--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/theory101-01.txt	Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
+*Places to Go, People to Be* 	[Next Article] <narrativists.html>
+[Previous Article] <retro.html> [This Issue] <index.html> [Home]
+<../index.html>
+
+
+    Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space
+
+*By M. Joseph Young*
+
+	
+
+Not very long ago on a list I frequent, someone teased that they were a
+freeformer and as such did not use any system at all. I rather boldly
+responded, explaining in some detail what system is and does, and why
+freeform uses as much system as any other game, whether /Theatrix/ or
+/Fudge/ or /Rolemaster/. Someone else posted to the list, saying that my
+explanation of how role playing games work was rather depressing to him,
+and took a lot of the fun out of it.
+
+I'd never thought of that. Some people really don't want to know what
+makes role playing games work; they just want to play and have fun. It's
+like seeing what happens behind the curtain. Not everyone wants to know
+how the magician does his tricks.
+
+I can see that, to some degree. /Clash of the Titans/ is a wondrous
+adventure to someone who has no idea how it was done. Understanding Ray
+Harryhausen's use of stop-action miniatures may be fascinating for some
+of us, but it does take something out of the awe of watching the movie
+to see not the massive Gorgon rising from the deep but a twelve inch
+model superimposed into the scene. In the same way, some people love
+looking under the hood, as it were, of the games we play, understanding
+what they do and how they do it, while others just want to go for a
+ride. If you wanted to /make/ a movie, you would probably need to
+understand how such things are made; if you just want to enjoy watching
+one, it might be more fun to see the finished product without knowing
+how it was achieved. So too understanding how games work in fundamental
+ways may interfere with the fun of playing them for some people, but
+it's absolutely essential to knowing how to design them.
+
+If you don't want to know how role playing games really work, it's time
+to stop reading. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to know the
+theory, of wanting to watch the magician saw the woman in half with no
+idea how the illusion works. We'll be looking behind the curtain at how
+these things are done, and why they work the way they do. If that
+interests you, read on.
+
+At the moment, a great deal of the most valuable role playing game
+theory is being done through an Internet web site forum called The Forge
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/>.Game designers there are building on the
+work of others, and theorists elsewhere such as northern Europe's Turku
+school of LARP designers <http://users.utu.fi/mijupo/turku/> have found
+their way there to participate in those discussions.The theoretical work
+is driven by the belief that better understanding of the theory will
+produce better games.Most of what is going to be presented in this
+series originated there or was expanded there.
+
+The concept that has emerged as possibly the single unifying and
+distinguishing feature of role playing games is that of the *Shared
+Imagined Space*. In essence, any group of players is making an effort to
+imagine the same events occurring in the same imagined setting. Of
+course, there are some discrepancies between individual images of this,
+but overall the game is able to proceed because there is a common
+understanding of what is happening, a shared agreement of the events of
+the game.
+
+Sometimes people challenge whether this shared imagined space actually
+exists. The easiest way to see that it is so is to consider what it
+would be like otherwise. Suddenly Bob's character is trying to out-draw
+Dead-Eye-Dan in the streets of Laredo while Ann is piloting her
+spaceship through the asteroid field and calling on Bob to target the
+pursuing enemy, while Jim sees them all attacking a dragon. While that
+starts to sound a bit like playing /Multiverser/, the fact is that even
+in that game there is a shared imagined space, an agreed set of events
+and setting elements and character actions which interact, although
+frequently on multiple stages. If we do not have that agreement, then we
+are not really playing together.
+
+How we come to that agreement is the heart of the concept of *system*.
+Vincent Baker <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/lumpley.html>,
+author of such innovative games as /Kill Puppies for Satan/, /Dogs in
+the Vineyard/, /Animals at Night/, and /Matchmaker/, is credited with
+first recognizing and stating what has become known as the *Lumpley
+Principle*: System is the means by which any group of players comes to
+agreement concerning the content of the shared imagined space.
+
+This principle is the reason freeform and Rolemaster ultimately have the
+same "amount" of system. In play, someone at the table makes a
+statement, system is then applied by the minds of the participants, and
+a consensus is reached as to how this has changed the content of what is
+being imagined. How it does that is different in the details with a
+mechanically complicated game such as Rolemaster as compared with a
+completely socially driven freeform game (a different kind of
+complexity), but in the essentials they are the same.
+
+What system does, fundamentally, is apportion *credibility*. That is, it
+provides the participants with the means necessary to gauge who has the
+right to make what statements about the shared imagined space, and who
+does not.
