Secret House Rules

[Coidzor]

No, I'm trying to argue that what you are referring to as "the height of rudeness" does not universally qualify. It would need to be universally accepted as such to be so. Rudeness is defined by societal standards, so if society is split over an issue you can't declare that one side is "the height of rudeness" without being dismissive of the other side and not addressing any points at all.

Uh, no. There are some RPs where such would be interpreted as the height of rudeness and other RPs where it's perfectly A-OK is precisely not what you think I said while also being what I actually said there.

I may have mentioned the height of rudeness earlier, but that was a separate point in a separate context and relates more to my feelings about this sequence of threads and the ethoses people have been espousing in them.

That is hardly equivalent. Sex is a known topic that many people have trouble with, also most people do not want sexual topics brought up out of the blue. Since most people concur on this subject you could say: "It is very rude to bring up sexual topics unasked", but you can't do that with secret rules or unclear rules since there isn't a general consensus there, not even close from what I can tell.

Not exactly equivalent, but the parallels are there. Especially with JP's narrative about the effect their secret houserules have on those they don't give stockholm syndrome.

It's a sensitive subject where you need a good understanding of who you're playing with and what you're doing with it, specifically, and you're still better off discussing such things with them rather than taking your personal knowledge of the person and guessing.

Paranoia is played with the knowledge that there are secret rules. Mao is played with the knowledge that **** is going to be made up... or it's to play "got'cha" and take advantage of newbies, though that's a lot harder due to knowledge of Mao being wider spread, partially thanks to the internet.

That's not even remotely true, very few people have come here simply to post in JediPotter's defense as far as I can tell. The majority of people have come here to respond to allegations that nobody would enjoy a style of game like that, and have provided counter-examples. Such as Paranoia, Old School D&D and several others.

All the posts I've seen on the subject have been mostly about such things being for the DM's enjoyment in oldschool suicidal D&D. My apologies. Paranoia's already been addressed as different, and I don't really feel like reinventing the wheel there, sorry.

Since the accusing side is the one making the sweeping pronouncements they're the ones that have to defend said statements. I haven't said: "All games should contain secret rules" only "See here are demonstrably games that people have enjoyed that contained rules that were explicitly not for player eyes, to include at least one serious game and one non-serious game." Which should be sufficient to refute that allegation.

Several conversations going on. Lots of people making sweeping pronouncements. This is GITP, after all. Part of what makes this a bit of a slog, even without cases like this where there's clearly some misunderstanding of one another going on here.

Besides, in this context, specifically, the sweeping pronouncement in question was Jormengand's about all FFRPs being riddled with secret house rules and the like.

Which only relates to FFRPs, rather than RPing as a whole, unless one's definition of RPing doesn't include tabletop RPGs.

Mine does, in case there was any confusion as to my meaning.

Come on, I absolutely will be not be lectured about not taking my freetime activities seriously enough.

Then you haven't understood what I was getting at. My apologies for not being clearer the first time around. If you're going to do it, do it well. JP and most of the espoused methods of doing so that aren't Paranoia have not been persuasively argued to be doing it well.

BRC had a post about the sort of questions you need to be able to answer when going down that path. So far, asking those questions myself has drawn the equivalent of a blank stare of confusion and a conversation of talking past one another.

Seriously, that's absurd, yes, it's possible that somebody could do something that will change a game in a way that people don't like, but implying that it's mucking about with things that are beyond the ken of most mortal DMs, absolutely not, that's ridiculous. Yes, I give a lot of thought into my rulings as a DM, but I absolutely don't think that this is in all cases necessary.

No, just beyond the abilities of anyone demonstrated here thus far. And something to take seriously rather than do without good reason as you had appeared to espouse. My apologies for misunderstanding you as arguing that secret house rules don't need a good reason for being secret.

If you do think that secret house rules are good without being thought through and having a good reason for them, well, I don't think that I can find a way to allow for that perspective to be anything but wrong to me.

[Sartharina]

Well the issue still remains that it isn't always easy to see how much agency you have or don't have. I assume that complete removal of player agency is virtually impossible. After all even if you're reading from a script, one can still vary performance, which is agency. There is no way to completely remove agency, and as long as you are interacting with the world through your character there is some form of agency, now if it's meaningful may be a significant factor, but that's really a matter of taste.

Actually, there is a way to have complete removal of player agency - Try being in a game with Trekkin's DM.

[AMFV]

Uh, no. There are some RPs where such would be interpreted as the height of rudeness and other RPs where it's perfectly A-OK is precisely not what you think I said while also being what I actually said there.

I may have mentioned the height of rudeness earlier, but that was a separate point in a separate context and relates more to my feelings about this sequence of threads and the ethoses people have been espousing in them.

I would say that it's more dependent on table than on RPG, after all D&D 3.5 is not that far removed from AD&D where secret rules and no-save you dies, are part of the game.

Not exactly equivalent, but the parallels are there. Especially with JP's narrative about the effect their secret houserules have on those they don't give stockholm syndrome.

It's a sensitive subject where you need a good understanding of who you're playing with and what you're doing with it, specifically, and you're still better off discussing such things with them rather than taking your personal knowledge of the person and guessing.

Paranoia is played with the knowledge that there are secret rules. Mao is played with the knowledge that **** is going to be made up... or it's to play "got'cha" and take advantage of newbies, though that's a lot harder due to knowledge of Mao being wider spread, partially thanks to the internet.

But really don't have a narrative, we don't know if her players are taken advantage of, or if they even mind it. After all, people read books with the tomato surprise ending and enjoy them. I don't think that houserules are a sensitive subject, not even a little bit. Certainly not one that is on the level of sexual abuse or sexual topics.

All the posts I've seen on the subject have been mostly about such things being for the DM's enjoyment in oldschool suicidal D&D. My apologies. Paranoia's already been addressed as different, and I don't really feel like reinventing the wheel there, sorry.

But players enjoy those kind of suicidal paranoid games as well. Or some of them do. My father for example, much prefers that style of gaming, in fact he dislikes the way that 3.5 structures the relationship between player and DM, even when he is not in fact the DM, I would expect that he is not alone in that particular viewpoint.

