# HG changeset patch # User fabien # Date 1140725595 18000 # Node ID be57f0035c678450a1ab8b2959c2f14234efc75a # Parent 1e85b39d803d8fc3abdf8319ced2ee332de281d0 [svn] r5880@freebird: fabien | 2006-02-17 19:08:06 -0500 Ajout de quelques références intéressantes. diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/HowRPGRulesWork.txt --- /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. +A Penny for Your Thoughts + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +*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 . +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +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 . +(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. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/IIEE_Fortune.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/IIEE_Fortune.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +anyway. +A Penny for Your Thoughts + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + +On 2006-01-17, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Troy: "/I'm having a little trouble reconciling IIEE and Fortune +mechanics. Fortune in the Middle I think I have down no problem. But +what about Fortune at the Begining? Where in the IIEE scheme of things +does the roll hit the table? Is it still in the Initiation phase?/" + +"In the middle" and "at the end" don't position fortune in IIEE at all, +in any way, ever, no matter what. + +"In the middle" and "at the end" position fortune in the real-world +decision-making process. Do you make mechanical decisions after you +roll? Then it's fortune in the middle. Do you not? Then it's fortune at +the end. (You can't roll before you make any mechanical decisions, since +"I'm going to roll" is a mechanical decision, thus there's no fortune at +the beginning.) + +IIEE is all about the in-game, what the characters are doing at the +moment of the roll, what in-game information do you establish before you +roll and what do you wait to establish until after you've rolled. What +IN-GAME information. + +If you're a visual thinker, this might help: + + +We can come up with examples of FitM vs. FatE at every point in IIEE, if +you're still struggling. + +*This reminds me...* +Your initials: +Link URL: +Link text: +Please keep your link text short. +Please feel free to self-link! +Never mind. + +Some maybe useful links: +Complete Index of Entries +Search for a Post or Comment +Search the Forge Forums +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +*This makes...* +*TC* go "Makes Good Sense..." +I got it now. It's the division between character and player. Makes much +better sense now. Thanks a lot! :) +*JCL* go "I disagree about Fortune in the Beginning." +Anything that is true of all possible states should be ignored when +defining the possible states. Since rolling dice *always* involves a +decision to roll the dice, that particular decision is irrelevant: you +can't decide *not* to roll the dice and still have FitM/FatE, because +there wouldn't be any Fortune to discuss in that situation. Therefore, +it's irrelevant to Fortune in the Beginning, too. I would say that the +relevant mechanical decisions aren't those that affect *whether* you +roll, but *how*. Everything you said about FitM and FatE are true: if +your decisions boost or diminish your die roll in some way before you've +made the roll, that's FatE. If you can boost it afterwards, it's FitM. +If you can't modify it at all, it's FitB. However, I tried a FitB system +with Troubadours of Verticaille, and that game designs sucks. So my +conclusion is that FitB exists, but isn't useful. +*VB* go "JCL: fair enough." + +*This makes me go...* +Your initials: +Your response: +Explanation (optional): + +This is for short comments, corrections, praise, me toos, stuff like +that. Briefly, please! +Never mind. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +anyway. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/WhatsSystemIs.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/WhatsSystemIs.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1151 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Edit Profile +Logout + +Hey, *fabien*, you have 0 messages +, 0 are new. +Total time logged in: 20 minutes. +Show unread posts since last visit. + +Show new replies to your posts. + +February 14, 2006, 02:50:32 AM +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*195768* Posts in *18371* Topics by *5864* Members Latest Member: * - +sunshine8up +* Most +online today: *83* - most online ever: *143* (January 24, 2006, 05:56:13 +AM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *RPG Theory * +| | |-+ *Wait, What Matters Again? +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + 4 + Mark unread + +Send this topic + +Print + + +Author Topic: Wait, What Matters Again? (Read 2499 times) + +*Ben Lehman +* +Member + +Posts: 1400 + +splendidquetzl + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« * on:* July 14, 2004, 09:54:05 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wait, what Matters again? +Or +The Extent of Sys +Or +"If you have a D&D game without orc-killing, is it Drift?" +Or +"No complete RPG will ever be made." + +Jargon Alert: If you are not familiar with these terms as they are used +in Forge discourse, go and look them up before reading this: +1) The lumpley Principle (I call it lP sometimes), which I wield like a +fucking club all over this post. +2) Shared Imagined Space (which is my favoritest term ever) +3) Exploration +4) Exploration, components of (Situation, Setting, Color, blah, blah) +5) Credibility +6) Drift + +Curse Alert: For some reason, I am particularly vulgar in this essay. + +System does Matter. + +What? + +What matters? + +Good question. + +What the hell is this "System" anyway? + +Well, for a lot of people, this is like art and porn -- they know it +when they see it. This is not a satisfactory definition to me and, I +venture, should not be a satisfactory definition for anyone who gives a +damn about discussing the theory of RPGs which is probably everyone +reading this post since the god-damn forum is called "RPG Theory." I +mean fuck, people. If you're not interested in RPG theory I can't +exactly hold your fucking hand through this thing, can I? Just go read +your pansy "Actual Play" or suck it up, stay here with the theory wonks, +and quitcherbitchin. + +That intro was actually a little misleading -- I'm going to take my +definition from the lumpley Principle (the only piece of role-playing +theory so low-budget it can only afford one capital letter), so I +already have a definition in hand. But what I'm going to do is take a +look at that and go "holy fuck, that's a hell of a lot bigger than I +thought. Like, fuck, man! I gotta design all that shit?" Or +something. Basically, what I am saying here is "the System" covers a +huge range of stuff, only a small subset of which is ever talked about +or even acknowledged by game texts. + +So, okay. Let's look at the l.P. +"The System is the means by which players negotiate the contents of +their shared imagined space." + +Right. + +So what is it? What's in there? To find this, I'm going to "run the +statement backwards" and say that "The means by which the players +negotiate the contents of the shared imagined space is the System." I +realize that this is a different statement. Call it the "lumpley +Principle adjunct" or the "Little Timmy Principle" or, perhaps, the +"'kiss my ass, you 'systemless rpg' players' principle." + +Well, let's start with the obvious thing: Mechanics. + +What are mechanics? Mechanics are things which say "If your roll of +17d7 is greater than or equal to the target number correlated from +charts 2.5 to 6.4.1 inclusive, your character succeeds." Or, "The +character with the higher Warfare will, all things being equal, win any +strategic or tactical situation." Or, "when Virgo is ascendant, the +leftmost player takes on the role of High Priestess, which means that +she speaks for the Mother in all things, particularly to combat with +axes, maces, and tangerines." Essentially, mechanics are anything which +resolves situations in the RPG through deliberate, particular means, +often mathematical. There's a hell of a lot of analysis of mechanics +out there. To some people, actually a lot of people, mechanics is all +there is to system. System and mechanics are the same thing. This +people are poorly informed assholes, fuckwits, and malcontents, not +worthy to lick the dirt out of my toenails. Or perhaps we just have +different definitions of system. Either/or. + +Are mechanics a part of system? Well, duh. Are they the whole shebang? + Not even fucking close. + +How about setting? A lot of gamers (including me) have this whole +hang-up about setting/system differences. A lot of people say that an +RPG text is comprised of setting and system. "So they're totally +different, right?" asks Little Timmy. + +Well, Little Timmy ("Don't call my little I am twenty-three") let's look +at the lumpley Principle. Hrm... Can setting effect the contents of +the shared imagined space? Fuck yes! Setting is the background of the +shared imagined space. In fact, I would say that, given the definition +of system from the lP, setting is often a greater component of system +than mechanics. I mean, which has more weight on the actual play of the +game "We are using the D&D mechanics" or "We are playing in the +Forgotten Realms?" Yeah. Hard question, ain't it? + +So Setting goes in the box. Wait, does this mean that all setting-less +game texts are fundamentally incomplete with regards to system. Yes. + Fucking right. Precisely so, Little Timmy. Now take your medicine and +get out of my face. + +Okay, how about situation? Marco talked about this a little bit with me +recently, which is what set me off on this whole thing but, essentially, +does the basic situation of the game effect the shared imagined space? + Or, as he (roughly), put it, "is it still D&D if you aren't killing +orcs?" I used to be a big opponent of the idea that sitch could be a +part of system or, rather, I would talk about playing D&D *without +drift* (by which I meant Mechanical Drift). + +I was a fucking bonehead. *I'm* not even fit to lick to dirt out of my +own toenails. Look, can situation be used, by a player, to make a +statement about the shared imagined space? Yes. Of course. If it +can't, well, I don't know what it is. It's like the situation has +nothing to do with what's going on in the game? Whatever. It doesn't +happen. + +Okay, let's stop it with this piece-by-piece shit and just eat the whole +pie like the fucking fat pigs we are: What isn't System? What, in the +entire act of role-playing, is not a part of System, as it is defined by +my god and saviour, Vincent "lumpley" Baker (whose principle I'm sure +you are sick of hearing of, at this point)? + +Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some +such) -- System +Who ordered pizza? -- most likely system. I mean, you don't want to +kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene. That's just low. +The emotional state of all the players? -- System, definitely. More +important to System than mechanics, more'n likely. +That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I +think. This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find. + +I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not, +in some regard, a part of System. I can't even conceive of the +possibility of their being such an element. Please offer suggestions, +if you can. + +So, okay, what does that mean to designers? + +Well, it is pretty fucking obvious that no game text can, will, or +should present a totally complete system -- that is a game without +players. However, a lot of chunks of system (The GM-player +relationship, say, or the little social rules that game groups carry +with them) are carried from game to game totally unthinkingly, and that, +I think, needs to change. Essentially, for design, this means "look, by +offering a 'role-playing system' you are, in fact, offering an +incomplete item which will be interfaced with by the role-playing group +to create a whole system, which will in turn be used to manipulate the +particulars of their shared imagined space." + +So, the question that I have is: What does it mean to include a certain +system in a game text, in terms of effect on Actual Play? What does it +mean to leave it out? + +yrs-- +--Ben + +P.S. The first one who gets the "23 years old" reference gets a prize. + PM me or stick in a P.S. And, yes, Google is cheating. + +P.P.S. Tip o' the hat to Mike Mearls for the "no complete RPG" bit. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +These are our Games +This is my Blog + +*contracycle +* +Member + +Posts: 2371 + + +View Profile + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #1 on:* July 14, 2004, 10:51:03 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Erm, yes and no. + +Its true to say that I cannot create a complete system in the sense you +appear to describe. The actual physical game that actually happens is +largely beyond my control. + +But this is a restriction that applies to many things and is IMO +implicit in the creation of any device for use by anyone other than the +designer. IMO this is Not An Issue; it was resolved by the +identifiication that textual rules are only contributory elements to the +social contract, which is the real mechanism governing the human +interactions. + +But being contributary elements, they do serve to inform the negotiation +of that social contract and do bring the designer into the conversation +at the table, as it were. That is the purpose of system. By analogy, I +cannot perhaps construct a system that produces faultless justice; but I +can propose a system of trial by jury if I think that this prior +discussion of local social contract would be useful to the pursuit of +justice. + +System matters in that respect. System is an overt implementation of +social contract. + +Now I have previously proposed that in essence, among players suitably +familiar with the form and process of RPG, no real 'RPG product' +purchase is necessary at all. They could just pick up a book, and refer +to that book as if it were the RPG world. With any of a number of +generic or favoured system, they could have some sort of game. + +So in that sense one might indeed say system is not very necessary at +all. But we do think system is necessary - and I believe we think this +becuase it frames our interactions with the SIS. We resolve conflicts, +and thus determine what enters the SIS, for example. And that is why +IMO particular system matters even when system in abstract falls away +into the nebulous social contract. Any actual implementation of a +particular system gives instructions to players: you do this after that +after the other for such a goal. Actual human behaviour - sure pretty +unimportant, but still actual - is being governed to an extent by the +designer and the design, exactly as it might be in a beauracracy or +engineering system. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Impeach the bomber boys: +www.impeachblair.org +www.impeachbush.org + +"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship +without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." +- Leonardo da Vinci + +*Paganini * +Member + +Posts: 1046 + +34492883 +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Re: Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #2 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:00:35 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I just want to point out one of those aspects of the lP that seems +obvious, but that will be news to a lot of traditional-style RPG +designers. Yeah, "mechanics" and "system" are not synonyms here. +Mechanics may be a big part of system, but they're not the *entirity* of +system. + +Turn that around, though, and think about this: *not all rules / +mechanics are part of the system.