|
1 |
|
2 Characterizing a Game's Rules |
|
3 |
|
4 This is a response to this post by lumpley |
|
5 <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156> (AKA |
|
6 Vincent). You should read at least the first few examples of it before |
|
7 reading this. |
|
8 |
|
9 It's important, when analyzing something, to simplify it to its most |
|
10 important elements, where that simplification doesn't discard anything |
|
11 important. When just thinking about something, you should be careful not |
|
12 to simplify too soon; work out the patterns, then simplify. I think |
|
13 lumpley has simplified some things wrong, so I'm going to start over |
|
14 with the un-simplified case and work down to something simpler. |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 The Eight Elements |
|
18 |
|
19 The way I figure it, the activity of game-playing can be reasonably |
|
20 characterized by the interaction of eight kinds of things. |
|
21 |
|
22 Starting from the die and proceeding clockwise, we have: mechanics tools |
|
23 (die), quantifiable game state (figures), props (crown), players (smiley |
|
24 faces), munchies (Dew), the fiction (cloud), the rules (book), and, |
|
25 overseeing it all, the gamemaster (frowny wizard). |
|
26 |
|
27 In more detail: mechanics tools are used for randomization and |
|
28 resolving, e.g. dice, coin flips, possibly calculators, measuring |
|
29 instruments at athletic events. Quantifiable game state is things like |
|
30 hit points, locations of Monopoly tokens, cards in your hand. Props are |
|
31 game-related elements that are in no way game-mechanical, like painted |
|
32 figures used for atmosphere, or an audio soundtrack played in the |
|
33 background by a gamemaster. The fiction is some set of things that are |
|
34 true about the fictional world in which the game is taking place |
|
35 (Wittgenstein: "the world is everything that is the case"). The rest are |
|
36 self-explanatory. (This is not to say that all games need a gamemaster. |
|
37 I am just avoiding oversimplifying too soon for games that do have one.) |
|
38 |
|
39 Now, when we talk about interactions that occur over the course of a |
|
40 game, any game, we can understand that those interactions are governed |
|
41 by the rules. If Bob gets pissed off and punches out Gene, and the game |
|
42 at hand doesn't involve players actually resorting to real-life |
|
43 fisticuffs, then their activity is outside the game and shouldn't be |
|
44 diagrammed on the chart. Any activity that takes place in the game is |
|
45 going to be governed by the rules. |
|
46 |
|
47 Let's take a sample rule for a monopoly-like game. "Roll a die and |
|
48 advance your token that many squares on the board." |
|
49 |
|
50 Each teal arrow is an individual interaction. Each blue arrow is a |
|
51 "moderating" effect on an interaction. (It's hard to draw a three-way |
|
52 interaction with a single arrow unless they happen to be in a line). So, |
|
53 first, the player rolls the die (as moderated by the rules); then, the |
|
54 result on the die indicates how to update the game state (move the |
|
55 token), which is performed by the player, as moderated by the rules. |
|
56 |
|
57 Now, a few things are clear. First, the player doesn't have to be the |
|
58 one to move the token. Another player might move it instead if it |
|
59 happens to be hard to reach for the first. The player doesn't actually |
|
60 have any choice; so the fact that it's the player picking up and moving |
|
61 the token is irrelevant. Second, as described earlier, /every/ |
|
62 interaction is going to be moderated by the rules (at least weakly), so |
|
63 we're always going to have a moderated-by arrow from the rules; so |
|
64 there's no reason to draw them. That leaves us with this simplified |
|
65 drawing: |
|
66 |
|
67 Note that this representation of an interaction is about as |
|
68 /conceptually simple/ as lumpley's--it only has two arrows--but it has |
|
69 more information, because we haven't oversimplified the participating |
|
70 elements. |
|
71 |
|
72 Now, you could argue that I should go ahead and simplify at least some |
|
73 of the other elements away--that many of these icons are obviously |
|
74 unnecessary to the game, e.g. the props and the munchies. Just to |
|
75 confuse matters, here's a different kind of game, with rules-moderation |
|
76 arrows omitted. |
|
77 |
|
78 "If the player bounces the quarter into the cup, then the player can |
|
79 require any other player to drink the cup." Here I've used lumpley's |
|
80 notation of an arrow going through a middle item to indicate moderation: |
|
