D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

The PC/player distinction I brought up earlier. If the player is clearly different than the PC because the player is exercising control over the fiction in a way the PC couldn't, then it feels less immersive.

But by definition, simply by having any backstory at all, the player does this. Immersion damaged from the outset.

Note this is not a "perfect sim is impossible therefore don't even try". It is that the standard you have set here is that the PCs cannot, ever, for any reason, have any control over any content in the fiction, unless by the one method of the character personally acting upon the world. This is incompatible with writing a backstory for the character--flatly, absolutely. There cannot ever be a case where the GM would ask the player about something from the character's backstory. Either the backstory must be purely randomly generated, or it must be pre-generated by the GM and handed to the player.

The vast majority of sim players (and I suspect that probably includes you!) don't play that way. They do allow control over aspects of the fiction that the character should know and other characters might not, even if such knowledge does affect the world and can make a big difference in the long term.

 

[The Firebird]

But by definition, simply by having any backstory at all, the player does this. Immersion damaged from the outset.

Note this is not a "perfect sim is impossible therefore don't even try". It is that the standard you have set here is that the PCs cannot, ever, for any reason, have any control over any content in the fiction, unless by the one method of the character personally acting upon the world.

Read the last few posts I exchanged with pemerton and get back to me if you still have these questions.

I think this is troublesome because you are treating "The GM controls the world, the player controls the PC" as an absolute with clear boundaries. But its more of a continuum. We can go on forever about if 574 or 575 or 576 grains makes a heap. But 10,000 grains probably is. 1 grain probably isn't.

Yes, in some cases in fixed world play, a player may exercise a minor amount of control over the world. A GM may exercise a minor amount of control over a PC. However, a player assigning meaning to runes probably crosses the line, while a player deciding their PC was an orphan as part of their backstory is probably fine.

(And let's be clear that 'two things are along a continuum' does not mean 'two things are the same', any more than red and blue light are.)

RM and RQ aren't too much sim. I just don't think you need to have the player make all the dodge rolls for "the player controls the PC to hold as a general principle".

We have had a discussion about knowledge checks work. The methods you're suggesting fall on the far side of the line for us.

I don't understand where the confusion regarding spectrum lies. I'm saying red light is ~620-750 nm. Some things are clearly fine (700). Some are on the edge (620). Some are clearly not fine (300).

It seems to me like you're saying "they are all light and there is no fundamental difference in that regard, so why can't we have a discussion about 400"? Or "don't the cutoffs seem a bit gerrymandered? Why aren't they 600-770, or 500-700"? I think there is some ambiguity for the edge cases, as always with categorization. But that doesn't mean the categories don't exist and don't capture something real. And it is easy to see movement along the spectrum.

We've outlined the principles involved in making these decisions, in terms of a fixed world, fidelity to that world, in terms of player/PC distinction. So apply those, and see if techniques break them a little or a lot. Maybe RM is 730 (I haven't played it). D&D is 700. The 10 page backstory is 640. And ascribing meaning to the runes is way down at 400.

 

[Pedantic]

Oh, certainly. I find the difference frequently--not always, but very often--comes down to whether one likes "gamist" things or not, or equivalently whether one prefers some other thing (almost always "simulation") more.

Folks who are gigantic fans of sim treat "gamist" as the latter almost all of the time, and specifically cite that as why they cannot stand gamism. For my part, I would not quite use the first definition you gave, but it's very close. I would instead phrase it as "...to achieve one's goals in a measurable way"--that is, while victory is by far the most common goal, it isn't the only one. We can see this in, for example, those who set out to optimize a concept rather than trying to develop the single most optimal path through a game (or, if two+ paths are close enough so as to be indistinguishable, developing at least one of them).

Usually, when I'm optimizing, I'm doing that first thing, optimizing a concept. Most of the time, I start with a theme, or a preference, or a question. ("Question" being like my 5.0 Bard-based build that asked, "Can a single character learn every skill?" The answer was "yes, but it's probably not worth it to learn ALL of them".) Within that starting point, I try to stay on-theme, to develop a story which genuinely explains why a person would follow that path. This usually isn't too hard, and often actually helps the optimization, as it promotes certain paths over others. That's a pretty pure expression of strong gameplay decisions...where "victory" isn't really the focus. Like...doing a thing in such a way that it is effective at tasks is certainly in there! But the goal is the fulfillment of the concept, just in an effective way, rather than the many ineffective ways there might be.