* A lot of times, especially in +home-brew games, you'll see mechanics tacked on that, maybe, the +designer liked in some other game, but didn't really understand the +point of - with the net effect that the mechanic actually does nothing +at all in terms of System. It's just kind of *there,* fogging up the +works, but when you really look at it, it doesn't go anywhere. + +But, to answer your question, what you're doing when you write a system +is informing the players about your vision of play. What you leave out, +they will be forced to make up on their own. If their personalities are +incompatible with making up that particular stuff, then they will want +to play a game. + +A lot of people don't want to play freeform... but they will play "The +Window," which is functionally equivalent to Freeform, AFAIAC. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +*http://www.livejournal.com/users/taiji_jian/* +*http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/indie-netgaming/* + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1718 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #3 on:* July 15, 2004, 01:33:29 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, + +If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of +system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it) +then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to +the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other +but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed. + +That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of +coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and +situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway. + +-Marco + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*Kesher * +Member + +Posts: 119 + +ulfias@hotmail.com +View Profile + +Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #4 on:* July 15, 2004, 04:21:27 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some +such) -- System +Who ordered pizza? -- most likely system. I mean, you don't want to +kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene. That's just low. +The emotional state of all the players? -- System, definitely. More +important to System than mechanics, more'n likely. +That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I +think. This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find. + + +It seems to me that Vincent approaches some of this in the Theory +section of the lumpley games website (Burning Down the Firewall): + +http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/hardcore.html + +I actually got really excited when I read this, because it seemed so +(blindsidingly) commonsensical. And Ben, I don't see the "lucky +20-sider" as borderline in this consideration at all. + +I think that explicitly addressing what goes on, realistically, +dynamically when people are in-the-act-of-gaming, as part of the overall +system is a powerful design question. How does the game require players +to /behave/ while playing? What happens to the game if they /don't/ +behave that way, & should it then be considered drift? + +I never had any interest in playing Wraith (though a friend of mine was +always bugging me to do so) because I didn't care to adopt the mindset +or around-the-table-behaviors the "system" (in Ben's larger sense) +seemed to demand. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Sometimes the sunset doesn't want to be photographed + --- Hood + + http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/indiemn/ + +*John Kim +* +Member + +Posts: 1791 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #5 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:27:56 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Marco + If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of +system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it) +then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to +the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other +but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed. + +That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of +coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and +situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway. + +Yeah. I remember having touched on this before, but I can't remember +the threads. There are tons of games which specify setting. I would +say using Lord of the Rings or Skyrealms of Jorune for a different +setting is a far more major change to system than, say, ignoring +alignment rules. There are a few games which specify character, like +Timelord (1991) or Run Out the Guns (1998). There are also a few which +specify situation -- i.e. scenario-based games like the Sandman series +(1985) or Pokemon Jr (1999). + +So here's the big question. So creating new characters in Timelord is a +change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution +mechanics. But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The +Pool is not a change to system. But that seems to make them unequal. A +problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that +you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +- John + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2053 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Online) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #6 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:47:16 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, can I introduce something? I think it may be helpful. + +There are three things your System has to coordinate. ("System" in the +full implications of the lumpy piddle sense: the on-the-fly +fully-negotiated mercurial real-people's-moods-and-habits /process/ that +you're using to negotiate what happens.) + +It has to coordinate: +A) the wholly imaginary things and events in the "game world"; +B) real-world abstractions and representations of those things and +events: maps, numbers, dice, "hit points," etc. +C) the interactions of the actual human beings. + +For instance, a rule like "whoever rolls higher on the attack roll +inflicts damage on the defender" operates only on B and C: it expects +the human beings to interact to manipulate some "attack roll" and "hit +points" at the representation level. Add to the rule "... and describe +the change in the fighters' circumstances" and you bring in A: now it +expects the human beings to make changes to the imaginary stuff, not +just the abstractions. Or add to the rule "... but first give the +fighters bonuses to their attack rolls depending on their circumstances" +brings A in too, in a slightly different way. The former: changes to A +(the fictional circumstances) depend on what happens with B (the +representations). The latter: what happens with B changes depending on +details of A. Both together: A informs B, B informs A. In all cases: +...according to the direct and active attention of C, the players. + +You can imagine rules where A's informing of B is left to the subjective +interpretation of C ("... but first the GM gives the fighters whatever +bonuses seem called for"). You can imagine rules where A's informing of +B is cut and dried ("... and any fighter whose lover is watching the +fight gets +3 to the attack roll"). You can imagine rules where, +instead, /B/ informs B ("... and the fighter with the higher number +written next to 'Fighting' gets +3 to the attack roll"). + +You can imagine rules that coordinate only A and C ("only Bob is allowed +to introduce NPCs," "give Bob's character something to do so he doesn't +go play video games") or act only at C ("go along with Bob, he's had a +rough day") as well. Lots of play happens like this. Freeform play is +easy to understand in this light. + +So: now we ought to be able to talk about the real differences between +1) creating a town, 2) the town itself, 3) getting your group's assent +to the town, 4) creating a critical hits table, 5) the critical hits +table itself, and 6) getting your group's assent to the table, plus 7) +proposing a change to the in-game Sitch (like "I hit him"), 8) the +change itself, and 9) getting your group's assent to /it/. + +We ought to be able to look critically at a particular set of rules' +coordination of the three levels. Are there holes? Contradictions? + Unsupported assertions? Wrong guesses? Backfires? According to the +rules, /who gets to say what about what?/ and /what are the group's +interests when they do so?/ + +And then we ought to be able to look critically at the rules in actual +play. Are they easy to follow? (Did we even follow them?) Are they +fun, satisfying, challenging, surprising? How do they flex under +pressure from various social dynamics? How do they divert or transform +various social dynamics? As it actually happened, /who got to say what +about what?/ and /did it serve the group's interests when they did so?/ +and /was it what the game text promised?/ + +(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +-Vincent + Logged + + + +*Bankuei * +Member + +Posts: 1876 + +bankuei +View Profile + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #7 on:* July 15, 2004, 07:55:33 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Ben, + +I with you all the way except "System defines out of game situations"... + Try, Social Contract defines everything, including System. System is +everything specific to the game, and Social Contract is everything with +everybody, including the game. + +The lumpley Principle defines System by going /above/ it. + +thoughts? + +Chris + Logged + + + +*efindel * +Member + +Posts: 141 + +89087518 + +targaroth +efindel +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #8 on:* July 15, 2004, 08:53:13 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I have to disagree with Setting coming under System here. The lP states +that "System is the /means/ by which players /negotiate/ the contents of +their shared imagined space." + +Setting is part of the contents -- but Setting in and of itself is not a +/means/. It is among the objects being manipulated. Statements about +the shared imaginative space are also not System -- they are not +/negotiating/ anything, they are simply stating a point of view about +what's there. + +So, going by this... the situation is a part of the shared imaginative +space -- but it is not System. The methods by which situation is +decided, and the methods by which it affects other things -- those are +System, but the situation itself is not. + +The fact that, say, a town exists in the setting is not System -- but +the general social contract rule of "we do not contradict established +fact about the setting" -- that /is/ System. (Note, though, that it is +by no means required -- e.g., in a game which takes place in dreams, +contradicting established fact may be explicitly allowed. It's nothing +unusual to have a dream which starts in one place, but that suddenly +turns into a completely different place halfway through, or to start +with one person there with you, then have that turn into someone else, +or disappear.) + +Finally, to bring in an analogy (bad idea, I know...), System is a set +of functions. The inputs to those functions are not necessarily System, +and the outputs are not necessarily System (though they may form objects +for other System functions to work on)... System is the things that are +done with those inputs to produce those outputs. Something like the +players' current emtional state, to me, is an input -- it is not System +in and of itself, but it is something which may affect what the System does. + Logged + + + +*John Harper +* +Member + +Posts: 612 + +flip you for real + + +View Profile + WWW + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #9 on:* July 15, 2004, 09:16:26 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I gotta agree with efindel. Ben's first conclusion just doesn't work for +me. I mean this bit: +Quote +I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not, +in some regard, a part of System. + +This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the term +to zero as far as I can tell. + +Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the +lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate +the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two +parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and +Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is +established... that's system. + +Attempting to converge these two into one big uber-definition of +"system" seems to reduce the LP to this: "The System is the means by +which players negotiate the contents of their System." Wha? +System-as-process makes sense to me. System-as-entire-act-of-roleplaying +does not. + +My lucky 20-sider is not process. The gaming table is not process. My +emotional state is not process. All of those things can /affect/ the +process, to be sure, but they are not the process itself. Let's not +confuse the hammer and the boards for the act of nailing the boards +together. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The Mighty Atom -- My design blog for +Danger Patrol, Stranger Things + and other projects + +*John Kim +* +Member + +Posts: 1791 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #10 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:27:23 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: John Harper + This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the +term to zero as far as I can tell. + +Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the +lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate +the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two +parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and +Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is +established... that's system. + +In practice, though, this is a very fuzzy line to draw. Most written +RPG rules generally include things in the Shared Imaginary Space. i.e. +A rule might be "Fire Giants are immune to fire". This is a written +game rule, and it can be used to arbitrate disputes, but it is also a +part of the Shared Imaginary Space. As another example, try to separate +out the Amber DRPG magic rules from magic in the Amber setting. + +So let's take an action. i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the +giant." OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook. + He sees the sentence which says they are immune. The GM says "It has +no effect." Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and +says "What the heck? It should damage him." The GM then cites the +rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on. + +Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules at +all. It is the process. i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk and +agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is just +part of the Setting. But this means that all or nearly all of system +just reduces down to the participants agreeing. + +Quote from: lumpley + (Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +Right, that's what I was trying to say (although apparently not well). + The exact same thing (i.e. designing a setting, for example), which is +"Drift" for one system, is "customization" for another system. