[svn] r5880@freebird: fabien | 2006-02-17 19:08:06 -0500
Ajout de quelques références intéressantes.
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/HowRPGRulesWork.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,440 @@
+http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+anyway. <opine.html>
+A Penny for Your Thoughts <mailto:lumpley@earthlink.net>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+*1-18-05*
+*How RPG Rules Work*
+
+This is description, not prescription.
+
+The way I figure it, an RPG's rules coordinate three things:
+
+The fictional things and events and stuff in the game. The interactions
+of the players themselves. Dice, numbers, words, maps - real-world
+tokens, things, props, representations. Emily calls 'em "cues" and I
+think that's just right.
+
+If you can pick it up and hand it to another player, or change it with a
+pencil and eraser, it's a real-world cue. If it exists only in our heads
+and our conversation, it's in-game.
+
+So here's a rule: "1. Don't mess with the dark forest to the North, it's
+Vincent's."
+
+This rule coordinates the interactions of us, the players, with the
+made-up stuff in the game. The rule says that if the in-game stuff comes
+to include our characters entering the forest, we change our
+interactions in a particular way: we defer to me, Vincent, about what's
+what.
+
+The rightward-pointing arrow is "our characters entering the forest,"
+the leftward-pointing arrow is "we defer to Vincent about what's what."
+
+Here's a rule: "2. Subtract the roll on the damage die from your
+character's hit points."
+
+This rule coordinates our interactions with the real-world cues we're
+employing. The leftward-pointing arrow is "the roll on the damage die,"
+the rightward-pointing arrow is "subtract from your character's hit
+points." The die represents every real-world thing we're using: dice,
+character sheets, life stones, everything.
+
+Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens.
+
+Here's a rule: "3. If your character has higher ground than his
+opponent, make your attack roll at +3."
+
+Now this rule takes information from the fictional in-game and applies
+it to the real-world tokens we're using. The long rightward-pointing
+arrow is "your character has higher ground than his opponent, +3," and
+the leftward-pointing arrow is "make your attack roll."
+
+I've drawn the long arrow /through/ the people because of course it's
+the people who interpret the in-game and apply the rule.
+
+Here's a rule: "4. If your character takes damage greater than 4 on the
+damage roll, he's knocked down."
+
+Here the rules instruct us to have certain things happen fictionally
+when certain things happen in the real world. The rightward-pointing
+arrow is "the damage roll" and the long leftward-pointing arrow is
+"damage greater than 4, knocked down."
+
+Here's a rule: "5. If your character's opponent tries to disarm your
+character, make a Hold Weapon check. If you fail, your character is
+disarmed, and you thus suffer the unarmed penalty until you retrieve
+your weapon."
+
+The more complicated your rule, the more complicated the arrangement of
+arrows. The short leftward-pointing arrow is "your character's opponent
+tries to disarm your character." The long rightward-pointing arrow is
+"make a Hold Weapon check." The long leftward-pointing arrow is "your
+character is disarmed" - the part where we imagine your character's
+sword skittering across the rocks. The short rightward-pointing arrow,
+at last, is "suffer the unarmed penalty."
+
+If this were the Weapon Breakage rule instead of the Weapon Droppage
+rule, the short rightward-pointing arrow would be both "suffer the
+unarmed penalty" and "add 'broken' to your weapon on your character sheet."
+
+So now, we employ various rules in various orders and combinations over
+time.
+
+Right?
+
+This animation shows kind of what Dogs in the Vineyard or D&D or
+Shadowrun or PTA or V:tM is like in play.
+
+The way Charles' group plays Ars Magica would have practically only the
+arrows between the players and the in-game lit up:
+
+(I'm very open to correction about this, but it's my impression.)
+
+The way my group plays Ars Magica would be about the same, but we'd have
+the arrows crossing the players light up a few times per session:
+
+
+And finally, Jonathan Tweet in /Everway/ describes three kinds of rules:
+Drama, Fortune and Karma.
+
+Rules like this are Drama rules.
+
+
+Rules like this are Fortune rules if the real-world cues include dice or
+some other randomizer; Karma rules if they don't.
+
+On 1-19-05, *Matt* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I really only clicked to see if comments were working, but now I feel
+obliged to come up with something.
+
+My ideal game, I think, has a balance of movement across all the arrows.
+This might be a useful diagram for identifying the kind of play people
+prefer by making certain arrows darker, etc. Or not. Shit, it's only 6
+here and what am I doing up?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *anon.* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens."
+
+I would strongly disagree with this. The fictional worlds may not be as
+pronounced or as strongly identified with as in RPGs, but they
+definately exist.