No, just beyond the abilities of anyone demonstrated here thus far. And something to take seriously rather than do without good reason as you had appeared to espouse. My apologies for misunderstanding you as arguing that secret house rules don't need a good reason for being secret.

If you do think that secret house rules are good without being thought through and having a good reason for them, well, I don't think that I can find a way to allow for that perspective to be anything but wrong to me.

And that's fair, but you have to admit that there are games where they work, even without a lot of thought being put into them. I'm arguing that secret rules or whatnot are entirely the purview of whatever group is playing, and how serious or non-serious they are depends on that. I for one rarely tend to do anything without thinking about it. But I'm not going to judge another group if they have a working system along those lines.

Actually, there is a way to have complete removal of player agency - Try being in a game with Trekkin's DM.

Even that isn't total. You can always leave, and that's agency.

[eggynack]

Well the issue still remains that it isn't always easy to see how much agency you have or don't have. I assume that complete removal of player agency is virtually impossible. After all even if you're reading from a script, one can still vary performance, which is agency. There is no way to completely remove agency, and as long as you are interacting with the world through your character there is some form of agency, now if it's meaningful may be a significant factor, but that's really a matter of taste.

So there really is no way to completely remove player agency as long as you still have players who are not you.

It's less possible in a tabletop, but the example presented in the podcast is a game called Ramses, in which all of your actions have the same results, regardless of your input. No varying in performance whatsoever. A similar example is Progress Quest, in which, after setting up initial stats, of whom strength is the only one of any relevance, the game just proceeds without any input whatsoever. I suppose you could argue that the stat choosing step is agency, but then again, the game could easily not have that step, and that step barely impacts anything anyway. It seems nearly impossible to have a game without agency, but that's just because it's such a fundamental rule of game design.

[AMFV]

It's less possible in a tabletop, but the example presented in the podcast is a game called Ramses, in which all of your actions have the same results, regardless of your input. No varying in performance whatsoever. A similar example is Progress Quest, in which, after setting up initial stats, of whom strength is the only one of any relevance, the game just proceeds without any input whatsoever. I suppose you could argue that the stat choosing step is agency, but then again, the game could easily not have that step, and that step barely impacts anything anyway. It seems nearly impossible to have a game without agency, but that's just because it's such a fundamental rule of game design.

But here's the thing, how are the players going to know that they would get the same results regardless of their actions? Apparent agency is really what's important, I'll admit as a DM I've occasionally had the same exact encounter in all directions, because I wanted to give players a feeling of control that was greater than what it actually was. So while they had no agency, going any direction produced the same encounter, they weren't aware that this was in fact the case.

Edit: So again unless players have access to the scientific method or ask you point-blank, they won't be aware of their actual agency, and the important thing is their perception of their agency.

[eggynack]

But here's the thing, how are the players going to know that they would get the same results regardless of their actions? Apparent agency is really what's important, I'll admit as a DM I've occasionally had the same exact encounter in all directions, because I wanted to give players a feeling of control that was greater than what it actually was. So while they had no agency, going any direction produced the same encounter, they weren't aware that this was in fact the case.

I'm pretty sure that all of the in-game results are just that the character lazes around and does nothing, so it's reasonably clear that you're not impacting the game, and Progress Quest is incredibly obvious about the fact. Gregory Weir has a separate podcast on false agency, incidentally. Man, that guy is awesome. Haven't been into the whole pretentious indie game thing for a bit now, but he was pretty great at it.

Edit: As for false agency being OK, I'm not really sure on that count. It seems like a pretty crappy thing to do to players, especially in the long term, where you might as well just be playing the game by yourself.

[Sartharina]

Even that isn't total. You can always leave, and that's agency.

I'm kind of torn on admitting that this is true, and taking a crack at just how bad Trekkin's DM was (It will forever dominate your destiny!)

[Arbane]

It's less possible in a tabletop, but the example presented in the podcast is a game called Ramses, in which all of your actions have the same results, regardless of your input. No varying in performance whatsoever. A similar example is Progress Quest, in which, after setting up initial stats, of whom strength is the only one of any relevance, the game just proceeds without any input whatsoever. I suppose you could argue that the stat choosing step is agency, but then again, the game could easily not have that step, and that step barely impacts anything anyway. It seems nearly impossible to have a game without agency, but that's just because it's such a fundamental rule of game design.

I don't think Progress Quest really qualifies as a 'game'. It's more of a complex screen saver.

[eggynack]

I don't think Progress Quest really qualifies as a 'game'. It's more of a complex screen saver.

I can see the argument, though I tend to consider it a zero player game. That's just how fundamental rules of game design roll though, and why breaking them is a big deal. Breaking some of them leaves you with a non-game, and breaking others breaks the trust of players and changes the entire nature of a game.

[AMFV]

I can see the argument, though I tend to consider it a zero player game. That's just how fundamental rules of game design roll though, and why breaking them is a big deal. Breaking some of them leaves you with a non-game, and breaking others breaks the trust of players and changes the entire nature of a game.

Well again the question is, if you think your choices are relevant isn't that what matters? For example if I sat somebody down at Progress Quest and told them that it was a game, then it's as much a game as anything else...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/20

See the above example.

I'm pretty sure that all of the in-game results are just that the character lazes around and does nothing, so it's reasonably clear that you're not impacting the game, and Progress Quest is incredibly obvious about the fact. Gregory Weir has a separate podcast on false agency, incidentally. Man, that guy is awesome. Haven't been into the whole pretentious indie game thing for a bit now, but he was pretty great at it.

Edit: As for false agency being OK, I'm not really sure on that count. It seems like a pretty crappy thing to do to players, especially in the long term, where you might as well just be playing the game by yourself.

But I'm not playing the game by myself. Hell as a DM, I'm not really playing the game at all. I'm providing the backdrop for it. Which requires a different outlook than that of a player. I have to compromise more than a player might be expected to. I have to balance encounters to cater to various players without appearing that I'm doing that, I have to be able to make it appear to players that their choices are meaningful. I am not a full time DM, meaning I don't have 40+ hours a week to focus on developing each different possible plotline. But I still have a responsibility to stretch my preparation to make it appear as though there is more of a world than I have time to construct.

