The Tao of WTF?

On May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM Alexis Smolensk said...

The debate is being repeatedly muddled by mixing "compulsions" and "circumstances." It is being argued that if a DM creates a circumstance (oncoming war, where the party starts at the beginning of a campaign, an authority figure giving the party an order, etc.) that this is the same as the DM defining what things the party will compelled to do. 

A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. 

Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. 

To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control. 

The issue is not that the player has total control, it is that the player has FREE WILL. Regardless of the circumstances, the player must be free to do whatever they will. 

Of course, occasionally, ignorantly exercising that will at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances will get the player killed. Having free will does not automatically exempt the player from the circumstances. 

BUT ... that free will MUST not be restricted by the DM's wishes for what the campaign ought to be, or what the game should be about tonight, or what the DM has 'prepared' and is ready to run. That free will means that the player deserves to follow his or her own agenda, and not merely to act as expected by the DM because the DM happens to have done a shitload of preparation, or because the DM has bought a fancy new booklet from a store. The player should be free to pursue the course of action that interests the player. 

I've said it, and I still haven't heard the argument against it. Free will, player agency, the sandbox campaign begins when the player says, "I don't want to do that," and the DM says, "Okay, what do YOU want to do." 

And everyone is happy.

To which I replied,

Frankly, if your blog posts had said what your last comment said (7 May 1:04 pm), that clearly, then you would not have had any argument from me.

Excepting, of course, that the player shouldn't be in a position where he has to say, "I don't want to do that" in the first place.

To which Alexis replied,

So, after eight or nine really badly stated comments on this blog, two really badly written posts on your blog, a lot of cheap shots against me in your comments field, attitude, etc., you admit you're wrong ... but not before making this all about me and my inability to say it in the kindergarten terms you require. Huh. Not to mention, how do you know when a player is going to say "I don't want to do that" ... magic? You're as annoying as a raven. I'll give you that.

Okay.  Let’s go from here.

There are a lot of things that I read on the InterWebs that I could quibble about and do not.  For example, I am willing to say that your meeting with Bob the Patriarch who sends you on a quest is not an “event”, for the purposes of a discussion only, in order to follow a line of reasoning, although I know, and most players know, that what is really being attempted is to delineate between different kinds of events.

So, while I could have quibbled over terminology, I would not have, because, until Alexis’ response, it would have served no purpose. 

I still quibble over whether or not the players should ever have to say “I don’t want to do that” because, even in the context of Alexis’ comment above, quibbling serves a purpose.  It doesn’t take any magic to figure out when players don't want to do something.  I don’t need the players to tell me what they do not want to do, because the players tell me what they do want to do.  It is not, ever, in my opinion, the GM’s job to say, “You do this”, so they never, under any circumstances, have to say, "But I want to do that".  

It is the GM’s job to say, “Here are the circumstances.  What do you do?”  The player never has to tell you that he doesn’t want to do X simply because you are never trying to force him to do X.  Clear, simple, and effective.

“You admit you’re wrong?”  About what, my dear Alexis?  I told you, repeatedly, that you were not listening.  I told you, repeatedly, that you were answering something I wasn’t saying.   I am not saying that I was wrong.  I am saying, aforementioned quibble aside, you finally got it right.

I suspect that has something to do with one of your former players posting about how hypocritical your posts on this topic has been.  Now, me, I was wondering, “Sour grapes or accurate assessment?” until you posted the bit above, which clarified the issue.  Accurate assessment.

You have said that you find these posts hard to follow.  Others do not.  I have received emails from a number of folks (which I wish would have appeared in the blog comments), including some which give me a clear idea of why you sift through comments to your own blog before posting them.  For a self-proclaimed genius, it would seem to be a failing that you cannot understand what so many others clearly do.

And, yes, that is personal.  It is not polite.   Politeness has gotten me nowhere with you.  Your head is so firmly lodged up your ass that politeness cannot help.  Besides, I’ve read your blog.  I know that you think politeness is crap anyway.   So let’s look at reality, out in the clear air, and not listen to the little voices in our colons, shall we?

I can hardly admit that I am “wrong” for arguing against player agency, when I have never argued against player agency.

