Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[AbdulAlhazred]

Your points here are generally sensible but perhaps put too much a fine point on the distinction between inhabiting a character and free form cooperative storytelling. Both can be done in the third person, as it were. That is, I can say, "when my character hears that, she storms out of the room in anger." And I can say that either because it's what I think the character would do or because I think it would make a good story.

I expect there are not too many RPGs where a player's engagement with the character, and control of its actions, is not present at this level (there are some, and there are certainly situations where many/most RPGs might prevent that or gate it through some process). So, lets say your 4e character was engaged in an SC of some sort that was primarily social. You, the player, decide, based on something an NPC says, that your character would 'storm out'. OK. I mean, what the implication for that is, that's going to be primarily determined by the GM considering where the SC goes from there (or if it is just done, stick a fork in it). Just because we're playing, say, a Story Now kind of a game, doesn't mean we can't do such things. Sure, the GM may well want some dice to be thrown as part of deciding 'what happens next'. Still, the player is in the driver's seat here, and can act out whatever they want to a great degree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes. It’s literally unavoidable no matter what you do or play someone will be excluded in some fashion. You can either accept that or not play games. The best you can hope for is a good session zero where (most) people are (mostly) on the same page.

I think when it comes to this (and the related question of intellectual actions) the line is a lot more common than others, though.

To me this reads like “remember water is wet.” Yes, different people have different preferences and play games for different reasons. Obviously. We either accept that as a universal truth or we prevent any possible further conversation about games and gaming by insisting on bringing it up and talking about it ad nauseam.

Except this is an area I've seen a few too many people who take it as a truism that social interactions are or aren't completely different from other types. So I don't think emphasizing it is, indeed, pointless; among other things its notably and area people don't usually move much from their positions on.

If they’re self-aware enough to know what their preferences are, there’s a nearly infinite variety of games to choose from. All they have to do is look. Or hack. Or write it themselves.

This is wonderful if you can find anyone to play them. Ask around for how easy that is for a lot of people sometime.

Hard pass. Especially now with how prevalent online gaming is. I’m sure you can come up with a wild hypothetical, but that seems pointless. All you have to do is go online and be willing to take a chance.

And get a time frame that works for you, people you can deal with, have an Internet that's reliable and can be run for extended periods without excessive cost and a number of other things this statement assumes. You're projecting on other people here pretty heavily.

 

[niklinna]

But isn't conversation in a LARP, or at @Lanefan's RPG table, "boffered"?

I mean, in real life conversation - especially in high-stakes situations - people shout at one another, use cutting words, cry, storm out, say things they regret later, stumble, mutter under their breath, etc, etc. There are real emotions and those emotions are inseparable from what is said and heard.

But in a LARP or sitting at a table no one wants that. So if the character I'm playing is trying to bully the character you're playing, I don't actually try and ground your sense of self into the ground, which is what I would do in the real world if I was trying to bully you. I pretend, and you pretend. In some sense I suspect the boffered weapons are actually more verisimilitudinous.

To me, this goes back directly to @Campbell's post about the three modes of "social only" resolution. Either we're negotiating stuff essentially as participants at the table, in which case any overlay of histrionics is nothing more than that - the real action is in working out what we all do just as if we were working out where to go out for dinner. Or the GM's histrionics are clues to NPC motivations/backstories which the players then figure out (the "social crawl"). Or we're cooperating in story telling in some fashion.

But what we're not doing is actually modelling social interaction. I'm not actually generating, in you, any of the internal mental and emotional processes that occur when you fall in love with someone or are scared of someone or feel embarrassed or shamed by someone.

Which is also why @AbdulAlhazred's remark about resolving combat by talking is dead on! The cognitive process of deciding whether or not my character - as described - has yelled enough at your character to bully you into submission is no different from the cognitive process of deciding whether or not my character - as described - has wielded a sword sufficiently deftly to disarm and/or disable your character. It's a complete illusion to think that in the social case there is some genuine modelling or replication of the actual mental and emotional processes you character would be undergoing.

I'm not an actor. But from what I understand about how actors do their job, the comparison to acting is misplaced.

Suppose a script involves a scene in which one character hurls abuse at another, and the second character runs off in tears. The actors performing in that scene don't need to decide how their characters react. The actor playing the second character doesn't need to decide how much abuse their character can take, or whether or not their character would stand up to the other one. The script already answers that question for them! Or a different example: in a TV ad one character winks at another, charming them so much that the winked-at character gives them <a kiss, a rose, a chocolate, a car - whatever is salient for the ad). This doesn't mean that one human being actually charmed another with a wink; and it doesn't mean that one human being reached the conclusion, by some process of reasoning or intuition, that another human being's wink was so charming that it made sense that it would charm another.

