Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Manbearcat]

Quick question... if the PC's fail, is that result also final and who decides the resulting consequence of said failure?

I assume we're not trying to reduce the complex down to the simple here, because the answer isn't "the GM has mandate to do as they please" (if the above is angling toward the rhetorical device of "begging the question").

The answer is:

1) The System has its say.

2) The GM has their say.

3) The Players get their say (which comes in the form of (a) engaging this bit of fiction and the goals therein in the first place, (b) deploying resources which provide the trajectory for the scene's evolution, (c) having PC build resources that bind GM framing - eg Instincts in Burning Wheel - and (d) deciding how many "stops to pull out" to prevent the consequences of failure in the first place.)

4) The Players may have more say (such as the deployment of PC build resources or meta resources to constrain/forbid/rewrite scene outcomes).


In Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic Exploration Scenes, you're talking:

1) The System has its say:

This is a "Go To the Action" system which expects the GM to manage the Doom Pool and the fiction to escalate genre-related danger and optimize drama. The general procedure is the GM frames the scene and then the resolution mechanics have the players declaring their actions and building their dice pools. The GM deploys the Doom Pool, Scene Distinctions, and any Complications.

2) The GM has their say:

If the players lose? Something goes wrong for the PCs and the GM is obliged to cause trouble. They get to immediately frame them into a scene of their choice (which follows from the fiction - this could be a Combat, Social, or another Exploration Scene). They also get to either (a) use their Effect die to inflict any type of Stress on a hero, (b) create a Complication that persists into this post-failure follow-on scene, or (c) add trouble to the follow-on scene (in the form of stepping up scene/NPC traits or splitting up the PCs and running multiple scenes).

---

Is Cortex+ good enough for this question about Exploration/Social Closed Scene Resolution? If this was meant to be a conversation about 4e rather than System/GM/Player say in closed scene resolution failure generally, I can gladly break that down. Let me know.

 

[Campbell]

While I understand what you're getting at, I feel it's pretty much impossible to tag anyone's game as "less authentic" or "inauthentic" without coming across as pejorative, which I don't believe aids open communication.

I get it. I know saying contentious and provocative things can make communication more difficult. I just really do not know a better way to meaningfully talk about these concerns while retaining the full context of what I mean. I have tried to approach this conversation as thoughtfully as I can because I know criticism can be tenuous and problematic at times. If there is a better way of framing my concerns that still speaks to their weight please let me know!

All I really know how to do is to say what I think in as thoughtful a way as I possibly can. I am not really interested in telling people what they should think or how they should play. I just want to express my own preferences, clarify what I feel are cultural and factual misconceptions, and discuss this thing we all do. I really do value everyone's perspective here. Part of respecting those perspectives is saying what I fully mean and expecting others to do the same in a genuine meeting of the minds. I do not feel like using weasel words would really aid in real open conversation. It might lead to a less confrontational dialog, but we would just be dancing around the actual subject matter - not really addressing it in a genuine way.

Throughout this conversation I have attempted to assume good faith from all participants, engage with what I see as posters' full meaning, and take everything said in the best possible light - especially when I disagreed with the poster. I tend to be more overtly critical of posters who share my general preferences. I have probably been slightly unfair to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] at times.

At times I have been somewhat wary of having this conversation in the open. It has sometimes been difficult for me to engage in thoughtful analysis of something I am so passionate about. Cultural issues have also made this discussion somewhat difficult. I know how to talk about this stuff in the context of other indie gamers, people I introduce to gaming and the people I know personally. I do not really know how to talk about this stuff with the level of detailed analysis I am attempting in this thread with gamers that are steeped so deeply in the mainstream gaming culture. I have been more provocative than I should have been at times, but I feel like actively avoiding being contentious can often be just as harmful to meaningful discussion as purposefully pushing people's buttons. When we actively avoid conflict in service to social cohesion we lose much of the difference of perspective that makes this sorts of dialog worth having.

My approach to this conversation has been a willingness to engage in other posters' problematic content with the expectation that they will engage mine. I try not to overreact when other posters say things I consider contentious, but like still meaningfully address their points. I appreciate it when other posters do the same. This matches with my general approach to running games and most social interactions with people I trust. In terms of trust models it is I Will Not Abandon You rather than Nobody Gets Hurt. I feel like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has approached things in terms of Go To The Pain where you deliberately push people's buttons with the expectation that they will push back in the form of rigorous debate. That is to be expected of a Burning Wheel GM and academic lawyer!