This is like the facade fronts in a western film. I have to make it appear as though there is an entire world, when really it's only what I have prepared. And a lot of times this involves a combination of creating improvisation on the spot to react to unexpected player decisions, and a combination of attaching matching actions that were preplanned to player decisions. Meaning I'll have actions that I can insert when appropriate, similar to a fill in a piece of music.

I suspect (and I haven't had time to look) that Gregory Weir (if he is an indie game guy) would vehemently oppose the idea that the Player and the DM have fundamentally different roles, but they do (in my experience) and a DM needs to think and act differently to make the game interesting for the players.

[kyoryu]

But here's the thing, how are the players going to know that they would get the same results regardless of their actions? Apparent agency is really what's important, I'll admit as a DM I've occasionally had the same exact encounter in all directions, because I wanted to give players a feeling of control that was greater than what it actually was. So while they had no agency, going any direction produced the same encounter, they weren't aware that this was in fact the case.

Edit: So again unless players have access to the scientific method or ask you point-blank, they won't be aware of their actual agency, and the important thing is their perception of their agency.

"It's okay to lie if you don't get caught."

Yeah, I don't buy that.

Railroading is fine, just be honest about it.

[AMFV]

"It's okay to lie if you don't get caught."

Yeah, I don't buy that.

Railroading is fine, just be honest about it.

All roleplaying is lying. I'll repeat ALL ROLEPLAYING IS INHERENTLY DISHONEST. Inasmuch as acting or writing is dishonest. We aren't playing a board game, I'm not cheating or violating the rules. I'm creating an illusion that there is more present then there actually is, that's good, it allows for better suspension of disbelief on the players and improves their enjoyment of the game. As a DM it's my responsibility to create a world for players to experience even though it is impossible to create the detail that would need to exist in a real world

Edit: Furthermore it's not railroading in the sense, that I, David, the mighty GM want the players to go through the door, because I, David, the Mighty GM have that power. It's that I, David, the working stiff don't have time to build a response to every possible scenario, I don't have infinite time or resources, so I create a response that feels organic to the player and improves their enjoyment. That's the purpose of that trick, not to fool the players into going the way I want them to. But to fool them into believing that they are participating in a more developed world, which is what is important in the end. Yes, it's dishonest, but not anymore dishonest than me using a false accent to get into character, or than me acting as a character in the setting.

[eggynack]

Well again the question is, if you think your choices are relevant isn't that what matters? For example if I sat somebody down at Progress Quest and told them that it was a game, then it's as much a game as anything else...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/20

See the above example.

I don't think you can really define a game like that, or else the definition is a bit meaningless. I mean, maybe it actually just is meaningless, but that seems kinda, y'know, not meaningful. In any case, I do vaguely support the notion of progress quest as a game, but it's certainly not much of a game.

But I'm not playing the game by myself. Hell as a DM, I'm not really playing the game at all. I'm providing the backdrop for it. Which requires a different outlook than that of a player. I have to compromise more than a player might be expected to. I have to balance encounters to cater to various players without appearing that I'm doing that, I have to be able to make it appear to players that their choices are meaningful. I am not a full time DM, meaning I don't have 40+ hours a week to focus on developing each different possible plotline. But I still have a responsibility to stretch my preparation to make it appear as though there is more of a world than I have time to construct.

This is like the facade fronts in a western film. I have to make it appear as though there is an entire world, when really it's only what I have prepared. And a lot of times this involves a combination of creating improvisation on the spot to react to unexpected player decisions, and a combination of attaching matching actions that were preplanned to player decisions. Meaning I'll have actions that I can insert when appropriate, similar to a fill in a piece of music.

I suspect (and I haven't had time to look) that Gregory Weir (if he is an indie game guy) would vehemently oppose the idea that the Player and the DM have fundamentally different roles, but they do (in my experience) and a DM needs to think and act differently to make the game interesting for the players.

There are places where you can lower agency, because of convenience, or for a higher purpose. It's only when your game just has no agency that problems arise, when every plan of attack leads to the exact same result, or when every path leads to the same place no matter what. The parts of the game that lack agency are a bit pointless, so they should usually only act as filler between parts that have plenty of agency. As for Gregory Weir, I somehow doubt that he'd take that position. The guy screws around with agency more than most, and talks about exceptions to the need for agency because they're a pretty interesting route in game design. It's not like his stance on false agency is just, "False agency is universally dumb."

I'm of the belief that it's necessary to learn and understand these sorts of rules, whether they apply to game design or literature, so that we can know how best to break them. Books can eschew all kinds of syntax, and games can skip everything from agency to consistent rules. However, if you're going to break those rules, you should know that you're breaking them, and you should know why. That understanding is critical, because otherwise you end up with a mess. If you don't know how important agency is, then you could fail to have a sufficient quantity of false agency, or not have a real purpose for that agency, and you could end up with players that feel unnecessarily railroaded. The same sort of end applies to a lot of these rules, to greater and lesser extents. Even standard houserules, at least ones made out of game instead of in response to things you don't know the rules for, should be made with a critical eye.

[AMFV]

I don't think you can really define a game like that, or else the definition is a bit meaningless. I mean, maybe it actually just is meaningless, but that seems kinda, y'know, not meaningful. In any case, I do vaguely support the notion of progress quest as a game, but it's certainly not much of a game.

So define it, meaningfully, what is a game? I used to play games where I had no agency, driving games for example, the one where you try to look for each of the letters of alphabet on signs. There is no agency in that, and it's a game. Slug-bug, no agency, and it's a game. Craps, no agency, and it's a game. The problem is that "a game" is not a well defined term.

And what's worse, neither is agency. You always have some measure of agency, whether or not you'd admit that this is the case it's true.

There are places where you can lower agency, because of convenience, or for a higher purpose. It's only when your game just has no agency that problems arise, when every plan of attack leads to the exact same result, or when every path leads to the same place no matter what. As for Gregory Weir, I somehow doubt that he'd take that position. The guy screws around with agency more than most, and talks about exceptions to the need for agency because they're a pretty interesting route in game design. It's not like his stance on false agency is just, "False agency is universally dumb."

