Authenticity in RPGing

[hawkeyefan]

Following on what @AbdulAlhazred has written, I feel motivation can arise in two senses, one of which inspires rather than stifles.

In one sense, which perhaps you are thinking of, the GM says what the character thinks. For example, they say "As a revolutionary dark elf you won't do X" or they say "As a revolutionary dark elf you must do Y."

I think it’s more a case of “You’re a revolutionary dark elf… what does that mean to you?”

There being no “correct” answers probably relates to what @pemerton means by authentic. My answer is mine, your answer is yours, and each is true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it’s more a case of “You’re a revolutionary dark elf… what does that mean to you?”

There being no “correct” answers probably relates to what @pemerton means by authentic. My answer is mine, your answer is yours, and each is true.

@pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

@pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?

You’ve never read a post on ENWorld where someone said something like “no evil PCs allowed; my games are about the PCs being heroes and so that’s what I expect from the players”?

There are many variations on the above, some less severe some more so, but I think the gist is common enough I’m surprised to hear anyone doubt it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You’ve never read a post on ENWorld where someone said something like “no evil PCs allowed; my games are about the PCs being heroes and so that’s what I expect from the players”?

There are many variations on the above, some less severe some more so, but I think the gist is common enough I’m surprised to hear anyone doubt it.

Yes I have. But how is that not just part of the premise of the game, and how it is any more "authenticity eroding" than any other limitation implied by the premise?

Mind you, personally I usually wouldn't prefer so broadly stated premise on that area, though of course specific campaign ideas might require something like that.

In fact, I think that authentically emulating certain concepts requires establishing such things. For example if one wants to play a Star Trek TNG inspired game then the authenticity requires that the characters are rather moral people.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes I have. But how is that not just part of the premise of the game, and how it is any more "authenticity eroding" than any other limitation implied by the premise?

I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.

Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.

So if we take a premise that starts more narrow than “adventurers”… perhaps outlaws or spies or constables… it certainly sets certain constraints on play. But it doesn’t dictate morality in any way. It doesn’t eliminate any avenue for the players to take within the premise. I can be a noble outlaw or a cold-blooded bastard. I can be a devoted, loyal spy or I could be compromised, playing all sides against one another. I could be a decent cop or bad lieutenant.

Having a premise is one thing. Dictating behavior beyond the premise is another.

Mind you, personally I wouldn't usually prefer so broadly stated premise on that area, though of course specific campaign ideas might require something like that.

I think some may. Super heroes would immediately come to mind. Or similar concepts that typically have simplistic portrayals of morality, like Star Wars and the like. Not that there can’t be exceptions; there are plenty of examples of each that don’t have the simple good vs. evil.

Most, I think, don’t require that as much. But yes, there are some that do.

I fact, I think authentically emulating certain concepts requires establishing such things. For example if one want to play a Star Trek TNG inspired game then the authenticity requires that the characters are rather moral people.

That’s a good example, actually, for a couple of reasons. First, I think what you’re talking about is more about setting authenticity, which is a different thing. But I think it can result in the same kinds of restrictions.

I played in a short lived Star Trek Adventures game. It was short lived because the GM has much more reverence for the setting than any of the players did. For example, when one player expressed interest in playing an android, the GM denied the request because he had chosen the setting to be around the time of The Next Generation (he knew the exact year) and there was only one android at that time, Data.

So I think that got us off on the wrong foot, and we all kind of bucked at some of the constraints. My character was a kind of minor officer who’d had disciplinary issues (this was determined through a lifepath generator on Modiphius’s website). The other characters wound up as similar outcast types.

To me, the premise was clear. If this was going to be a Star Trek show it would be “Star Trek: Renegades” or “Star Trek: Outcasts”, something like that. The GM didn’t see it and instead kept trying to force us into the “proper” Federation conduct and procedures. Needless to say, the game fell apart.

There was conflict between the GM and the players about how the characters must behave. Instead of finding a way to resolve that conflict, the GM simply kept trying to enforce his ideas. And the game ended.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.

Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.

So if we take a premise that starts more narrow than “adventurers”… perhaps outlaws or spies or constables… it certainly sets certain constraints on play. But it doesn’t dictate morality in any way. It doesn’t eliminate any avenue for the players to take within the premise. I can be a noble outlaw or a cold-blooded bastard. I can be a devoted, loyal spy or I could be compromised, playing all sides against one another. I could be a decent cop or bad lieutenant.

Having a premise is one thing. Dictating behavior beyond the premise is another.



I think some may. Super heroes would immediately come to mind. Or similar concepts that typically have simplistic portrayals of morality, like Star Wars and the like. Not that there can’t be exceptions; there are plenty of examples of each that don’t have the simple good vs. evil.

Most, I think, don’t require that as much. But yes, there are some that do.



That’s a good example, actually, for a couple of reasons. First, I think what you’re talking about is more about setting authenticity, which is a different thing. But I think it can result in the same kinds of restrictions.