I'll have more on trust models and their impact on gaming in my next post.

 

[pemerton]

While I understand what you're getting at, I feel it's pretty much impossible to tag anyone's game as "less authentic" or "inauthentic" without coming across as pejorative, which I don't believe aids open communication.

Authenticity is a strange phenomenon - in general, and also in contemporary times, when mass producers aim to sell people stuff by way of mass marketing with the pitch that buying the stuff will make the individual authentic/give the individual an authentic experience.

That said, I think there is some sort of difference between (say) attending a life performance and listening to a recording of one. Or between being served a really nice home-made cake and being served a really nice store-bought cake. Whether or not the notion of "authenticity" is the best way to capture this, I think there is something there to be captured.

I think what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is trying to do with the notion is very challenging to articulate well, and naturally very contentious, but (I believe) he is trying to get at the difference between a "curated" experience and one that is not mediated by any such curation. That makes sense to me as something to try to get at.

 

[pemerton]

I have probably been slightly unfair to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] at times.

Not really - or if you have been, it's lost in the mists of last week!

I feel like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has approached things in terms of Go To The Pain where you deliberately push people's buttons with the expectation that they will push back in the form of rigorous debate. That is to be expected of a Burning Wheel GM and academic lawyer!

When I reflect on my posting, I sometimes think it also reflects a certain sort of approach to teaching: one's trying to cover a fair bit of introductory ground fairly quickly to get to the interesting bits, and so one locates/points out a few landmarks, describes the lay of the land in general terms, and then gets into things. If there are questions about the details of the initial signposting, those can absolutely be pursued and resolved in due course. But they're not to be taken as a reason not to engage with the interesting bits!

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

That is very much the sort of distinction I am trying to make. It might be equally contentious to speak in terms of curation and dynamism. I think my upcoming post on trust models might get at it this issue in a less contentious way while still being somewhat fraught. I value social experiences where we take some risks that might broaden our perspectives and help to get to know each other a bit better.

In the context of role playing games I value organic social, creative, and game play risk taking. I also value things being less refined and a bit messy without deliberate provocation of the sort you find in most scene framing or more overt conflict resolution systems. Despite my interests in analysis and design I do not favor overly processing play whether it comes from the mechanisms of play or overt GM actions to modify the play space to ensure everyone gets their individual kicks satisfied. I want to let the game be the game and experience things as they naturally come.

I think this speaks to my preference for the principled approach of games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Stars Without Number, Fiasco, Chronicles of Darkness, Exalted 3e, and Sorcerer that is very much subject to individual creative and aesthetic judgment over the more rigorous process oriented approach of games like Fate, Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Night's Black Agents, Trollbabes and the like. I am not a proponent of the Game Design is Mind Control school of thought where we make the attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through game design so we can play with just about anyone. I am just as skeptical of GM techniques that attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through the game layer rather than the social layer. Instead I favor more brittle designs that make it socially obvious when there are conflicts of interest at the table so we can talk it out. I favor rules that fight you when you are acting outside the interests of the game rather than force you to act in the interests of the game.

I feel like this post from Playing Passionately might lay my points bare.

If you asked me ten years ago what I wanted out of an RPG I would have said this: “I want a game that when played optimally by computers will produce a compelling narrative.” I’m not joking. I was a firm believer that a system more or less has to compel players to do interesting things, otherwise they won’t.

That may sound absurd but I still see variations of that attitude taken to different extremes lingering in the hobby. I see people who interpret the fact that you get a bonus from applying a trait in a game like Primetime Adventures means traits are about getting people to “act like” those traits. Or indeed I see people stretching (quite painfully) in every scene to try and make their traits relevant.

Basically what I’m seeing here is a system foremost (rather than a system matters) attitude. I see attempts to engage the system directly and see what it “wants” the person to do fictionally. This article is about how that process is backwards.

