Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9115489" data-attributes="member: 7042497">No. I believe perception dictates experience.  I don't really see what is so controversial and strange about claiming that perceived agency can have value. Imagination and the (voluntary) exposure to illusion is a cornerstone of many kinds of entertainment. It's quite possible to engage in such activities without being a solipsist or adherent of magical thinking.And there is nothing wrong with you having that preference. You are not the only one. I am voicing my opposition to the notion that a codified imagined reality with no room for illusion is the only reasonable basis for having agency. I am also confused why you seem to be upset that other people like illusion as part of their games. I am not going to try and convince you that you should feel the same way. Nor would I use such techniques if there isn't a consensus to do so.(regarding my claim that lots of player enjoy varying elements of illusion and/or GM-dictated reality bending). No, I do not have anything but anecdotal evidence. But given the nature of this discussion, I shouldn't have to produce such material. First off, because RPGs haven't been studied to a degree where the body of empirical data even exists to do so. Secondly, because I don't think it's a particular outlandish claim to state that a significant number of players have these preferences. I am not claiming it's a majority (although I actually suspect it is), but that's also beside the point. I am trying to explain why accepting that a variety of playstyle exist has relevance to this topic. Almost everything in this thread (and elsewhere in the wider discourse on RPGs and playstyles) is based on anecdotal evidence and some amount of assumption. Looking at the advice presented in decades of published material, including the core rulebooks for the various major systems, 'GM discretion' is a pretty common technique.I did not cheat my players. The social contract of these sessions and campaigns accepted illusion as a valid technique. And players absolutely can fail in games like this. I explicitly stated that illusion is only part of the experience - GM fiat is not the sole source of everything in these games. Players can fail. I don't see where I said my illusions were directed at preventing failure. The situation I described was about changing the direction of the narrative to include assumptions made by the players. Is that preventing failure? I don't agree with this notion of failure. The stakes in most of these games were to have fun - not to "win" nor to overcome some predefined challenging state. Making dice rolls, solving problems were certainly part of the experience. The existence of illusion and GM discretion absolute does not imply it will always be used. Part of the social contract in these games is that the GM does not go overboard in exercising this power. I've been on both sides of the screen in numerous games where we trusted each other to have this ability - and where it worked just fine! And the power can even be used to increase the stakes - or to add more chances of failing if the session is turning to be too low on risk for the appetites of the group.Again, I'm not asking you to enjoy this style of gaming - it's quite obvious you don't. But I am appealing to you for recognition that some players find meaning in a game that isn't fully codified, and that the acceptance of the GM's power to bend reality behind the screen isn't all or nothing.I can't say much else than I greatly disagree with this interpretation of passivity and agency. Having a GM with discretionary powers and the final authority to shape the narrative is a requirement for groups that enjoy having some element of illusion in their games. I object to the comparison with a dictator - the style is based on consensus and a social contract that places these powers with the GM. In a court of arbitration, the involved parties have agency. The existence of a judge (or GM) with final say does not predicate that the other parties are irrelevant. Their contributions very much impact the outcome. It does require the GM to have the ability to wield these powers as a mediator and to act within a framework that isn't fully codified.These players can walk away at any time. Noone is forcing anything on anyone. You describe a situation where the GM is deceiving the players, where the GM is some kind of narrative tyrant. That's not the case when a table has agreed on this kind of playstyle. I enjoy passing this kind of authority to a GM. It doesn't make me passive that someone is the arbiter of our imagined reality. It doesn't take away my feeling of excitement and having stakes that GM can change the level of challenge at their discretion. I've lost plenty of characters in such games to bad luck or (in-character) failure. Also nothing about how the GM is given power or not impacts the enjoyment I get from role-playing and interacting with the other players and the GM in-character. To me that's such a big part of the experience, and being able to decide what kind of character I play and what role to take on is a key part of my player agency. Even if everything else in the game is 100% GM fiat and I have no say on anything - and the GM bends reality constantly for whatever (this is hypothetical - I expect a more nuanced and mediatory GM'ing performance) - I still have the role-playing as something fully in my control.Finally, there is a wider philosophical discussion about how entrusting power and expectation with another party can in itself be an exercise of power. The players dictate the expectations and conventions that the GM is acting within. Then you could object that without being able to know what is illusion and what is not - the players will never know if these conventions are upheld. But then we're back to how perceived reality is what matters to some people. That's why dice and game mechanics are important to some who enjoy this style. It provides an avenue of play where the group knows that there are no illusions. Although it should be noted that some groups even dial this down a notch by having (some or all) GM rolls be made in secret. Once again, appetites and styles vary. Nothing wrong with that.Players who enjoy this style are not passive. They make decision constantly, they contribute to the narrative, they have moments of possible disaster. I think it's arrogant to dismiss this as imagined and irrelevant - we're dealing with an experience where everything is imagined. I am baffled by why it is such a problem that not everyone ascribes to a particular style and particular notions on what must be codified.I think you're conflating me with someone else. I haven't expressed any problems with the concept of bending reality. On the contrary, I consider it not just acceptable, but a core pillar of most styles of roleplaying. But I accept and recognize that some players do not feel that way. Some want a fixed imagined reality (although I would object that even this style requires making up things when the session steps outside what has been prepared), some want players to have a greater capacity to do this, some want codification of when this can happen, etc. And that's ok with me. I've played games like this too. But all these styles have player agency. There are other important aspects to RPGs than the imagined reality. I really don't get this absolutist notion of agency and this insistence on a particular element (whether it's called narrative, shared fiction or imagined reality) as being the only possible thing to care about and influence. One can accept alternative styles and approaches without having to participate in them.I get that you don't enjoy the same kind of style as me. That's fine. I don't get why you see upset that I have this preference. I can see how GMs that do this in direct conflict with the professed preferences of their players are being jerks. But with a table of similarly inclined players? What's the problem?I am much more understanding of the posters who profess that they want the player contributions codified and prefer a system which has additional support for and opportunities for player impact on the narrative of the game. It's not what I would prefer as a baseline (although I want to try it out and thus challenge my preconceptions), but I can very much see where this preference would come from. I can also see how being denied this would constitute a massive loss of agency for such a player. But for us illusion-enjoyers? We can find agency in being part of a process that has a final arbiter and mediator. I object to this denial of agency.</blockquote>

Verification