+
+For example, in traditional games, those participants we tend to call
+the players (or the "character players" for the sake of clarity) have
+the credibility to say what actions their characters are taking and what
+words they say. The one player responsible for "everything else", whom
+we will here call the referee but who has many names in many games, has
+the credibility to determine the success or failure of such actions and
+the consequences, the actions of antagonists and adversaries, and the
+general shape and situation in the world. We call this credibility
+because we all agree to believe statements made by these participants
+when those statements are within the extent of their credibility. We
+believe that what a player says about his character is true within the
+image we share, and that what the referee says about everything else is
+true. These are thus credible statements. Although there are exceptions
+even in traditional games, the limits on credibility usually follow
+these lines rather closely. A player could not say, "Suddenly I see a
+door to the right I had not previously noticed, and finding it unlocked
+rush through it to safety." Similarly, a referee could not normally say,
+"Your character draws his sword and rushes forward to attack the huge
+ancient red dragon." A player character who announced the presence of a
+door would in most games be ignored, as he does not have the credibility
+to insert such doors in the shared imagined world. Sometimes a referee
+can get away with statements of player character actions, but the
+players will expect that there is a good reason why under this
+circumstance the referee is claiming the credibility to make such a
+statement, and in many groups the statement will be openly challenged
+for that explanation.
+
+Once this is understood, it becomes possible to change the way
+credibility is apportioned.For example, /Universalis
+<http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/>/ eliminates the referee entirely and
+instead provides a resource system through which players bid for control
+of what happens.Numerous other independent games allow players to create
+problems for themselves and for each other.
+
+As part of this, it has become clear that the referee is one of the
+players. His role in the game is different from the others, but it is a
+role that can be defined by the game rules in many different ways.
+Changing what the referee does, distributing aspects of that credibility
+in different ways, has led to many challenging ideas in game design. We
+also see that game play is an essentially social activity, built
+entirely on defining the relationships between the members of the group
+such that they know what to believe of what the others say and what they
+are entitled to say themselves. Thus a role playing game system is a set
+of specific modifications to the social contract of a group of friends,
+a sort of ritual in which they engage that has the specific function of
+creating this object of shared imagination. It is a means of relating to
+each other toward that end.
+
+In attempting to categorize different ways of distributing credibility,
+Ron Edwards <http://www.adept-press.com/> has put forward the concept of
+*Stance*.The author of many games of which /Sorcerer/, /Trollbabe/, and
+/Elfs/ are the best known, Professor Edwards received the Diana Jones
+Award <http://www.dianajonesaward.org/> for his contributions to game
+design.Stance refers to the relationship between a player, his
+character, and the rest of the shared imagined space, and provides
+general categories within which specifics may vary from game to game or
+group to group.The four major stances are Pawn, Actor, Author, and
+Director.
+
+Pawn stance is rather simple to understand. The character is a token
+used by the player to act within the game world. Like a /Monopoly/ or
+/Parchessi/ piece, no one cares whether the actions of the character
+make sense. What matters is that the character does what the player
+wants within the world.
+
+Actor stance approaches the world solely through the character, but also
+solely through the character's perceived desires and personality. This
+is the approach to play in which much depends on what the player
+believes the character would "really" do, if he were a real person in
+that situation, and is closely associated with the concepts most people
+call immersion. Actor stance springs from the perceptions and thoughts
+attributed to the character, and limits the player's credibility to
+control over that character and the impact that character can
+realistically have in the world.
+
+Author stance is in some ways a complicated fusion between Actor and
+Pawn. In this case, the player is still controlling the character only;
+however, the player is permitted and even expected to use his own
+knowledge and desires in making character decisions, while at the same
+time providing justification after the fact for why this is what the
+character would have done. For example, we have the brash uncouth
+fighter who is always getting in brawls, but suddenly the player decides
+that he wants play to move toward an alliance between the fighter and a
+particular non-player nobleman, so when they meet he chooses not to
+fight even though everyone expected him to do so. He justifies this by
+stating that his character was for once impressed by someone of noble
+bearing, or that the character was suddenly smitten by the Duke's lovely
+daughter and so out of character at that moment. What matters here is
+that the player is allowing his own knowledge and desires control the
+direction the story takes, but is doing so by controlling his character
+and creating reasons for the character to have done what the player
+wished. It is thus like Actor stance to the degree that the player
+controls only his character and does so in a way that preserves
+character integrity, but like Pawn stance in that the player uses the
+character to accomplish player goals, not character goals, to the degree
+that these differ.
+
+Director stance is fairly simple to understand but shocking to accept by
+most players. It means that the character players have credibility to
+create bits in the shared imagined space that are outside the control of
+their characters. In essence, it gives a great deal of credibility
+traditionally reserved for the referee to the other players. Yet it is
+something that nearly all role players have used to some degree.
+
+Imagine for a moment that a player character has just entered a room.