Again, they are just following the script.

So in RPGing, where does the script come from? Again, this take us back to @Campbell and @AbdulAlhazred's posts. The GM can write the script but then keep it secret from the players, so they have to puzzle it out: this is the "social crawl". The players and GM can write a script together: this is improv-style cooperative storytelling. We can roll dice to determine the script: this is AbdulAlhazred's uniform mechanics. Or we can converse among friends with no script and actually engage in a social process: this is Campbell's first mode, in which the social role play is really just a group of friends sitting around negotiating stuff among themselves.

I like to inhabit my character and emote for my character. But as I've just posted, this doesn't tell us anything about how social interaction is resolved. Because unless the social interaction is very low-key, and thus the stakes for the two interacting characters are not wildly different from the stakes for the two game participants (again, this is @Campbell's first mode), it won't be the emoting and inhabitation that is resolving things. Because I won't actually be falling in love with your, or scared of you, or emotionally crushed by you, or actually having induced in me any of the actual causal processes that are ostensibly taking place in my character's head and heart.

So how is the script authored? Rolling the dice to generate it - @AbdulAlhazred's suggestion - is one way, and involves no less inhabitation and emoting than any other. Compared to @Campbell's first and second modes (respectively, actual real world low stakes negotiation, or social crawling) I think it involves much more inhabitation and emoting. And compare to the third mode (cooperative storytelling) I think it is a way for reducing contrivance, and opening the door to more visceral inhabitation by imposing hard limits on whose character feels what.

This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.

It was...kinda traumatic, actually. My larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.

My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have support for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.

(Edited for clarity.)

 

[Malmuria]

@Campbell's point, as I understood it, is that when you decide "that's what my character would do" you typically have in mind some further constraint, along the lines of the game has to go on or so-and-so can respond to that in such-and-such way.

In real life, some stormings out are actually the end of things. But how often at RPG tables do people make decisions that are actually the ends of things?

Part of the point of non-consensual resolution systems, as I see them, is that they create more space for harder resolution by shifting responsibility for carrying the fiction elsewhere.

For instance, if you declare "My character storms out!" and I now have to decide how my character reacts, the pressure is on me not to do something that will bust up the game.

If you declare "My character storms out!" and then some resolution process is invoked, that sets parameters for how I respond and clearly allocates authority to some other game participant to say the next thing, that pressure is relieved.

In Blades in the Dark, I can see the gm in this situation making a fortune roll. Perhaps the storming out makes an npc reconsider the exchange. Let's say the result of the roll is a success with complications--the npc makes amends, but you are in a worse position with this npc going forward, or a clock is ticked indicating rising conflict.

On the one hand, it's good to break it down like that, and give the gm tools to concretely track these relationships. On the other hand, the end result is kinda the most obvious thing that would happen? It's more that the mechanics guide the gm decision making process and make the results transparent to the table rather than setting a hard boundary on what happens next.

 

[Lanefan]

@Campbell's point, as I understood it, is that when you decide "that's what my character would do" you typically have in mind some further constraint, along the lines of the game has to go on or so-and-so can respond to that in such-and-such way.

In real life, some stormings out are actually the end of things. But how often at RPG tables do people make decisions that are actually the ends of things?

---shrug--- I've done it, more than once - roleplayed my character-as-character and-or myself-as-player right out of a game simply by following what that character would do. Part of the game.

Part of the point of non-consensual resolution systems, as I see them, is that they create more space for harder resolution by shifting responsibility for carrying the fiction elsewhere.

For instance, if you declare "My character storms out!" and I now have to decide how my character reacts, the pressure is on me not to do something that will bust up the game.

Here I disagree. Personally, I think the pressure is on you to do what your character would do; and if it busts up the game* then so be it.

* - though if a couple of characters leaving is all it takes to bust up a whole game then IMO that game wasn't very robust to begin with. I mean, in theory there's always room for replacement characters, and the departed characters still survive in the setting for later use or return or whatever their players desire.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.

It was...kinda traumatic, actually. My larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.

The term I've heard is "Bleed".

My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have support for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.

(Edited for clarity.)

Or, I could have just finished reading your post.

(I saw some of this effect when I used to MUSH, since, oddly enough, I found interacting through text exchange more intimate than I do in person or voice (I speculate its because you're not constantly reminded the person at the other end is not their character, and possibly because its accepted to do a lot more framing)).

 

[pemerton]

This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.

It was...kinda traumatic, actually. The larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.