Let’s look instead at what I said:

In this case I will have to disagree with you. There is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same. If I accepted that "someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to" as a strong enough reason to not "read other person's interpretations", that would apply to using Google Maps or a book on spelunking as well. We all could "go find the hard data from scratch", but finding the hard data is what life is, and it would take a lifetime to find all of the hard data used in this game. Some of it, of course, is fantastic, and can never be found "from scratch". You rely upon data gathered by others. Your series on how you map demonstrates as much. We all do.

 And

"The only thing you can learn from them [modules] is how better to take away player agency."

Not in my experience. As you say, "There is more to data that where it comes from; it matters WHICH data is relied upon." If I include elements from The Keep on the Borderlands in my game, for example, I need not include a talking raven that pushes the PCs back on "the path", just as I do not have to leave the Castellan nameless. It is not simply a matter of where the information comes from; it is very much a matter of what you do with it. Nothing in your response indicates that what you are doing is more doing "the damn thing right" on the basis of what materials you are using to craft the work. Nowhere have you demonstrated that using Google maps is superior to using modules in terms of player freedom.

And

All the application of written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc., is not of the same level as a module....but the module may be of the same level as any give piece of said written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But, a module is as valid a part as most others, depending upon the module, and depending upon the other source. I don't think that using modules can quite be delineated down to attempting to trap the players in a Dark Dungeon. Nor do I believe that the dungeon is "the principle problem of the game". YMMV, though.

And

I am even reasonably confident that, if you were as secure in your position as you are trying to appear, you would not have suggested that KotB "is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules." The minute you have to say, in effect, "Well, of course we cannot use THAT module as an example" your argument begins to break down. Nor is it true that in KotB "each part is a combat formula for entering, hacking and hauling away the loot". I have, as I said, run this module many, many times, and with different results each time. Sometimes that meant negotiation. Once that meant a PC becoming the leader of an orc tribe. Creation does not occur in a vacuum. You are creative when you react to your players' desires. Your players are creative when they react to the milieu you present them with. As far as I know, only the Alpha and Omega claims to have been creative from nothing, and, frankly, I don't believe in that. You are a smart guy, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you have the blinders on here.

 And

You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.

You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning. When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand. It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting. Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting. Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing. Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play. Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.

What is interesting in this, to me, is that I repeatedly say, in various ways, "You do not seem to understand how people use modules" and you seem to think I am saying "Make your players dance for your amusement."

Lets look at some things Alexis did say:

But I cannot help but point out that the principles behind the 'contest' per se represent one of the saddest elements in the gaming community ... the idea that somehow, competing with one another in an activity which is primarily done solo - on your own table, by yourself, in so-called preparation for the game - is a part of the game.

Quibble the First:  I invite you to examine, if you would, The Tao of D&D, in which Alexis has detailed quite precisely what he is doing in terms of his own prepwork.  “Painstaking” is not an adequate term.  I quite admire the level of prep he does, but the smell of head-up-the-ass-hypocrisy is overwhelming.   Prepwork is not part of playing the game, but it is part of the game.  

Random dungeons are useless.  A specific dungeon designed for a specific instance, where both players and DM know why its there and how it fits in the campaign, are useful.

Quibble the Second:  Did you examine those previous Tao blog posts?  Did you notice how often Alexis referred to using random generators to take his ego out of the equation?  

Quibble the Third:  While the GM needs to know how a dungeon (or any other structure) fits into the campaign milieu, the players do not.  Oh, they might discover why it is there and how it fits in, but they certainly need not know this to begin with.  Nor do they ever “need” to find out.  Unless the players are interested enough to find out. 

Quibble the Fourth:  Why this focused rancour on dungeons?  The same principles of design, and the same potential pitfalls, occur with towns, wilderness, etc.

The certainty that someday will be the right day to use this dungeon is a pervasive, even addictive justification to DM solo-produced, solo-conceived dungeons until doomsday.  But such dungeons demand shoehorning the players into the DM's headspace, and do not recognize the need for the DM to apply their dungeon-making skills to the player's headspace.

Again, Quibble the Fourth applies.