+The referee states that it looks like a woman's bedroom. The player then
+says that his character will move to the dresser and examine the
+knick-knacks on it. Note that the referee never stated there was a
+dresser, or that there was anything on it; the player made the
+assumption that a woman's bedroom would have a dresser, and that a
+woman's dresser would have something sitting atop it that was
+decorative. He then made the assertion incidentally that such things
+existed, and requested more information about them. That is a very
+limited example of director stance. The majority of games would extend
+sufficient credibility to the player to make such statements. If the
+player did not have that much credibility, he would have to ask whether
+there was a dresser, whether there was anything on the dresser, and
+possibly whether there was anything preventing him from moving to the
+dresser to get a better look, in each case awaiting confirmation by the
+referee, who is the only person with the credibility to place such
+objects in the shared imagined space. Going the other direction, a
+player with more credibility might state that he was opening the top
+drawer, rifling through the lady's undergarments, and finding a wrapped
+packet of correspondence that looked like it might be love letters,
+which he pockets for future examination. Again, none of that is in the
+referee's statement of the contents of the room, but a player might have
+sufficient credibility to create those elements, as they are consistent
+with what is given.
+
+Given sufficient credibility, a player could create the side door
+through which he escapes. That is the concept of director stance.
+Referees do it all the time, but there is no inherent reason why players
+could not do it.
+
+It should be said that there is no right or wrong stance, no better or
+worse way to play. There are only individual preferences of how to do
+things and practical considerations in how to make any particular game
+work. All of these stances are the right choice for some type of role
+playing game. It might or might not be a type you would enjoy, but
+people do enjoy playing in games that do these various things.
+
+Of course, if system is all about apportioning credibility, what then
+are rules? Are the baker's dozen books of /Original Advanced Dungeons &
+Dragons/ completely meaningless? Is there no difference at all between
+/Aftermath/ and /Amber Diceless/? Are those who work to create new games
+wasting their efforts in view of the fact that the rules in the book are
+not the system?
+
+The relationship between rules and system took some time to develop, and
+is difficult to understand. Rules have *authority*, or perhaps more
+precisely are authorities. They are authorities in the same sense that
+case law is an authority for courts, or that scriptures are authorities
+for religions: the people involved refer to these and invoke them in
+support of their statements, and so increase the credibility of those
+statements.
+
+Thus for example a player running a ranger in /Dungeons & Dragons/ might
+say that his character was going to use his tracking ability to identify
+which way the opponent went. Probably this would be accepted as within
+the credibility of the player. However, if the referee were unaware that
+the ranger had tracking skill, the player could point to the section of
+the rules in which tracking skill is identified and explained and so
+give credibility to his stated action.
+
+Note that rules do not have credibility. They cannot make statements of
+themselves, but must be cited by a person with credibility. Further, the
+authority of the rules is subject to the credibility of persons involved
+in the game. Can the ranger track an opponent across the ocean floor?
+Someone has the credibility to decide whether the rules apply, and how
+they are to be understood. There may be a rule somewhere in the books
+that covers this situation, but if no one uses it, it is not part of the
+system, as it does not influence what is mutually imagined.
+
+Once we recognize that rules are authorities used to support the
+credibility of statements made by people, it is a short step to realize
+that everything else outside the minds and statements of the people is
+at best another authority. The dice are not part of the system, but
+rather an authority to which someone appeals in determining an outcome.
+Whether the referee can ignore the dice or not is part of the system;
+whether the players can force him to follow the dice is part of the
+system; but in using the dice, we are appealing to the authority of the
+dice. This applies also to charts and tables, character papers, world
+descriptions, modules and supplements, and the wealth of other
+informational supports we use in play. We are using the real system of
+the game whenever we decide what happens in our imagined reality; if we
+use dice, or charts, or ability scores, or skill ratings, we are
+appealing to authority to support those decisions, but it is still
+always we the players who decide.
+
+In the end, a role playing game is a conversation between a group of
+people in which they describe to each other certain imagined events that
+they create as they describe them. Everything else that we see as part
+of the game exists to support that activity, and to determine whose
+statements about what happens will be accepted by everyone.
+
+If your reaction to that is, /Is that all there is?/ you have my
+condolences. In a sense, yes, that is all there is. However, that is the
+most powerful secret of game design that has yet been uncovered, and to
+the degree that you can understand, support, and exploit this central
+concept, you can design or play a great game.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+/M. Joseph Young is author game books and novels for Multiverser: The
+Game <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish>, and a prolific contributor to
+role playing game literature. Among his online work is his long-running
+/Game Ideas /Un/limited/ series at Gaming Outpost
+<http://www.gamingoutpost.com/>, /Faith and Gaming/ series in the
+Chaplain's corner of The Christian Gamers Guild
+<http://www.geocities.com/christian_gamers_guild/>, and the three-part
+/Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms/ in this e-zine, beginning with
+/The Source of Law <http://ptgptb.humbug.org.au/0009/law01.html>/ in
+issue nine./
+
+[Next Article] <narrativists.html> [Previous Article] <retro.html> [This
+Issue] <index.html> [Home] <../index.html>
+
+
+        /Copyright © 2005 Places to Go, People to Be/, all rights
+        reserved. May be reproduced for non-commercial use. Refer to the
+        copyright page <../copyright.html> for full details. Email us:
+        editors@ptgptb.org <mailto:editors@ptgptb.org>.
+
+Click to Go Back <index.html>
+