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +- John + +*John Harper +* +Member + +Posts: 612 + +flip you for real + + +View Profile + WWW + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #11 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:45:09 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, John. Based on the way I +understand the term "System", this is what I make of your example. + +"Fire Giants are immune to fire" is a quality that Fire Giants have. +Therefore, it's part of the Setting, which in turn is part of the SIS +that the group is negotiating from moment to moment. + +The player says "I cast a fire bolt at the giant." Now System steps in. +How do we determine what happens in the SIS now? According to your +example, the system in place seems to be "The GM should look at the +qualities of the target and see if it is immune to the attack. If so, +the attack has no effect." In the example, the GM exercises this bit of +system, and adjusts the SIS accordingly: "The bolt has no effect." + +System is the /process/ by which the GM made the judgement about +immunities and their effects in play. If the player complains, simply +pointing at the entry in the rulebook isn't quite sufficient. The book +says Fire Giants are immune to fire. So what? The book isn't playing the +game. The GM has to engage System in order to get this element of +Setting into the SIS. + +Now, this example is less than ideal, becase the bit of System that gets +used is something that is almost always unspoken in play and is almost +never mentioned in the rules. D&D3E is the only game I can think of +off-hand that bothers to actually have a written rule explaining what an +immunity is and how it impacts play. For most groups this would just be +"common sense." + +Nevertheless, choosing to apply a bit of Setting to a particular moment +of play and /how/ to apply it and /why/ and who gets to say what... +that's System. The Fire Giant's quality is used by the System but it is +not the System itself. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The Mighty Atom -- My design blog for +Danger Patrol, Stranger Things + and other projects + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1718 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #12 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:59:24 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: lumpley +(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +-Vincent + + +I wouldn't consider choosing humanity Drift. That /is/ pretty basic. But +if I construct a town so there's none of element 'X' in the game and +element 'X' is something that's mentioned in the rules is that Drift? Is +it Drift if I play TRoS without a lot of attention given to Flaws? + +Where does one draw the line? + +Recently Ron says: +Quote + +Easy #1. Maybe your group did Drift some. Is that so hard to imagine? If +you and your group are very good at CA-Y, then you can get there by +maximizing what the game can offer along those lines, no matter how +meager, even if you still apply the other (bulk) of the text. + +That seems like he's saying some types of "by-the-book play" are in fact +drift if the book doesn't specifically say what to emphasize or lessen. + +-Marco + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*efindel * +Member + +Posts: 141 + +89087518 + +targaroth +efindel +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #13 on:* July 15, 2004, 02:06:43 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: John Kim + +So let's take an action. i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the +giant." OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook. He +sees the sentence which says they are immune. The GM says "It has no +effect." Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and +says "What the heck? It should damage him." The GM then cites the +rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on. + + Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules +at all. It is the process. i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk +and agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is +just part of the Setting. But this means that all or nearly all of +system just reduces down to the participants agreeing. + + +A note here -- D&D 3 uses the phrase "immune to" many times... but +doesn't really define what that means. It's generally interpreted as +meaning "is not affected by". + +However... that's not the only possible interpretation, and other games +have Systems which give other interpretations. For example, the old +Advanced Marvel Superheroes RPG stated that "immune to X" meant that the +character/being/whatever had "class 1000" resistance to that thing... +and thus, for example, something that was "immune to fire" could still +be burnt -- it just took the heat of a sun's heart or something similar +to do it. + +Mutants & Masterminds also formally defines "immune to",with its +"Immunity" feat -- there, it's defined to mean that the thing in +question cannot be harmed by the condition in question and automatically +makes saving throws or ability checks against it... /but/ actual +/attacks/ based on the thing in question still can hurt the thing, but +can only cause Stun damage, not Lethal. + +Lastly, one complaint often leveled against the Hero System is that +there is no simple, clean way to model "X is immune to fire" (or cold, +or electricity...) in it. Any "immunity to fire" would have to be +defined in System terms as something like some large number of points of +Energy Defense with a Limitation of "only versus fire" (or Damage +Reduction only versus fire coupled with ED only versus fire, or there +are other alternative builds). The exact System effect of "immune to +fire" would depend on how you built it. + +Thus, in each of these four games, the Setting fact "fire giants are +immune to fire" would mean different things -- because of the three +different Systems. + Logged + + + +*M. J. Young +* +Member + +Posts: 2121 + +1735114 +MarkJYoung +tiras1 +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +« *Reply #14 on:* July 15, 2004, 03:35:57 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Dang, Ben. To quote an excellent movie, "Now you walk into a bar, and +sailors come running out." + +This idea seems to have popped up everywhere today. I'll call your +attention to my reply to Sean's thread +/http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12012 <"">Setting as Part +of System/, and say see that for why I think that's correct, and perhaps +more helpfully /in what sense/ that is correct. +Quote from: John Kim +So here's the big question. So creating new characters in Timelord is a +change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution +mechanics. But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The +Pool is not a change to system. But that seems to make them unequal. A +problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that +you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash. + +Sort of. That is, that is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the +other side. At some point you create the potential for incoherence by +failing to provide sufficient information to inform play. + +Incoherent design means design that fosters incoherent play. In complex +design, this most commonly happens because rules prove to be +contradictory in what they encourage, and players develop their groups' +systems based on which rules fit their expectations for the game. If +players in the same group have different expectations based on +emphasizing and deemphasizing different rules in the text, incoherence +results from the conflicts in those expectations. + +It is less common but just as plausible for incoherence to result from a +failure to provide sufficient information to inform play. If after +reading the rules I don't actually know what it is you expect of a game, +and the rules as writ are insufficient to cause that to occur if I +follow them, then I'm going to start "filling in the gaps" with what "I +think" the designer intended. This, too, can create incoherence, if in +the absence of sufficient directive we have different ideas of what the +designer intended, and in structuring what we think was intended we +create conflicting systems from the same minimalist rules. + +Rules heavy systems, detailed and expansive packages, don't necessarily +lead to incoherence, as long as that which is provided works together +correctly. Rules light systems and systems without setting don't +necessarily lead to incoherence as long as there is sufficient guidance +to point to the way the game is played. I hope Multiverser is an example +of success in the former category; I think Universalis is a success in +the latter. + +--M. J. Young + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Check out /Multiverser / +M. J. Young Net + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + 4 + Mark unread + +Send this topic + +Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/bigmodelpic.pdf Binary file references/bigmodelpic.pdf has changed 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 diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/forge_glossary.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/forge_glossary.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1305 @@ +The Forge The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games +About the Forge | Support The Forge | Articles + | Reviews | Resource Library | +Forums + + + + The Provisional Glossary + +by Ron Edwards > +Copyright 2004 Adept Press + +Many thanks to Vincent Baker, Emily Care Boss, Steve Samson, Julie +Stauffer, and Ralph Mazza for their help with the first draft for this +project. + +As the title implies, this is a provisional version of what I hope will +become a standing Glossary for the Forge. Everyone is invited to comment +according to the following guidelines: + + * + + We can debate endlessly about the exact perfect phrasing for a + definition, but let's not. Please take into account that at least + a hundred other people have just as much justification for their + favored phrasings as you do for yours. If you propose an alternate + phrasing, please do so by backing up your point with thread + references. + + * + + The purpose for the Glossary is solely to provide help to people + as they enter into discussions at the Forge. It is not supposed to + be the primary teaching instrument for any concept, nor is it a + belief system that must be accepted or agreed with in order to + participate. + +The main reason this whole thing has taken so long is that I do not see +an easy way to separate a Forge Glossary authored by myself from a +presentation/essay about my particular take on issues discussed at the +Forge. It is flatly impossible for me to please everyone by representing +all of their individual takes on these issues ? some of you may find +terms that I've pegged as controversial as perfectly clear; others may +find terms that I don't peg controversial as being so. So I say these +two things: + + * + + Yes, I wrote this document. So yes, it reflects a lot of my values + and the framework for role-playing that at present I think makes + the most sense. + + * + + My goal, as I stated above, is utility for others, especially + those who haven't been involved in debating these issues for + years. So bear that in mind ? it's not supposed to represent your + sophisticated understanding of controversial nuances. Evaluate it + from the eyes of someone who needs it. + +So if you think that my personal take on the issues has clouded the goal +for any particular term, then say so and try to back up your argument +with clear logic. I'm willing to make changes on this basis, but not on +the basis that you ?feel? a newcomer will be confused. + +I haven't included the actual links to the indicated threads, mainly +because that would delay this posting by at least a week, and it's time +to get it off the ground. They'll get added in the next iteration. I +figure maybe a month of discussion about this version is a good plan. If +you can think of other relevant threads (remember: helpfulness), then +suggest them. I'm also interested in getting links to articles by others +for specific terms (e.g. M.J./s 'Applied Design/, etc); the question is, +which terms. + +Finally, some of the terms are desperately in need of discussion and +revision: ?Metagame? as a character component really sucks; and I'm +proposing ?Positioning? instead. In fact, ?metagame mechanics? seems to +be a broken term as well (an older thread convinced me). And a few +others. I'm certainly happy to see what people think of these, but +again, please do the reading and reflection necessary before you bomb in +with your reactions. + + + Part One: the Big Model + +The following key concepts and how they inter-relate form a foundation +for nearly all of the other terms, which provide examples, refinements, +or sub-sets for them. + +The key concepts are: + +*The Big Model, Social Contract, Exploration, Shared Imagined Space, +Creative Agenda, Techniques, Ephemera, Lumpley Principle, and Coherence* + +Most of the other terms on the list only take on their meaning when +considered in the framework of these concepts and their interactions. + +Big model pic (PDF) + +Big model, the + + A description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social + interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each + internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be + an expression of the box(es) containing it. See the discussion in + /Narrativism: Story Now/ and /The big model - this is it/. + +Coherence + + The degree to which one or a combination of Creative Agendas are + accepted and reinforced among members of a role-playing group. + Coherence may also be applied to game design, but only indirectly, + in terms of whether it does or does not facilitate such a shared + agenda. + +Creative Agenda (CA) + + The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest + regarding role-playing. Three distinct Creative Agendas are + currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream + (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist). This definition + replaces all uses of "Premise" in /GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory/ aside from the specific Creative Agenda of + Narrativist play. Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components + of Exploration, but most especially System. + +Ephemera + + Moment-to-moment or sentence-to-sentence actions and statements + during play. Combinations of Ephemera often construct Techniques. + Changes in Stance represent one example of an Ephemeral aspect of play. + +Exploration + + The imagination of fictional events, established through + communicating among one another. Exploration includes five + Components: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. See + also Shared Imagined Space (a near or total synonym). + +Lumpley Principle, the + + "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the + means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The + author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see Vincent?s standard + rant: power, credibility, and assent and Player power abuse. + +Social Contract + + All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, + including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and + expectations. All role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract. + +Techniques + + Specific procedures of play which, when employed together, are + sufficient to introduce fictional characters, places, or events into + the Shared Imagined Space. Many different Techniques may be used, in + different games, to establish the same sorts of events. A given + Technique is composed of a group of Ephemera which are employed + together. Taken in their entirety for a given instance of + role-playing, Techniques comprise System. + + + Part Two: the terms list + +I've tried to avoid outright tautology (B says "see A," A says "see B"), +but if you encounter a term that uses lots of other terms in the +definition, then you know you're pretty deep down in the key concept +framework. + +Abashed + + Game design which displays features of one or more Creative Agenda + that, in their applications, are operationally contradictory. It is + a minor form of design Incoherence. However, an Abashed design is + easily correctable by ignoring or altering isolated portions of the + rules (minor Drift) during play. See /Abashed Vanillaism/ and /my + review/ of Little Fears. + +Actor Stance + + The person playing a character determines the character's decisions + and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character + would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying + with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it + require in-character dialogue. See Stance. + +Address Premise, to + + To establish, develop, and resolve a Premise during play, with + emphasis on the decisions made by the protagonist characters. See + also Premise, Protagonism, and Story Now. + +Author Stance + + The person playing a character determines the character's decisions + and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the + character?s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not + include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the + actions. When it lacks this feature, it is called Pawn Stance. + +Authority + + The privilege given to a person, process, or written material to + establish anything into the Shared Imaginary Space. A controversial + topic; see also Credibility. + +Balance + + This term is undefined. Used without clarification by the user, it + typically diminishes the value of discussions about role-playing. + See the discussion in /Gamism: Step On Up/. + +Balance of Power + + How the "buck stops here" authority regarding resolution in play is + distributed among members of a role-playing group. A feature of + Social Contract, related to Credibility and GM-tasks, which directly + affects System. This term was first applied to role-playing + interactions by Hunter Logan. + +Bang + + The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a + thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for + a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. See also + Kicker. + +Beeg Horseshoe Theory, the + + A proposed visual model for the relationship among the three + Creative Agendas around a flat circle, with an "open space" for + Simulationist play, because it may not exist. First proposed by + Jared Sorensen as a criticism of Simulationist play (or + pseudo-play), then re-proposed by Mike Holmes in an effort to + validate Simulationist play. A controversial topic; see /The Beeg + Horseshoe Theory/, /Beeg Horseshoe Theory revisited/, and /The Roots + of Sim II/. + +Big Model, the + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Black Curtain + + The effects of a variety of Techniques a GM may employ to keep his + use of Force hidden from the other participants in the game, such + that they are at least somewhat under the impression that their + characters' significant decisions are under their control. See + Illusionism, Force, and the discussion in /Narrativism: Story Now/. + +Blood Opera + + Play in which character generation focuses on potentially + irreconcilable differences among at least some of the characters, + and in which scenario generation is designed to put as much pressure + on these differences (and therefore on unexpected alliances as + possible). Notable for high mortality rates among characters. An + example of Situation. Term coined by Ralph Mazza, Jake Norwood, and + Ron Edwards. + +Bob + + The Technique of withholding response or otherwise mandating a + "rest" in the action of play. Term coined in /Sex & Sorcery/. + +Breaking the game + + A dysfunctional Technique of Hard Core Gamist play, characterized by + rendering other participants' efforts ineffective without recourse. + +Calvinball + + A potentially-dysfunctional Technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by making up the rules of a game as it is played, + especially in the immediate context of advantaging oneself and + disadvantaging one's opponents. "Tagged you! Tags mean you're out!" + "It's Tuesday! Tagging doesn't work on Tuesdays!" Most so-called + "rules-lawyering" is actually Calvinballing. The term is taken from + the comic strip /Calvin & Hobbes/; see also /The Unofficial Official + Rules of Calvinball/. + +Challenge + + The Situation, i.e., adversity or imposed risk to player-characters + of any kind, in the context of Gamist play. It's the imaginative + arena for the Creative Agenda of Step On Up. See the Gamble and the + Crunch. + +Character + + A fictional person or entity which may perform actions in the + imaginary situation. One of the Components of Exploration. + +Character Components + + The System-specific features of a role-playing character. All are + present for all characters, even if one or more is not explicitly + part of the textual rules. See Effectiveness, Positioning, and + Resource; also see Currency. + +Coherence + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Color + + Imagined details about any or all of System, Character, Setting, or + Situation, added in such a way that does not change aspects of + action or resolution in the imagined scene. One of the Components of + Exploration. + +Competition + + Conflicts of interest such that goals achieved by one person bring a + disadvantage to one or more others. Competition may operate + independently (a) among people engaged in role-playing or (b) among + imaginary characters. An example of a Dial during play. Competition + may or may not be associated with Gamist play, but when it is + present among people, Gamist play is very likely to be occurring. + See /Gamism: Step On Up/. + +Components of Exploration + + In combination, the necessary parts of the imaginary content of a + role-playing situation. Separately, they include Character, Setting, + Situation, System, Color; see Exploration. + +Conflict resolution + + A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of + interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. + When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have + "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with + Task resolution. + +Congruence + + Play in which two or more different Creative Agendas may be + expressed in such a way that they neither interfere with one another + nor are easily distinguished through observation. The term was + coined by Walt Freitag in /GNS and "Congruency"/. A controversial + topic. + +Creative agenda (CA) + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Credibility + + The degree to which a given statement is adopted into the imaginary + events of play, with or without reference to rules. A feature of the + Lumpley Principle. Credibility may be applied to the statement + (imaginary event) itself or to the person who supplies it; see also + Authority. + +Cross + + The Technique of introducing effects from previous scenes into + current scenes, although the scenes do not contain the same + player-characters. Term coined in /Sex & Sorcery/. + +Crunch, the + + An application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability + relative to risk. A feature of Gamist play. + +Currency + + The exchange rate within and among Character Components. Currency + may or may not be explicit (e.g. "character points"), but it is a + universal feature of System, specifically as it relates to Character. + +Death spiral + + The effects of a mechanic which not only has negative effects on a + character, but also diminishes the Effectiveness of the ability to + resist the re-application of the mechanic. + +Deprotagonize (Paul Czege) + + To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish their + character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note that this + is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the limited + Narrativist context. + +Design + + This term is used in two distinct ways. (1) Referring to actual + play, it is the sum of interactions among Techniques. (2) Referring + to text, it is the written version of such interactions with the + implication of author intent. + +DFK + + Short for Drama, Fortune, and Karma, referring to the Resolution + mechanics of a given System, which may include any combination or + blending of the three. Terms originally presented in the game + /Everway/; altered in current usage. + +Dial + + A feature of System by which a given aspect of the imaginary + material may be increased or decreased, in terms of Effectiveness, + Color, or Points-of-Contact. Depending on the system, dials may be + "spun" before play (in which case their value is expected to be + fixed) or during play. The term was first presented in /Champions + Millenium/. + +Diceless + + Usually but not always referring to the absence of Fortune-based + resolution during play. Alternatively, refers to relying on Drama + Techniques for Resolution. See /GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory/ as well as /Dice and diceless: one designer?s + radical opinion/. A controversial topic. + +Dickweed character + + A character defined and played according to conflicts of interest + with the other characters; potentially a primary source of + adversity. The presence of a dickweed character does not require or + imply inter-player competition. + +Director Stance + + The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment + relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from + the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore + the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the + context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even + features of the world separate from the characters. Director Stance + is often confused with narration of an in-game event, but the two + concepts are not necessarily related. + +Drama + + Resolving imaginary events based on stated outcomes without + reference to numerical values or (in some cases) statements that + have been previously established (e.g. written on a character + sheet). See also DFK and Resolution. + +Dramatism + + One of the three styles of role-playing identified by Mary Kuhner in + the Threefold Model, but not recognized as a distinct Creative + Agenda in the Big Model. + +Drift + + Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of + shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically + through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by + openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule. + +Dysfunction + + Simply, role-playing which is not fun. Most Forge discussions + presume that un-fun role-playing is worse than no role-playing. + +Effectiveness + + A Character Component: quantities or terms which are directly used + to determine the success or extent of a character?s actions during + play. + +Egri, Lajos + + The author of /The Art of Dramatic Writing/ (1946); see Premise. + +El Dorado + + A term for the unrealizable ideal of consistently addressing Premise + through explicitly Simulationist play. This term is often + mis-interpreted as Simulationist-Narrativist hybrid play or any + number of other concepts. Coined by Paul Czege; see /Simulationism + and Narrativism under the same roof/ and /El Dorado/. + +Ephemera + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Exploration + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section.. + +Fantasy Heartbreaker + + A published role-playing game which retains specific aesthetic + assumptions from pre-3rd edition versions of Dungeons & Dragons. See + /Fantasy Heartbreakers/ and /More Fantasy Heartbreakers/. + +Five elements of Exploration + + See "Components of Exploration." + +Force + + The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant + decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is + applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result + is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then + "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes). + +Fortune + + A method of resolution employing unpredictable non-behavioral + elements, usually based on physical objects such as dice, cards, or + similar. See also DFK and Resolution. + +Fortune-at-the-End (FatE) + + Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) + /following/ the full descriptions of actions, physical placement, + and communication among characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and + associated links. + +Fortune-in-the-Middle (FitM) + + Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) prior to + fully describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and + communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in + establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be + employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or + failure (e.g. /Sorcerer/) or with the dice/etc outcome being + potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. /HeroQuest/). See + /my review/ of Hero Wars, see also discussions in the /Alyria forum/. + +Gamble, the + + An application or type of Challenge, based on high risk relative to + predictability. A feature of Gamist play. + +Gamism (Gamist play) + + One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. The term was + first proposed by Mary Kuhner for the Threefold Model; its usage is + very similar in the Big Model. See Step On Up. + +Generalist + + A role-playing game design which is non-specific for Setting. + Typically such games correspond to the Purist-for-System parameters. + See /Simulationism: the Right to Dream/. + +Genre + + This term is undefined, in practice, and requires clarification by + its user to be meaningful. Arguably its content is accounted for + upon identifying the Components of Exploration in a role-playing + situation. See /GNS and related matters of role-playing theory/ for + the complete discussion. + +Genre Expectations + + A Technique of establishing the Components of Exploration through a + pre-play discussion among the participants, usually with references + to previous sources, articulating what is to be customized or + conformed to; highly integrated with thematic elements. The term was + employed regarding role-playing by Fang Langford. + +GM (Game Master) + + Traditionally, a designated person given responsibility for some or + all of the GMing Tasks. Since the actual tasks and authority over + them varies widely across role-playing, this term has many different + meanings. See GMing Tasks. The phrase "/the/ GM" implies that the + GMing-tasks are concentrated in the hands of one person. + +GM-Force + + See Force. + +GM-ful play + + The Technique of distributing GMing Tasks across all the members of + a role-playing group, up to and including re-distributing them + during play, as opposed to concentrating them in one person. Coined + by Emily Care Boss. See /An approach for mechanics and innovation/. + +GM-oomph + + See Force. + +GMing-Tasks + + A family of tasks which are necessary to establish the Components of + Exploration as play proceeds. They all concern Credibility regarding + Scene Framing, IIEE, and Resolution. Significantly, not all + instances of role-playing include the same GMing tasks or organize + them in the same way; using the term "GM" or "GMing" is often + problematic as different people organize and negotiate GMing tasks + differently. See /Narrativism: Story Now/ for a list of GMing tasks. + +Gnarliburr + + A character which cannot engage in relevant interaction with other + characters and lacks identification-value for participants. Term + introduced by David Kwill and the CLAWS society; see /Suspension of + reality and playing odd characters/. + +GNS + + Abbreviation for Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. When used + as a single term, synonymous with Creative Agenda. Formerly referred + to as "G/N/S." + +Handling Time + + The real time required to process, calculate, and interpret a + resolution Technique once its procedures have been applied. See also + Search Time. + +Hard Core + + Gamist play with minimal or even absent Exploration and high levels + of inter-player competition; see Breaking the game, Calvinball, + Powergaming, and Turnin'. + +High-Concept Simulationism + + Play which strongly emphasizes an embedded theme and possibly a + fixed storyline. Contrast with Purist for System. See + /Simulationism: the Right to Dream/. + +Hybrid + + Play which combines two or more Creative Agendas. Observed + functional hybrids to date include only two rather than all three, + and one of the agendas is apparently primary or dominant, with the + other playing a supportive role. See /my review/ of /The Riddle of + Steel/. + +IIEE + + Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events + in the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of (1) real-world + announcement and (2) imaginary order of occurrence. See /The four + steps of action/ and /What is IIEC?