Beware: crotchety old man ranting.

So recently, there’s been a lot of threads and podcasts and discussions about how various games (notably Sorcerer and In a Wicked Age [AKA Sorcerer 2.0]) do not allow you to change another character’s mind. Which is fine for specific games, especially Sorcerer, which is all about human choices. You can’t make my character choose something, because my character’s choices are my means of input to the story.

Which is fine when we’re talking about these games. The troubling thing to me is that this is increasingly treated, not as an idiosyncratic constraint specific to the games where the rule is presented, but heretical badwrongfun. Maybe it’s just yet another instance of internet overstatement, but it seems like a lot of folks are assuming that mechanics can never change another character’s mind, ever. Or rather, not that mechanics can’t, but that they shouldn’t.

Rant-within-rant: Ever noticed how things go to shit the moment somebody uses the word “should?” The thing of it is, the word “should” has meaning only as a conditional. That is, “You should wash your hands before you eat” is an incomplete statement. The complete statement is “You should wash your hands before you eat if you don’t want to get sick.” Or “…if you don’t want to get in trouble.” Or “…if you want to make a good impression with Aunt Mathilda.” And the thing of it is, that often-implied-and-not-stated clause at the end totally changes the meaning of the statement. So maybe, kids, you should use the word “should” only when you’re willing to actually complete your statement… if you want to actually transmit meaning. Otherwise, you’re just using “should” to mean “I think that this is the right way and you are wrong.”

Ahem.

So anyway, this specific way that a few games work is being treated like it’s canonical orthodoxy (orthopraxis, to be pedantic) and that you can’t ever play or design any other way. Ironic, given that this is happening in a community that prides itself on pioneering bold new ways to play.

Let’s complete the statement, shall we? You should not use mechanics to determine what a character chooses to do… if character choice is the only or primary means of significant player input. Well look at that! What about games in which character choice is not the primary means of player input? What about Primetime Adventures, with its dirty and now-unpopular stakes setting? There, your input is in your characterization of your character and your narration of the outcome when you have the high card. What about Beast Hunters, where the player’s input is how they confront a challenge (choices, yes, but in a very specific scope)? What about Polaris, where the player’s input is in negotiating outcomes? What about Inspectres, where player input is in winning narration through die-rolling and through the confessional? Amazing! In all these games, the mechanics can determine character choices without bringing about ragnarok!

Of course you can formulate the “if…” clause that completes the statement in a number of different ways. You shouldn’t use mechanics to force character choices if you want players feel in control of their characters. You shouldn’t use mechanics to force character choices if your game is about the futility of human interaction and the unsurpassable sovereignty of the human spirit. You shouldn’t use mechanics to force character choices if Jerry is playing, because he hates that. And every way you complete the statement, it reveals counter-examples and new avenues, new ways to play in which mechanics to force character choices are not only acceptable, but they are essential.

Imagine that. New gaming experiences. Who’d have thunk it?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm and is filed under Gaming Culture, Other People's Games, RPG Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.