--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/HowRPGRulesWork.txt	Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,440 @@
+http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+anyway. <opine.html>
+A Penny for Your Thoughts <mailto:lumpley@earthlink.net>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+	
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+*1-18-05*
+*How RPG Rules Work*
+
+This is description, not prescription.
+
+The way I figure it, an RPG's rules coordinate three things:
+
+The fictional things and events and stuff in the game. The interactions
+of the players themselves. Dice, numbers, words, maps - real-world
+tokens, things, props, representations. Emily calls 'em "cues" and I
+think that's just right.
+
+If you can pick it up and hand it to another player, or change it with a
+pencil and eraser, it's a real-world cue. If it exists only in our heads
+and our conversation, it's in-game.
+
+So here's a rule: "1. Don't mess with the dark forest to the North, it's
+Vincent's."
+
+This rule coordinates the interactions of us, the players, with the
+made-up stuff in the game. The rule says that if the in-game stuff comes
+to include our characters entering the forest, we change our
+interactions in a particular way: we defer to me, Vincent, about what's
+what.
+
+The rightward-pointing arrow is "our characters entering the forest,"
+the leftward-pointing arrow is "we defer to Vincent about what's what."
+
+Here's a rule: "2. Subtract the roll on the damage die from your
+character's hit points."
+
+This rule coordinates our interactions with the real-world cues we're
+employing. The leftward-pointing arrow is "the roll on the damage die,"
+the rightward-pointing arrow is "subtract from your character's hit
+points." The die represents every real-world thing we're using: dice,
+character sheets, life stones, everything.
+
+Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens.
+
+Here's a rule: "3. If your character has higher ground than his
+opponent, make your attack roll at +3."
+
+Now this rule takes information from the fictional in-game and applies
+it to the real-world tokens we're using. The long rightward-pointing
+arrow is "your character has higher ground than his opponent, +3," and
+the leftward-pointing arrow is "make your attack roll."
+
+I've drawn the long arrow /through/ the people because of course it's
+the people who interpret the in-game and apply the rule.
+
+Here's a rule: "4. If your character takes damage greater than 4 on the
+damage roll, he's knocked down."
+
+Here the rules instruct us to have certain things happen fictionally
+when certain things happen in the real world. The rightward-pointing
+arrow is "the damage roll" and the long leftward-pointing arrow is
+"damage greater than 4, knocked down."
+
+Here's a rule: "5. If your character's opponent tries to disarm your
+character, make a Hold Weapon check. If you fail, your character is
+disarmed, and you thus suffer the unarmed penalty until you retrieve
+your weapon."
+
+The more complicated your rule, the more complicated the arrangement of
+arrows. The short leftward-pointing arrow is "your character's opponent
+tries to disarm your character." The long rightward-pointing arrow is
+"make a Hold Weapon check." The long leftward-pointing arrow is "your
+character is disarmed" - the part where we imagine your character's
+sword skittering across the rocks. The short rightward-pointing arrow,
+at last, is "suffer the unarmed penalty."
+
+If this were the Weapon Breakage rule instead of the Weapon Droppage
+rule, the short rightward-pointing arrow would be both "suffer the
+unarmed penalty" and "add 'broken' to your weapon on your character sheet."
+
+So now, we employ various rules in various orders and combinations over
+time.
+
+Right?
+
+This animation shows kind of what Dogs in the Vineyard or D&D or
+Shadowrun or PTA or V:tM is like in play.
+
+The way Charles' group plays Ars Magica would have practically only the
+arrows between the players and the in-game lit up:
+
+(I'm very open to correction about this, but it's my impression.)
+
+The way my group plays Ars Magica would be about the same, but we'd have
+the arrows crossing the players light up a few times per session:
+
+
+And finally, Jonathan Tweet in /Everway/ describes three kinds of rules:
+Drama, Fortune and Karma.
+
+Rules like this are Drama rules.
+
+
+Rules like this are Fortune rules if the real-world cues include dice or
+some other randomizer; Karma rules if they don't.
+
+On 1-19-05, *Matt* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I really only clicked to see if comments were working, but now I feel
+obliged to come up with something.
+
+My ideal game, I think, has a balance of movement across all the arrows.
+This might be a useful diagram for identifying the kind of play people
+prefer by making certain arrows darker, etc. Or not. Shit, it's only 6
+here and what am I doing up?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *anon.* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens."
+
+I would strongly disagree with this. The fictional worlds may not be as
+pronounced or as strongly identified with as in RPGs, but they
+definately exist.
+
+Case in point: Diplomacy. There's you intereacting with other people and
+the game board, but there's almost always a shared imaginative space of
+diplomatic missions running back and forth and high-level meetings and
+so on.
+
+Even Monopoly can work this way. Who does not make sound effects when
+they move their pieces? Who does not chortle like Snidely Whiplash when
+they send another player to bankruptcy? And in these moments, a
+fictional scene plays out.
+
+Who knows, perhaps when Kasparov is advancing his knight, he's thinking
+of a medieval kingdom?
+
+later
+Tom
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I guess somebody was going to say that.
+
+Maybe my best answer is:
+
+Playing Monopoly, no arrows come rightward out of the fiction. Imagine
+whatever you want, nobody else cares.
+
+When we talk about the imaginary stuff in the game re: rules, we aren't
+talking about what I'm imagining in my own personal head anyway. We're
+talking about the shared fiction, which means that it's /communicated/
+and /agreed to/. Kasparov might be thinking about a kingdom or his
+laundry, I'm pretty sure he's not saying it all out loud and trying to
+get his opponent to buy into it.