Well I don't have time to read his stuff, or especially listen to it, which is why I prefaced it with "I would expect". Indie folks tend to (not always but often are) more in line with things that bring DM and Player roles closer together, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I'm of the belief that it's necessary to learn and understand these sorts of rules, whether they apply to game design or literature, so that we can know how best to break them. Books can eschew all kinds of syntax, and games can skip everything from agency to consistent rules. However, if you're going to break those rules, you should know that you're breaking them, and you should know why. That understanding is critical, because otherwise you end up with a mess. If you don't know how important agency is, then you could fail to have a sufficient quantity of false agency, or not have a real purpose for that agency, and you could end up with players that feel unnecessarily railroaded. The same sort of end applies to a lot of these rules, to greater and lesser extents. Even standard houserules, at least ones made out of game instead of in response to things you don't know the rules for, should be made with a critical eye.

Well agency is too poorly defined to have a critical study of it. It's all gut feeling and instinct anyways, there's no proper definition, as we've pointed even the term is nebulous. So you can't formalize rules, so saying "I know the formal rules of game design" is kind of a silly statement. Now one might say, some people are inherently better at controlling agency than others, and that's probably true, but it's still mostly a matter of reading your players, and having a gut grip on things, it's not something that's even consistent enough to come up with a set of formal workable rules for even one group, and probably for even one DM-Player relationship, as such saying that somebody should know the formal rules of it is kind of meaningless, they're moot, they're open to discussion.

[NichG]

Might I suggest that at this point it appears this is a semantic argument about the 'rules of game design' being rules rather than, y'know, sets of observations about the psychology of players and how they interact with different situations?

I feel like the main objection in this line of conversation has been to the idea of calling what people know about game design 'rules', because it points to the idea of some objective judgement on matters of style and preference. But eggynack introduces this concept of rules just to continue to talk about breaking them as a way to explore new ground! So at no point is it really relevant to consider these things as dogmatically as is being done.

Instead, if we just consider it as 'evidence' and 'expected outcome' then the entire conflict seems like it should evaporate. 'Games that have been successful have done X, Y, and Z; games that have done Q have tended to flop; the common point of view is that this is because of the following factors...' is something that everyone in the thread can work with - those opposed to dogmatic rules should be able to see that evidence is evidence and that while their situation may work out differently, that must be because of some underlying reason for it to work out differently and not just because its them and not the other guy who is doing it. Those proposing a more systematic understanding of game design can still make the point that its not just a complete unknown with people shooting into the dark, but that we actually do have a lot of information about what does and doesn't work (without excluding people who haven't been to game design school and who aren't familiar with these 'rules' as they're taught from the discussion).

[eggynack]

So define it, meaningfully, what is a game? I used to play games where I had no agency, driving games for example, the one where you try to look for each of the letters of alphabet on signs. There is no agency in that, and it's a game. Slug-bug, no agency, and it's a game. Craps, no agency, and it's a game. The problem is that "a game" is not a well defined term.

I don't think I've ever come up with a perfectly satisfactory one. It's a tricky chunk o' stuff. Still, I do think that those games have some degree of agency. In the first cases, you can either spot the majigs or fail to do so. In the case of craps, the goal is to make money, and you get to choose what things to bet on and how much to bet. You have no input on the dice end, and neither is any choice particularly better than another, but had you made a different choice, there would be a different outcome.

And what's worse, neither is agency. You always have some measure of agency, whether or not you'd admit that this is the case it's true.

I generally consider agency in games to be defined by your choices having some impact on progress and outcome.

Well agency is too poorly defined to have a critical study of it. It's all gut feeling and instinct anyways, there's no proper definition, as we've pointed even the term is nebulous. So you can't formalize rules, so saying "I know the formal rules of game design" is kind of a silly statement. Now one might say, some people are inherently better at controlling agency than others, and that's probably true, but it's still mostly a matter of reading your players, and having a gut grip on things, it's not something that's even consistent enough to come up with a set of formal workable rules for even one group, and probably for even one DM-Player relationship, as such saying that somebody should know the formal rules of it is kind of meaningless, they're moot, they're open to discussion.

I think we have a reasonable understanding of what agency is, and how it works, even if it's an imperfect one. Game design and writing alike are arts rather than sciences, after all. Overall, it's reasonably possible to judge when you've broken one of these big rules, because they're such fundamental parts of what a game is. It's pretty rare that a game will do that as a result. Knowing rules of this type is pretty simple as well, as they generally match expectations. Really, I don't expect anyone to have crazy formal understanding of game design, but if you're going so far as to change rules mid-game, have a bunch of secret rules, or remove most or all agency from a game, having a good reason doesn't seem like a crazy thing to expect.

Edit: @ NichG: I suppose that sounds reasonably workable, though I'm not yet sure if it actually touches the core of the argument.

[AMFV]

Might I suggest that at this point it appears this is a semantic argument about the 'rules of game design' being rules rather than, y'know, sets of observations about the psychology of players and how they interact with different situations?

I feel like the main objection in this line of conversation has been to the idea of calling what people know about game design 'rules', because it points to the idea of some objective judgement on matters of style and preference. But eggynack introduces this concept of rules just to continue to talk about breaking them as a way to explore new ground! So at no point is it really relevant to consider these things as dogmatically as is being done.

Well the problem is that the rules aren't really something people agree on, which means that insisting people know them is a pretty meaningless thing. Basically the issue I'm having is that by implication stating that one must understand the rules of game creation before making houserules, is a nebulous thing.

It is literally almost impossible to foresee all possible outcomes of any particular change in a standard roleplaying system, they are inherently much too complex for that. Meaning that making houserules is kind of a crapshoot to begin with, but it's not necessarily something that should be undertaken carefully, rather it's something that you should be able to change back quickly, in which case houseruling in secret does help, because that lets you evaluate where you might not be able to and then shift back if there's an issue.

Instead, if we just consider it as 'evidence' and 'expected outcome' then the entire conflict seems like it should evaporate. 'Games that have been successful have done X, Y, and Z; games that have done Q have tended to flop; the common point of view is that this is because of the following factors...' is something that everyone in the thread can work with - those opposed to dogmatic rules should be able to see that evidence is evidence and that while their situation may work out differently, that must be because of some underlying reason for it to work out differently and not just because its them and not the other guy who is doing it. Those proposing a more systematic understanding of game design can still make the point that its not just a complete unknown with people shooting into the dark, but that we actually do have a lot of information about what does and doesn't work (without excluding people who haven't been to game design school and who aren't familiar with these 'rules' as they're taught from the discussion).

