Authenticity in RPGing

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, and I thought you made some pretty reasonable points. There IS, at least potentially, a continuum. I can just say that I haven't in 40+ years of play, actually experienced a D&D game that got to where the BitD game was the other day. I'm OK with the assertion that maybe once you get to a certain point there's some substantive reason to not formulate your D&D game exactly like, say, Dungeon World, that maybe you like some elements of GM direction and "OK, we'll play an adventure that reflects on PC concerns, but the GM will still draw maps and keys within that context" or whatever is where you want to be. I think there is just a tendency for some people to try to assert that there's no 'air' between that and something like DW or BitD, and I don't think that's the case. I think a more principled stand to take, which seems to be yours, is "Yeah, system matters, these are likely to play differently, and we can say different things about them." The semantic arguments beyond that point are fairly uninteresting to me, or at least I don't perceive any value in wandering in that particular swamp.

I think I would say "System can and often does matter, but it isn't the only thing, and there are ways to solve problems beyond just mechanics or system". I think what sometimes happens though is people see that and they read something more like "System is meaningless" which is far from my position.

I think the danger is to look at something like Hillfolk (and I am just leaning on that because I am familiar with it, whereas I can't speak as well on BitD), seeing that it allows players to do things like frame a scene and to establish facts through their dialogue, which granted is giving the player tremendous control (albeit they are constrained by some of the drama conceits of the systems as that is the focus, but they have a lot of control), and then take from the a dichotomy where anything in D&D is a railroad on one end because it doesn't afford that same level of imperium to the players in terms of narrative authority (and it doesn't place as many limits on the GM, but a game like Hillfolk offers total freedom. Because 1) there are plenty of other ways players can be empowered to help shape the course of a campaign in a traditional game, and 2) while Hillfolk offers players a good deal of power over these things, blurring that line between the character and the setting does have its costs (i.e. a mystery is an entirely different thing in this kind of campaign: it is harder to have an adventure where the players solve a mystery as a problem to be solved).

I should say I don't think either one is better or worse at mysteries. It really depends on what you want. Some people want to help create mystery and discover a mystery together, some people want to solve it. If you want to do the former, Hillfolk would be a better system than Cthulhu (at least in the editions I have played), but if you want to solve a mystery, I'd recommend Cthulhu.

But just because there is a mystery in a Cthulhu campaign, that doesn't mean there has to be one. You can use the three clue rule, you can say I am going to run a bunch of mysteries, but if you tell the players at the start of the session something like:

"I am interested in finding out what happens as much as you are. I don't want to feel like I am just handing you my notes, so I encourage you to smash the scenery, smash plots, explore your characters personal goals and motives, and I will honor that. I may not do exactly what you want or expect but I will lean in that direction. I am much more interested in something that feels like Fargo than something that feels like Sherlock Holmes."

You are going to have a very different experience and one where the player goals are more likely to have a large impact on the course of the adventure. Especially if the GM is also rolling everything in the open, not fudging, letting players kill whatever NPC or monster they legitimately can, etc.

You can also combine these two things. This is something I tried with Hillfolk because it has two types of scenes: Dramatic and Procedural. So we used the Dramasystem from Hillfolk for Dramatic Scenes in a campaign but used my own system (which is more on the trad end) for Procedural scenes (dramatic scenes are more about the internal drama and characters resolving conflicting goals, whereas procedural scenes are more about external things like stealing the Raksha manual from the Zombie Sect headquarters).

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but the implication that the onus must be on certain posters to take some kind of steps, vs the onus is on other readers to interpret generously, is one I know which side I am likely to fall on. Now, I'll also posit that the response to the, in a large group of readers inevitable, few negative responses might most constructively be to completely ignore them. Pointless debate isn't one-sided, but ideally it will exist at a minimal level to start with.

This is not the first time that the OP has written an OP or posted in that manner. Far from it. In another thread he was singing the praises of the ways his playstyle discovers things, while trying to reduce the traditional playstyles to "Playing to discover what's in the GM's notes," which is not only wrong as a general statement of the traditional playstyles, but is phrased very negatively.

A lot of his ideas are very interesting, but many of his threads seem to quickly break down into playstyle arguments based around his negative phrasing of the traditional playstyles. It's self-sabotaging.

 

[Umbran]

A lot of his ideas are very interesting, but many of his threads seem to quickly break down into playstyle arguments based around his negative phrasing of the traditional playstyles. It's self-sabotaging.

Piratecat used to have a challenge - "Tell me how awesome your game is without comparing it to any other games."

 

[Lanefan]

We often leave out the most important part of phrase in question during these discussions. Play to find out what happens. Meaning that first and foremost play is centered around a curious spirit of what happens next. Not what the setting is like. Not what the story is. Not how we manage resources. What happens next.

Sure, but "what happens next" can't happen in a vacuum, can it?

There's "whatever already happened" to build on, but doesn't there also need to be an underlying foundation and-or surrounding environment (usually provided by the setting) such that what happens next can make sense within that surrounding environment.

It's a mentality that is focused on being present, not worrying where things will lead or on manifesting your conception of your character. Not chewing scenery.

Which seems odd, as living in the present without a thought for the future probably isn't something a wise character would tend to do. There's always a bigger picture; and the players of wise characters would, one thinks, want to be able to both keep an eye on that bigger picture and act with it in mind.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, it does not. Your point here seems hyperbolic, and is apt to not be constructive.

It means that if you are speaking to a large enough group, you are practically assured that some number of folks in the group are going to have some issue with your opinion/assertion, and that will be a barrier to discussion. Empirical evidence of this rests in 20+ years of this website, so maybe arguing otherwise is not your best bet.