/ A necessary feature of System + during play, usually represented by several Techniques and many + Ephemera. + +Illusionism + + A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of + story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character + decisions, in which he or she has authority over + resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily + recognize these features. See /Illusionism: a new look and a new + approach/ and /Illusionism and GNS/. Term coined by Paul Elliott. + +Immersion + + This term has no single definition. Some uses, among others, + include: (a) undivided attention to the Shared Imagined Space, (b) + the absence of overtly stating features of Social Contract and + Creative Agenda, (c) strong identification with one?s imaginary + character. See /Why immersion is a tar baby 'and 'Immersive Story/ + by John Kim. + +Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the + + "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the + actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many + role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible + in the presence of the other. See /Narrativism: Story Now/. + +In-character (IC) + + An Ephemera. A style of narration using first-person point of view + to describe character dialogue or actions. Neither IC or + Out-of-Character (OOC) should be confused with Stance. + +Incoherence + + Play which includes incompatible combinations of Creative Agendas + among participants. Incoherent play is considered to contribute to + Dysfunctional play, but does not define it. Incoherence may be + applied indirectly to game rules. Abashedness represents a minor, + correctable form of Incoherence. + +Infamous Five, the + + A series of threads and sub-threads examining all the major topics + of the Forge in relation to one another, and which helped to shape + the community of the site. See /The Infamous Five/ for a complete + listing of links. + +Instance of play + + Sufficient time spent on role-playing necessary to identify all + features of System in operation. According to the Big Model, once + these features are identified and evaluated in terms of a given + group?s Social Contract, then Creative Agenda (or its absence) may + also be identified. In practice, an Instance of play is rarely + shorter than a full session, and may be much longer. + +Intuitive continuity + + A method of preparing role-playing sessions in which the GM uses the + players? interests and actions during initial play to construct the + back-story of the scenario retroactively. The term was first + presented in the game /Underworld/. + +Karma + + Resolution based on comparison of Effectiveness values alone. See + DFK and Resolution. + +Kicker + + Player-authored Situation incorporated into the character-creation + System; a formal version of Positioning. The term was first + presented in the game /Sorcerer/. + +Layering + + The relationship between the initial numbers derived for a character + (e.g. attributes) to the numbers eventually used most commonly in + play (Effectiveness values; e.g. combat to-hit values). The more + steps of derivation, the more the character creation system is said + to be layered. + +Line, the + + Techniques which reinforce the limits for content that is not + permitted to be included in the Explorative content of play, for a + particular group. See also the Veil. The term was introduced in /Sex + & Sorcery/. + +Lumpley Principle, the + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Mechanics + + Individual and specific features of System; Mechanics in text form + are "rules." + +Metagame (a Character Component) + + See Positioning. + +Metagame (general) + + All aspects of play that concern non-Explorative matters or + priorities; in terms of the Big Model, the levels of Social Contract + and Creative Agenda. + +Metagame mechanics + + Techniques which do not require justification using in-game cause, + in many cases including Author and Director Stances. In terms of the + Big Model, System is being conducted solely in terms of the Social + Contract, without Exploration as the medium. As it stands, this term + is misleading and is under discussion for renaming; see + Meta-metagame for links. + +Meta-metagame + + Synonymous with Metagame as the latter term is currently defined, + but contradictory to "metagame mechanic," which is currently under + revision. See /Purpose of rules/ and /Metagame & mechanics/. + +Metaplot + + This term is used in several different ways. (1) A sequence of + large-scale changes in setting and actions of NPCs which stimulate + conflicts, especially when planned to occur well in advance of play; + (2) a version of #1 generated through publications and expected to + be implemented by customers in their games, usually through the + agency of the GM; #2 or #3 which override players? degree of choice + regarding their characters? role, which is to say, which require + significant use of Force, usually by the GM. + +Munchkin + + A derogatory term used in several different ways, including by + non-Gamists vs. Gamists in general, by Hard Core or heavy-Step + Gamists vs. Wimps, and by high-Exploration Gamists vs. Hard Core + play. See /Gamism: Step On Up/. + +Narration + + A type of Ephemera. What is said by a game participant to alter or + add to the Shared Imaginary Space. How narration is distributed + among participants varies widely; to be fully accepted, narration + requires Credibility. + +Narrativism (Narrativist play) + + One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now. + +No Myth + + Intuitive Continuity which includes all Setting features (i.e. more + than just Situation). An extreme version of the general principle + that the Shared Imagined Space is established by people + communicating with one another. Term coined by Fang Langford. + +Omni-play + + A controversial term coined by Mike Holmes. Play in which two or + more distinctive and separate Creative Agendas are included; + conceivably a functional form of Incoherent play. See also + Congruence and Hybrid, as well as /The Omni-player/. + +One-step-removed + + Character Exploration which utilizes an intermediary persona for + different characters in episodic, unrelated settings and situations, + as in /Amazing Engine/, /Tales from the Crypt/, /Hong Kong Action + Theater/, and /Extreme Vengeance/. Term coined by John Marron. + +Ouija-board role-playing + + A form of Illusionism practiced among all the participants upon one + another to conceal both Step On Up and Story Now priorities from one + another. Term coined by Ron Edwards; see /Narrativism: Story Now/. + +Out-of-character (OOC) + + An Ephemera. A style of narration describing character actions or + dialogue in the third person. Neither OOC nor In-character (IC) + narration should be confused with any of the three Stances, nor with + any particular Creative Agenda. + +Participationism + + The Technique of using Force without the Black Curtain. Term coined + by Mike Holmes. + +Pastiche + + An artistic production which relies on invoking pre-existing + productions' features for its primary effect; at worst, a simple + imitation, but at best, potentially a strong secondary comment on + the original text. Often associated with "fanfic" or other forms of + homage. + +Pawn Stance + + A subset of Author Stance which lacks the retroactive "motivation" + of the character to perform the actions. Often but wrongly + identified with Gamist play. See Stance. + +Paying to Suck + + A feature of System in which buying an ability for a character with + some sort of Currency nets him with an low chance of success that is + even worse than an unskilled attempt. Widely considered undesirable. + Term?s origin uncertain; Ron Edwards first heard it employed by Rick + Ford. + +Pervy + + Game-play in which the Creative Agenda relies on highly-specific + Techniques and Ephemera, often applied multiple times per imaginary + event during play. More generally covered by the concept of Points + of Contact, which concerns the degree to which System is Explored. + See /Vanilla Narrativism/ and /Points of Contact/. + +Player + + A problematic term. (a) Any participant in a role-playing + experience, including the one or ones who carry out GM-tasks; or (b) + a participant who does not, or temporarily does not, carry out any + GM-tasks, and therefore concentrates primarily on the actions of a + single character. + +Points of Contact + + The steps of rules-consultation, either in the text or internally, + per unit of established imaginary content. This is not the same as + the long-standing debate between Rules-light and Rules-heavy + systems; either low or high Points of Contact systems can rely on + strict rules. See /Vanilla and Pervy/, /Pervy in my head/, /Cannot + stand cutesie-poo terms/, /Pervy Sim/, /points of contact, + accessibility/. + +Positioning + + A Character Component. Behavioral, social, and contextual statements + about a character. Formerly (and confusingly) called Metagame. See + also Currency. + +Powergaming + + A potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by maximizing character impact on the game-world or + player impact on the dialogue of play by whatever means available. + +Premise (adapted from Egri) + + A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in + the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best + understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to + the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the + process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise + into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or + believe. In role-playing, "protagonist" typically indicates a + character mainly controlled by one person. A defining feature of + Story Now. + +Prima Donna + + A Narrativist player who engages in Premise-addressing, but will not + share screen time or Premise-significant decision-making time with + other participants. An extremely dysfunctional subset of Narrativist + play. + +Protagonism + + A problematic term with two possible meanings. (1) A characteristic + of the main characters of stories, regardless of who produced the + stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set of behaviors among + people during role-playing, associated with Narrativist play, with a + necessary unnamed equivalent in Gamist play and possibly another in + Simulationist play. In the latter sense, coined by Paul Czege. + +Purist for System + + A category of design which emphasizes applying a set of simulated + physical and other in-game causes to a wide variety of possible + settings, characters, and situations. See /Simulationism: the Right + to Dream/. + +Railroading + + Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for + decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in + any way which breaks the Social Contract for that group, in the eyes + of the character's player. The term describes an interpretation of a + social and creative outcome rather than any specific Technique. + +Realism + + This term is undefined and must be locally specified in order to + make sense in a discussion of role-playing. + +Relationship map + + A Technique for play-preparation which primarily, although not + exclusively, outlines the ties of sexual contact and kinship among + characters. Typically these ties are not immediately known to the + protagonist characters. The term was first presented in /The + Sorcerer?s Soul/. Compare to the group-based and more general + Technique of Storymapping. + +Resolution + + Establishing fictional events into the time-sequence of the Shared + Imaginary Space. Includes DFK, IIEE, and narration, among other + things. A necessary feature of System. + +Resource + + A Character Component. An available quantity upon which + Effectiveness or Positioning mechanics may draw, or which are + reduced to reflect harm to the character. Arguably applicable to + non-character components of play as well. + +Reward System + + (a) The personal and social gratification derived from role-playing, + a feature of Creative Agenda. (b) In-game changes, usually to a + player-character, a feature of System and Character. (c) As a subset + to (b), improvement to one or more of the character?s Components. + Typically, the term refers to how (a) is facilitated by (b). + +Right to Dream, the + + Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their + in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the + three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for + role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See + /Simulationism: the Right to Dream/. + +Roads to Rome + + A technique of scenario preparation in which the GM has prepared a + climactic scene and maneuvers or otherwise determines that character + activity leads to this scene. + +Roles, "role levels + + "(1) The player's social role in terms of his character - the mom, + the jokester, the organizer, the placator, etc. (2) The character's + thematic or operational role relative to the other characters - the + leader, the brick, the betrayer, the ingenue, etc. (3) The + character's in-game occupation or social role - the pilot, the + mercenary, the alien wanderer, etc. (4) The character's specific + Effectiveness values - armor rating, weapon attributes, specific + skills and their values, available funds, etc. See /The class issue/. + +Rules + + Textual instruction about (a) anything and everything concerning + role-playing this particular game, or (b) specifically Techniques + and Ephemera. Used in this sense, Rules are distinct from the System + actually employed during play, although it may be used as a + reference or justification for it. + +Scene Framing + + A GM-task in which many possible Techniques are used to establish + when a sequence of imaginary events begins and ends, what characters + are involved, and where it takes place. Analogous to a "cut" in film + editing which skips fictional time and/or changes location. A + necessary feature of System. + +Screen Time + + The extent of attention afforded to a given player's Explorative + contributions from the other participants, with special emphasis on + that participant?s access to applying the System. A type of Ephemera. + +Search Time + + The real time required to determine necessary values or information + prior to applying a resolution Technique. See also Handling Time. + +Setting + + Elements described about a fictitious game world including period, + locations, cultures, historical events, and characters, usually at a + large scale relative to the presence of the player-characters. A + Component of Exploration. + +Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination) + + The fictional content of play as it is established among + participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript + (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near + or total synonym). + +Skewer + + A description of a given person?s preferred way to role-play, + "piercing" down from Social Contract through all the layers of the + Big Model. Most player-classification lists (/Strike Force/, + /Champions 4th edition/, /Robin?s Laws/) present Skewers. Term + coined by Ron Edwards. + +Simulationism (Simulationist play) + + One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See The + Right to Dream. + +Simulationist-by-habit + + A form of Synecdoche which defines "role-playing" according to + certain historically-widespread Simulationist approaches to play. + The system's job is to provide the physics of the game-world" is a + good example. Term coined by Jesse Burneko. + +Situation + + Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale + setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of + Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character + and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, + Bang, and Challenge. + +Social Context + + How role-playing as an activity relates to one's social life in + general. See /Social Context/ and /What does role-playing gaming + accomplish?