Also, there may be a fundamental disconnect here.  In any game I run, or in which I am interested, the world is the world.  I do not have treasure packets of wish-list items follow the PCs around until they find them.  A ruined city which holds the Geegaw of Ages is not going to appear simply because Black Leaf is interested in ruined cities while Elfstar wants to find the Geegaw.

The concept that “the dungeon - or any adventure - as a work of art to be hung on the wall of the campaign” or “the DM's creation of the adventure is the 'point' ... the game is the applause” is so alien to me that I cannot even see it clearly.  No part of the game has any real meaning unless it is introduced into play.  No part of the campaign milieu is “to be hung on the wall”.  It may be art, but if it is, it is more like a child’s tower of blocks, which is built merely for the pleasure of seeing it smashed by others.

And, hell, because I know you will read this out of context, let me be clear that the same tower of blocks is there to be rebuilt into something else, ignored, or whatever else the players want to try to do with it.

Even then, I would have just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s Alexis being Alexis”.   I personally think that both GMs and players are important…good ones doubly so.  I certainly do not think that contests like the One Page Dungeon “celebrate DMs while subtly discarding the value and importance of the player.”

On the other hand, to be clear, I don’t think any GM has an obligation to run any game they do not wish to run, or any player to play in any game that they do not wish to play in.  As long as you can find someone else who wants to play the way you want to, that’s exactly what you should do – no matter how foreign it may be to what I want from a game.

I have the impression that this is another fundamental disconnect between Alexis and myself.  I have strong ideas about what makes a good game, and I will argue them until the sky turns bright green, but at the end of it all, if you disagree with me, I also strongly feel that you can and should disregard what I say.

Alexis doesn’t like dungeons.  Okay.  I knew that.  He’s opinionated.  Okay.  I knew that, too.

What actually made me respond was this:

someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to; so if you REALLY want new ideas, don't read other person's interpretations, go find the hard data from scratch. You do better to read a solid book on caving (spelunking) than you do to read through someone's cave representation. That's the problem with the "I learn things" argument. You're not really going to learn all that much. There are far better sources than this.

So, to reiterate, I argue that there is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same.  Moreover, interest in how someone else used other materials to create a module is no different than interest in how someone might use Google Earth to fill in a portion of a campaign region map.

Alexis asks “Is the a structure I am using the data for imposing order on the players?” and the answer is tautological.  Creating structure imposes order.  You can pretend otherwise, and wallow in that hypocrisy, but that doesn’t make it so.

Alexis then asks, “Is the map a playing surface designed to allow movement in the least number of directions, or the most? Does the map limit freedom of action as do hallways and traps, or does the map offer that freedom?”

But these questions side-step the argument.  Alexis made a claim that using modules was a relatively bad decision because they presented material second-hand.  Well, so does Google Earth, and so does that book on spelunking, and so does reading Alexis’ blog on how he used Google Earth.  My point was not that Alexis’ blog was useless, or Google Earth, but simply that this is a crappy argument about why you shouldn’t use modules.

And then we get to this:

Over and over, and I'll beat this drum forever, the DUNGEON and its 2-dimensional structural element, presented to the players as a maze and a puzzle, is the principle problem of the game. The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon, as neither are about play at all! Dungeons are about imposition and rule by the DM; they are well named, for they imprison players in the DM's trap. The only thing you can learn from them is how better to take away player agency.

And this

The module is a limiting mechanism for game play. The module is premade, and therefore produces a predestined game play. The module includes the creativity of ONLY the DM, and therefore discounts added creativity from all the players. The module is a maze, with a beginning and an end. The core idea of D&D, that the module (bought or personally made) is CENTRAL to the game is the innate flaw in the game. We both believe the DM should create an experience for the player; but I believe that the player brings substance to the game, by making a decision about what the player wants to do, that cannot be addressed by the module mentality. You clearly disagree. Most of the gaming community, no doubt, would disagree, because the gaming community has bought into the "DM PRESENTS GAME" fundamental structure. I don't believe that's right. It is perfectly fair to create a setting. But one should not pre-create "Events" in that setting ... which is the form, purpose, methodology and habit of the dungeon principle. It has had its run. Let's move on from that principle.