In your role as a mod, I'd have loved to hear your take on the actual point @AbdulAlhazred made in the rest of his post that you cut out.

Instead, you chose to snip his post down and then admonish him for being hyperbolic. Not as a mod, but just a regular old admonishment. In the same thread where you also told him to "leash it" on a topic you didn't like.

You avoided the point of a post to focus on hyperbole and to accuse someone of being unconstructive.... while ignoring the constructive question that having a mod's opinion on could potentially actually help conversation.

I'll post the remainder of his post here sans hyperbole. What would you say about the below?

I would think if we were 'going at it' that the response might be "why are you gatekeeping discussion like this?" Honestly, I'm not trying to be confrontational like that, I'm just pointing it out so I can ask; How are we permitted to have this discussion? I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You understand that taking your statement literally amounts to "we interpret any term you can use to describe X in a loaded fashion such that it is impossible for you to ever assert, in any language, your opinion about X." I'm not convinced that you've thought that statement through entirely.

No, I quite have, and you're not far off from my read of it.

Terms are not neutral. The only way to approach making them neutral is to invent a new one for your purpose. If you claim a given approach provides a particular thing, the only way people are not going to read that as privileging that approach is if they do not read that thing as virtuous. You can hose it down a bit by making it clear you're using the thing you're talking about as a term-of-art and defining it, but for the most part the responses you're going to get come in three categories unless you limit yourself to discussing it among people who already accept the premise that the particular approach you're taking is superior in providing it: 1. "No it doesn't" among people who value the thing, 2. "So?" among people who don't care, and 3. "Good!" among people who consider the thing undesirable.

The number of people who do not respond in one of the three ways will be vanishingly small.

I would think if we were 'going at it' that the response might be "why are you gatekeeping discussion like this?" Honestly, I'm not trying to be confrontational like that, I'm just pointing it out so I can ask; How are we permitted to have this discussion? I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic.

You're permitted to have it how you wish. I'm simply pointing out the kind of responses you're getting are, to a large extent, entirely predictable.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'll post the remainder of his post here sans hyperbole. What would you say about the below?

"I mean, I am entirely certain that there are real, genuine points to discuss on this topic."

I would say that people should be able to discuss things with authenticity! That people be able to make real, genuine points ... in threads, that say something - individually, and if enWorld is working properly, together.

The flipside of this is threads, such as this one, that squelch authenticity. The parameters of discussion have already been set.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Because I try to have friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation when I post; not simply set arguments that elevate my games above others. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is everyone supposed to do this?

Anyone who does not want to get push back (potentially heavy pushback depending on the particular point and location), yes. You don't have to like that, but that's reality.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but "what happens next" can't happen in a vacuum, can it?

There's "whatever already happened" to build on, but doesn't there also need to be an underlying foundation and-or surrounding environment (usually provided by the setting) such that what happens next can make sense within that surrounding environment.

Well, first of all, there's no requirement that the environment be limited to only what the PCs have touched. Even in games that advocate low prep, like Dungeon World, prep IS a thing. Its just contingent and meant to supply the GM with a ready source of material to draw from. Other games, like BitD, have pretty complete settings but generally are pretty open about what happens. For instance I don't see anything in BitD's presentation of Doskvol which talks about what is going to happen next. There are some clocks for the other organizations that attach to their goals, and that's about as far as it goes (so we know that the Circle wants to kick Strangwater off the City Council and there's a ticking clock for when that attempt might take place). Note that none of those clocks HAS to be used in play, just that they exist and provide the GM with something he can say. Like if the PCs are somehow interacting with the Circle then the GM has a 'hook' he can play, by saying "Hey, the Circle guy wants you to help him set up Strangwater, can you do this job for him?"

So, in BitD, yes, there's a setting, and POSSIBLE relationships and plans that NPCs have. What action will actually take place is pretty much just what the PCs engage with. The GM can present stuff, and should if there's a dearth of directions for the crew to go in for some reason, but usually the players can make enough trouble on their own! I mean, its a rich environment of potential trouble to get into, and the PCs have pretty much got built-in reasons to want to not just loaf around (like most of them have expensive vices).

If we look at Dungeon World, where there is no pregenerated setting at all, the GM will construct fronts, which are pretty much analogous to the organization clocks in BitD, plus the organization descriptions. The other stuff is more open and DW has a bit wider field in terms of the types of actions and locations that might come up. Still, the game is driven in pretty much the identical same way, given some variation in mechanics. Bootstrapping and then running with the momentum of the current situation, with maybe a twist or change of direction here or there, is perfectly workable. Obviously the facts on the ground will continue to accumulate and evolve as the game goes forward, so it will tend to reference 'canon' more over time.

Which seems odd, as living in the present without a thought for the future probably isn't something a wise character would tend to do. There's always a bigger picture; and the players of wise characters would, one thinks, want to be able to both keep an eye on that bigger picture and act with it in mind.

Yeah, well, the players can describe that bigger picture, or the GM can introduce parts of it as well. The basic concept is just not to feed it to the players as a set of immutable facts that dictate exactly which things can and cannot happen in play. I think we all agree there are some kinds of scenarios that won't be as appealing in this sort of style, perhaps, though I don't think there's anything that cannot, in a narrative sense, happen in a Story Now type of game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but the implication that the onus must be on certain posters to take some kind of steps, vs the onus is on other readers to interpret generously, is one I know which side I am likely to fall on. Now, I'll also posit that the response to the, in a large group of readers inevitable, few negative responses might most constructively be to completely ignore them. Pointless debate isn't one-sided, but ideally it will exist at a minimal level to start with.

You are considerably more optimistic than I am given your last sentence here.