|
1 *Places to Go, People to Be* [Next Article] <narrativists.html> |
|
2 [Previous Article] <retro.html> [This Issue] <index.html> [Home] |
|
3 <../index.html> |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space |
|
7 |
|
8 *By M. Joseph Young* |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 Not very long ago on a list I frequent, someone teased that they were a |
|
13 freeformer and as such did not use any system at all. I rather boldly |
|
14 responded, explaining in some detail what system is and does, and why |
|
15 freeform uses as much system as any other game, whether /Theatrix/ or |
|
16 /Fudge/ or /Rolemaster/. Someone else posted to the list, saying that my |
|
17 explanation of how role playing games work was rather depressing to him, |
|
18 and took a lot of the fun out of it. |
|
19 |
|
20 I'd never thought of that. Some people really don't want to know what |
|
21 makes role playing games work; they just want to play and have fun. It's |
|
22 like seeing what happens behind the curtain. Not everyone wants to know |
|
23 how the magician does his tricks. |
|
24 |
|
25 I can see that, to some degree. /Clash of the Titans/ is a wondrous |
|
26 adventure to someone who has no idea how it was done. Understanding Ray |
|
27 Harryhausen's use of stop-action miniatures may be fascinating for some |
|
28 of us, but it does take something out of the awe of watching the movie |
|
29 to see not the massive Gorgon rising from the deep but a twelve inch |
|
30 model superimposed into the scene. In the same way, some people love |
|
31 looking under the hood, as it were, of the games we play, understanding |
|
32 what they do and how they do it, while others just want to go for a |
|
33 ride. If you wanted to /make/ a movie, you would probably need to |
|
34 understand how such things are made; if you just want to enjoy watching |
|
35 one, it might be more fun to see the finished product without knowing |
|
36 how it was achieved. So too understanding how games work in fundamental |
|
37 ways may interfere with the fun of playing them for some people, but |
|
38 it's absolutely essential to knowing how to design them. |
|
39 |
|
40 If you don't want to know how role playing games really work, it's time |
|
41 to stop reading. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to know the |
|
42 theory, of wanting to watch the magician saw the woman in half with no |
|
43 idea how the illusion works. We'll be looking behind the curtain at how |
|
44 these things are done, and why they work the way they do. If that |
|
45 interests you, read on. |
|
46 |
|
47 At the moment, a great deal of the most valuable role playing game |
|
48 theory is being done through an Internet web site forum called The Forge |
|
49 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/>.Game designers there are building on the |
|
50 work of others, and theorists elsewhere such as northern Europe's Turku |
|
51 school of LARP designers <http://users.utu.fi/mijupo/turku/> have found |
|
52 their way there to participate in those discussions.The theoretical work |
|
53 is driven by the belief that better understanding of the theory will |
|
54 produce better games.Most of what is going to be presented in this |
|
55 series originated there or was expanded there. |
|
56 |
|
57 The concept that has emerged as possibly the single unifying and |
|
58 distinguishing feature of role playing games is that of the *Shared |
|
59 Imagined Space*. In essence, any group of players is making an effort to |
|
60 imagine the same events occurring in the same imagined setting. Of |
|
61 course, there are some discrepancies between individual images of this, |
|
62 but overall the game is able to proceed because there is a common |
|
63 understanding of what is happening, a shared agreement of the events of |
|
64 the game. |
|
65 |
|
66 Sometimes people challenge whether this shared imagined space actually |
|
67 exists. The easiest way to see that it is so is to consider what it |
|
68 would be like otherwise. Suddenly Bob's character is trying to out-draw |
|
69 Dead-Eye-Dan in the streets of Laredo while Ann is piloting her |
|
70 spaceship through the asteroid field and calling on Bob to target the |
|
71 pursuing enemy, while Jim sees them all attacking a dragon. While that |
|
72 starts to sound a bit like playing /Multiverser/, the fact is that even |
|
73 in that game there is a shared imagined space, an agreed set of events |
|
74 and setting elements and character actions which interact, although |
|
75 frequently on multiple stages. If we do not have that agreement, then we |
|
76 are not really playing together. |
|
77 |
|
78 How we come to that agreement is the heart of the concept of *system*. |
|
79 Vincent Baker <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/lumpley.html>, |
|
80 author of such innovative games as /Kill Puppies for Satan/, /Dogs in |
|
81 the Vineyard/, /Animals at Night/, and /Matchmaker/, is credited with |
|
82 first recognizing and stating what has become known as the *Lumpley |
|
83 Principle*: System is the means by which any group of players comes to |
|
84 agreement concerning the content of the shared imagined space. |
|
85 |
|