+
+And just to head off the other half: of /course/ the players can create
+house rules to make Monopoly into a roleplaying game. Whatever! I don't
+think it's especially controversial to observe that, as written,
+Monopoly ain't one. Lord I hope it's not.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *C. Edwards* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens."
+
+I totally accept and enjoy those kinds of rules in a non-RPG. They seem
+annoying, unsatisfying, and extraneous most of the time when they are
+incorporated into a role-playing game. It almost seems like a wasted
+action to have rules that don't directly interact with the shared
+imaginary space.
+
+I want to achieve nearly 100% efficiency in my rule/work to shared
+imaginary space exchange.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Bryant* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Nice! Very nice. I agree with this 100% and I like the arrows a lot.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Chris* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wow! Vincent- it just struck me how much power goes into the traditional
+GM's hands in that they get final say not only over what goes into that
+imaginary space, but also what effects the imaginary space has back OUT
+into the game itself. So, say a player wants to put a character in a
+tactically advantageous situation, and even the GM agrees("You're on
+higher ground, with the sun to your back, etc.") but only if the GM
+decides to apply modifers back out to the Tokens in play, will the SIS
+have a solid effect.
+
+This is probably one of the best little ways of explaining the whole
+social effect of gaming there. Neat.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I have this whole essay brewing about this two rightmost little arrows.
+If you're going to beat me to it, let me know.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I have no plans!
+
+What's your essay going to say?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Like most of my essays, it's going to say "Look, a thing!"
+
+We physicists aren't so keen on the "persuasive argument" thing.
+
+Essentially, I think some games have something called "toy quality"
+where the game's mechanic itself is fun to play without needing to
+reference the SIS at all. I think that games with toy quality are a
+bridge to board and card and dice games. I also think it might be a key
+to Gamism, but I'm not sure.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+
+P.S. Hey, remember when I was talking about how "everything is system?"
+I was going "look, see, those arrows are symmetric!" Just couldn't
+express myself well.
+
+P.P.S. Heck, I still don't know what system is. Is it that box on the
+right? Or is that just mechanics?
+
+P.P.P.S. Say we're using a published setting with canon guidebooks. Is
+the setting in the right box or the left box?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The arrows are System. System is what we /do/.
+
+The left box is a snapshot: what's happening in the game right now. You
+can imagine its contents changing over the course of play, alongside the
+arrows lighting up and going out.
+
+The right box is everything that's real that we consult to help us
+decide what's happening in the left box. Along with dice and the writing
+on character sheets and stuff, it can include the contents of setting
+guidebooks. Really though, the vast most of the contents of setting
+guidebooks simply don't appear in the illustration; they wait outside of
+frame in case we want them.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Check.
+
+Rules printed in the game book: Cue or System?
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+System if we're using them right now, nothing if we aren't. "Using them"
+includes things like "if we get into combat, there goes the whole rest
+of the session - let's talk to them instead."
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Cool.
+
+Now I still can't understand that other thread, where I was like "it's
+all system" and other people were like "what?" I was hoping it would
+illuminate that. I think I'm still right, though.
+
+Anyway, thanks a bunch. Just going to go stare at the animations now.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Link me to the other thread?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001
+
+And look! There's your diagram!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Linkinated <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001>.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *nothings* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I'm sure you've thought of all of this already, Vincent, but I found
+your explanation a little confusing, so I have tried to go through in a
+little more detail and a slightly different focus.
+
+http://nothings.org/writing/rpg/elements.html
+
+My apologies if I've slipped on any Forge-ian terminology, as I'm not
+actually a regular reader.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Nothings: linkinated <http://nothings.org/writing/rpg/elements.html>.
+(corrected)
+
+Well, I agree that you have a different focus. I think that the
+differences between mine and yours can probably all be summed up in
+their opening sentences: my "...an RPG's rules coordinate..." vs your
+"...the activity of game-playing can be reasonably characterized by the
+interaction of..."
+
+Like, I don't include a picture of the rules because all I'm talking
+about is the rules. I also don't include props or snacks - except as
+real things inside the d6 picture, if and only if a rule refers to them.
+
+Also having a GM outside of the group is nonsense, no matter how you
+slice it. If you want to talk about distribution of authority within the
+group, cool, and that's when a GM can come up - but the GM's a person
+same as the rest of us.
+
+And about my arrows and dice: I consider the interesting bit of rolling
+a die to be the interpretation of it, not the rolling of it. Thus "roll
+the die" is an arrow pointing from the die to the players; from the
+origin of the information to its destination.
+
+Um, so now what? This conversation will make more sense if either you
+ask me to comment on yours, which I'd be happy to do in another thread,
+or else you ask me questions about mine, which I'd be happy to answer
+here. Or both!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing:
+
+The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.
+
+When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people
+relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to
+force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular,
+possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative
+relationships.
+
+Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and
+/expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks
+of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human
+interactions at a deep level.
+
+So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is
+playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak,
+flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular
+play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A
+flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social
+dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to
+already be in place, or the game crashes.
+
+Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic?
+
+*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams
+here.*
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Rognli* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+This is like the Central Theorem of Roleplaying. For dummies. With
+friendly, unscary illustrations. It doesn't get any better...
+
+Can I translate it for publication in the only Norwegian gaming-zine,
+"Imagonem"? And before you ask; no we can't pay you, cause we don't make
+any money. But I will tell everyone you are very cool.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Sure!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Handle:
+
+
+Consider including your email address in the body of your comment.
+
+anyway. <opine.html>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+	 
+