Some games are robust enough to handle a system foremost approach. Dogs in the Vineyard is an example. You can pretty much grind out the rules of that game in a semi-mechanized manner and something interesting will likely result. I think this is because Dogs in the Vineyard puts in so many other social constraints that a mechanistic approach to system works. Everyone knows they are Dogs. Everyone knows a Dog’s job is to solve the problems of the town. Everyone knows the four major moral “break” points of conflict are Talking, Physical, Violence and Guns.

So if you basically go into every conflict starting at Talking and the GM always pushes and pushes as hard as he can and the player constantly assesses at each break point, “Is this worth the next step?” then you get a fairly straightforward narrative. I mean, after all, that’s what the system clearly “wants” you to do, right? Well, the game doesn’t disintegrate if you play it that way but it makes for a fairly boring game. It also misses on some fairly nuanced and exciting application of the rules.

One of the things some people are quick to point out is that you don’t need to go all the way to Gun Fighting to get all your dice. So if I mechanically don’t NEED to go to gun fighting doesn’t that weaken the temptation? The fact that you don’t need to go to gun fighting to get all your dice makes the decision to start shooting more powerful. It turns the spotlight AWAY from the dice and firmly back on the player as an emotional entity. There are enough dark circles and bold underlines around guns in the game that their relevance as a component of the fiction is loud and clear. Does your engagement with your character and the fiction warrant shooting?

Another thing to take note of is that escalation is not a linear progression. You can start in of the four arenas and “escalate” to any of the four other arenas and even return to arenas you’ve already been to. From that perspective “escalating” is really more about unifying different conflict methodologies (by keeping their application consistent via the Raise system while changing their severity through different size fallout dice) than “temptation.” Considering shooting, then talking, then shooting some more then dropping your gun and throwing a punch makes for a much more dynamic conflict landscape.

Finally, my personal favorite emotional tool is Giving. You don’t have to Give only at the “break” points. You can Give anytime you want and that includes the GM. When Giving is on the table at every point it becomes one of the most powerful thematic markers in the entire game. It allows the “target” of a Raise to socially acknowledge that they’ve been emotionally defeated. The chance to say that what’s been said, fictionally, is compelling enough, to them, that there’s no point in going on.

Applying these nuances requires a fiction first approach to the game. Instead of looking at the system as what shapes the fiction look at how to express the fiction through the system. That’s why system matters. It’s not because systems constrain player behavior to an “appropriate” set of fictional input. It’s because they shape how your fictional input gets mechanically expressed. The commitment to quality fictional input has to come first. This approach requires thinking, feeling and doing what feels emotionally right to you as audience and author and then reaching out and applying the tools given to you to express that commitment.

As I said earlier Dogs in the Vineyard is fairly robust as to not disintegrate if you play it in the mechanistic manner. However there are some games that will disintegrate if you don’t treat them in a fiction first manner. Sorcerer is an example. From a fiction first approach it’s fairly clear to see that Demon Needs and Desires, Humanity, Kickers, Price and Descriptors all work in a fairly sophisticated concert even though there is no mathematically connection between them. They are rules and design but require artistry and skill to apply. Sorcerer would not be better served by giving demon’s Need points that fuel their Abilities and when the demon runs out of Need points you can recharge them by transferring your Humanity points and narrating some awful thing you do to justify the transfer.

Dirty Secrets is similar. That game is fueled almost entirely by the player’s opinions of the characters and their willingness to express them. The grid is less about generating a surprising random outcome and more about voting. Because the grid is used for all the crimes you’re voting for a given character to be guilty of something. It’s the height of being judgmental. The scary thing about Dirty Secrets is that the only thing you are given to form your *initial* opinion is demographics. That’s by design. But if you don’t put your feelings at the forefront of the application of the rules then the game falls flat.

My point here is that viewing rules and design as a “story sausage grinder” that so perfectly limits the player’s input and so perfectly processes that input to be “thematically acceptable” ultimately leads to predictable and flat play. When it gets discussed it appears to be a well meaning effort to eliminate the possibility of creative failure or perhaps an attempt to “unify” players such that “anyone” can play successfully (together) as long as they follow the rules. To all that I can only say without emotional and creative risk there is rarely as great an emotional and creative reward.