86 This principle is the reason freeform and Rolemaster ultimately have the |
|
87 same "amount" of system. In play, someone at the table makes a |
|
88 statement, system is then applied by the minds of the participants, and |
|
89 a consensus is reached as to how this has changed the content of what is |
|
90 being imagined. How it does that is different in the details with a |
|
91 mechanically complicated game such as Rolemaster as compared with a |
|
92 completely socially driven freeform game (a different kind of |
|
93 complexity), but in the essentials they are the same. |
|
94 |
|
95 What system does, fundamentally, is apportion *credibility*. That is, it |
|
96 provides the participants with the means necessary to gauge who has the |
|
97 right to make what statements about the shared imagined space, and who |
|
98 does not. |
|
99 |
|
100 For example, in traditional games, those participants we tend to call |
|
101 the players (or the "character players" for the sake of clarity) have |
|
102 the credibility to say what actions their characters are taking and what |
|
103 words they say. The one player responsible for "everything else", whom |
|
104 we will here call the referee but who has many names in many games, has |
|
105 the credibility to determine the success or failure of such actions and |
|
106 the consequences, the actions of antagonists and adversaries, and the |
|
107 general shape and situation in the world. We call this credibility |
|
108 because we all agree to believe statements made by these participants |
|
109 when those statements are within the extent of their credibility. We |
|
110 believe that what a player says about his character is true within the |
|
111 image we share, and that what the referee says about everything else is |
|
112 true. These are thus credible statements. Although there are exceptions |
|
113 even in traditional games, the limits on credibility usually follow |
|
114 these lines rather closely. A player could not say, "Suddenly I see a |
|
115 door to the right I had not previously noticed, and finding it unlocked |
|
116 rush through it to safety." Similarly, a referee could not normally say, |
|
117 "Your character draws his sword and rushes forward to attack the huge |
|
118 ancient red dragon." A player character who announced the presence of a |
|
119 door would in most games be ignored, as he does not have the credibility |
|
120 to insert such doors in the shared imagined world. Sometimes a referee |
|
121 can get away with statements of player character actions, but the |
|
122 players will expect that there is a good reason why under this |
|
123 circumstance the referee is claiming the credibility to make such a |
|
124 statement, and in many groups the statement will be openly challenged |
|
125 for that explanation. |
|
126 |
|
127 Once this is understood, it becomes possible to change the way |
|
128 credibility is apportioned.For example, /Universalis |
|
129 <http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/>/ eliminates the referee entirely and |
|
130 instead provides a resource system through which players bid for control |
|
131 of what happens.Numerous other independent games allow players to create |
|
132 problems for themselves and for each other. |
|
133 |
|
134 As part of this, it has become clear that the referee is one of the |
|
135 players. His role in the game is different from the others, but it is a |
|
136 role that can be defined by the game rules in many different ways. |
|
137 Changing what the referee does, distributing aspects of that credibility |
|
138 in different ways, has led to many challenging ideas in game design. We |
|
139 also see that game play is an essentially social activity, built |
|
140 entirely on defining the relationships between the members of the group |
|
141 such that they know what to believe of what the others say and what they |
|
142 are entitled to say themselves. Thus a role playing game system is a set |
|
143 of specific modifications to the social contract of a group of friends, |
|
144 a sort of ritual in which they engage that has the specific function of |
|
145 creating this object of shared imagination. It is a means of relating to |
|
146 each other toward that end. |
|
147 |
|
148 In attempting to categorize different ways of distributing credibility, |
|
149 Ron Edwards <http://www.adept-press.com/> has put forward the concept of |
|
150 *Stance*.The author of many games of which /Sorcerer/, /Trollbabe/, and |
|
151 /Elfs/ are the best known, Professor Edwards received the Diana Jones |
|
152 Award <http://www.dianajonesaward.org/> for his contributions to game |
|
153 design.Stance refers to the relationship between a player, his |
|
154 character, and the rest of the shared imagined space, and provides |
|
155 general categories within which specifics may vary from game to game or |
|
156 group to group.The four major stances are Pawn, Actor, Author, and |
|
157 Director. |
|
158 |
|
159 Pawn stance is rather simple to understand. The character is a token |
|
160 used by the player to act within the game world. Like a /Monopoly/ or |
|
161 /Parchessi/ piece, no one cares whether the actions of the character |
|
162 make sense. What matters is that the character does what the player |
