diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/elements.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/elements.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ + + Characterizing a Game's Rules + +This is a response to this post by lumpley + (AKA +Vincent). You should read at least the first few examples of it before +reading this. + +It's important, when analyzing something, to simplify it to its most +important elements, where that simplification doesn't discard anything +important. When just thinking about something, you should be careful not +to simplify too soon; work out the patterns, then simplify. I think +lumpley has simplified some things wrong, so I'm going to start over +with the un-simplified case and work down to something simpler. + + + The Eight Elements + +The way I figure it, the activity of game-playing can be reasonably +characterized by the interaction of eight kinds of things. + +Starting from the die and proceeding clockwise, we have: mechanics tools +(die), quantifiable game state (figures), props (crown), players (smiley +faces), munchies (Dew), the fiction (cloud), the rules (book), and, +overseeing it all, the gamemaster (frowny wizard). + +In more detail: mechanics tools are used for randomization and +resolving, e.g. dice, coin flips, possibly calculators, measuring +instruments at athletic events. Quantifiable game state is things like +hit points, locations of Monopoly tokens, cards in your hand. Props are +game-related elements that are in no way game-mechanical, like painted +figures used for atmosphere, or an audio soundtrack played in the +background by a gamemaster. The fiction is some set of things that are +true about the fictional world in which the game is taking place +(Wittgenstein: "the world is everything that is the case"). The rest are +self-explanatory. (This is not to say that all games need a gamemaster. +I am just avoiding oversimplifying too soon for games that do have one.) + +Now, when we talk about interactions that occur over the course of a +game, any game, we can understand that those interactions are governed +by the rules. If Bob gets pissed off and punches out Gene, and the game +at hand doesn't involve players actually resorting to real-life +fisticuffs, then their activity is outside the game and shouldn't be +diagrammed on the chart. Any activity that takes place in the game is +going to be governed by the rules. + +Let's take a sample rule for a monopoly-like game. "Roll a die and +advance your token that many squares on the board." + +Each teal arrow is an individual interaction. Each blue arrow is a +"moderating" effect on an interaction. (It's hard to draw a three-way +interaction with a single arrow unless they happen to be in a line). So, +first, the player rolls the die (as moderated by the rules); then, the +result on the die indicates how to update the game state (move the +token), which is performed by the player, as moderated by the rules. + +Now, a few things are clear. First, the player doesn't have to be the +one to move the token. Another player might move it instead if it +happens to be hard to reach for the first. The player doesn't actually +have any choice; so the fact that it's the player picking up and moving +the token is irrelevant. Second, as described earlier, /every/ +interaction is going to be moderated by the rules (at least weakly), so +we're always going to have a moderated-by arrow from the rules; so +there's no reason to draw them. That leaves us with this simplified +drawing: + +Note that this representation of an interaction is about as +/conceptually simple/ as lumpley's--it only has two arrows--but it has +more information, because we haven't oversimplified the participating +elements. + +Now, you could argue that I should go ahead and simplify at least some +of the other elements away--that many of these icons are obviously +unnecessary to the game, e.g. the props and the munchies. Just to +confuse matters, here's a different kind of game, with rules-moderation +arrows omitted. + +"If the player bounces the quarter into the cup, then the player can +require any other player to drink the cup." Here I've used lumpley's +notation of an arrow going through a middle item to indicate moderation: +the mechanics of whether the quarter (represented by the icon here) goes +into the cup or not are determined not by a random number generator, but +by the laws of physics. Again, I think it is overkill to indicate +moderation. Of course, this is a game best played in moderation. + +Now, let's imagine a game that's GMed, and has rule #2 of lumpley's: "2. +Subtract the roll on the damage die from your character's hit points." +I'll omit moderation-by-the-rules arrows, of course. + +Ok, so the player rolls the die (arrow from player to die). Of course, +the player does this under the watchful eye and guidance of the GM, so +we need a moderation arrow there. Then, the player updates their own hit +points on their character sheet, again under the watchful eye of the GM. +Guess what? Everything's under the watchful eye of the GM, so let's +screw those GM moderation arrows. + +To be honest, I don't understand lumpley's arrows, so maybe lumpley +won't understand mine. Lumpley uses an arrow from the die ("tokens, +things, props, representations") to the faces ("the interactions of the +player themselves") to indicate the rolling of the die. Why? No clue. +Maybe it should be three arrows: 1. the player rolls the die +(player->die). 