81 the mechanics of whether the quarter (represented by the icon here) goes |
|
82 into the cup or not are determined not by a random number generator, but |
|
83 by the laws of physics. Again, I think it is overkill to indicate |
|
84 moderation. Of course, this is a game best played in moderation. |
|
85 |
|
86 Now, let's imagine a game that's GMed, and has rule #2 of lumpley's: "2. |
|
87 Subtract the roll on the damage die from your character's hit points." |
|
88 I'll omit moderation-by-the-rules arrows, of course. |
|
89 |
|
90 Ok, so the player rolls the die (arrow from player to die). Of course, |
|
91 the player does this under the watchful eye and guidance of the GM, so |
|
92 we need a moderation arrow there. Then, the player updates their own hit |
|
93 points on their character sheet, again under the watchful eye of the GM. |
|
94 Guess what? Everything's under the watchful eye of the GM, so let's |
|
95 screw those GM moderation arrows. |
|
96 |
|
97 To be honest, I don't understand lumpley's arrows, so maybe lumpley |
|
98 won't understand mine. Lumpley uses an arrow from the die ("tokens, |
|
99 things, props, representations") to the faces ("the interactions of the |
|
100 player themselves") to indicate the rolling of the die. Why? No clue. |
|
101 Maybe it should be three arrows: 1. the player rolls the die |
|
102 (player->die). 2. the player reads the value of the die. (die->player). |
|
103 3. the player change the value of the hit points. (player->die) |
|
104 |
|
105 Of course, as I've pointed out, the reading of the value of the die and |
|
106 updating of the hit point value by the player involves the player in an |
|
107 entirely uninteresting way, so I don't think step #2 is interesting. But |
|
108 my way of interpreting 2 & 3 combined is to draw from (on my chart) die |
|
109 to figures; since lumpley combines mechanics tools and quantifiable |
|
110 state into a single element, he'd have to draw an arrow from the die to |
|
111 the die, which perhaps explains why he did it the way he did. Of course, |
|
112 if you want to show that this die-to-die interaction is moderated by the |
|
113 players by making it go through the players, you'll have a curving line |
|
114 go from the die to the players and then back to the die; which is |
|
115 basically the same as the three lines I proposed above. |
|
116 |
|
117 Now, note that if the GM follows the same rule to handle an NPC, on my |
|
118 chart I'd have to change the source of the first arrow. I don't need to |
|
119 update the second arrow. I'm not distinguishing between state |
|
120 represented physically on a character sheet and state kept entirely in |
|
121 the GM's head. |
|
122 |
|
123 Ok, here's a more complex lumpley rule: "5. If your character's opponent |
|
124 tries to disarm your character, make a Hold Weapon check. If you fail, |
|
125 your character is disarmed, and you thus suffer the unarmed penalty |
|
126 until you retrieve your weapon." |
|
127 |
|
128 Again, imagining a GM'd game, we have the following sequence. The GM |
|
129 (pointy hat) decides that the the opponent tries to disarm (fictional |
|
130 cloud). This state of the fiction requires that the player make a Hold |
|
131 Weapon check (die roll). [Note that, in truth, the hold weapon check |
|
132 involves various quantifiable state--character level or strength or |
|
133 whatever, so perhaps the arrow here should be more subtle.] On a |
|
134 failure, we imagine the character is disarmed in whatever manner |
|
135 (non-quantifiable fictional cloud) and also in the quantifiable state |
|
136 (figures). |
|
137 |
|
138 Note that the GM-causing-the-fiction is something I added explicitly to |
|
139 clarify. Note that it's misleading to draw an arrow from the fiction to |
|
140 the player; really it should be that the fiction moderates the need for |
|
141 the Hold Weapon check. But hang on for a moment; really, the GM chose to |
|
142 put the NPC in the "state" of "trying to disarm this player character"; |
|
143 since there are some limited numbers of such states that the rulebook |
|
144 has explicit resolution rules for, maybe /that/ should be considered |
|
145 quantifiable state, too? |
|
146 |
|
147 This is important because lumpley notes in the comments that a |
|
148 distinguishing characteristic of the RPG is the fact that arrows emerge |
|
149 from the fictional cloud at all; no matter how cleverly you describe |
|
150 events transpiring in Settlers of Catan, none of the other players are |
|
151 going to let you build an extra road segment. |
|
152 |
|
153 So maybe the arrow from the fictional cloud should point to the |
|