My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have support for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.

This is a great post. I think it illustrates a couple of significant things.

First, I think it highlights the external/internal aspect. When we talk about resolving social interaction by free RPGing, are we meaning that players should set about inducing emotional responses in others? That's a huge part of social interaction in the real world - we smile at people, yell at them, sometimes manipulate them. Or are we meaning that players should imagine that such things are happening to their PCs, and induce appropriate emotional responses in themselves?

I can't speak for the Nordic LARPers, but nothing I hear about (say) @Lanefan's table, or similar sorts of description of free RPing, makes me think that people are advocating for the external manifestations of social behaviour. That players should actually set about getting other players to make decisions for their characters by seducing or bullying or charming or manipulating them.

They are talking about the internal aspect - the player imaging their PC being subject to certain things. And what those "certain things" are can be determined in all sorts of ways.

Second, I think it highlights the issue of social disruption vs just-keep-on-playing. @Crimson Longinus posts "in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair" but that doesn't get to the point I asked, which is Do people really storm out in anger?. In your LARPing something like that really happened - and the game couldn't just keep going! But when I pretend that my character is storming out in anger, but I'm not actually angry with anyone, that's not a modelling of a real-world process. It's sheer authorship, and again the authorship can be structured and decided in all sorts of ways.

I also really don't understand why the reason being politics rather than love would change the matter, except it being about less important thing.

One is a sphere of rational negotiation. The other is not.

What happens, is what the players feel their characters would do in a such a situation. That's basically how roleplaying works.

<snip>

I really don't get wanting to outsource the very core of roleplaying to some dice. I would never get onboard with that.

In situations which aren't like the one @niklinna describes, the script and the performance are not the same thing.

What happens if each player feels that their PC really wants the hand of Violette? Then they will never relent. But in real life people sometimes relent in such situations. And what makes them relent are factors that simply don't come to bear when two friends are performing their PCs to one another at a kitchen table.

For example, in the real situation one person realises that their friendship is more important to them than their romance, and hence gives up on the wooing in order to save the friendship. But at the RPG table there is no actual friendship that is at stake (assuming, once again, that we're not in a situation like the one @niklinna described). So nothing stops each player sticking to his conviction that his PC will not relent. (And this is just one example. Many more could be given.)

The basic structure of the issue, in game play terms, is finality - bringing something to a conclusion. The factors that produce that in real-life social encounters aren't present in a RPG which involves conversation among friends. (Unless it's in the sphere of rational negotiation, in which the relevant factor - the balance of reasons - is present.)

Perhaps. And good enough immersive mental model can produce such surprises.

I've got doubts about this.

 

[niklinna]

Second, I think it highlights the issue of social disruption vs just-keep-on-playing. @Crimson Longinus posts "in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair" but that doesn't get to the point I asked, which is Do people really storm out in anger?. In your LARPing something like that really happened - and the game couldn't just keep going! But when I pretend that my character is storming out in anger, but I'm not actually angry with anyone, that's not a modelling of a real-world process. It's sheer authorship, and again the authorship can be structured and decided in all sorts of ways.

Here we have a big difference between tabletop and real larp though. Somebody storms away from the table, that can upset the whole game. Somebody storms out in a larp, there are plenty of other people and things going on. A particular interaction might have been upset, but unless somebody puts on the white headband (or equivalent out-of-game signifier), they are still around and somebody else might approach them to talk about the matter, in or out of character (or both), as the situation warrants.

 

[pemerton]

In Blades in the Dark, I can see the gm in this situation making a fortune roll. Perhaps the storming out makes an npc reconsider the exchange. Let's say the result of the roll is a success with complications--the npc makes amends, but you are in a worse position with this npc going forward, or a clock is ticked indicating rising conflict.

On the one hand, it's good to break it down like that, and give the gm tools to concretely track these relationships. On the other hand, the end result is kinda the most obvious thing that would happen? It's more that the mechanics guide the gm decision making process and make the results transparent to the table rather than setting a hard boundary on what happens next.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the most obvious thing".