The problem is that you can't even really say 'Games that have been successful have done X, Y, and Z; games that have done Q have tended to flop; the common point of view is that this is because of the following factors...' Because there aren't enough consistent. For example in Film (which is more studied) it's not clear why some Blockbusters, for example the Lone Ranger, flopped, while others, such as Transformers were successes financially. It is pretty nearly shooting into the dark to make an understanding of what controls popular trends.

It's even harder to determine what will have value, once monetary success and popularity is no longer the main criteria, and for games at your house it shouldn't be.

[QUOTE=eggynack;17965925]I don't think I've ever come up with a perfectly satisfactory one. It's a tricky chunk o' stuff. Still, I do think that those games have some degree of agency. In the first cases, you can either spot the majigs or fail to do so. In the case of craps, the goal is to make money, and you get to choose what things to bet on and how much to bet. You have no input on the dice end, and neither is any choice particularly better than another, but had you made a different choice, there would be a different outcome.

Well you assume that you would have a different outcome if you made a different choice, that's part of how casinos get you. They as near to fix the odds as possible, and watch as people go from Red to Black and back, and lose, because you can't beat the odds.

I generally consider agency in games to be defined by your choices having some impact on progress and outcome.

Well even that's nebulous, what is a choice? Is how I act in games a choice? Is which games I participate in a choice? Is the color of die I roll a choice? Is what color shirt I wear a choice? There are choices that are going to have little to no effect, and there are choices that I will attribute an effect to. So not all choices have an effect, and not all in game choices have an effect (could be negated by rolls, rules, or whatever)

So agency is fundamentally limited already. Now we come to the second part of the definition, progress and outcome, which are as nebulous in terms of roleplaying games as the term agency is. Furthermore there is no way you can know if your actions fundamentally changed anything without being able to go back and repeat the same action and different actions under the same circumstances.

I think we have a reasonable understanding of what agency is, and how it works, even if it's an imperfect one. Game design and writing alike are arts rather than sciences, after all. Overall, it's reasonably possible to judge when you've broken one of these big rules, because they're such fundamental parts of what a game is. It's pretty rare that a game will do that as a result. Knowing rules of this type is pretty simple as well, as they generally match expectations. Really, I don't expect anyone to have crazy formal understanding of game design, but if you're going so far as to change rules mid-game, have a bunch of secret rules, or remove most or all agency from a game, having a good reason doesn't seem like a crazy thing to expect.

My problem is that "a good reason" isn't something that can be defined. And Agency is not the goal of all games, entertainment can be a goal, socialization can be a goal. And those are all as nebulous. Agency is not well defined. You can say "removing agency is bad", but complete removal of agency is impossible. Because I can always leave and that's always a choice that fundamentally will affect the game. I can refuse to participate, that's agency. So there is no way to remove agency completely. And there is no way to have complete agency. So everything is someplace on a spectrum of close to no agency and close to complete agency, which means that you can't say: "That's removing all agency" since that's impossible.

[eggynack]

Well the problem is that the rules aren't really something people agree on, which means that insisting people know them is a pretty meaningless thing. Basically the issue I'm having is that by implication stating that one must understand the rules of game creation before making houserules, is a nebulous thing.

It's not so much about perfect understanding of some set of standardized rules of gaming construction. Ultimately, it's about trying your hardest to have a good reason for your decisions, with more crazy or un-game things generally requiring more justification. It's pretty much impossible to have reasoning at hand for every little thing you do, but the more of that sort of underlying logic you have, the better the outcome will be.

I think it's a pretty good way of going about things, once you get used to it. As an example:

"Why did you choose to remove agency from this short stretch of the game?" asked the King of theoretical questions.

"I couldn't possibly have things prepared for the entire game, and doing this was crucial to get the game to run properly," answered theoretical AMFV.

"Why did you remove agency from this very long stretch of the game?" asked the King.

"I used that tool to underscore themes of helplessness and predestination that have been playing a role throughout the game, only to come to ahead here. At first, the player is meant to lack knowledge of that lack of agency, but it's a thing that's eventually supposed to be far more clear, at which point the player has the opportunity to either break through that wall, or be doomed to this pre-chosen path," answered theoretical AMFV.

It's a thing that makes good sense to me, at least.

Edit:

Well you assume that you would have a different outcome if you made a different choice, that's part of how casinos get you. They as near to fix the odds as possible, and watch as people go from Red to Black and back, and lose, because you can't beat the odds.

You would be correct in that assumption. Different choices have different outcomes in this case, even if one choice isn't necessarily better than another.

Well even that's nebulous, what is a choice? Is how I act in games a choice? Is which games I participate in a choice? Is the color of die I roll a choice? Is what color shirt I wear a choice? There are choices that are going to have little to no effect, and there are choices that I will attribute an effect to. So not all choices have an effect, and not all in game choices have an effect (could be negated by rolls, rules, or whatever)

I may have been somewhat unclear. The idea of agency isn't that all choices matter, but that a player has choices that do matter. If the player doesn't have choices of that variety, then there is no agency.

My problem is that "a good reason" isn't something that can be defined.

Of course not. That's where serious thinkin' comes in, and why you shouldn't do things willy nilly. None of us can make perfect choices, but I think we can make choices that make sense to us. If perfect game design were possible, well, things would be a whole lot different, but it's a thing to strive for.

And Agency is not the goal of all games, entertainment can be a goal, socialization can be a goal. And those are all as nebulous.

Agency does tend to be a pretty core goal though, whether the ultimate outcome is as simple as, "I died/survived", or as complicated as, "I finished the game/scenario with one of many outcomes." If you have one of those other things as your goal though, to the exclusion of agency somehow, then that can be a good reason in and of itself.

Agency is not well defined. You can say "removing agency is bad", but complete removal of agency is impossible. Because I can always leave and that's always a choice that fundamentally will affect the game. I can refuse to participate, that's agency. So there is no way to remove agency completely. And there is no way to have complete agency. So everything is someplace on a spectrum of close to no agency and close to complete agency, which means that you can't say: "That's removing all agency" since that's impossible.

