Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Given the original post version, the psionics distinction is rather arbitrary.
Given the revised version a few posts up? If it's not new info, it's not arbitrary. Stating there are consequences ahead of time is, @GMMichael , a form of mechanical enforcement. A weak one, but a rule none the less. If none of that had been established prior to the point the decision needed to be made, the GM bringing them up now would be Arbitrary, and hence, violate "Wheaton's Law" - which you can feel free to google.

Glad to see someone else familiar with Orkworld! I definitely see your points. And speaking of Play Dirty, I don't know if you had seen, but I thought it was interesting that he went back and did a Youtube series going back over his book and considering it from where he is these years later, what he still agrees with and what he doesn't.

 

[GMMichael]

Given the original post version, the psionics distinction is rather arbitrary.
Given the revised version a few posts up? If it's not new info, it's not arbitrary. Stating there are consequences ahead of time is, @GMMichael, a form of mechanical enforcement. A weak one, but a rule none the less.

I believe you were saying that if Fire and Stun follow the same rules*, then they are the same thematically. I was pointing to how the theme might treat them differently (although, why one would incur fines and the other wouldn't is a question best left to gonzo-style games). If you don't distinguish between in-game rules and metagame rules, well, there's not a lot to discuss here.

Another example occurred to me, though not from a DRPG...
In a military simulation video game, you can use certain actions to shoot through walls and armor, when under normal circumstances you couldn't. A glitch. Using the glitches wears down the "simulation game" aspect, leaving players with just a "game" to be won or lost, not experienced. Would you avoid glitches to support the simulation, or would you use every tool available to win?

Note that this changes the original question a bit too, because for many, glitching is synonymous with cheating. However, it casts a new light on the rules and mechanisms: the thematic rules say no, you can't shoot through walls unless you're using a strong enough weapon. The marketer's rules (or rulebook) agree: of course it's impossible to walk partially through a wall and shoot your opponent - that's not how the game is designed. However, the code disagrees: if you use the controls just right, shooting through walls is possible with any weapon.

*Since one causes Physical damage and the other Mental, they don't follow the same rules. Strictly speaking.

 

[James Gasik]

I believe you were saying that if Fire and Stun follow the same rules*, then they are the same thematically. I was pointing to how the theme might treat them differently (although, why one would incur fines and the other wouldn't is a question best left to gonzo-style games). If you don't distinguish between in-game rules and metagame rules, well, there's not a lot to discuss here.

Another example occurred to me, though not from a DRPG...
In a military simulation video game, you can use certain actions to shoot through walls and armor, when under normal circumstances you couldn't. A glitch. Using the glitches wears down the "simulation game" aspect, leaving players with just a "game" to be won or lost, not experienced. Would you avoid glitches to support the simulation, or would you use every tool available to win?

Note that this changes the original question a bit too, because for many, glitching is synonymous with cheating. However, it casts a new light on the rules and mechanisms: the thematic rules say no, you can't shoot through walls unless you're using a strong enough weapon. The marketer's rules (or rulebook) agree: of course it's impossible to walk partially through a wall and shoot your opponent - that's not how the game is designed. However, the code disagrees: if you use the controls just right, shooting through walls is possible with any weapon.

What you're talking about here are exploits. Performing actions that were never intended to be taken, but are technically allowable (assuming you're playing in a game where you aren't subject to a ban for exploiting shoddily crafted mechanics, lol).

And the answer depends on how competitive you are, and how invested you are in playing the way the developer intended. If you're playing Skyrim, and you fall through a floor and find a way into another dungeon, do you explore and poke around, or immediately quit the game and start over? (Assuming you had no way to teleport or otherwise fix the problem- and what if the way to fix the problem is to use console commands? Is that cheating?).

If you're playing an FPS and there's an exploit to shoot through a wall, do you refrain? What if other people do it to you? Do you stop playing until the developer does something about it? Or just "play honorably" and suffer?

This plays into a very interesting topic of socially enforced rules. In MMO's, especially, the player base often "decides" how the game should be played, and will do whatever they can to enforce it, regardless of developer intent, such as harassment of players who deviate from their expectations.

For example, Everquest had this issue where you could attack enemies and get their attention, and they'd chase you to the ends of the game map. Players would gather up large groups of monsters and lead them into supposedly safe places, like towns, to grief other players by having a mob of hostile and deadly foes wander in (this was called "training"). This quickly became a bannable offense. However, due to player demand, a server where NOTHING was a bannable offense was created.

A player then decided to test the boundaries of the "no ban" server by training dangerous mobs of monsters- and immediately the players cried foul, to the point that this player got banned on a "no ban" server- why? Because he deviated from social expectation.

Another example- the MMO's City of Heroes and City of Villains had you playing, as you might guess, superheroes and supervillains. There were a few zones where you could interact, with the intent of battling each other. But over time, the player base decided to use these zones for socializing with "the other side" rather than fighting.