|
163 wants within the world. |
|
164 |
|
165 Actor stance approaches the world solely through the character, but also |
|
166 solely through the character's perceived desires and personality. This |
|
167 is the approach to play in which much depends on what the player |
|
168 believes the character would "really" do, if he were a real person in |
|
169 that situation, and is closely associated with the concepts most people |
|
170 call immersion. Actor stance springs from the perceptions and thoughts |
|
171 attributed to the character, and limits the player's credibility to |
|
172 control over that character and the impact that character can |
|
173 realistically have in the world. |
|
174 |
|
175 Author stance is in some ways a complicated fusion between Actor and |
|
176 Pawn. In this case, the player is still controlling the character only; |
|
177 however, the player is permitted and even expected to use his own |
|
178 knowledge and desires in making character decisions, while at the same |
|
179 time providing justification after the fact for why this is what the |
|
180 character would have done. For example, we have the brash uncouth |
|
181 fighter who is always getting in brawls, but suddenly the player decides |
|
182 that he wants play to move toward an alliance between the fighter and a |
|
183 particular non-player nobleman, so when they meet he chooses not to |
|
184 fight even though everyone expected him to do so. He justifies this by |
|
185 stating that his character was for once impressed by someone of noble |
|
186 bearing, or that the character was suddenly smitten by the Duke's lovely |
|
187 daughter and so out of character at that moment. What matters here is |
|
188 that the player is allowing his own knowledge and desires control the |
|
189 direction the story takes, but is doing so by controlling his character |
|
190 and creating reasons for the character to have done what the player |
|
191 wished. It is thus like Actor stance to the degree that the player |
|
192 controls only his character and does so in a way that preserves |
|
193 character integrity, but like Pawn stance in that the player uses the |
|
194 character to accomplish player goals, not character goals, to the degree |
|
195 that these differ. |
|
196 |
|
197 Director stance is fairly simple to understand but shocking to accept by |
|
198 most players. It means that the character players have credibility to |
|
199 create bits in the shared imagined space that are outside the control of |
|
200 their characters. In essence, it gives a great deal of credibility |
|
201 traditionally reserved for the referee to the other players. Yet it is |
|
202 something that nearly all role players have used to some degree. |
|
203 |
|
204 Imagine for a moment that a player character has just entered a room. |
|
205 The referee states that it looks like a woman's bedroom. The player then |
|
206 says that his character will move to the dresser and examine the |
|
207 knick-knacks on it. Note that the referee never stated there was a |
|
208 dresser, or that there was anything on it; the player made the |
|
209 assumption that a woman's bedroom would have a dresser, and that a |
|
210 woman's dresser would have something sitting atop it that was |
|
211 decorative. He then made the assertion incidentally that such things |
|
212 existed, and requested more information about them. That is a very |
|
213 limited example of director stance. The majority of games would extend |
|
214 sufficient credibility to the player to make such statements. If the |
|
215 player did not have that much credibility, he would have to ask whether |
|
216 there was a dresser, whether there was anything on the dresser, and |
|
217 possibly whether there was anything preventing him from moving to the |
|
218 dresser to get a better look, in each case awaiting confirmation by the |
|
219 referee, who is the only person with the credibility to place such |
|
220 objects in the shared imagined space. Going the other direction, a |
|
221 player with more credibility might state that he was opening the top |
|
222 drawer, rifling through the lady's undergarments, and finding a wrapped |
|
223 packet of correspondence that looked like it might be love letters, |
|
224 which he pockets for future examination. Again, none of that is in the |
|
225 referee's statement of the contents of the room, but a player might have |
|
226 sufficient credibility to create those elements, as they are consistent |
|
227 with what is given. |
|
228 |
|
229 Given sufficient credibility, a player could create the side door |
|
230 through which he escapes. That is the concept of director stance. |
|
231 Referees do it all the time, but there is no inherent reason why players |
|
232 could not do it. |
|
233 |
|
234 It should be said that there is no right or wrong stance, no better or |
|
235 worse way to play. There are only individual preferences of how to do |
|
236 things and practical considerations in how to make any particular game |
|
237 work. All of these stances are the right choice for some type of role |
|
238 playing game. It might or might not be a type you would enjoy, but |
|
239 people do enjoy playing in games that do these various things. |