2. the player reads the value of the die. (die->player). +3. the player change the value of the hit points. (player->die) + +Of course, as I've pointed out, the reading of the value of the die and +updating of the hit point value by the player involves the player in an +entirely uninteresting way, so I don't think step #2 is interesting. But +my way of interpreting 2 & 3 combined is to draw from (on my chart) die +to figures; since lumpley combines mechanics tools and quantifiable +state into a single element, he'd have to draw an arrow from the die to +the die, which perhaps explains why he did it the way he did. Of course, +if you want to show that this die-to-die interaction is moderated by the +players by making it go through the players, you'll have a curving line +go from the die to the players and then back to the die; which is +basically the same as the three lines I proposed above. + +Now, note that if the GM follows the same rule to handle an NPC, on my +chart I'd have to change the source of the first arrow. I don't need to +update the second arrow. I'm not distinguishing between state +represented physically on a character sheet and state kept entirely in +the GM's head. + +Ok, here's a more complex lumpley 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." + +Again, imagining a GM'd game, we have the following sequence. The GM +(pointy hat) decides that the the opponent tries to disarm (fictional +cloud). This state of the fiction requires that the player make a Hold +Weapon check (die roll). [Note that, in truth, the hold weapon check +involves various quantifiable state--character level or strength or +whatever, so perhaps the arrow here should be more subtle.] On a +failure, we imagine the character is disarmed in whatever manner +(non-quantifiable fictional cloud) and also in the quantifiable state +(figures). + +Note that the GM-causing-the-fiction is something I added explicitly to +clarify. Note that it's misleading to draw an arrow from the fiction to +the player; really it should be that the fiction moderates the need for +the Hold Weapon check. But hang on for a moment; really, the GM chose to +put the NPC in the "state" of "trying to disarm this player character"; +since there are some limited numbers of such states that the rulebook +has explicit resolution rules for, maybe /that/ should be considered +quantifiable state, too? + +This is important because lumpley notes in the comments that a +distinguishing characteristic of the RPG is the fact that arrows emerge +from the fictional cloud at all; no matter how cleverly you describe +events transpiring in Settlers of Catan, none of the other players are +going to let you build an extra road segment. + +So maybe the arrow from the fictional cloud should point to the +quantifiable state: sometimes the fictional cloud implies certain +discretely quantifiable states-of-the-world for which there are explicit +game-mechanical rules. That state then mandates the Hold Weapon check. +(I still don't like the idea of "mandates" being given by an arrow.) + +If you go look at lumpley's +, I'm +not sure what's going on there. The long arrow from the fictional cloud +to game-tokens/state is "make a Hold Weapon check"? Basically, I think +I'm not sure on where lumpley's coming down with quantifiable vs. +non-quantifiable state, so I'm trying to be explicit about this. + +The other thing we can conclude is that, for this rule at least, we +might as well have folded the GM in with the players into a single icon +on the chart. The "Hold Weapon roll" rule is going to apply to any +character--whether PC (rolled by player) or NPC (rolled by GM)--and +whether they were attacked by an NPC (action chosen by GM) or PC (action +chosen by player). However, in a classic game-mastered game, the players +have limited director powers compared to the GM, so there may be other +sorts of rules where this distinction is significant. (Or perhaps more +in a meta-rules sense?) + +Finally, I want to suggest that while it is true that RPGs make special +use of the fictional cloud, this is not a trivial matter. On the one +side, as suggested above, if there's a rule for it, it must be on some +level quantifiable and belong to the quantifiable area. Looking at the +flip side, it's argued that for a game like Settlers or Monopoly, the +fictional happenings can never affect the game outcome; they are purely +atmospheric. However, I carefully included a "props" element here that +is purely atmospheric /even for an RPG/. + +Lest you think that this simply applies to gamers wearing silly hats, +consider that in some gaming groups, players are not rewarded +game-mechanically for talking accurately or realistically as if they +were their character (e.g. so as not to penalize members of the group +who are poor actors). Similarly, in some groups, a character with +fast-talking skill will succeed independent of that character's player's +plausible fast-talking scenario (as long as the player at least tries); +in which case any of those details are purely atmospheric. + +Vincent could still conclude (fairly) that these elements are indeed +atmospheric; they are part of the fun and style of the game, but they +are not interesting from a standpoint of how the game works /qua/ game. +However, as you move away from strongly-mechanical games and you move +into more freeform narrative games, removing any notion of quantifiable +state, this gets fairly muddy. Perhaps this means quantifiable state +starts to blur into fiction state. But if that blurring and slipperiness +means it's hard to distinguishable quantifiable state from +non-quantifiable fiction state, I definitely think it's wrong to try to +clump quantifiable state with game-mechanical tools. + + + Other Directions + +The eight elements also offer up some opportunities to think about other +things. (A friend points out an important scenario: an arrow from Dew to +rules to GM to fiction: somebody spills soda on the GM's rulebooks, and +the GM has the character attacked and killed by magical blue lighting, +no saving throw.) + +In a computer game, the computer takes over the responsibilty for +managing most (all?) interactions. However, those interactions still go +occur, simply moderated by the program. There are still quantifiable +states, mechanics for updating them (possibly randomly). There may be +fiction (human-authored, mostly), and this fiction is updated and +revealed as a consequence of the mechanics. (There is, of course, +generally never any feedback from this non-quantifiable fictional state +back into the game; it's text and cut scenes that are output-only.) + + + Comments + +You should probably comment back on the original thread +. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +home <~/index.html> : sean /at/ nothings /dot/ org