide to see where that goes? Or if everyone agrees to a constraint (e.g., playing in a particular sandbox), can play still be “authentic” within those constraints?

I think a lot of self-described "traditional" play has more "non-traditional" elements than is frequently acknowledged. And as a result is less GM-driven then it says on the box.

Sandboxes can be extremely varied, especially when the previous paragraph is considered. They can also produce "tugs-of-war" between players and GM over what the action is really about, which is the more antagonistic manifestation of the previous paragraph.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose we sit down to play Moldvay Basic. The DM puts a hex map of Mystara on the table, telling us that this is where the game take place, but they commit to using nothing but the game’s procedures and tables to determine what is there and what happens. They also commit to the principles of being a neutral referee, so they can’t put their thumb on the scale surreptitiously. Does the resulting play have authenticity?

If the answer is “no” or even just “not necessarily”, then there is an issue. “Railroad” was presented as the flipside of “authentic”, but I don’t think one could reasonably construe the above play as form of railroad.

Flipside is ambiguous as between contrary and contradictory. I see railroad and authenticity as contraries. They may not be contradictories in general, though if the domain of analysis is confined (and I think the confining can be done in a non-arbitrary, not trivially tautological way) then I think they become contradictories.

The Moldvay Basic game you describe looks, from your description, like it will be classic wargaming D&D. I don't think it will manifest authenticity, by default, for just the reasons that a typical wargame or boardgame won't: it's not the right sort of activity. Nor is it a railroad.

Of course, as we all know, the player-to-character identification aspect of RPGing means that the toggle can shift very quickly! But when it does, then the idea that the referee will use nothing but the game's procedures and tables breaks down. And then we move into the domain where I am tempted to see railroad and authenticity as contradictories and not just contraries.

 

[kenada]

Meanwhile, @kenada's example of the Mystara sandbox is a good one. Because the notion, sketched in the OP, that trad play consists entirely in railroaded set pieces, DMs enforcing alignment, games that consist entirely in guessing what the DM is thinking or "DM storytime," is a RPG horror stories caricature. The "participationism" caricature is needed in order to elevate the qualities of other games. So what about the b/x sandbox? Based on previous conversations, I would guess that this would not count as "authentic" play.

To be fair, the OP doesn’t call out traditional play specifically but only refers to railroads. I don’t think it follows that traditional games must be railroads. Based on subsequent responses by both @pemerton and @AbdulAlhazred, I would agree my example most likely falls under neither authentic nor railroad. Do I think that’s a bad thing? Not really. It just means some styles of play aren’t part of the discussion.

 

[pemerton]

It just means some styles of play aren’t part of the discussion.

Or occupy a different location in the discussion.

 

[kenada]

Of course, as we all know, the player-to-character identification aspect of RPGing means that the toggle can shift very quickly! But when it does, then the idea that the referee will use nothing but the game's procedures and tables breaks down. And then we move into the domain where I am tempted to see railroad and authenticity as contradictories and not just contraries.

This is where I assume ideas like being a fan of the players’ characters comes into play. It’s not enough just to keep the GM’s thumb off the scale. There also needs to be an intent to present situations that allow for authenticity.

For example, I don’t just throw a vampire at the party because that’s the challenge that came up. I use it to set up a situation where we get to learn something about the players (such as whether the cleric will destroy the vampire once she is capable even after the vampire has become an ally).

 

[pemerton]

I use it to set up a situation where we get to learn something about the players

Or, to link this back to the OP more explicitly, a situation in which one or more players get to make a commitment.