Authenticity in RPGing

[deleuzian_kernel]

....Also, and while it isn't important ... OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....

Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala Ron Edwards, all techniques that promote authenticity (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose.

I mean, no one mentioned anything about Edwards and you’re ranting about the brain damage stuff again.

I want to own up that did bring up four of Ron Edwards ideas (specifically techniques) as part of my response.

Namely, kickers, bangs and outspoken distributions of authority as techniques that promote authenticity in the context of collaboration, and intuitive continuity that goes against authenticity in the context of collaboration.

@Snarf Zagyg decision to bring up other unrelated comments of Ron flirts very coquettishly with a fallacy of origins. I would very happily address any objections with regards to the specific ideas I posed .

If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.

I don't know, I think there is a good number of people that have approached this conversation with a healthy level of suspicion about the OP's use of "authentic" and have managed to get a lot from it.

I think the OP himself has gained a wider perspective of what the word authenticity means to others based on the myriad of responses given by many of us that have different experiences roleplaying. Whereas some outright condemn its use, others like me do try to see it in the best light possible as an apt word to describe a specific experience.

 

[pemerton]

I think part of the issue is also what people tend to think of as "the system". Like if the rules say that the GM decides how X comes about, then that's part of the system, I'd say. Others may not agree if there are no game mechanics involved. But I think the division of authority and who gets to decide what and how, falls under "the system".

System: the means by which we work out what happens next.

Given that what happens next is imagined stuff, that is part of a shared fiction, the previous sentence can be restated: system is the set of rules, techniques etc for determining who gets to contribute to the shared fiction, when they do so, and what they can contribute.

(I think we're in broad agreement on this.)

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.

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.

You seem to be talking about the content of the fiction: the context and circumstances in which a character makes a decision.

But that leaves it quite open how the fiction is authored, and by whom. Which is what @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @AbdulAlhazred have been discussing in some of their recent posts.

Or to restate much the same point in slightly different terms: there are ways for a player to play a PC who keeps their eye on the bigger picture other than the player keeping their eye on, and responding to, decisions that the GM makes about the content of the fiction.

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.

I think this is a challenge for RPGing, particularly because of the place of the long-running campaign in RPGing (and there are elements of many RPGs that push towards the campaign as a desired element of play: eg level gain in D&D and DW, but other sorts of rules for PC development/power-ups too). I've experienced it in RM, in Traveller and in Burning Wheel.

I think it's interesting to look at how some games are set up to avoid it. The episodic structure of Agon, or Prince Valiant, is one way. The escalation of tiers in 4e D&D can be seen as another way, although it plays out over a longer time frame.

Given how much we see this issue in other serial fiction - comics, TV shows, movie series, etc - I'm not sure there are simple solutions.

 

[pemerton]

Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave?

It seems like it would depend on the mechanic.

Suppose a player decides to put at stake whether or not their character will make and keep a promise: that seems different from the GM telling them what their character should do, or what would be proper for their character to do.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The inability of some people to see why pejorative language and putting other people down makes conversation difficult.

If you don't see why those comments are not productive, it stands to reason that you will be blissfully unaware of why so many different people have said that the OP's use of "authentic" (and "squelch authenticity" in relation to other conversations) is not conducive to a productive conversation.

Sorry, you really are not the English language police, OK. @pemerton used the term, and used it in a pretty specific way, which he has already subsequently expanded on and explained. Yet here we are on page 21 you've still not moved on? OKAY!

....Also, and while it isn't important ... OF COURSE SOMEONE ALREADY BROUGHT UP RON EDWARDS IN THIS THREAD! In addition to all the indirect mentions, there is #331 ....

Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala Ron Edwards, all techniques that promote authenticity (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose.

Right, so the merest oblique reference to people you don't like is a heinous crime now that must be flogged. What are you getting out of this?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok, so, setting aside the touchy issue of nomenclature and accepting the word "authenticity" for now, I have a question:

In another thread, I believe on the question of whether or not an NPC should be able to persuade an PC, over the wishes of the player, @pemerton came out strongly in favor of systems in which the mechanics can have influence over PC thoughts/decisions/actions, as opposed to merely determining the success of actions that are completely in control of the player. Some posters (I can't remember if @pemerton was one of them) felt that these sorts of mechanics result in (I paraphrase) "the exploration of personalities that aren't your own" or something to that effect.

Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave? Why does one result in authenticity (as defined in this thread) and the other doesn't? Is it because mechanics are neutral and GMs are not?

This isn't meant as a gotcha. I'm hoping that the answer will help clarify my understanding of this thread.

Well... are they equivalent things? A mechanic which dictates that, lets say, your character has to pass some check or else become afraid and be unable to take some action, or run away or something, can be interpreted as a kind of genuine experience. A premise and/or setting, say like the BitD one, doesn't seem to me personally to be that similar. It provides a context, and some color, under which the player can make sense of their character's commitments. If this sort of setting, however, exists as an absolute which has the purpose of simply acting as a set of constraints on plot and action it isn't really doing that work, instead it is serving as sort of a goal, that is getting around it and figuring it out.

 

[Lanefan]

You seem to be talking about the content of the fiction: the context and circumstances in which a character makes a decision.

But that leaves it quite open how the fiction is authored, and by whom. Which is what @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @AbdulAlhazred have been discussing in some of their recent posts.