154 quantifiable state: sometimes the fictional cloud implies certain |
|
155 discretely quantifiable states-of-the-world for which there are explicit |
|
156 game-mechanical rules. That state then mandates the Hold Weapon check. |
|
157 (I still don't like the idea of "mandates" being given by an arrow.) |
|
158 |
|
159 If you go look at lumpley's |
|
160 <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156>, I'm |
|
161 not sure what's going on there. The long arrow from the fictional cloud |
|
162 to game-tokens/state is "make a Hold Weapon check"? Basically, I think |
|
163 I'm not sure on where lumpley's coming down with quantifiable vs. |
|
164 non-quantifiable state, so I'm trying to be explicit about this. |
|
165 |
|
166 The other thing we can conclude is that, for this rule at least, we |
|
167 might as well have folded the GM in with the players into a single icon |
|
168 on the chart. The "Hold Weapon roll" rule is going to apply to any |
|
169 character--whether PC (rolled by player) or NPC (rolled by GM)--and |
|
170 whether they were attacked by an NPC (action chosen by GM) or PC (action |
|
171 chosen by player). However, in a classic game-mastered game, the players |
|
172 have limited director powers compared to the GM, so there may be other |
|
173 sorts of rules where this distinction is significant. (Or perhaps more |
|
174 in a meta-rules sense?) |
|
175 |
|
176 Finally, I want to suggest that while it is true that RPGs make special |
|
177 use of the fictional cloud, this is not a trivial matter. On the one |
|
178 side, as suggested above, if there's a rule for it, it must be on some |
|
179 level quantifiable and belong to the quantifiable area. Looking at the |
|
180 flip side, it's argued that for a game like Settlers or Monopoly, the |
|
181 fictional happenings can never affect the game outcome; they are purely |
|
182 atmospheric. However, I carefully included a "props" element here that |
|
183 is purely atmospheric /even for an RPG/. |
|
184 |
|
185 Lest you think that this simply applies to gamers wearing silly hats, |
|
186 consider that in some gaming groups, players are not rewarded |
|
187 game-mechanically for talking accurately or realistically as if they |
|
188 were their character (e.g. so as not to penalize members of the group |
|
189 who are poor actors). Similarly, in some groups, a character with |
|
190 fast-talking skill will succeed independent of that character's player's |
|
191 plausible fast-talking scenario (as long as the player at least tries); |
|
192 in which case any of those details are purely atmospheric. |
|
193 |
|
194 Vincent could still conclude (fairly) that these elements are indeed |
|
195 atmospheric; they are part of the fun and style of the game, but they |
|
196 are not interesting from a standpoint of how the game works /qua/ game. |
|
197 However, as you move away from strongly-mechanical games and you move |
|
198 into more freeform narrative games, removing any notion of quantifiable |
|
199 state, this gets fairly muddy. Perhaps this means quantifiable state |
|
200 starts to blur into fiction state. But if that blurring and slipperiness |
|
201 means it's hard to distinguishable quantifiable state from |
|
202 non-quantifiable fiction state, I definitely think it's wrong to try to |
|
203 clump quantifiable state with game-mechanical tools. |
|
204 |
|
205 |
|
206 Other Directions |
|
207 |
|
208 The eight elements also offer up some opportunities to think about other |
|
209 things. (A friend points out an important scenario: an arrow from Dew to |
|
210 rules to GM to fiction: somebody spills soda on the GM's rulebooks, and |
|
211 the GM has the character attacked and killed by magical blue lighting, |
|
212 no saving throw.) |
|
213 |
|
214 In a computer game, the computer takes over the responsibilty for |
|
215 managing most (all?) interactions. However, those interactions still go |
|
216 occur, simply moderated by the program. There are still quantifiable |
|
217 states, mechanics for updating them (possibly randomly). There may be |
|
218 fiction (human-authored, mostly), and this fiction is updated and |
|
219 revealed as a consequence of the mechanics. (There is, of course, |
|
220 generally never any feedback from this non-quantifiable fictional state |
|
221 back into the game; it's text and cut scenes that are output-only.) |
|
222 |
|
223 |
|
224 Comments |
|
225 |
|
226 You should probably comment back on the original thread |
|
227 <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156>. |
|
228 |
|
229 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
230 home <~/index.html> : sean /at/ nothings /dot/ org |