Leaving is really more like having agency in real life than like having agency in a game. Perfectly defining these limits of agency is pretty irrelevant though. Whether we're talking about no agency, or that point on the spectrum as close as possible to it, it's pretty much the same thing.

[NichG]

The problem is that you can't even really say 'Games that have been successful have done X, Y, and Z; games that have done Q have tended to flop; the common point of view is that this is because of the following factors...' Because there aren't enough consistent. For example in Film (which is more studied) it's not clear why some Blockbusters, for example the Lone Ranger, flopped, while others, such as Transformers were successes financially. It is pretty nearly shooting into the dark to make an understanding of what controls popular trends.

It's even harder to determine what will have value, once monetary success and popularity is no longer the main criteria, and for games at your house it shouldn't be.

If you've run and participated in enough games, you have lots and lots of data on this topic even just in one's own campaigns. The point is, you can learn from what has gone before. To do so, you have to be willing to be introspective and to ask questions like 'why did things go the way they did?'. Calling those 'rules' has clearly gotten the conversation off to the wrong foot, but I think its equally silly to pretend that what happened in the past tells us nothing at all about how trying those ideas again in the future will go.

For example, I know that when I presented certain kinds of political intrigue to my players it systematically fell flat. By thinking about why that was, I can understand that creating a feeling of hopelessness and making the problem seem 'realistically large' places most players, who are already on unsure footing, in a state of mind where they tend to give up and just go with the flow. This can be generalized too - making anything in the game seem like its going to take forever will encourage the mindset of finding a shortcut. That's something that's useful to know if you want to run a long, winding epic; basically, don't give players an idea when it begins of how long the overall journey is going to be.

Furthermore, I have to recognize that as much data as I have about my own experiments, the collective knowledge of tens of thousands of people out there who are doing the same stuff and having various reactions is an incredible resource which I can tap. And its worth taking that information into account when figuring out what I want to try next. And that I think is the core of eggynack's point. Not that there's some 'school of game design' which you need to get a diploma from before you can be allowed to make house rules, but that when you do something you should do it with purpose and keeping in mind what has happened other times in which you or other people have done similar things.

[SiuiS]

Mass Effect 2 has something like that.
You know, one of the most successful and appreciated games of recent history.

There is a difference in that the mass effect ones do not actually impact the core of the game in any way whatsoever. In one of them, you may have to deal with slightly harder choices. In the ther, you'll have to do slightly more fetch-questing. The game is unchanged.

The discussion here is about the section during [REDACTED]'s death scene. [REDACTED] falls. Cliffs are involved. [REDACTED] dies. There's an interrupt that let's you think you can save [REDACTED] but the outcome is no different; it's just a heartstring pluck.

The Jedipotter stuff is more like having your controller unplugged or having the options set so your shoot button doesn't shoot.

There is no good faith, IIRC. Trust is a Weakness. Love is a Lie. Compromise and discussion and working with one another are all Surrender. :/

Oh my, direct paraphrasing? That's terrible and reaffirms my stance.

Hogwash, you've never been asked to run a game where you didn't have complete mastery of the systems rules? I know I've had plenty of opportunity to successfully do so. Most games, especially D&D, don't even expect rules and system mastery. Remember that bit in the DMG that talks about how if you don't know a rule just make something up so you keep playing rather than stop the game to figure it out? I'm not even so sure that I'd say knowing the rules always makes a game better to begin with, lots of groups like "rule of cool" style games where you'll bend or break the rules for the sake of fun.

The difference between a mistake and stupidity is that you know better when you're being stupid.
Not knowing a rule and proceeding as best you can is one thing; actively undermining the actions and intentions of someone on multiple levels – both by removing their agency here, by making their spell fail out of the blue, and also at an earlier point by deciding to not allow them the ability to make meaningful choices – is not ruling to keep the game moving. It is malicious. And even of it were not by itself malicious, doing so for these reasons ("There is no good faith, IIRC. Trust is a Weakness. Love is a Lie. Compromise and discussion and working with one another are all Surrender.") clearly is. It's preemptive malice.

Assuming that he's using a 3.5 Elephant, and not a 4e, AD&D, or Savage Worlds elephant.Here's a list of the "Fundamental rules of game design":

Expecting a 3.5 elephant in 3.5 while playing 3.5 at a 3.5 game is not an assumption in the standard sense. It's an educated stance based on facts and foundational principles such as "my DM is not actively lying to me".

And no, far voyaging mind, it's possible to tell the truth about a fiction. It's not lying just because it's grounded in make believe.

Actually, there is a way to have complete removal of player agency - Try being in a game with Trekkin's DM.

I don't know. I mean, I remember those threads, but when I had a DM that bad we booted him. Player agency is not a strictly in-game thing.

[Curbstomp]

On the topic at hand, I think that a few house rules regarding off-screen events can work well. But things that directly effect the characters and their builds are, in my opinion, something to present up front during character creation.

In my own games I often have setting rules to give flavor to a world or nation/race in the world. For example, in my current campaigns the only Elves in setting are Forestlord Elves and their default language is Druidic. They are Celtic in theme right on down to the torcs and blue paint and are filling the role of mysterious barbarians. That said, these setting specific rules modifications were things the players were informed of the day of character generation. The rules are consistent between sessions and between campaigns if they take place in the same world. I run a fairly large gaming group and have for about a decade. Currently I run three weekly campaigns in the same setting with a different assistant DM in each group. This allows for the occasional crossover game between player groups and seems to be fairly fun for all involved. Particularly as the group keeps growing campaign to campaign. The last two campaigns were held in two weekly sessions, but the numbers got up to fifteen or so players between the two sessions, so for the new one I switched to three groups of five players each. One has since added a sixth player.

Every once in a while there may come a temporary change to game mechanics (often caused by PC's and occasionally villains) but those are (usually)temporary, fixable, preventable, and story-driven. If some mad wizard is trying to dimension lock the plane for example and the PC's know about it for twenty levels and do nothing to address it (or chose to help the wizard) then eventually the mad wizard's goal may come to pass.

