Referee

Referee Home

Referee Guidelines

Requesting a New Realm

Useful Tools for GMs

The Cambots

Editing Logs

Useful Puppets for NPCs

Finding Players

GMing FAQ

Gaming by Assertion

Hero Stuff

Builder Stuff

Reality Fault

Home

Player

Character

Referee

Programmer

Administrator

Operations


Search RealityFault:

General Info

Glossary

Realms

Events

Credits

Help Files

Help Files (old)


Reality Fault

Why We Prefer Not to Use "Mutual Consent" on Reality Fault

Continuing: "When Theory Meets Practice"

The second problem is less straightforward, but far more insidious: people will find a way to compete.

One of the non-obvious corollaries of Gaming by Consent is that there is no way to stop anyone from doing anything unless they consent as well. With an inability to directly affect another character, players eventually resort to other forms of testing and measuring themselves against each other. It is usually unconscious, since it directly flies in the face of the theoretical basis of gaming-by-assertion.

In a campaign based on Gaming by Assertion there is no system to measure capability, and no currency (of any sort) to provide a way to count resources or accomplishments the game. What good is it to play out a one-year story line to acquire the title of Master of Arms of the Hidden Fortress of Kaa if any player can make the same claim simply by asserting that they "did all that same stuff, too." What value can be placed on owning a Psycho-Mystic Cyber-Reality Matrix when any yahoo can say, "Oh, I got one of those. My ship is made out of it," and simply assert that this obvious fabrication true?

Unhealthy though it may be, direct (and sometimes malicious) power and resource competition still occurs in one form or another... parliamentary politics, bedpost-notching on-line sex, elitist clique forming, or something similar. In a campaign where there are no objective measures, and any resource or capability can be instantly and effortlessly asserted into existence, the only measure of success is personal relationships -- or how other people feel about you and/or your character.

Manipulative player(s) desire some way to exert influence over both other players and the direction of the game -- to indirectly and privately build group consensus, then use that consensus to re-enforce their views and disparage those who disagree with them. This means the only opponent which might be a worthy challenge to a player character is another player character.

This regrettably means that gaming-by-assertion never lacks for interpersonal conflict. Bored people will always find or create issues to argue over, no matter what. Thus, since there is no strong leadership to enforce rational, mature behavior, gaming by assertion rewards the manipulative player.

In an attempt to create strife to manipulate, some people will (sometimes deliberately) lose track of the distinction between IC and OOC. Their quest for control of the game usually ends up creating interpersonal IC unhappiness which unfortunately bleeds beyond the framework of the game into the OOC realm. In cases such as these, the character is but another tool to be used for player manipulation. These manipulative types of players both create and thrive on the discord, confusion, and back-stabbing that facilitate their sort of mind-games.

Of course, there will be those few players that wish to game more legitimately -- to attack "bad guys" instead of each other. However, when there is no strong leadership (within a campaign based on assertion and consent), there can be no consistent, long-term bad guys. The best that can be hoped for is that some player will play a bad guy.

Unfortunately one of two things seem to happen in such situations. Either the player becomes attached to the bad guy character, and wishes people to see it as trustworthy enough to game with... or the character becomes two dimensional -- a convenient tool upon which to blame atrocities, so the other characters may eventually kill it without remorse.

Players that actually wish to role-play rationally, provide thoughtful leadership, or who wish to give back to the game by running plot lines, are eventually discouraged enough (by manipulative players that feel threatened by such behavior) that they leave. As players willing and able to contribute leave the campaign, those players that are left are taught to give in to the manipulative player... for if they do not, they will be the next to be attacked, as not part of the manipulative player's "in" group. Inter-player malice, lies, and factionalism becomes the norm.

Put very simply: in gaming-by-assertion, the players create their own conflicts -- by turning on each other. Unsurprisingly, this inevitably leads to disagreements, squabbling, vicious in-fighting, and unnecessary heart-ache.


In conclusion, it has been the experience of most of the players and all of the admins here on Reality Fault that "pure" gaming by assertion/mutual consent games have several consistently damaging internal issues. Due to these issues, they are ultimately corrosive to any sense of community, and so we emphatically do not recommend them.

To put it officially: gaming by assertion offers a lack of challenge to their players, discourages community, and consistently encourages a type of gaming that makes those involved unhappy. As such, we strongly discourage this sort of game on Reality Fault.




Last modified: 2002-Mar-17 18:06:03

All material on this site is
Copyright © 2000-2024 Reality Fault
unless specifically indicated on each document.
All Rights Reserved.
Administrated by Reality Fault Webmaster