+
+Case in point: Diplomacy. There's you intereacting with other people and
+the game board, but there's almost always a shared imaginative space of
+diplomatic missions running back and forth and high-level meetings and
+so on.
+
+Even Monopoly can work this way. Who does not make sound effects when
+they move their pieces? Who does not chortle like Snidely Whiplash when
+they send another player to bankruptcy? And in these moments, a
+fictional scene plays out.
+
+Who knows, perhaps when Kasparov is advancing his knight, he's thinking
+of a medieval kingdom?
+
+later
+Tom
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I guess somebody was going to say that.
+
+Maybe my best answer is:
+
+Playing Monopoly, no arrows come rightward out of the fiction. Imagine
+whatever you want, nobody else cares.
+
+When we talk about the imaginary stuff in the game re: rules, we aren't
+talking about what I'm imagining in my own personal head anyway. We're
+talking about the shared fiction, which means that it's /communicated/
+and /agreed to/. Kasparov might be thinking about a kingdom or his
+laundry, I'm pretty sure he's not saying it all out loud and trying to
+get his opponent to buy into it.
+
+And just to head off the other half: of /course/ the players can create
+house rules to make Monopoly into a roleplaying game. Whatever! I don't
+think it's especially controversial to observe that, as written,
+Monopoly ain't one. Lord I hope it's not.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *C. Edwards* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one.
+Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just
+people interacting and real-world tokens."
+
+I totally accept and enjoy those kinds of rules in a non-RPG. They seem
+annoying, unsatisfying, and extraneous most of the time when they are
+incorporated into a role-playing game. It almost seems like a wasted
+action to have rules that don't directly interact with the shared
+imaginary space.
+
+I want to achieve nearly 100% efficiency in my rule/work to shared
+imaginary space exchange.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Bryant* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Nice! Very nice. I agree with this 100% and I like the arrows a lot.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Chris* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wow! Vincent- it just struck me how much power goes into the traditional
+GM's hands in that they get final say not only over what goes into that
+imaginary space, but also what effects the imaginary space has back OUT
+into the game itself. So, say a player wants to put a character in a
+tactically advantageous situation, and even the GM agrees("You're on
+higher ground, with the sun to your back, etc.") but only if the GM
+decides to apply modifers back out to the Tokens in play, will the SIS
+have a solid effect.
+
+This is probably one of the best little ways of explaining the whole
+social effect of gaming there. Neat.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I have this whole essay brewing about this two rightmost little arrows.
+If you're going to beat me to it, let me know.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I have no plans!
+
+What's your essay going to say?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Like most of my essays, it's going to say "Look, a thing!"
+
+We physicists aren't so keen on the "persuasive argument" thing.
+
+Essentially, I think some games have something called "toy quality"
+where the game's mechanic itself is fun to play without needing to
+reference the SIS at all. I think that games with toy quality are a
+bridge to board and card and dice games. I also think it might be a key
+to Gamism, but I'm not sure.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+
+P.S. Hey, remember when I was talking about how "everything is system?"
+I was going "look, see, those arrows are symmetric!" Just couldn't
+express myself well.
+
+P.P.S. Heck, I still don't know what system is. Is it that box on the
+right? Or is that just mechanics?
+
+P.P.P.S. Say we're using a published setting with canon guidebooks. Is
+the setting in the right box or the left box?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The arrows are System. System is what we /do/.
+
+The left box is a snapshot: what's happening in the game right now. You
+can imagine its contents changing over the course of play, alongside the
+arrows lighting up and going out.
+
+The right box is everything that's real that we consult to help us
+decide what's happening in the left box. Along with dice and the writing
+on character sheets and stuff, it can include the contents of setting
+guidebooks. Really though, the vast most of the contents of setting
+guidebooks simply don't appear in the illustration; they wait outside of
+frame in case we want them.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Check.
+
+Rules printed in the game book: Cue or System?
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+System if we're using them right now, nothing if we aren't. "Using them"
+includes things like "if we get into combat, there goes the whole rest
+of the session - let's talk to them instead."
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Cool.
+
+Now I still can't understand that other thread, where I was like "it's
+all system" and other people were like "what?" I was hoping it would
+illuminate that. I think I'm still right, though.
+
+Anyway, thanks a bunch. Just going to go stare at the animations now.
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Link me to the other thread?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001
+
+And look! There's your diagram!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Linkinated <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001>.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *nothings* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I'm sure you've thought of all of this already, Vincent, but I found
+your explanation a little confusing, so I have tried to go through in a
+little more detail and a slightly different focus.
+
+http://nothings.org/writing/rpg/elements.html
+
+My apologies if I've slipped on any Forge-ian terminology, as I'm not
+actually a regular reader.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Nothings: linkinated <http://nothings.org/writing/rpg/elements.html>.