For other rules changes, I try to stay with the books as written and remain consistent with interpretations where they are not precise. Sometimes I will use shortcut rules behind the DM screen though. For generating treasure or for bar games or what have you. Things that are not mechanically linked to the PC's particularly if they are happening in the background. Like when PC's bet on an arena match between two NPC's that they are not effecting in any way. I would generally resolve that with an opposed check for the sake of speed (though I might describe the fight) rather than actually fight it out.

Just my two cents.

-Curb

[AMFV]

And no, far voyaging mind, it's possible to tell the truth about a fiction. It's not lying just because it's grounded in make believe.

But there is a license for dishonesty. I like when movies use tricks to make things appear real to me. Because I expect things to appear a certain way, the same is true of written things. We aren't telling the truth about a fiction, we're using a certain specific kind of dishonesty to improve the fiction.

[SiuiS]

But there is a license for dishonesty. I like when movies use tricks to make things appear real to me. Because I expect things to appear a certain way, the same is true of written things. We aren't telling the truth about a fiction, we're using a certain specific kind of dishonesty to improve the fiction.

First; I'm sorry. When I wrote that a number of rebuttals sprang to mind I didn't want to deal with. But it's not okay for me to call you out for something you didn't even do. That's my mistake and I'll try to avoid it in future.


I think you're using a fundamentally different (and, it seems to me, no applicable) understanding of dishonest. In the same way that racism can be quibbled because the anthropological definition of racism requires it to have institutional backing but personal level racism exists, I think that while the word dishonest could be extended to apply to Roleplaying, it's not useful and is in fact misguided. It's a Socratic dialogue, wherein we take this set of constraints to be true and work within them. That's the basis of verisimilitude, isn't it?

If I recount past exploits of a game in the voice of considering them actual history, that's not dishonest. It just doesn't have explicit context. If you instead mean such as the opening of the Birdcage, where it is implied for a scene that Robin Williams is having an affair when he is really playig host to his adult son, then that's a possibility but it's false to say that because the possibility exists to trick someone that you are always counted as having tricked them.


Or perhaps I just misunderstand what you mean. After all, this is a conversation I tried to avoid via snarky one-liner and cattiness. I am not as well-grounded in the ideas as you are yet. Am I off the mark?

[eggynack]

And that I think is the core of eggynack's point. Not that there's some 'school of game design' which you need to get a diploma from before you can be allowed to make house rules, but that when you do something you should do it with purpose and keeping in mind what has happened other times in which you or other people have done similar things.

Sounds about right, I suppose. Purpose is a really important thing, especially when you're doing something off the beaten path. I tend to apply this stuff more to writing than to game design, but I figure that it applies reasonably well here too.

[Zrak]

I generally consider agency in games to be defined by your choices having some impact on progress and outcome.

Secret houserules do not diminish the impact of one's choices, though, they merely inhibit the ability to unerringly predict what that outcome will be. I generally don't run games with houseules, secret or otherwise, since my groups have tended to be generally houserule-averse and I'm an accommodating guy, but I make a point of including unforeseen (or at least unmentioned) consequences into a lot of narrative decisions, which doesn't strike me as a whole lot different. The players' choices absolutely impact their progress and outcome, but not always in the way they hope or a way they can unfailingly predict. The same seems, generally, to be true of jedipotter's rules and secret houserules in general. Casting a summon spell is a choice which impacts the party's progress and outcome, regardless of whether or not there is a mis-summon chance; the possibility for the spell to go awry only makes the specific impact the choice will have more difficult to predict.

[eggynack]

Secret houserules do not diminish the impact of one's choices, though, they merely inhibit the ability to unerringly predict what that outcome will be.

I think the player agency thing is a bit of a side-discussion, connected to hidden and changing house rules in that they both break fundamental rules of game design. There is probably a level of disconnect between action and reaction at which player agency becomes somewhat pointless. Those choose your own adventure books are a reasonable example of that sort of thing, I think.

[NichG]

There's also an implicit assumption that is being made here, which is that secret house rules will always be things that are designed to trip up or screw over the players. However that's not necessarily the case, and is an orthogonal point to whether the secrecy itself is a problem.

Since we're using game design examples, take something like Chrono Trigger's secret set of 3-party-member combos. They're not listed in the manual, they require finding specific items and equipping them on the right people to activate, and if you manage to do so its a strictly beneficial surprise. Clearly (to me at least) this is different than, say, games where the surprise is 'oh by the way, for this fight we're ignoring the way your abilities are supposed to interact with the world after you've spent 3/4 of the game learning those interactions'.

And that seems to be generally true among my players' reactions to things. If they get the ability to learn new super-powers that aren't in the book, they don't care if they didn't know in advance. Heck, if there's something where I say 'this is an unknown thing and it could have negative consequences, do you want to partake?' then even if it screws them over they're generally okay with it, because its a secret they could choose to gamble on or not of their own volition. Things can be secret without removing agency - in fact, the secretiveness of things can be a direction in which agency can be expressed: which mystery do you solve, which thing do you investigate more deeply, etc?

[Earthwalker]

Setting Expectation

I am unsure from the OP if the people playing the game know before starting that secret houserules are in play.
When starting a new campaign with a new group I will always try to explain what the new campaign is about, what system will be used. What changes have been made and give any information that might effect character creations. (e.g. In the game world I have choosen all dwarfs are treated as second class citizens and if you choose to play one your options will be limited)

Can anyone think of a good reason not to set expecations at the start of a game ?
What are the pros and cons of not telling players about the existance of secret house rules ?

Knowledge Skills

OMG these things are broken but there is an issue with the fluff linked to the crunch of the game that seems to be causing more problems.
(I think I am talking Pathfinder here not 3.5) A player has never seen an Elephant before in his life. He does have a high knowledge nature. while adventuring the character spots an odd animal. Asks the GM if he can roll knowledge nature on it (DC 18). He get 23, rolling above the number and beating it by 5 granting him two bits of information about the beast. So the GM tells him, the basic information. Its a herd animal that is a herbivour. (The GM doesnt have to say its name) He also gains additional information so the GM tells him that the thick hide will make it harder to hurt. (If he wants the GM can just give the AC of the elephant)
Someone with high ranks in knowledge skills knows how to apply what they have learned to new situations, it does not mean that they know everything about a field. So in the example its not that they know elephants, its that they can recognize this animal from similarities with other animals.