/. + +Social Contract + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Stakes + + What stands to be lost and/or gained during Gamist play; the term + may be applied at either or both Step on Up (participants) or + Challenge (characters) levels of play. + +Stance + + The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character. + Differences among Stances should not be confused with IC vs. OOC + narration. Originally coined in the RFGA on-line discussions; see + /John Kim?s website/ for archives. Current usage modified in /GNS + and other matters of role-playing theory/. See Author, Actor, and + Director Stance. + +Step On Up + + Social assessment of personal strategy and guts among the + participants in the face of risk. One of the three + currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of + role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play. + +Story + + An imaginary series of events which includes at least one + protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be + construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of + Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may + produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed. + +Story Now + + Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) + Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the + Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three + currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of + role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play. + +Storymap + + A technique of scenario preparation in which all participants + present situations, locales, problems, and characters, after which + most of the participants choose characters to play individually. + First presented in /Legends of Alyria/. + +Switch + + A customizable aspect of System which allows participants to allow + it to be present or absent during play, often for the whole of that + particular group?s play. A Dial with two settings (on/off). Also + called a toggle. The term was first presented in /Champions Millenium/. + +Synecdoche + + Taking a part for the whole, or vice versa. A common problem in + discussing Creative Agenda; see /GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory/. + +System + + The means by which imaginary events are established during play, + including character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward + procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional + time into the Shared Imagined Space. See also the Lumpley Principle. + +Task resolution + + A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on + within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the + acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with + Conflict resolution. + +Techniques + + /This is a key concept/. See the first section. + +Tells + + Social indicators of a given person?s preference for a Creative + Agenda, during play. + +Theme + + The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an + audience member, about a fictional series of events. The presence of + a theme is the defining feature of Story as opposed to Transcript. + See /Narrativism: Story Now/. + +Threefold Model + + A description of three distinct "styles" of role-playing, proposed + by Mary Kuhner and further developed in on-line discussions. See + /John Kim?s website/ for archives. The Threefold Model inspired but + is not identical to the Creative Agenda feature of the Big Model. + +Trailblazing + + A set of Techniques including Scene Framing and Force, but reducing + Force when resolving conflicts within the scene. Term coined by M.J. + Young; see /Does module play equal Participationism?/. + +Transcript + + An account of the imaginary events of play without reference to + role-playing procedures. A Transcript may or may not be a Story. + +Transition + + Theoretically, changing from one Creative Agenda to another through + the course of play using rules designed to make that process easy. + Coined by Fang Langford in reference to his unfinished game design + /Scattershot/. + +Transparency + + Rules design that does not call attention to the rules in operation. + A controversial term; I suggest that it is subsumed within Coherence + without reference to any degree of rules? detail or their + quantitative vs. qualitative features. See /Transparency/ and + /Transparency again/. + +Turku role-playing (Elaaytyjivism) + + A mode of play presented as a manifesto, in which in-character + feeling and thinking is given the highest priority, to such an + extent that even communicating the experience to others is + secondary. By my terminology, Turku play is comprised of + Simulationism emphasizing Character Exploration, resolved mainly + using Drama or low Points-of-Contact Fortune mechanics, and highly + reinforced through an explicit Social Contract. See /The Turku + School/, /LARP manifesting/ in /The LARPer/ magazine, and /Dogma 99/. + +Turnin' + + A potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by treating one another's characters as the primary + source of Challenge. A functional equivalent in Narrativist play is + Blood Opera. + +Typhoid Mary + + A GM who employs Force in the interests of "a better story," usually + identifiable as addressing Premise; however, in doing so, the GM + automatically de-protagonizes Narrativist players and therefore + undercuts his or her own priorities of play, as well as being + perceived as a railroader by the players. An extremely dysfunctional + subset of Narrativist play. + +Underbelly + + A Technique of preparation and play using a canonical setting and + storyline, known to all participants, in which the events of play + create a "hidden" storyline to enrich and reinforce the primary one, + which is treated as a creative constraint. Term coined by Ron + Edwards; also sometimes called "inverse metaplot." See /Metaplots, + railroading, and settings/ and /Open/closed setting (Pyron?s woes + take 165)/. + +Universal + + Design with the goal of applying System to multiple Settings. Such + design typically corresponds to Purist for System. A mildly + controversial term; see also Generalist. + +Vanilla + + Game-play in which the Creative Agenda requires few if any complex + or specific Techniques, as opposed to Pervy. More generally covered + by the concept of Points of Contact, which concerns the degree to + which System is Explored. + +Vanilla Narrativism + + Narrativist play without notable use of the following Techniques: + Director Stance, atypical distribution of GM tasks, verbalizing the + Premise in abstract terms, overt organization of narration, or + improvised additions to the setting or situations. People who + typically play in this fashion often fail to recognize their + Creative Agenda as Narrativist. See /Vanilla Narrativism/ and the + links listed under Points of Contact. + +Veil, the + + Techniques for describing events without providing specific imagery + or details. Originally presented in /Sex & Sorcery/. + +Weave + + The Technique of bringing non-player-character (NPC) activities + closer to the player-characters and to introduce multiple responses + among NPC and player-character actions. Term coined in /Sex & Sorcery/. + +Wheedler + + A participant who achieves his or her goals during role-playing + primarily through influencing the other participants directly, + whether through hinting, badgering, pleading, or other similar + behaviors. Term coined by John Kim. + +Whiff Factor + + The effect of a high failure-rate for a given Resolution mechanic, + especially when the rate does not accord with the character?s + expected competence. A common source of Deprotagonizing; usually + considered a Design flaw. + +Wimpiness + + A dysfunctional form of Gamism characterized by poor sportsmanship, + i.e., the unwillingness to accept a loss. + +Zilchplay + + Desiring characters to be active particpants in an imagined world, + but also to do as little as possible to make that shared imagining + happen. A type of Simulationism by default, because in the absence + of a desire to actively pursue a Gamist or Narrativist agenda the + only focus is on exploration. A controversial term, coined by Walt + Freitag; see /Zilchplay (split from Understanding: the "it")/. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Last updated 08-May-2004 08:58:29 CDT + +/The Forge/ created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon + and Ron Edwards +. +All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their +designated author. + diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/lumplay.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/lumplay.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,670 @@ + + /* lumpley games* *: Roleplaying Theory*/ + +Roleplaying Theory + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +anyway. +A Penny for Your Thoughts +Read & Post Comments (488) +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +back to lumpley games + + + + + *Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore* + +I haven't written the all-encompassing essay yet, which so it goes and +ever shall. Instead, how about a running chronicle? + +(I've put them oldest to newest, and foof to blog convention, foof I +say! The newest is Burning Down the Firewall <#10>, 4-22-04.) + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Doing Away with the GM + +You need to have a system by which scenes start and stop. The rawest +solution is to do it by group consensus: anybody moved to can suggest a +scene or suggest that a scene be over, and it's up to the group to act +on the suggestion or not. You don't need a final authority beyond the +players' collective will. + +You need to have a system whereby narration becomes in-game truth. That +is, when somebody suggests something to happen or something to be so, +does it or doesn't it? Is it or isn't it? Again the rawest solution is +group consensus, with suggestions made by whoever's moved and then taken +up or let fall according to the group's interest. + +You need to have orchestrated conflict, and there's the tricky bit. GMs +are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer +solution. My game Before the Flood handles the first two +needs ably but makes no provision at all for this third. What you get is +listless, aimless, dull play with no sustained conflict and no meaning. + +In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for +orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt +GM doage-away-with. It amounts to when Emily's character's conflicts +climax explosively and set off Meg's character's conflicts, which also +climax explosively, in a great kickin' season finale last autumn, I'm +the GM. GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing. + +Any solution to this is bound to be innovative. There's not much beaten +path. + +*6-5-03* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Roleplaying's Fundamental Act + +Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true +in game, all the participants in the game (players /and/ GMs, if you've +even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're +roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be +true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to +determine whether they're actually true or not. + +So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine +that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!" + +What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps +out of the underbrush? + +1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an +appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly +into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! +Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high +ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather +or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters +are wearing or thinking. + +2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an +orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the +suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this +thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense." + +3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your +having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" +The thing to notice here is that the mechanics /serve the exact same +purpose/ as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, +which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question. + +4. And sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the +likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a +having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, +a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of +the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of +orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a +stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have +a combat system that works like this. + +(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the +group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, +all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.) + +So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's +another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and +constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the +table. That's their sole and crucial function. + +*6-9-03* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Aside: GNS + +So you have some people sitting around and talking. Some of the things +they say are about fictional characters in a fictional world. During the +conversation the characters and their world aren't static: the people +don't simply describe them in increasing detail, they (also) have them +do things and interact. They create situations - dynamic arrangements of +characters and setting elements - and resolve them into new situations. + +They may or may not have formal procedures for this part of the +conversation, but the simple fact that it consistently happens reveals +some sort of structure. If they didn't have an effective way to +negotiate the evolution of situation to situation, their conversation +would stall or crash. + +Why are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's +limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a +lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. +What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or +where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the +particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these +three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars +combine in an actual group of people in actual play. + +Over time, that is, over many many in-game situations, play will either +fulfill the players' creative agendas or fail to fulfill them. Do they +have that discussion? Do they prove themselves or let themselves down? +Are they "there"? As in pretty much any kind of emergent pattern thingy, +whether the game fulfills the players' creative agendas depends on but +isn't predictable from the specific structure they've got for +negotiating situations. No individual situation's evolution or +resolution can reveal a) what the players' creative agendas are or b) +whether they're being fulfilled. Especially, limiting your observation +to the in-game contents of individual situations will certainly blind +you to what the players are actually getting out of the game. + +That's GNS in a page. + +I don't think I've said anything here that Ron Edwards hasn't been +saying. I do think that I've said it in mostly my own words. + +*1-23-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution + +In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the +safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at +stake is: do you crack the safe? + +In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I +crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? + +Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting +the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict +resolution. + +Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You +can succeed but lose, fail but win. + +In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided +the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe +contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's +possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning +a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a +win anyway. + +Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe. + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Success! +"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of +in-order papers." + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Failure! +"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a +piece of paper in the wastebasket..." + +(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break +success=winning, failure=losing.) + +That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you +succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. +The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and +your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are +supposed to even out. + +Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged +authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration. + +Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight +is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes +confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you +mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can +conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll: + +"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!" +Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance? +Roll: Loss! +"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins." + +"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!" +Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him +successfully)? +Roll: Success! +"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!" +(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?) + +(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale +task resolution.) + +Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task +resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" +is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution? + +*2-5-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + A Small Thing About Suspense + +I have no criticism cred to back this up. Just amatuer observations. So +kick my butt if you gotta. + +*Suspense doesn't come from uncertain outcomes.* + +I have no doubt, not one shread of measly doubt, that Babe the pig is +going to wow the sheepdog trial audience. Neither do you. But we're on +the edge of our seats! What's up with that? + +*Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable.* + +What's up with that is, we know that Babe is going to win, but we don't +know /what it will cost/. + +Everybody with me still? If you're not, give it a try: watch a movie. +Notice how the movie builds suspense: by putting complications between +the protagonist and what we all know is coming. The protagonist has to +buy victory, it's as straightforward as that. That's why the payoff at +the end of the suspense is satisfying, after all, too: we're like /ah, +finally/. + +What about RPGs? + +Yes, it can be suspenseful to not know whether your character will +succeed or fail. I'm not going to dispute that. But what I absolutely do +dispute is that that's the only or best way to get suspense in your +gaming. In fact, and check this out, when GMs fudge die rolls in order +to preserve or create suspense, it shows that suspense and uncertain +outcomes are, in those circumstances, incompatible. + +So here's a better way to get suspense in gaming: put off the inevitable. + +Acknowledge up front that the PCs are going to win, and never sweat it. +Then use the dice to escalate, escalate, escalate. We all know the PCs +are going to win. What will it cost them? + +My game Chalk Outlines was a stab at this, and Otherkind + was a better stab, but where it's really coming home is in +Dogs in the Vineyard and the Good Knights . + +*3-22-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + A Small Thing About Character Death plus a mini-manifesto + +Along the precise same lines: + +When a character dies in a novel or a movie, it's a) to establish what's +at stake, b) to escalate the conflict, or c) to make a final statement. +Or perhaps some combination. It's never by accident or for no good +reason, unlike in real life. + +I've been thinking about examples. Obi-wan Kenobi in Star Wars? /This/, +his death says, is worth fighting for. Boromir in the Fellowship of the +Ring? The right death redeems betrayal. Brad and wha'sname at the +beginning of Pulp Fiction? The cop in Reservoir Dogs? All those random +people in Total Recall? Tara in Buffy? To escalate conflict, plain and +easy. Leon and Gary Oldman's character in the Professional? Final +statementville, but Matilda's family? Escalation plus some stakes. + +So that seems pretty solid to me. + +Before I go on (I'm sure you've already figured out what I'm going to +say anyway) but before I go on, *my mini-manifesto*. + +First: if what you get out of roleplaying is a) the accomplishment you +get from rising to the challenge, not letting yourself or your friends +down, learning the rules and just frickin' /owning/ them, or else b) the +satisfaction of peer-appreciated wish-fulfillment, you're off the hook. +None of what I say applies to you, you're happy. + +If, on the other hand, what you want out of roleplaying is suspense, +resolution, story, theme, character, meaning - listen up. + +Second: conventional RPGs can't give it to you. I'm sorry. + +So, third: that stuff you want? You get that by approaching roleplaying +as though it were a form of fiction, a form of literature. All that +stuff is well known to fiction writers and they can tell us how to do +it. Roleplaying isn't like writing, just like singing pub songs in a pub +isn't like composing songs, so the skills themselves are different. But +the same structure underlies both. You can't ignore the structure and +still get consistenly good results. + +So that's my mini-manifesto and here's character death in RPGs: + +PCs, like protagonists in fiction, don't get to die to show what's at +stake or to escalate conflict. They only get to die to make final +statements. + +Character death can never be a possible outcome moment-to-moment. Having +your character's survival be uncertain doesn't contribute to suspense, +as above <#5>, just like we don't actually ever believe that Bruce +Willis' character in Die Hard will die. Instead, character death should +fit into /what it will cost/. This thing, is it worth dying for? Obi-wan +Kenobi and Leon say yes. + +Here's a piece of text from Dogs in the Vineyard: + + Also, occasionally, your character will get killed. The conflict + resolution rules will keep it from being pointless or arbitrary: + it'll happen only when you've chosen to stake your character's life + on something. Staking your character's life means risking it, is all. + +In fiction, You never die for something you haven't staked your life on. + +*3-23-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Practical Conflict Resolution Advice + +My friend anonyfan asks: *"Do you have any ideas on how to effectively +and meaningfully implement 'what's at stake' in a non-narrativist game?"* + +I sure do. + +You won't have any trouble at all, and in fact your group will wonder +how you got along before, if you find the magic words. I don't know what +your group's magic words are but here are some I've used: +"The danger is that..." +"What's at stake is..." +"What you're risking is..." +"So what you hope to accomplish is..." + +Say the magic words every single time, when the dice are in their hands +but before they roll 'em. + +At first, you'll need to finish the sentence every time yourself, with a +period, like: +"The danger is that you'll set off the trap instead of disarming it." +"What's at stake is, do you make it to the ferry in time or do you have +to go the long way around?" +"What you're risking is being overheard by the goblins on the rooftop." +"So what you hope to accomplish is to get through the doorway, whether +this ogre lives or dies." + +But after you've said it three or four or ten times, you'll be able to +trail off with a question mark when you want their input: +"What you're risking is...?" + +And then, once the dice are on the table, always always always make it +like this: +- If they succeed, they win what's at stake. They accomplish their +accomplishment or they avoid the danger. +- If they fail, they lose what's at stake - and you IMMEDIATELY +introduce something new at stake. It might be another chance, it might +be a consequence, but what matters is that it's more serious that the +former. + +"The danger is that you'll set off the trap ... and you do! A dart +thocks into your shoulder. The danger now is that you'll succumb to its +poison!" +"You reach the dock as the ferry's pulling away. Do you want to jump for +it?" +"The goblins overhear you and start dropping in through the skylight. +They scramble all over you, biting and screeching. The danger is that +they'll get you off your feet!" +"Not only does the ogre keep you away from the doorway, it's pushing you +back toward the chasm..." + +In combat, you'll probably want to have an overall what's at stake for +the fight, and little tactical what's at stakes for each exchange. When +you describe the setup, mention two or three features of the +environment, like hanging tapestries or a swaying bridge or broken +cobblestones, plus an apparent weakness of the foe, like worn armor +straps or a pus-filled left eye, and then when you say what's at stake +for an exchange, incorporate one of those: "the danger is that he'll +push you back onto the broken cobblestones" or "so what you're hoping to +do is to further strain his armor straps." This is on top of hitting and +damage and whatever, just add it straight in. + +It's especially effective if you always give a small bonus or penalty +for the exchange before. What's it in D&D now, +2/-2? Give it every +single exchange, linked to whether they won or lost the what's at stake +of the previous exchange. "The broken cobblestones mess up your footing, +so take a -2." "He has to shrug and shift to adjust his sagging armor, +so take a +2." + +In Forge terms, you've used a couple of nonmechanical techniques to +build a conflict resolution system around your game's task resolution +rules. Guaranteed plus-fun. + +*3-27-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Arranging the Pieces of a Game + +/This is another straight transplant from the Forge. You'll have to +forgive the GNS talk, or not, I mean, it /is/ how I think about things:/ + +How do you treat Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color in +Narrativist game design vs. Simulationist vs. Gamist, is that what +you're asking? + +After setup, what a game's rules do is control how you resolve one +situation into the next. If you're designing a Narrativist game, what +you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line +c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. +Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a +climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, +collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate +no more. + +Character creation in a Narrativist game might work by creating +characters who, in some key way, have nowhere else to go. Life o' Crime, +the rpg: create a character who owes somebody more money than he can repay. + +Setting in a Narrativist game might work by applying pressure to that +key point in the characters. Life o' Crime: there's recession, few jobs, +no way up or out, but worse class difference than ever before anywhere. +You see wealth but no opportunity. + +Situation in a Narrativist game works by increasing the pressure. Life +o' Crime: Someone depends on your character to bring home groceries and +pay rent. Someone else has just been evicted and is facing homelessness. +Someone else asks you if you know where to get drugs. Someone else just +got beaten by the authorities. Someone else just got beaten by the guy +you owe money to. Someone else offers to cut you in on a job. Someone +else wants the whole take for himself. Someone else knew you'd never +amount to anything. Someone else can't be trusted. Someone else can be. + +System in a Narrativist game works, again, by resolving one situation +into the next. Life o' Crime: what do you do? How does it work out for +you? Does it a) hurt? b) give you breathing room? c) piss someone else +off? d) hurt someone else? and/or e) set you back? How does it increase +the pressure? Remember the moral line defined by your Premise, and +remember that the players are the authors! + +And Color permeates a Narrativist game same as any other. Life o' Crime: +is it Thatcher's England? Victoria's England? Shakespeare's England? +Bush's US? Hoover's US? Colonial Massachussetts? Mars? The Kingdom of +Thringbora? The details change, but the core of character situated in +setting - the fit characters locked into conflict defined by a moral +line - doesn't. + +I've had fun writing this! I hope it's at all an answer to your +question, and I should probably make clear that it's just how I think +about it, and other people no doubt think about it in whole different ways. + +I imagine you could break down Simulationist and Gamist games in a +similar way. + +*4-10-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Pre-play / Play / Post-play + +In your game, the game you're actually playing, a) in which stage does +/invention/ happen, and b) in which stage does /meaning/ happen? + +Invention - creating setting, character, nifty toys, potent powers - +invention can happen before the game or during the game. (It can't +really happen after the game, can it?) + +A game where the invention happens mostly pre-play would be one where +there are maps, characters, factions, technology, societies, interests, +all in place when the game begins. I can't think of a good example of +this in fiction - maybe /Babylon 5/? - but clearly lots of roleplaying +happens this way. Look at all the dang setting books! + +A game where the invention happens mostly during play would have the +same list of things, maps characters societies etc., but they'd be +created at need as the game progresses. We have one serious bazillion +examples of this from fiction: Howard wrote /Conan/ this way, their +writers wrote /Farscape/ and /Buffy/ this way, and lots of roleplaying +happens this way too. It's underrepresented in rpg books because it +doesn't call for or produce 'em. + +And it occurs to me that, in JRR Tolkein, we have an example in fiction +of post-play creation, where he created a bunch on the fly, and then +extensively rewrote and filled in to build his world. Apparently /the +Hobbit/ changed a lot to match what he'd written for /the Lord of the +Rings/, for instance. Can't really apply to roleplaying though. + +Similarly, meaning: + +A game where the meaning happens mostly pre-play is one in which +somebody or everybody has something to say and already knows what it is +when the