+(corrected)
+
+Well, I agree that you have a different focus. I think that the
+differences between mine and yours can probably all be summed up in
+their opening sentences: my "...an RPG's rules coordinate..." vs your
+"...the activity of game-playing can be reasonably characterized by the
+interaction of..."
+
+Like, I don't include a picture of the rules because all I'm talking
+about is the rules. I also don't include props or snacks - except as
+real things inside the d6 picture, if and only if a rule refers to them.
+
+Also having a GM outside of the group is nonsense, no matter how you
+slice it. If you want to talk about distribution of authority within the
+group, cool, and that's when a GM can come up - but the GM's a person
+same as the rest of us.
+
+And about my arrows and dice: I consider the interesting bit of rolling
+a die to be the interpretation of it, not the rolling of it. Thus "roll
+the die" is an arrow pointing from the die to the players; from the
+origin of the information to its destination.
+
+Um, so now what? This conversation will make more sense if either you
+ask me to comment on yours, which I'd be happy to do in another thread,
+or else you ask me questions about mine, which I'd be happy to answer
+here. Or both!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing:
+
+The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.
+
+When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people
+relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to
+force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular,
+possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative
+relationships.
+
+Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and
+/expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks
+of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human
+interactions at a deep level.
+
+So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is
+playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak,
+flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular
+play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A
+flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social
+dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to
+already be in place, or the game crashes.
+
+Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic?
+
+*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams
+here.*
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Rognli* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+This is like the Central Theorem of Roleplaying. For dummies. With
+friendly, unscary illustrations. It doesn't get any better...
+
+Can I translate it for publication in the only Norwegian gaming-zine,
+"Imagonem"? And before you ask; no we can't pay you, cause we don't make
+any money. But I will tell everyone you are very cool.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Sure!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Handle:
+
+
+Consider including your email address in the body of your comment.
+
+anyway. <opine.html>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
--- /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. <http://www.lumpley.com/>
+A Penny for Your Thoughts <mailto:lumpley@earthlink.net>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+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. <comment.php?entry=125>
+
+Some maybe useful links:
+Complete Index of Entries <toc.php?by=cats>
+Search for a Post or Comment <search.php>
+Search the Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/search.php>
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+*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. <comment.php?entry=125>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+anyway. <http://www.lumpley.com/>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
--- /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 </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> |
+Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/>
+
+ *
+* <#>
+Home <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>
+Help <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help>
+Search <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search>
+Edit Profile <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile>
+Logout
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=logout;sesc=082104b9fb3680bdc2299754828a5ad4>
+Hey, *fabien*, you have 0 messages
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm>, 0 are new.
+Total time logged in: 20 minutes.
+Show unread posts since last visit.
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unread>
+Show new replies to your posts.
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unreadreplies>
+February 14, 2006, 02:50:32 AM
+*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
+
+*Search: * Advanced search
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search;advanced>
+
+*195768* Posts in *18371* Topics by *5864* Members Latest Member: * -
+sunshine8up
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5991>* Most
+online today: *83* - most online ever: *143* (January 24, 2006, 05:56:13
+AM)
+
++ *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
+|-+ *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*
+| |-+ *RPG Theory <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=4.0>*
+| | |-+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0>* « previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001;prev_next=next>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.15> 3
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.30> 4
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.45> Mark unread
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=12001.0>
+Send this topic
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=12001.0>
+Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12001.0>
+
+Author Topic: Wait, What Matters Again? (Read 2499 times)
+
+*Ben Lehman
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1400
+
+splendidquetzl
+<aim:goim?screenname=splendidquetzl&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+<callto://benlehman/>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW
+<http://www.tao-games.com/> Email <mailto:taogames@gmail.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1007>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128175#msg128175>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128175#msg128175>*
+
+« * 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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>
+This is my Blog <http://benlehman.blogspot.com/>
+
+*contracycle
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 2371
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109> Email
+<mailto:contracycle@blueyonder.co.uk> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=109>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128177#msg128177>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128177#msg128177>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Impeach the bomber boys:
+www.impeachblair.org <http://www.impeachblair.org>
+www.impeachbush.org <http://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 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=284>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1046
+
+34492883 <http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=34492883>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=284> WWW
+<http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini> Email
+<mailto:paganini@madisontelco.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=284>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128184#msg128184>
+ *Re: Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128184#msg128184>*
+
+« *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.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+*http://www.livejournal.com/users/taiji_jian/*
+*http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/indie-netgaming/*
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1718
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org> Email <mailto:jagsgame@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=190>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128198#msg128198>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128198#msg128198>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*Kesher <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3267>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 119
+
+ulfias@hotmail.com <http://members.msn.com/ulfias@hotmail.com>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3267>
+Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=3267>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128242#msg128242>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128242#msg128242>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Sometimes the sunset doesn't want to be photographed
+ --- Hood
+
+ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/indiemn/
+
+*John Kim
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1791
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105> WWW
+<http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/> Email
+<mailto:jhkim@darkshire.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1105>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128250#msg128250>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128250#msg128250>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+- John
