On Objectivity in Game Design

     Earlier tonight (11/22/25) there was a discussion in valor stealer Farmer Gadda's discord about this post from the Dododecahedron, specifically this passage:

"Players cannot experience discovery, overcome objective challenges, or make truly meaningful choices without concrete, immutable fiction."

    Serket of Fluorite Guillotine took a bit of umbrage at the idea that this was the only way for players to have meaningful choices. After all, there are other methods of discovery: figuring out whether a check will succeed, being surprised by storytelling choices you or other people suggest, discovering that one of your players based her character and the other tortured combat dolls on fucking Umamusume. The discussion turned, as most internet discussions do, with folks quibbling over definitions and stuff, and it finally clicked for me why I've never really been able to get into OSR stuff; namely, differing definitions of objectivity, with most OSR writers putting their objectivity behind the GM screen. 

POV: You're logging onto ttrpg bluesky

    This focus on constructing an objective scenario or world for the PCs to inhabit seems to be pretty common in OSR and NSR spaces-part of the appeal of the megadungeon, in my mind, is maximizing that objectivity per foot of playspace. Its why old city supplements like the Invincible Overlord or Haven came with massive maps describing individual streets as much as they could. Its why overpreparation continues to haunt most trad games to this day. I've had players be paralyzed when they ask a question about the setting and then I turn around and make them answer it, which sucks because that's one of my favorite things to dooooooo.

    However, playing through stuff, be it an OSE game or even Dodo's own Castle Kelpsprot (I was Ancona the Damp if you're curious), I've always felt much more like I was playing a game of "Mother May I" than any sort of objective experience. The lack of clear resolution mechanics, lauded as a way to increase immersion, just made me feel that much more like I was talking to My Buddy Rowan whoever about a situation where I didn't fully understand the room or even what the fuck I could do (my favorite* example of this comes from Gary himself, and his puckish refusal to explain that a character was in quicksand, something they would very much feel, so that he could feel clever.) The way I think about objectivity has always been rooted in the way Adam DeCamp describes it: do the rules explain to you what happens? If Brandon the Legendary Mage tries to cook with a +1 Stove, how much do the book and dice resolve it versus leaving it up to you?

    These are, as you may have noticed, two different definitions. With that in mind, I'd like to try and square the circle here and hopefully contribute some language to stop us all talking past each other.

xkcd 927: competing standards

Objectivity vs Subjectivity: Player Facing and GM Facing

    Part of the issue with describing how a given ttrpg is experienced is that different people will experience it differently. Even in a solo game, I might decide to do some bullshittery in my Kal-Arath game that someone else would consider contrary to the spirit of the rules. Even moreso than that however is that (most) roleplaying games feature two different "sides" to them, each with vastly different roles and responsibilities: how I experienced Castle Kelpsprot is not how Rowan experiences Castle Kelpsprot, because he made the fucking thing. So, for games which have rules and have both players and GMs (or referees or HOLmeisters or whatever), I'm gonna briefly define each side's experience with Objectivity and Subjectivity

• Player-Facing Objectivity is when things Player Characters do is resolved by clear rules that describe what happens. This is not necessarily how "Simulationist" the rules are, though that does impact it, but rather just "How much is left ambiguous for folks to figure out." Hitting a guy because you rolled to beat his Armor Class and dealing four damage because he's resistant to Slashing is a very Objective thing for a player to experience. Player Subjectivity on the other hand, approaches what Rowan dubbed "HUDless design"-the idea that the players don't have a clear concrete mechanism to interact with the world, and as such gameplay is much more naturalistic and improvisational. 
• GM-Facing Objectivity is when the GM has information at hand to know exactly what is where and when. "This room has an Ogre named Jeb (AC 5/HP37/ML9/Greatclub+1(1d8) who wants to boost his tinder profile" is a very Objective Statement. Lots of premade adventures rank high on this because of course they do. Meanwhile, GM Subjectivity is more akin to the GM placing themselves as a "first among equals" in a writer's room. It's typically found in systems with more rules for things like mixed successes, as well as metacurrencies like Fate Points. A GM-Subjective game has much more room for things like the oft-bemoaned Quantum Ogre, which I'll get around to defending at some point. 

An organizational chart for what I'm talking about here

In Conclusion:

    As I said at the end of  Combat as My Balls, the chart is mostly just a tool for self-identification so you can figure out the stuff you like, and what you're aiming for as you design and game and play and all that stuff. THIS IS NOT ABOUT FINDING THE BEST TYPE OF GAME (though it's pretty obviously Blades in the Dark).So for instance, playing with my friend Evelyn, I know that she really doesn't like Player-Subjective/GM-Subjective systems, because it's hard for her to grapple with in the same way that it's hard for me to deal with Player-Subjective/GM-Objective systems, so maybe we should play Pathfinder instead of Monster of the Week. Introducing players used to Player-Objective systems to more Player-Subjective modes of play can be difficult because you need to break a lot of habits about what you can and cannot do. That kind of thing.  So go forth, my blog children, secure in the knowledge that I have ended all circular arguments online forever.