And here, too, we clearly disagree, and I think the smell of shit is strong.  

A good module does not produce predestined game play. I have used Keep on the Borderlands, for example, with many gaming groups, and game play was markedly different depending upon how the group approached the material.

Again, game play was markedly different not because of the GM, but because of how the group approached the material. A module, like any prep, is limited in how it introduces creativity during prep, but that does not mean that it uses ONLY the GM's creativity during play.

And the play's the thing.

A module is not necessarily a maze, with a beginning and an end.  Again, Keep on the Borderlands can be used as a consistent part of a campaign setting during its entire run. So can any module, really. Like all parts of the campaign world, the elements of any prep - your own or that of a module - progress and change as time goes on.

Alexis may feel that "The Keep on the Borderlands is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules" but this is an inconsistent response if he continues to also claim that "The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon" - suddenly we are equivocating because the best and the worst are, apparently, not equal as examples.

When Alexis finally said something I could agree with in his comments, it was a strong step away from the things where I thought he had his head up his ass. He was no longer saying that "the dungeon....is the principle problem of the game".  He was no longer making a claim that modules, because they were secondary sources, or because you would be forced to use them in specific ways, were the problem.  Or that because there were things to react to in the game, the players could not be creative.  

Players deserve the ability to say No is not controversial.

In fact, when Alexis says “Twice now, you've said, reaction is creativity. That is such unmitigated bullshit.” he is mistaken.  I said that reaction does not prevent creativity.  In fact, having something to react to is often a spur to creativity.

Alexis says

And still, once again, you're all missing the point.

"Presentation" is the limitation. The DM should be reacting to the players, not the players reacting to the DM. To present is to make the player's passive.

Worse, the wise player to which you present your presentation can see it all coming, like a telegraphed boxing punch. But none of you see how the game has become a series of expected roles the players must play to keep the DM happy.

All I hear is how the DM is happy with the dungeon, and what the dungeon does for the DM. But the post is titled, "the player's piece." You're all so cocksure - but I'm hearing nothing about the player who is sick to death of having to run in your maze, because you present nothing but mazes. And I STILL haven't heard any other idea advanced.

I'm sitting at your table. What do you have for me that ISN'T a dungeon?

To which I responded

You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.

You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning.

When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand.

It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting.

Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting.

Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing.

Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play.

Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.

Alexis would later say

It isn't a sandbox dungeon if the player's can't look at it and say, "Let's not."

And no one, I think, disagrees with that.  You'd be stunned at the number who don't get that no one is disagreeing with that.  Hint:  it is a whole number less than 2 but greater than 0.  That the players have, deserve, and need the right to say No is not controversial in any way, shape, or form.

So, finally, we get back to 

A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control.

Wherein the GM can suddenly present "circumstances" for the players to react to without limiting their creativity, and without creating a railroad.  That these "circumstances" are remarkably similar to the very things that modules provide that Alexis rails against has, apparently, eluded him.  That he has seen that argument "about 30 times this week" is not because people are arguing that it is true, but because it is an obvious consequence of the GM being unable to present things which the players can react to.

Another way of saying that, and far simpler, is this:  Alexis' entire argument against modules is hyprocritcal bullshit.  And it is bullshit predicated upon his own admission that, if he used modules, he wouldn't feel he was able to avoid using them to railroad.  

That makes sense if Alexis' game is as "highly scripted" as I am told.  People trying to give up smoking are often the most critical of smokers.  Criminals see anti-social behaviour where others see community service.  A pessimist can see success as failure....and in that light, be warned that I am an optimist and perhaps sometimes see failure as success.

I do think that his comments on “buy in” also deserve some serious examination, because I think that there are some serious flaws there as well.  But I also think that he has walked far enough out on the edge that I don’t feel any compelling need to do so now.  

But no, Alexis, you moronic self-proclaimed genius, I am not saying that I am wrong.  I am trying, one last time, to make you listen to the actual argument.  And then, if you address it, and address it well, you might convince me that dungeons, modules, or GM prep are problems.  But you won't do it by addressing only the areas where we agree - or by pretending that those are the areas where we disagree.

I know you've said that you are having a hard time following this.  Hope that clears things up.