diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/theory101-01.txt --- /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] +[Previous Article] [This Issue] [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 +.Game designers there are building on the +work of others, and theorists elsewhere such as northern Europe's Turku +school of LARP designers 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 , +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 +/ 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 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 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 , 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 +, /Faith and Gaming/ series in the +Chaplain's corner of The Christian Gamers Guild +, and the three-part +/Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms/ in this e-zine, beginning with +/The Source of Law / in +issue nine./ + +[Next Article] [Previous Article] [This +Issue] [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 . + +Click to Go Back +