That said, I do think this disagreement about what "gamism/gamist" means is quite relevant. It's easy to talk past one another if we forget it.

I don't think what you're talking about here fits into the same category either. I'm not totally sure I buy the case, but that seems more like system exploration focused sim, if we're going back to the Tuovinen article. That's certainly exploration of system, but I'd argue the gameplay element sits in using that build to do something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Read the last few posts I exchanged with pemerton and get back to me if you still have these questions.

I do, because what you've said there, vs what you said in the post I just quoted, don't match.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't set down a standard which says "no PC control", and then also say "well some PC control". If it's the latter--which is what you're saying here--then the argument you made in the post I quoted simply doesn't hold. You have to actually explain why some PC control is fine, and other PC control is totally unacceptable.

The above argument relies, heavily, on the simplicity of the argument: PCs don't get to do that thing, period. Without that simplicity, in order to make a "that thing you're talking about just isn't okay" argument, you need more than that.

That is, your argument I quoted previously is not phrased as a red-light thing. It is phrased as "light is bad, don't shine light on it". You have yet to put even a limit as significant as "UV is bad, visible is fine"--and I am more than a little skeptical that you will be able to put such a limit, because, unlike the light-spectrum analogy, there is no clean division, not even a fuzzy boundary. The exact same action could be completely acceptable in one context and utterly unacceptable in another, even with the same people using the same system.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. If it’s obvious, then how would anyone ever determine that someone else is playing their character either faithfully or unfaithfully?

Game play is a huuuuuuge indicator. Backstory is a huuuuuuuuuge indicator. What the player has told the group about his character is a huuuuuuuuge indicator. Alignment if used is a moooooooderate indicator.

After not too many sessions, everyone at the table will have a solid read on everyone else's character personality. Faithfulness is not that hard to determine.

The more important question is, why does it matter? If the player isn't being a douche, who cares if you can determine it or not. It's not your character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think what you're talking about here fits into the same category either. I'm not totally sure I buy the case, but that seems more like system exploration focused sim, if we're going back to the Tuovinen article. That's certainly exploration of system, but I'd argue the gameplay element sits in using that build to do something.

To me that just sounds like expanding the definition of "sim" until it includes everything. Because now it includes things that absolutely hate all abstraction and would prefer to delete it if there were any way to do so without crippling the game, and things that are purely ABOUT abstraction with minimal other considerations, AND things like genre-fiction exploration, e.g. how AlViking has said that superhero games are perfectly acceptable as part of sim despite their elements that conflict with the frequent calls for "realism" etc. (whatever term folks choose to use).

 

[Pedantic]

To me that just sounds like expanding the definition of "sim" until it includes everything. Because now it includes things that absolutely hate all abstraction and would prefer to delete it if there were any way to do so without crippling the game, and things that are purely ABOUT abstraction with minimal other considerations, AND things like genre-fiction exploration, e.g. how AlViking has said that superhero games are perfectly acceptable as part of sim despite their elements that conflict with the frequent calls for "realism" etc. (whatever term folks choose to use).

Yeah, I didn't find the idea of exploration of system sitting alongside exploration of genre compelling either, but I still think the thing you're discussing is compellingly different; exploration of system is different from application of system. Same way deckbuilding isn't actually playing a card game; or maybe it's better to say that it's all incomplete portion of gameplay, and can't rise to the level of game by itself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This doesn't address the sweeping assertion @TwoSix made. It simply reframes the issue from the perspective of an outside observer. But the original claim went much further, arguing that no internal metric is sufficient. We read;


He continues, on clarification, defending the idea that there needs to be an external metric by telling me that I can't call following an author's intent faithful;


And just to cut off any assertion that that wasn't what was meant, I clearly stated my position as being about the validity of author intent. We see that here;


If I create a character and roleplay them based on the personality I imagined, it would be strange for someone with no insight into that character’s design to claim I’m being unfaithful. As the author, my intent matters. The perception of others is merely a differing, often less informed, opinion.