Here's one example that your post reminded me of, contrasting two approaches to social resolution. From one poster:

Storming the ship is imo a bad idea. First getting on it in space undetected (or rather so that is it not seen as an attack) is very unlikely as they can always check back with Enlil about your story.
Second unless you have some heavy and high TL gear you might be rather outgunned, especially if it turns out that you are dealing with a Black Ops operation.
Third, you are the aggressor against the Imperium. That not only means that you have to deal with any reinforcements from Enlil, depending on Lis connections you might be catapulted into the list of the sectors most wanted. Unless you find any convincing evidence on that ship you can forget setting foot on Enlil and any average or higher law level world. Until you find some very good proof about the bioweapons you would basically be outlaws (And if Li is Black Ops and not Rogue even evidence would not save you)

The better question would be what the ship is doing there in the first place? Military ships usually have a higher Jump rating. Do they still have to go there to refuel or did they go there on purpose? Is it a simple supply run (possibly allowing you to smuggle things into the base)? Do they intend to deliver the bioweapon to Enlil? Has Li decided to abandon Olyx and is transfering to a new site?
If they dock you might be able to infiltrate the ship quietly, access their computers or get some crewmen to talk.

Information gathering.
Logs, flight plans to discover additional bases, scans from Olyx it has made, infornation about any ships that are considered friendly and thus likely part of the conspiracy. Bios from the crew for eventual blackmail, communication logs with Olyx, etc.
Get creative.

The last thing you want is having civilians on board while you are involved in illegal bioweapon research.
Someone can pretend to have a medical emergency but you run the risk of being separated from the rest and shoved into a low berth or drugged with fast. They probably also have enough scientists on board to discover the ruse quickly.

This is an illustration of how a GM might extrapolate social responses via free roleplaying, using their own conception of how a NPC might behave.

From another poster:

If I was going to try and get aboard the cruiser it wouldn't be through violence, and probably not stealth either.

I'd be looking to broadcast a distress signal and claim to have a life support malfunction and multiple system failures - throw the ship into a slow awkward spin to make it look convincing. Something to get you on board the target ship with a credible reason to be there and as little suspicion as possible.

The boat missed its last three maintenance checks - one of the hazards of a tight schedule running illegal operations and a bureacratic mix-up the last time they docked. Currently grounded except as a last-ditch lifepod. See, I can make up fiction too.

<snip>

Now you've packaged up the motivations, ideas and personality of an entire crew and used it as yet more tragic rationalisation for pre-judging outcomes. cf railroading

Actually the Captain was once in an emergency situation himself as a young boy and vividly remembers his own rescue. He may be researching bio-weapons, but he'll take a distress call seriously. There's no honour amongst thieves though, and three or four of the other senior crew lost patience the last time they went out to a distress beacon. This one could easily push them over the edge.

This is an approach which I think is more likely to follow from using a randomiser, like (say) a reaction throw (which is the canonical method in 1977 Traveller), or from some other constraint on what someone is allowed to say.

In Apocalypse World, a similar thing might constitute an attempt to Seduce/Manipulate, if the PCs have something implicit or express to offer the captain. Otherwise it triggers a soft move from the GM: the rules make it clear that the GM is the one who has to keep the ball in the air, not the player.

 

[pemerton]

Here we have a big difference between tabletop and real larp though. Somebody storms away from the table, that can upset the whole game. Somebody storms out in a larp, there are plenty of other people and things going on. A particular interaction might have been upset, but unless somebody puts on the white headband (or equivalent out-of-game signifier), they are still around and somebody else might approach them to talk about the matter, in or out of character (or both), as the situation warrants.

Absolutely.

Hence - in the context of TTRPGing - when we're talking about a GM portraying NPCs, or when we're talking about players portraying their PCs interacting with on another, I think the idea of deciding simply by inhabiting the character starts to lose its purchase. We don't want people to storm away from the table, especially if they're our friends who have turned up to spend the afternoon hanging out with us! And so we don't set about inducing, in them, the sorts of emotions that would lead someone to storm out. Rather, we ask them to imagine that someone is trying to do that, and/or has done that, and then to author something in response.

But how to we decide what to ask them to imagine? Do they imagine someone yelling at them? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more and storm off?

Most versions of D&D go as far as the first possibility: one participant is allowed to establish this person is yelling at this other person, but then whoever is in charge of that other person gets to decide the rest.

Burning Wheel goes as far as the second possibility: one participant is allowed to establish this person is yelling at this other person, and then if a check (Intimidate is the most obvious candidate) succeeds, the other person's controller has to roll a Steel check. Depending on how that ends up, the other person might find that their character is not able to take it any more! (But they still get to decide how they respond to the failed Steel check, from a limited menu of options.)

Marvel Heroic RP goes as far as the third possibility: one participant is allowed to establish this person is yelling at this other person, and then if a check succeeds might impose a Storm Off complication on the other character. How that resolves in the fiction will depend on the dice size of the complication, among other things, but the controller of the other character isn't allowed to just narrate fiction as if no such complication was part of it.

I don't think any of these approaches is at odds with inhabiting and emoting a character.