|
240 |
|
241 Of course, if system is all about apportioning credibility, what then |
|
242 are rules? Are the baker's dozen books of /Original Advanced Dungeons & |
|
243 Dragons/ completely meaningless? Is there no difference at all between |
|
244 /Aftermath/ and /Amber Diceless/? Are those who work to create new games |
|
245 wasting their efforts in view of the fact that the rules in the book are |
|
246 not the system? |
|
247 |
|
248 The relationship between rules and system took some time to develop, and |
|
249 is difficult to understand. Rules have *authority*, or perhaps more |
|
250 precisely are authorities. They are authorities in the same sense that |
|
251 case law is an authority for courts, or that scriptures are authorities |
|
252 for religions: the people involved refer to these and invoke them in |
|
253 support of their statements, and so increase the credibility of those |
|
254 statements. |
|
255 |
|
256 Thus for example a player running a ranger in /Dungeons & Dragons/ might |
|
257 say that his character was going to use his tracking ability to identify |
|
258 which way the opponent went. Probably this would be accepted as within |
|
259 the credibility of the player. However, if the referee were unaware that |
|
260 the ranger had tracking skill, the player could point to the section of |
|
261 the rules in which tracking skill is identified and explained and so |
|
262 give credibility to his stated action. |
|
263 |
|
264 Note that rules do not have credibility. They cannot make statements of |
|
265 themselves, but must be cited by a person with credibility. Further, the |
|
266 authority of the rules is subject to the credibility of persons involved |
|
267 in the game. Can the ranger track an opponent across the ocean floor? |
|
268 Someone has the credibility to decide whether the rules apply, and how |
|
269 they are to be understood. There may be a rule somewhere in the books |
|
270 that covers this situation, but if no one uses it, it is not part of the |
|
271 system, as it does not influence what is mutually imagined. |
|
272 |
|
273 Once we recognize that rules are authorities used to support the |
|
274 credibility of statements made by people, it is a short step to realize |
|
275 that everything else outside the minds and statements of the people is |
|
276 at best another authority. The dice are not part of the system, but |
|
277 rather an authority to which someone appeals in determining an outcome. |
|
278 Whether the referee can ignore the dice or not is part of the system; |
|
279 whether the players can force him to follow the dice is part of the |
|
280 system; but in using the dice, we are appealing to the authority of the |
|
281 dice. This applies also to charts and tables, character papers, world |
|
282 descriptions, modules and supplements, and the wealth of other |
|
283 informational supports we use in play. We are using the real system of |
|
284 the game whenever we decide what happens in our imagined reality; if we |
|
285 use dice, or charts, or ability scores, or skill ratings, we are |
|
286 appealing to authority to support those decisions, but it is still |
|
287 always we the players who decide. |
|
288 |
|
289 In the end, a role playing game is a conversation between a group of |
|
290 people in which they describe to each other certain imagined events that |
|
291 they create as they describe them. Everything else that we see as part |
|
292 of the game exists to support that activity, and to determine whose |
|
293 statements about what happens will be accepted by everyone. |
|
294 |
|
295 If your reaction to that is, /Is that all there is?/ you have my |
|
296 condolences. In a sense, yes, that is all there is. However, that is the |
|
297 most powerful secret of game design that has yet been uncovered, and to |
|
298 the degree that you can understand, support, and exploit this central |
|
299 concept, you can design or play a great game. |
|
300 |
|
301 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
302 |
|
303 /M. Joseph Young is author game books and novels for Multiverser: The |
|
304 Game <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish>, and a prolific contributor to |
|
305 role playing game literature. Among his online work is his long-running |
|
306 /Game Ideas /Un/limited/ series at Gaming Outpost |
|
307 <http://www.gamingoutpost.com/>, /Faith and Gaming/ series in the |
|
308 Chaplain's corner of The Christian Gamers Guild |
|
309 <http://www.geocities.com/christian_gamers_guild/>, and the three-part |
|
310 /Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms/ in this e-zine, beginning with |
|
311 /The Source of Law <http://ptgptb.humbug.org.au/0009/law01.html>/ in |
|
312 issue nine./ |
|
313 |
|
314 [Next Article] <narrativists.html> [Previous Article] <retro.html> [This |
|
315 Issue] <index.html> [Home] <../index.html> |
|
316 |
|
317 |
|
318 /Copyright © 2005 Places to Go, People to Be/, all rights |
|
319 reserved. May be reproduced for non-commercial use. Refer to the |
|
320 copyright page <../copyright.html> for full details. Email us: |
|
321 editors@ptgptb.org <mailto:editors@ptgptb.org>. |
|
322 |
|
323 Click to Go Back <index.html> |
|
324 |