Yes, I think this was the point. You can role-play a character however you decide to. There can’t really be a faithful or unfaithful version of it… it’s entirely up to you.

This was about how Beliefs work in Burning Wheel. The game doesn’t require you or expect you to define your character’s Beliefs and then stick to them. It rewards you for changing Beliefs as well as upholding them.

You posted this:

You also disregard subjective portrayal. In roleplaying, internal consistency is the norm. If I say my character is cautious, but I play them recklessly without reason, I’m not staying true to my concept. But I don’t need someone else’s metric to realize that. My own creative goals provide the standard.

If you’re playing your character recklessly, then I think that means they’re reckless… don’t you? Why would you hold some invisible standard up higher? Some idea you had about the character before play began? Why should that determine your “faithfulness”? Can’t you change your mind about the character? Or can’t they change given the circumstances of play?

This is what I took @TwoSix to mean… that without some kind of existing record… like if you were playing Spider-Man or Aragorn… there’s no standard. You play your character how you play them and then THAT is how they are.

To be faithful or unfaithful requires some standard. But what is that for an original character? That you had an idea that the character would be cautious?

To argue otherwise suggests that a creator can be told they’re wrong about their own creation by someone with less knowledge and only inferred context. That undermines the entire concept of authorial intent.

Follow that logic far enough, and we lose the autonomy of self-directed, character-driven roleplay. Instead, we get roleplay by committee; where perception overrides intent and subjective portrayal is no longer valid unless externally approved.

If I’m the creator of the character, then portraying my headcanon is being faithful, because my intent defines the standard. TwoSix’s claim just doesn’t align with how authorial intent actually works in any meaningful creative context.

Reframing the argument to be from a third party perspective doesn't change the issue I was addressing.


TLDR: Authorial intent is the gold standard for what is traditionally considered a faithful portrayal in creative works. Reframing the discussion doesn't change that.

I’m just not sure how you could be faithful or unfaithful in the way you mean, unless you’ve so strongly defined your character prior to play that the actual decisions you’ve made in play feel wrong, somehow. But if so, then why make them? Why not make the choice that feels true?

My point in asking the question was not at all to justify someone else saying that you could be playing your character faithfully or unfaithfully. It was to highlight that it’s an odd way to view the playing of a character.

Game play is a huuuuuuge indicator. Backstory is a huuuuuuuuuge indicator. What the player has told the group about his character is a huuuuuuuuge indicator. Alignment if used is a moooooooderate indicator.

After not too many sessions, everyone at the table will have a solid read on everyone else's character personality. Faithfulness is not that hard to determine.

The more important question is, why does it matter? If the player isn't being a douche, who cares if you can determine it or not. It's not your character.

To start with your last point, in general I don’t think it does matter. There have been times when a player has made a decision for their character, and I didn’t think it was “true” to what they’d established… that the decision seemed more about something other than what the character would do. I’m not really a fan of that, and would rather not see it happen.

That being said… you’re right, it’s not my character and in the times that’s happened, I’ve never pointed it out or called anyone on it. All I’ve ever done is maybe asked the player why they made the decision they made. A couple times, that’s helped me see something I missed and made the decision seem justified. A couple times it didn’t. But really it’s not for me to decide if a player is being faithful to the character or not. It’s their character… they get to decide what that means.

Regarding the huge factors you shared, while I agree that they’re certainly indicators and will likely give others ideas of what to expect from the character… I also think that people can be surprising, multi-faceted, and complicated. Sometimes the unexpected thing is the right thing.

 

[pemerton]

Except that I do have an agenda of not making the characters'(and players') lives boring, which can be done in conjunction with fidelity to the prepared setting.

Would you say a bit more about this?

 

[pemerton]

Breaking a belief is as much a faithful portrayal of the PC as keeping it is.

If there is no standard of fidelity by which the portrayal is to be judged, then it makes no sense to say the portrayal is faithful.

When I play Aedhros, and choose to have him wander, singing, into the higher quarter where he might hope to meet some Elves, I am not being faithful to Aedhros's character. Nor unfaithful. I'm making a decision.

This contrasts with, say, an AD&D player of a paladin trying to ensure that they adhere to the requirements of Lawful Good. Or being given a personality description for a character - say, Tanis Half-Elven - and then being asked to play that character faithfully to the description.