I played in a short lived Star Trek Adventures game. It was short lived because the GM has much more reverence for the setting than any of the players did. For example, when one player expressed interest in playing an android, the GM denied the request because he had chosen the setting to be around the time of The Next Generation (he knew the exact year) and there was only one android at that time, Data.

So I think that got us off on the wrong foot, and we all kind of bucked at some of the constraints. My character was a kind of minor officer who’d had disciplinary issues (this was determined through a lifepath generator on Modiphius’s website). The other characters wound up as similar outcast types.

To me, the premise was clear. If this was going to be a Star Trek show it would be “Star Trek: Renegades” or “Star Trek: Outcasts”, something like that. The GM didn’t see it and instead kept trying to force us into the “proper” Federation conduct and procedures. Needless to say, the game fell apart.

There was conflict between the GM and the players about how the characters must behave. Instead of finding a way to resolve that conflict, the GM simply kept trying to enforce his ideas. And the game ended.

Most games don't have alignment. But even in D&D, most iterations of alignment are not about controlling player behavior. They can do what they want. There may be in game consequences (if the GM tracks your alignment and you start as LG but the GM feels you become NE, that could impact something like what abilities you have access to, or if you are able to use a certain artifact, and it might impact how certain beings interact with you). And even in D&D, how it is dealt with is often resolved by the group as a whole. Now there could be a legitimate disagreement between the GM and the player about whether an action is good, but the 'authentic' thing to do in that instance is to reject the cosmos' labeling and continue on, dealing with any consequences that get thrown your way. There is certainly something to be said for defying the gods in a game like this.

There is I think a very good discussion to be had on alignment. I am not fully seeing the authenticity issue here though. In the real world there are constraints and even things people might call cosmic injustices. You can still be your authentic self by going against the grain. There are consequences but I think having a price to staying authentic is somewhat more interesting anyways

I do think Pemerton is making a valid point about how some games do things in terms of giving players the power to set stakes and so forth. And arguably when you take constraints away from someone, maybe you are better able to glimpse who they really are (but even then a part of me says, no it's when what you want is thwarted that your true self is visible: maybe it is a bit of both).

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the subject of "Only heroes in my game". I think that is a thing mainly to maintain social cohesion. I have seen some GMs online who say it to impose their own sense of morality, so I am sure it exists in that form too, but most instances where I have seen it, it appears to be either out of a desire to keep the group from devolving into infighting or out of a desire to make sure players aren't doing anything that might anger or offend someone else at the table (my guess is a lot 'only heroes' campaigns come from having experienced stuff like players killing each others characters or stealing from one another).

Personally I like have more drama and conflict in the party sometimes, and with the right group, allowing 'all alignments' can work. But I also have had groups where it wouldn't have worked. And anything put down as a constraint was not a product of me imposing my will but trying to mediate the dynamics in the group so that everyone felt comfortable.

On more focused campaigns, I think those are often more about the discussion before hand: Hey would you want to do an all escape convict campaign? Some premise that seems like it could fuel a campaign is usually what seems to generate. But it requires everyone at the table all wanting to do it (or the players initiating that focus during play and the GM going with it).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Following on what @AbdulAlhazred has written, I feel motivation can arise in two senses, one of which inspires rather than stifles.

In one sense, which perhaps you are thinking of, the GM says what the character thinks. For example, they say "As a revolutionary dark elf you won't do X" or they say "As a revolutionary dark elf you must do Y."

In the sense I am thinking of, a "motivation" is simply that: "a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way." My character learns that there is an arcane tower to the west, so they have a reason to go west. They don't have to do so. Our imagined game world could contain entities who embrace certain principles and expect their followers to do the same. If my character is such a follower, then they know those principles. GM does not say what I have to do about that, but perhaps is happy to describe the penance imposed on followers who stray. My character thus has reason to adhere to our order's morality (as handed down by our god), but does not have to do so.

And I think that this would not really tick the box of the OP in terms of being very authentic. That is, the motivation to do X or not do Y is external. It is, as I pointed out in a previous post, largely similar to the restrictions imposed by things like the walls of a dungeon. Maybe if you REALLY want you can take a pickaxe to that wall, but the GM is pretty much saying "you don't want to do that, you want to follow my hallway." Now, obviously, a lot of real life is pretty much like this too, so its not NECESSARILY inauthentic either, its just that it won't be 'deep' in any RP sense. I don't kill spiders because if I do Lolth will curse me and I'll suffer an alignment penalty (or something). A more authentic kind of RP would pit my love of my life as a loyal servant of Lolth with my desire to protect my family from being killed by spiders. NOW we're into something a bit more interesting, there's an internal conflict, something profound for the character will come out of this. Simple alignment adherence need not enslave us to the whims of the GM, any more than any other established element of setting will, but it isn't very deep either.