I will note that I think this article is somewhat unfair to the amount of weight that games like Burning Wheel apply to GM judgement. I just think the process involved can serve to obscure fictional concerns, conflicts of interest, and reduce creative risk somewhat. However, I think that might be somewhat necessary in a game that so adamantly goes for the player's throats. It is something I have the capacity to enjoy - it just reduces the impact of the social layer on play.

Aside: I am a deeply social gamer. Outside of role playing games my favorite sort of games often involve a very strong social layer where you have to consider the impact your decisions will have on other players' decisions. I love Poker, Liar's Dice, Diplomacy, Game of Thrones, Cards Against Humanity, Pandemic, and The Game of Things. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.

Aside For [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I did not assume you would think I was unfair, but I still regard some of the times where I deliberately provoked you or used one of your posts to make a point as somewhat unfair. I do not generally engage in deliberate provocation and it usually bothers me when I am provoked or my words are used to further some point outside of the context I meant them in so it tends to ignite my sense of justice.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]I still regard some of the times where I deliberately provoked you or used one of your posts to make a point as somewhat unfair. I do not generally engage in deliberate provocation and it usually bothers me when I am provoked or my words are used to further some point outside of the context I meant them in so it tends to ignite my sense of justice.

I hope you won't take my response to this as in any way dismissive - it's been, and continues to be, a good thread.

 

[pemerton]

Despite my interests in analysis and design I do not favor overly processing play whether it comes from the mechanisms of play or overt GM actions to modify the play space to ensure everyone gets their individual kicks satisfied.

<snip>

I think this speaks to my preference for the principled approach of games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Stars Without Number, Fiasco, Chronicles of Darkness, Exalted 3e, and Sorcerer that is very much subject to individual creative and aesthetic judgment over the more rigorous process oriented approach of games like Fate, Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Night's Black Agents, Trollbabes and the like. I am not a proponent of the Game Design is Mind Control school of thought where we make the attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through game design so we can play with just about anyone.

<snip>

I will note that I think this article is somewhat unfair to the amount of weight that games like Burning Wheel apply to GM judgement. I just think the process involved can serve to obscure fictional concerns, conflicts of interest, and reduce creative risk somewhat. However, I think that might be somewhat necessary in a game that so adamantly goes for the player's throats. It is something I have the capacity to enjoy - it just reduces the impact of the social layer on play.

I think the "design as mind control" idea probably applies more to MHRP/Cortex+ than to BW.

Even for the former, though, you often don't earn XP simply by following the mechanics: you have to actually engage the fiction as your character and makes calls that might have mechanical repercussions, or require mechanical expression, but that playing the mechanics won't, per se, take you to.

When it comes to BW, I think that players have to be prepared to put their ideas on the line in certain ways. And even moreso, there is the creative element of offering something up that you need others to be prepared to engage with and take seriously. Otherwise your Beliefs will be less of a focus of play, you'll earn less artha, you won't get the tests you need for advancement, etc. I find it hard to imagine picking up BW and playing it with "anybody".

All that said, though, I nevertheless suspect - on the basis of this thread! - that my approach to RPGing is less laden with social/creative "risk" than yours.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

I did not mean to imply that playing a game like Burning Wheel involves no meaningful creative and social risks or that you are not meaningfully engaging the fiction when you play. I just think there is a danger when you have such a process oriented design of enabling mechanics first rather than fiction first play. It's another one of those convenient release valves that players can escape to in order to create emotional distance between them and their character. It's not like something you have to take. Based on your accounts of play I do not think your players often do so. I also think Burning Wheel has other features that cut against this. The Go To The Pain trust model or Poke The Bear GM style is definitely more intense and involves more significant emotional risks than my preferred I Will Not Abandon You trust model.

I feel like in a typical game of Burning Wheel you will have more moments that are intense, but in a typical game of Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts the intense moments will be more intense if that makes any sense. There's also an element of risk that there will not be enough moments that are intense in Apocalypse World. There is also the subject matter to consider. Masks entails much less risk because the subject matter is less emotionally intense than most Burning Wheel games. I am not sure I would want to play a game like Burning Wheel with a less process oriented approach.