game starts. You can always tell these games: the GM expects +his or her villains and their schemes to be absolutely gripping, but +they aren't; the players keep wanting to play their characters as well +as the characters deserve, but it's not happening. I make my character a +former slave but when it comes up in play it's because I force it to, +and my fellow players dodge eye contact and the GM wants to get on with +the plot. + +A game where the meaning happens mostly during play is also easy to +spot: everybody gets it and is engaged. Other players than me are into +my former-slave character, and when she gets passionate about something, +the other players hold their breaths. The GM lets the players pick the +villains through their PCs' judgements, then plays them aggressively and +directed-ly and hard. Every session is hot. Nobody sacrifices the +integrity of his or her character for the sake of staying together as a +party or solving the GM's mystery - the action comes right out of the +characters' passions. + +And a game where the meaning happens mostly post-play - telling it is +better than it was. Sometimes there'll be one person, the GM or the GM's +favorite player, whose needs the game mostly met, and if you talk to +/that/ person the game will sound rockin', but if you talk to the other +players, it'll sound eh. If people talk afterward about how cool this +kind of game was, they'll talk about highlights that happened once every +three, four, five sessions - as though a game with one gripping, +thrilling, passionate moment per twenty hours of play were a successful +game. + +My goal as a gamer and a game designer is to push /both/ invention and +meaning as much as possible into actual play. + +Problem: the hobby, represented by the books in your game store and the +conventional habits of most gamers, prefers the pre-game over the game. + +Seriously. How many times have you created a character who was far +cooler in your head than he or she turned out to be in play? How many +times have you prepped a campaign only to find that, in play, it didn't +go as well as you'd hoped? Have you ever thought that, y'know, reading +game books and imagining play and preparing for a game is almost as much +fun as actually playing? Or even /more/ fun than actually playing? + +The hobby doesn't value or teach collaboration. It values and teaches +competing sole-authorship. Pre-game invention sells books but robs +players of their ability to contribute; pre-game meaning is thrilling to +imagine but dull to actually play. This arrangement we've got going is +frickin' broken. + +The solution is to design games that're inspiring, but daydreaming about +how much fun the game will be to play seems pointless and lame, and you +can't create extensive histories or backstories because that stuff's +collaborative - + +- so you call a friend. + +*4-12-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Burning Down the Firewall + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you can't +participate.* + +Text from Dogs in the Vineyard: + + The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow + players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one + another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your + character's off the stage. + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you +shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions.* + +Text from Dogs: + + The game works *even better* when you bring your own metagame + knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between + two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't + limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose + the one that *you* prefer! + +Conventional wisdom: *when your character's surprised, you should be +surprised.* + +I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on +the Forge , but +here's a quote: + + I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus + on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic + problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally + a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight. + Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to + "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how. + OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it + Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right? + + Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the + encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins + are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group. + +Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.* + +Text from Dogs: + + Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on + constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says + something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you + have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only + mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know, + do things like that.) + + Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your + regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before + and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat + about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can + think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social + rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the + game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. + Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be + pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and + giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about + digressions. + + ... + + Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven + individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and + engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job. + +*4-22-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + + diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/system_does_matter.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/system_does_matter.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,220 @@ +The Forge The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games +About the Forge | Support The Forge | Articles + | Reviews | Resource Library | +Forums + + + + System Does Matter + +by Ron Edwards > +Copyright Adept Press + +I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for +almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is +used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system +can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely +disagree. + +"Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can +suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." OK, +fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't +have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. (Recall here I'm +talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm +suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't +waste Herbie's time. + +"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion +what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than +another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely +disagree. + +Some definitions would be good. First, I'm talking about traditional +roleplaying games, in which the GM is a human, and the players are +physically present with one another during play. Second, by "system" I +mean a method to resolve what happens during play. It has to "work" in +two ways: in terms of real people playing the game and of the characters +experiencing fictional events. + + + System Design: Part One + +(The following is based on the ideas presented at +http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/, but I'm expanding +their application pretty widely.) Three player aims or outlooks have +been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing +situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, +crossover possible. + + * + + Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest + which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the + character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System + Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to + Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun. + + * + + Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session + results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the + Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway. + + * + + Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a + little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the + well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists + include GURPS and Pendragon. + +Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at +once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in +real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances +accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or +complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? +The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants +to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should +player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't +care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social +system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field. + +One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often +try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a +guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the +system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, +to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A +"good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not +eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to +use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that +building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is +the first priority of RPG design. + +(Note, therefore, that I might praise a given system because it matches +beautifully with one of these outlooks - even if I don't share that +outlook and might hate playing that game. This is an important point, +because I now have some criteria to judge, instead of just yapping about +"what I like.") + + + System Design: Part Two + +Now that a system has an outlook or aim to use as a yardstick, it's time +to dissect that resolution method in some detail. Here I follow Jonathan +Tweet's suggestion (found in the rulebook of the excellent RPG Everway) +that there are three modes of resolution in role-playing. + + * + + Fortune, meaning a range of results is possible for each instance + (I rolled a 10 on 3 dice, under my skill of 12; I hit!). Most RPG + systems are primarily Fortune-based for historical reasons; + methods include dice, cards, and all sorts of other things. + + * + + Karma, which compares two fixed values (I have a 7 in fencing, you + have a 4, I win). Amber is one of the few mainly-Karma games. + + * + + Drama, in which the GM (or rarely, the player) resolves the + outcome by saying what happens ("You skewer him!" says the GM, + without rolling or consulting numbers of any kind). + +A given system may certainly mix and match these methods, and in fact +Everway actually permits the GM to concoct his or her own smooth blend. +Amber, for example, modifies its Karma system with Drama; Extreme +Vengeance modifies its Drama method with Fortune; and Sorcerer modifies +its Fortune method with Drama. Some systems use different methods for +different sets of activities; e.g. AD&D uses Karma for magic and Fortune +for combat. + +Let's consider Fortune methods as the example because that's what most +of us are used to. So the question becomes, given that a system is +(e.g.) mostly Fortune-based, how well does it actually work during play? +I suggest two things to check carefully (these terms are stolen from +ecology, of all things). + + * + + Search time, meaning, how long does it take to know what you got? + This includes knowing how many dice to roll, calculating + modifiers, counting up the result, and so on. + + * + + Handling time, meaning, so what happens? This includes comparing + the outcome to another roll or to a chart, moving on to the next + step if any, ticking off hit points, checking for stunning, and so + on. + +I certainly can't dictate how much is too little or too much - but I do +claim that if they are not appropriate for the player outlook of the +game (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist), players will complain, +rightly, that the system "bogs down" (Narrativist), is "unfair" +(Gamist), or isn't "realistic" or "accurate" (Simulationist). A good +system's resolution should get the job done in appropriate amount of +real time. Which job, and how long is appropriate, depend on the +outlook. A new RPG system has no excuse simply to rely on the old +paradigm of (1) roll initiative, (2) roll to hit, (3) roll defense, (4) +roll damage, (5) check for stunning, etc, etc. This is a leftover from +wargaming and is strictly Simulationist + Gamist. The RPG for you might +be very, very different. In Zero, for instance, the order of actions, +the success of each action, the degree of success for each action +(including damage), and every other aspect of resolution are determined +by ONE roll per player and ONE roll by the GM, in all cases, even in +large-group combat. This game's system is truly an eye-opener for those +used to the older methods. + +(Again: it so happens that I'm a hard-core Narrativist who enjoys +Karma-based systems most, with a little Fortune mixed in. But according +to the principles above, I can now judge a system according to its +priorities, rather than just going by "what I like.") + +Another interesting question about resolution methods is, what is +actually being resolved in terms of numerical game mechanics? Consider +three things: the actual event ("do I hit?"), the energy it takes to do +it ("deduct 4 Endurance"), and the reward ("You did 18 damage, that's 18 +EP's, mark'em down"). Food for thought: maybe an RPG needs only one of +these, two at most, and can let the third just vanish - and it doesn't +matter which. I'm still thinking about this issue, though; at the moment +it's just a notion, not a conclusion. + + + In Conclusion + +To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and +doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks. Its resolution +method(s) are appropriate for the outlook: they have search and handling +time that works for that outlook, in terms of both what the players have +to do and what happens to the characters. (One might even suggest that +the method be thematically suitable as well, as in marbles for Asylum +and playing cards for Castle Falkenstein; I like this idea too, but it's +not absolutely necessary.) + +Perhaps the ongoing debate about "system-light" vs. "system-heavy" is a +waste of time. A system is not automatically good if it is more or less +complex than another. The degree of acceptable complexity comes from the +game's outlook, and should be judged in that context only. A +Simulationist, Fortune-based game almost has to be complex, but a +Narrativist, Karma-based game is most satisfying with a simpler system. + +Please consider comparing a few systems yourself before reacting too +strongly to this essay. I do respect your opinion, but it's fair to +consider how many role-playing games you have actually, truly played. +That is, real stories and sessions with characters the players created +and cared about, not demos at a tournament or running a quick combat. I +suspect that those of us who've played more than five or ten RPGs in a +committed fashion will agree that "system doesn't matter" is a myth. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Last updated 28-Jan-2004 15:28:37 CDT + +/The Forge/ created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon + and Ron Edwards +. +All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their +designated author. + 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 +