[Brookshw]

You might not need really solid understanding to make basic rules, but when you start fiddling with those fundamentals, you should really know why you're doing so. A list of rules like that are in that podcast I mentioned before, and include stuff like the game being playable the whole way through, the game being governed by consistent rules, and it being possible to avert failure. Even lesser changes are probably best made with an understanding of why you're going about it (I'd advise knowing why you're nerfing a spell, and why it actually needs to be nerfed, before nerfing it, for example), but these cases are pretty important to understand.

I don't have any objection to having a goal in mind when you change a rule, but the notion you proposed of some form of higher level of understanding is dubious. The DM needing some deeper grasp is in fact the sacred cow that J has held up several times and has been derided for. I don't think your views are especially consistent here. The whole thing is also a bit of a red herring, as the side conversation is demonstrating, that the notion of what is a game shouldn't be infringed upon. Apples and oranges there, what is a game, and what particular elements compose a particular game. Changes to rules don't change that you're playing a game. No one, not even J, has even gone to the extent you're discussing with the whole "eliminating agency" bit completely.

Perhaps, though there are some explicitly stated things that Jedipotter claims she does that I disagree with. Overall, even if this game as presented isn't the one she's playing, I think it's worth arguing against this odd and theoretical game that's being presented.

Fine, but that doesn't justify the persistent attacks on a style of game that can be quite enjoyable for many, you're just establishing there are particular elements that might not suit your particular tastes.

Regular rules aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fundamental rules of game design. If you decide to just remove all of the meaning of player agency in a game on a whim, because you dislike mature games or something, then that just seems like the wrong move.

Again, nothing more than a red herring. No old school game that I can think of completely removes player agency or does much to impact the fundamentals you're upholding as your sacred cow. J might have some particular examples (such as a spell changing to another after you cast it based on their preference) that demonstrate such things and I can completely get why such would be objectionable, I'd be bothered by it as well, but that's not an excuse to say that a different style is incorrect. Poor execution in one specific is a silly reason to cast stones at the whole.

[eggynack]

I don't have any objection to having a goal in mind when you change a rule, but the notion you proposed of some form of higher level of understanding is dubious. The DM needing some deeper grasp is in fact the sacred cow that J has held up several times and has been derided for.

I don't really know where she's indicated that line of thought all that much. It seems like you're equating my view with the idea that DM's have some higher understanding of the game inherently, because that's a lot more like what she's said in the past. As for a higher level of understanding, it's not necessarily a thing that comes from continuous study of the game, but rather, as I've held more recently, a thing that comes from making these sorts of decisions with purpose. If you're going to institute a secret house rule, you should think deeply about why you're doing that, what the house rule is trying to accomplish, and whether such a drastic move is the best and/or only way to achieve your goal.

I don't think your views are especially consistent here.

I'm not really sure how not. I mean, I'm sure the whole thing can't be held up as one solid and unchanging stance, but I think it's all kinda pointing in the same direction.

The whole thing is also a bit of a red herring, as the side conversation is demonstrating, that the notion of what is a game shouldn't be infringed upon. Apples and oranges there, what is a game, and what particular elements compose a particular game.

I don't think it's necessarily a red herring, so much as it is just a standard side conversation with no necessary or claimed connection to the main argument at hand. I was all, "There are these fundamental rules of game design, including this one over here," and then other folk were like, "Nah, I find this rule that is unrelated to Jedipotter's doings objectionable."

Changes to rules don't change that you're playing a game.

Perhaps, though it can very much change how a game is perceived by players, and the emotional state of those players.

No one, not even J, has even gone to the extent you're discussing with the whole "eliminating agency" bit completely.

I don't think I ever really indicated that that's the path she takes. They're just examples of the sorts of things you shouldn't screw with without good reason, with a known and unchanging rule set being one of them.

Fine, but that doesn't justify the persistent attacks on a style of game that can be quite enjoyable for many, you're just establishing there are particular elements that might not suit your particular tastes.

I don't really know how much evidence of mass enjoyment I have, as even Jedipotter's own accounts include a reasonable quantity of game-exodus. As for the latter thing, that almost seems like the whole point of the discussion. She says that a thing is to her tastes, and seeks to justify that stance, and those opposing her say that that thing is not to their taste, and seek to justify that stance. I'm not really sure how much deeper the purpose here can go.

Again, nothing more than a red herring. No old school game that I can think of completely removes player agency or does much to impact the fundamentals you're upholding as your sacred cow.

Not old school games as much, no, although some of them did break the rule that a game can be played all the way through with glitches, which doesn't count for much. I'm not really sure how the fact that these rules are broken an extremely small amount of the time, such that people only really considered breaking them recently, hurts my argument though. Seems to help it, actually.

J might have some particular examples (such as a spell changing to another after you cast it based on their preference) that demonstrate such things and I can completely get why such would be objectionable, I'd be bothered by it as well, but that's not an excuse to say that a different style is incorrect. Poor execution in one specific is a silly reason to cast stones at the whole.

I think there're a whole lot of reasonable reasons why I've cast stones at the whole, though if Jedipotter confirms the theory that her games make use of the roguelike model to some extent, with characters as mere extensions of the players, then that'd clear up a lot of oddness.

Edit: Also, really don't think I've thrown a mass of hate-stones, especially relative to madam "Optimizers are all cheaters," over there.

Double-edit: Just checked the thread for me-words. All I could really see of game disparaging were those five points of oddity or contradiction I cited, where I either ultimately agreed with her new and finalized stance, or continued the argument with statements I will stand by, and later, where I said that her use of secret/changing house rules as a tool seems likely to be rooted in control, rather than some higher purpose.

On that point, I suppose I didn't particularly cite or elaborate, but I now call upon the spirit of past Jedipotter, where she oddly claimed that compromise is never ever appropriate, and seemed to stand by that position later when challenged on it. I can also recall times where her house rules were in response to folks trying to subvert either her plans or setting, as was the case in that odd "sack of ruined feathers" argument from way back when. She could always correct me in my assumption, and I'll freely admit that I was mistaken if it turns out that there is a really good justification for this stuff, but as is, all I have to go on is past behavior, and it all kinda points in one direction.