Or to restate much the same point in slightly different terms: there are ways for a player to play a PC who keeps their eye on the bigger picture other than the player keeping their eye on, and responding to, decisions that the GM makes about the content of the fiction.

I forget now who I was replying to with the piece you quoted, but that poster was putting forward the position that play is (ideally*) entirely in the moment without thought as to where things go later; which seemed a bit odd.

It's the big picture - the greater setting - that generates consequences beyond just those in the moment; that doing something here has sparked a reaction over there the ramifications of which the PCs might not know about until some time later. Example: as part of some unrelated job the PCs capture and later knock off Bugsy Margetts, a local low-life. What they don't realize is Margetts was a long-time and truly loyal sidekick of Guns Travina, head of The Street Titans gang; and once Trevina and the gang find out who knocked off Bugsy (which might take a while) his killers will likely be in a world o' trouble.....or not, if by sheer luck they've skipped town in the intervening time.....

IMO the big picture can't be drawn by everyone at once. Too much possibility of conflict e.g. here one player might have seen my above example as the big picture while another might have seen Bugsy as completely irrelevant to anything and a third might big-picture him as an undercover cop or spy. Assuming competence, leaving the big picture (i.e. the NPCs and setting elements) in the hands of one person does away with these sort of conflicts; much like leaving a movie in the hands of just one decent writer almost invariably gives a better result than one that's written (and rewritten!) by a committee.

* - 'ideally' is what I took as the post's intent-meaning, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why is game mechanics telling you how your character should behave different from the GM setting a standard for how characters should behave? Why does one result in authenticity (as defined in this thread) and the other doesn't? Is it because mechanics are neutral and GMs are not?

I'm not the people you're addressing this to, but I think there's a good degree of practical difference between the more-or-less predictable effect of game mechanics and how they interact with character decisions, even social an intellectual ones, and the largely black-box elements of a GM getting their oar in to the same. Whether the difference matters to you is a matter for the individual, but they aren't really the same at least to some of us.

 

[Campbell]

For me at least the issue I sometimes I have with morality mechanics like Alignment or Humanity in Vampire is that the GM is fundamentally passing moral judgement which removes the ambiguity needed to really engage with the material as an audience member. By presenting a right answer the audience no longer gets to question or identify with the character.

It's the judgement rather than the constraints that has a chilling effect (for me at times). It could have no impact on how the game is resolved but still mess with my connection to all the player characters (including the ones other players are playing) if the GM was regularly assigning alignment and telling us how we should think about the characters.

Meanwhile Humanity in more recent versions of Vampire feels much better to me because it's more explicitly about how connected they feel to their mortal lives.

 

[pemerton]

the GM is fundamentally passing moral judgement which removes the ambiguity needed to really engage with the material as an audience member. By presenting a right answer the audience no longer gets to question or identify with the character.

It's the judgement rather than the constraints that has a chilling effect

This.

For me, there are some related (maybe flow-on?) aspects: being obliged to subordinate my judgement to someone else's can be alienating from my character; and it makes me look at the moral circumstances of the character not through the dimension of who am I? or what should I do? but rather what will work here? or what am I being invited to do?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I forget now who I was replying to with the piece you quoted, but that poster was putting forward the position that play is (ideally*) entirely in the moment without thought as to where things go later; which seemed a bit odd.

It's the big picture - the greater setting - that generates consequences beyond just those in the moment; that doing something here has sparked a reaction over there the ramifications of which the PCs might not know about until some time later. Example: as part of some unrelated job the PCs capture and later knock off Bugsy Margetts, a local low-life. What they don't realize is Margetts was a long-time and truly loyal sidekick of Guns Travina, head of The Street Titans gang; and once Trevina and the gang find out who knocked off Bugsy (which might take a while) his killers will likely be in a world o' trouble.....or not, if by sheer luck they've skipped town in the intervening time.....

IMO the big picture can't be drawn by everyone at once. Too much possibility of conflict e.g. here one player might have seen my above example as the big picture while another might have seen Bugsy as completely irrelevant to anything and a third might big-picture him as an undercover cop or spy. Assuming competence, leaving the big picture (i.e. the NPCs and setting elements) in the hands of one person does away with these sort of conflicts; much like leaving a movie in the hands of just one decent writer almost invariably gives a better result than one that's written (and rewritten!) by a committee.

* - 'ideally' is what I took as the post's intent-meaning, rightly or wrongly.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your thesis there. I think it may be a bit trickier sometimes to have several cooks working the pot, but OTOH there's that much more creative 'juice' focused on it. I mean, most dramatic endeavors have at least a couple of people involved. Movies generally tend to involve a whole team. Novels maybe not so much, but they do almost always have editors and readers providing some feedback at least.

I believe it is possible, and I think that was touched on some with @Bedrockgames at some point, that there can be types of situations that might be more ideal for, say, a GM to simply put together whole cloth. I don't think there is a LOT which necessarily demands that, but OTOH I don't think every single possible kind of play MUST be totally collaborative either.

IME players are usually pretty adept at reading things and working with each other and a GM, or whatever, to build out some interesting narrative, and generate backstory and whatnot. The vast majority of participants in RPGs are there FOR that kind of thing. I mean, aside from straight up puzzle solving that's pretty much what RPGs bring.