I haven't played Spire, but I read that "Spire is a roleplaying game about desperate revolutionary dark elves caught up in a secret war against the high elves, or aelfir, who rule the towering city of Spire." I don't assume the intent is to say what characters think or do as "desperate revolutionary dark elves" - that's up to the players. Perhaps the campaign that I briefly outlined above is about our characters' struggles against our order's dogmatic constraints... just as those dark elves are struggling against the high elves in Spire. In both cases, our play benefits from the presence of motivations (in fact, it's hard to see why we would do anything without them!)

Motivations in the first sense are stifling. In the second sense they are inspiring... and, I moot, essential.

Right, so maybe we're saying the same thing? I would call alignment, at best, not a help in terms of giving us real character development opportunities. At most if it is unenforced it is background. OTOH something like Spire's premise is pretty much NECESSARY to produce interesting conflict, though it isn't required that it arise out of a setting conceit as it does in Spire's case. DW is more general in that the premise of a specific game (beyond the fantastic world of heroic PCs) can and should be decided as part of the process of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton has talked about this "GM dictated morale" before, and I remain puzzled. Is this a common thing? Because I'm not sure what it actually means and even less sure that it is thing that commonly happens. Sure, there might be premise for a campaign and issues the people don't want to deal with at the table, but I don't think that's what is being talked about here, or is it?

If you are running through A1 through A4 Against the Slavelords, there is a pretty hard-coded premise. Your characters ARE the enemies of the Slavelords, who ARE evil villainous slave takers. At no point in the entire 4 module series (what today we would call an AP) is this premise explored, and certainly its characterization of the situation is never challenged. The PCs are offered no other motives that I can recall aside from just "these are bad guys, go get 'em" (I didn't come up with a copy of A1 in my rummaging in my cabinet so I am not positive exactly what the text says). The GM could toss in the obvious "find your lost relative/love interest/ally/friend" of course, but its not like the whole thing really cares about that. As written such an NPC won't figure into the actual story in a material way.

My point being, this is totally 100% classic D&D, and modern modules like Descent into Avernus or whatnot seem to have pretty much exactly the same structure. In fact the exact same criticisms have been leveled against it many times! I don't think it is hard at all to understand @pemerton's point when considering this sort of classic play, is it?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t know if it’s more so, so much as it’s a matter of how so.

Saying “we’re going to be adventurers” is incredibly broad, and is open to all manner of interpretation. Saying “we’re going to be heroic adventurers” is more narrow. You’re not just saying what I am, but how I must be that thing.

So if we take a premise that starts more narrow than “adventurers”… perhaps outlaws or spies or constables… it certainly sets certain constraints on play. But it doesn’t dictate morality in any way. It doesn’t eliminate any avenue for the players to take within the premise. I can be a noble outlaw or a cold-blooded bastard. I can be a devoted, loyal spy or I could be compromised, playing all sides against one another. I could be a decent cop or bad lieutenant.

Having a premise is one thing. Dictating behavior beyond the premise is another.



I think some may. Super heroes would immediately come to mind. Or similar concepts that typically have simplistic portrayals of morality, like Star Wars and the like. Not that there can’t be exceptions; there are plenty of examples of each that don’t have the simple good vs. evil.

Most, I think, don’t require that as much. But yes, there are some that do.



That’s a good example, actually, for a couple of reasons. First, I think what you’re talking about is more about setting authenticity, which is a different thing. But I think it can result in the same kinds of restrictions.

I played in a short lived Star Trek Adventures game. It was short lived because the GM has much more reverence for the setting than any of the players did. For example, when one player expressed interest in playing an android, the GM denied the request because he had chosen the setting to be around the time of The Next Generation (he knew the exact year) and there was only one android at that time, Data.

So I think that got us off on the wrong foot, and we all kind of bucked at some of the constraints. My character was a kind of minor officer who’d had disciplinary issues (this was determined through a lifepath generator on Modiphius’s website). The other characters wound up as similar outcast types.

To me, the premise was clear. If this was going to be a Star Trek show it would be “Star Trek: Renegades” or “Star Trek: Outcasts”, something like that. The GM didn’t see it and instead kept trying to force us into the “proper” Federation conduct and procedures. Needless to say, the game fell apart.

There was conflict between the GM and the players about how the characters must behave. Instead of finding a way to resolve that conflict, the GM simply kept trying to enforce his ideas. And the game ended.

Even within the milieu of classic Star Trek there's far more that would make sense than simply playing super upstanding regulation characters! I mean, consider Captain Merrick from the Roman Empire planet episode. Granted he's portrayed as washing out of Star Fleet, but he's not exactly made of Kirk-like material. Even Spock goes off the reservation in The Managerie. The original (FGU?) Star Trek RPG had the characters being fairly 'cut and dried' out of the gate, but even there you'd always get hit by some weird scenario straight out of TOS that was going to make you have to figure out how to bend the rules into a pretzel, just like Jim Kirk!