There was a "safe" area of the map where you couldn't be attacked. But one player decided to use his powers to pull villains into the battle and attack them for xp, playing the game as intended. The other players reacted to this violently, even sending the player actual death threats for violating the "social contract".

If, in your games, there is an implied social contract, violating it should receive the same reaction. And such things exist "in universe" as well; you stated that psionics were distrusted by NPC's for various reasons. A player decides to go use a psychic spell because it's "the best". He absolutely should suffer the outrage of the rest of society- his action was legal by the rules, but willfully violated a social contract, possibly in and out of game, since all of this was explained to the player in advance.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Another example occurred to me, though not from a DRPG...
In a military simulation video game, you can use certain actions to shoot through walls and armor, when under normal circumstances you couldn't. A glitch. Using the glitches wears down the "simulation game" aspect, leaving players with just a "game" to be won or lost, not experienced. Would you avoid glitches to support the simulation, or would you use every tool available to win?

For me, it depends if it is considered "fair" behavior or not. If it is a glitch that "everyone" knows about and uses, then it's fair game. If there is community disdain, then no. I would absolutely learn how that glitch operates, however, because by learning about it I could try to formulate a defense. I'll know to not linger by the whiteboards, especially in the ConferenceRoom02 map, because the glitch allows someone on the other side to fire through them, or whatever.

The significant differences are that you can talk to the DM about intent and you can't with a program, and you are working against a team of other players rather than DM generated opposition. That has a strong shift in the paradigm for me, and allows for the possibility for a Theme vs. Win situation that I don't find in the RPG scenario.

 

[Pedantic]

I believe you were saying that if Fire and Stun follow the same rules*, then they are the same thematically. I was pointing to how the theme might treat them differently (although, why one would incur fines and the other wouldn't is a question best left to gonzo-style games). If you don't distinguish between in-game rules and metagame rules, well, there's not a lot to discuss here.

Another example occurred to me, though not from a DRPG...
In a military simulation video game, you can use certain actions to shoot through walls and armor, when under normal circumstances you couldn't. A glitch. Using the glitches wears down the "simulation game" aspect, leaving players with just a "game" to be won or lost, not experienced. Would you avoid glitches to support the simulation, or would you use every tool available to win?

It's a spectrum. Applying speedrunning techniques in video games is generally not my cup of tea, but that's as much because they aren't immediately presented in the material, and generally require me to go to secondary sources to hunt them down. Plus, there's a solid qualitative difference between a clear, unintended consequence of complicated mechanics interacting in unexpected ways under extreme circumstances, and opting to pick a mechanically superior spell from a simple list of them. The solution in competitive environments (including speedurnning) is also rule-based: you have "glitchless" as a category for most games, along with a list of glitches and exploits that are put outside the acceptable means of play.

I think the TTRPG equivalent of an out of bounds glitch is like classic 3.5 theory builds, the Omniscifer, Pun-Pun, the Word, and so on. Your base example is a lot closer to someone realizing the sniper rifle's damage is coded thus that it works just as well at short range, and is basically a mechanically superior pistol. Maybe slightly weird thematically, but a clear outcome of the given mechanics. If that's not desirable, then you'd expect some patch notes.

To be clear though, I wouldn't actually have a problem with this proposed setting taking an existing system, and starting with a disclaimer. Something like: "these spells are weird, rare magics from a dead tradition. Maybe you'll find their secrets in a lost tomb, but you can't learn them as a standard part of progression." The bit that I find problematic is pointedly handing a player agency and then frowning at them when they use it. Just change the rules, if you want the rules to be different.

 

[Lanefan]

To be clear though, I wouldn't actually have a problem with this proposed setting taking an existing system, and starting with a disclaimer. Something like: "these spells are weird, rare magics from a dead tradition. Maybe you'll find their secrets in a lost tomb, but you can't learn them as a standard part of progression." The bit that I find problematic is pointedly handing a player agency and then frowning at them when they use it. Just change the rules, if you want the rules to be different.

Agree completely with the bolded.

In those videogame examples given by @James Gasik I would maintain the players are in the right, social contract be damned. (and if those games are competitive, why does the social contract tell people not to compete?)

If the programmers didn't want those exploits to be available they wouldn't have programmed them in, or (if an oversight or unforeseen consequence) would program them out - in other words, change the rules - once the problems arose.

My take on it is that anything goes - if a program (or game) lets you do it then just go ahead and do it. If the game's programming is dumb enough to let you shoot through walls then go ahead and shoot through walls. If you can win by training monsters to swarm other players, go ahead and do it.

It's on the programmers - or in an RPG, the designers or (more likely) the GM - to either proactively or reactively either a) close these loopholes or b) willingly allow them to remain open in the knowledge that players can and will exploit them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If that's not desirable, then you'd expect some patch notes.