One of the reasons I credit Burning Wheel with this sort of design approach is because Luke Crane and Jared Sorensen have given talks on Game Design is Mind Control. I will also say that it is my general impression is that it is almost impossible to control behavior through design. You can create a market for certain behaviors, but in any market the participants decide their own level of involvement. I also believe that mechanical incentives have much less impact than social incentives on player behavior. Design can help shape behavior, but it will seldom control it.

 

[Lanefan]

Within this thread there have been innumerable occasions where posters have claimed that player perception is what matters, not what actually happens at the table.

Well, yeah; because from the player side what they perceive as happening at the table is what happens at the table as far as they're concerned; and that's what matters.

They have disputed a need for transparency, organic storytelling, authentic communication, and authentic experiences.

I'll dispute the need for transparency, in that (both as player and DM) I don't care how the end-result fun game came to be, I just care that it happened.

This is the same view I take of most things mechanical (e.g. cars) or electronic (e.g. computers) - I don't really give a damn how they work and am not very interested in learning; I care only that they work and do what I want them to do when I want them to do it, and that I can trust them to consistently do so.

As a player, when I sit down to a game I'm not that concerned with what the DM is doing to generate the story-gameworld-setting etc., I'm only concerned that she in fact generates something we can play in and that we have fun doing so. As a DM I know my players feel pretty much the same way - in fact one of my players just this evening was very emphatic in saying so! The DM trusts the players, and they trust the DM.

If that trust isn't there, however, it's easy to envision a call for transparency to replace it.

Organic storytelling probably means something different to every one of us posting here, so I'll not wade in to that one.

Authentic communication - this sounds like another way of saying transparency. See above.

Authentic experiences - I as a player have an authentic experience every session; in that I was in fact there and played the game. If you're by this referring instead to character experiences, those are authentic too. Finding out later that the Baron you've been working for is in fact an agent of the enemy and that all this time you've been working for the wrong side doesn't make any of the previous play experiences any less authentic at the time they were played, which is the only time that matters.

I have stated my preferences for these things in the context of where and how GM judgment calls can be used to enhance play as long as they are made in a disciplined way.

Is it your contention that I should not hold a distinction between these things?
Is it your contention that I value authenticity too much?
Is it your contention that the mainstream culture values authenticity just as much as I do?
Is it your contention that I should not speak on these distinctions?
Is it your contention that I should take on the values of the dominant culture in the interests of unity?
Do you have a less contentious framing that I should use that still gets to the heart of my concerns?

I guess my main contentions are

a) that this all simply doesn't matter as much as some here seem to think it does...we've long since passed the threshold of way overthinking this stuff
b) that authenticity (the way the term is used here) and transparency may be being sought largely due to lack of trust in one's DM (or, if DM, lack of trust in one's players and-or oneself)
c) that player enjoyment matters most and if such can be best achieved by illusionism (which is my own view, based on experience) then I'll happily be an illusionist
d) that DM enjoyment largely stems from player enjoyment, making points c) and d) here somewhat symbiotic

I do not want to have a debate over what set of approaches are strictly better. I also do not think we should avoid discussion of our differences.

I agree we should not avoid discussion of our differences but I'm also quite happy to debate or argue the merits (or demerits) of various approaches.

This thread has resulted in some of the best discussions I have had on this site in a long time, specifically because we have been able to speak to the distinctions between the ways we prefer to play and run role playing games. I think it is a good thing when our cultures engage in a meeting of the minds, even when it is difficult, especially when it is difficult. It does no one any good to only discuss things with those who agree with them. At the very least we gain a better understanding of each other.

With this I completely agree. There's little point in echo chambers.

Lan-"I retain the right to at any time argue with the echoes"-efan

 

[Campbell]

I think it is very important to talk in terms of typical games because if the right social incentives are in place you can play a game with just as much emotional intensity using any game and you might not experience much intensity in a game of Monsterhearts if the players actively avoid it due to social incentives. Just because you have release valves provided to you by the game does not mean you have to use them. Also, just because incentives for a particular sort of play exist it does not mean you have to embrace them. You have to actually want what the game is selling and work for it. That's why playing with the right people is so important, but that does not mean that the game has no value. It can make certain behaviors a more compelling choice and by agreeing to the expectations it sets for the players you can move social incentives towards an environment that is more likely to lead to compelling play, but it does not just happen. You have to work for it still - system helps, it does not transform.