Or as I generally put it, "If you don't like a result the mechanics produce, fix them."

(Though this can be complicated when not everyone participating feels the same about them...)

To be clear though, I wouldn't actually have a problem with this proposed setting taking an existing system, and starting with a disclaimer. Something like: "these spells are weird, rare magics from a dead tradition. Maybe you'll find their secrets in a lost tomb, but you can't learn them as a standard part of progression." The bit that I find problematic is pointedly handing a player agency and then frowning at them when they use it. Just change the rules, if you want the rules to be different.

Or, this.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Isn't that the thinking that lead to 4th Edition?

Agree completely with the bolded.

In those videogame examples given by @James Gasik I would maintain the players are in the right, social contract be damned. (and if those games are competitive, why does the social contract tell people not to compete?)

If the programmers didn't want those exploits to be available they wouldn't have programmed them in, or (if an oversight or unforeseen consequence) would program them out - in other words, change the rules - once the problems arose.

My take on it is that anything goes - if a program (or game) lets you do it then just go ahead and do it. If the game's programming is dumb enough to let you shoot through walls then go ahead and shoot through walls. If you can win by training monsters to swarm other players, go ahead and do it.

It's on the programmers - or in an RPG, the designers or (more likely) the GM - to either proactively or reactively either a) close these loopholes or b) willingly allow them to remain open in the knowledge that players can and will exploit them.

 

[aramis erak]

I believe you were saying that if Fire and Stun follow the same rules*, then they are the same thematically. I was pointing to how the theme might treat them differently (although, why one would incur fines and the other wouldn't is a question best left to gonzo-style games). If you don't distinguish between in-game rules and metagame rules, well, there's not a lot to discuss here.

I do make a distinction, but put both on the side of rules, not setting.
Essentially, yes, if there is no prior story-state nor rules-state distinction, I won't worry about theme. Theme doesn't exist for me except as part of the story state or game state, both of which come from rules and play.

Another example occurred to me, though not from a DRPG...
In a military simulation video game, you can use certain actions to shoot through walls and armor, when under normal circumstances you couldn't. A glitch. Using the glitches wears down the "simulation game" aspect, leaving players with just a "game" to be won or lost, not experienced. Would you avoid glitches to support the simulation, or would you use every tool available to win?

Classic Fallacy detected: False dichotomy.

I avoid the glitches for a different reason... many such glitches increase the risk of hitting an unplayable state. The few times I've played MMOs,

EG: I lost a 60% completed save on a 3d Mario game due to a clipping glitch (that is, I hit a corner at just the right speed and angle to go through). as it dropped the avatar to the bottom of the 3d space defined, and that one didn't have a kill zone... so I couldn't get back into the playable zone, and it autosaved with me there... worse, since it was a part of the overworld, I couldn't "exit level" to cure the glitch.

I've experienced many glitches in videogames...
about half have resulted in restarts/respawns.
Plus, the only MMOs I've enjoyed were STO and Puzzle Pirates, so the social expectation factors not at all for me. That said, I did glitch in STO.... got stuck, too. Had to log-out, re-log-in, and restart the story mission. I wasn't trying to glitch... I showed it off to a buddy. He was able to replicate it, as he & I both were on Macs, but other buddies, who were not on Mac, could not.... It was amusing to glitch, but not of any use to winning. (It was a romulan mission, back when the mac client was supported/allowed, and glitched only on the mac client.)

Note that this changes the original question a bit too, because for many, glitching is synonymous with cheating. However, it casts a new light on the rules and mechanisms: the thematic rules say no, you can't shoot through walls unless you're using a strong enough weapon. The marketer's rules (or rulebook) agree: of course it's impossible to walk partially through a wall and shoot your opponent - that's not how the game is designed. However, the code disagrees: if you use the controls just right, shooting through walls is possible with any weapon.

Cheating requires a social judgement.
How one wins matters only to oneself unless playing as part of a group.
Which said, many people made impromptu group competition by comparing high scores....

I'll note that I generally avoid MMOs... I've only played 3 for any significant time - Puzzle Pirates, BSG Online, and Star Trek Online. Never found any for PP nor BSGO. Nor was I looking. As I said, my experiences with glitches are crashiness.

 

[aramis erak]

To be clear though, I wouldn't actually have a problem with this proposed setting taking an existing system, and starting with a disclaimer. Something like: "these spells are weird, rare magics from a dead tradition. Maybe you'll find their secrets in a lost tomb, but you can't learn them as a standard part of progression." The bit that I find problematic is pointedly handing a player agency and then frowning at them when they use it. Just change the rules, if you want the rules to be different.

QFT.
And noting that such a definition is every bit as much as rule as is "HP = Con +1d6 per level" (Palladium) or "FIghter HP = 1d8 per level" (BX/BECMI D&D) or "There is only one 15th level druid per continent"...