+
+*lumpley <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 2053
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119> WWW
+<http://www.lumpley.com/> Email <mailto:lumpley@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Online)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=119>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128255#msg128255>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128255#msg128255>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*Bankuei <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=218>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1876
+
+bankuei <aim:goim?screenname=bankuei&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=218> Email
+<mailto:yeloson@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=218>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128289#msg128289>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128289#msg128289>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*efindel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 141
+
+89087518
+<http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=89087518>
+targaroth <aim:goim?screenname=targaroth&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+efindel <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=efindel>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290> WWW
+<http://home.earthlink.net/~efindel/> Email
+<mailto:efindel@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=290>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128301#msg128301>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128301#msg128301>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*John Harper
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 612
+
+flip you for real
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205> WWW
+<http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1205>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128304#msg128304>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128304#msg128304>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The Mighty Atom <http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> -- My design blog for
+Danger Patrol, Stranger Things
+<http://www.onesevendesign.com/strangerthings> and other projects
+
+*John Kim
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1791
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105> WWW
+<http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/> Email
+<mailto:jhkim@darkshire.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1105>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128332#msg128332>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128332#msg128332>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+- John
+
+*John Harper
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 612
+
+flip you for real
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205> WWW
+<http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1205>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128334#msg128334>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128334#msg128334>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The Mighty Atom <http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> -- My design blog for
+Danger Patrol, Stranger Things
+<http://www.onesevendesign.com/strangerthings> and other projects
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1718
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org> Email <mailto:jagsgame@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=190>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128336#msg128336>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128336#msg128336>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*efindel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 141
+
+89087518
+<http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=89087518>
+targaroth <aim:goim?screenname=targaroth&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+efindel <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=efindel>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290> WWW
+<http://home.earthlink.net/~efindel/> Email
+<mailto:efindel@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=290>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128344#msg128344>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128344#msg128344>*
+
+« *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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*M. J. Young
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 2121
+
+1735114 <http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=1735114>
+MarkJYoung <aim:goim?screenname=MarkJYoung&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+tiras1 <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=tiras1>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712> WWW
+<http://www.mjyoung.net/> Email <mailto:mjyoung@mjyoung.net> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=712>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128350#msg128350>
+ *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128350#msg128350>*
+
+« *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 <"<a>">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
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Check out /Multiverser <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/>/
+M. J. Young Net <http://www.mjyoung.net/>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.15> 3
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.30> 4
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.45> Mark unread
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=12001.0>
+Send this topic
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=12001.0>
+Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12001.0>
+
+« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001;prev_next=next>
+
+Jump to:
+
+
+Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
+<http://www.php.net/> The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
+<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
+*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> Valid XHTML 1.0!
+<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
+<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>
+
Binary file references/bigmodelpic.pdf has changed
--- /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
+<http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156> (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
+<http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156>, 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
+<http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=156>.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+home <~/index.html> : sean /at/ nothings /dot/ org
--- /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 </about/> | Support The Forge </donate.php> | Articles
+</articles/> | Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/> |
+Forums </>
+
+
+
+ The Provisional Glossary
+
+by Ron Edwards <sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>>
+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) <http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/bigmodelpic.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
+<mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com> and Ron Edwards
+<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>.
+All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+designated author.
+
--- /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* <lumpley.html>*: Roleplaying Theory*/
+
+Roleplaying Theory
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+anyway. <opine.html>
+A Penny for Your Thoughts <mailto:lumpley@earthlink.net>
+Read & Post Comments (488) <http://www.quicktopic.com/21/H/dae5AcNgPVdS>
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+back to lumpley games <lumpley.html>
+
+
+
+
+ *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 <flood.html> 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 <chalk.html> was a stab at this, and Otherkind
+<other.html> was a better stab, but where it's really coming home is in
+Dogs in the Vineyard and the Good Knights <goodknights.html>.
+
+*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 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=114267#114267>, 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*
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+
+
--- /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 </about/> | Support The Forge </donate.php> | Articles
+</articles/> | Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/> |
+Forums </>
+
+
+
+ System Does Matter
+
+by Ron Edwards <sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>>
+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
+<mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com> and Ron Edwards
+<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>.
+All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+designated author.
+
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/theory101-01.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
+*Places to Go, People to Be* [Next Article] <narrativists.html>
+[Previous Article] <retro.html> [This Issue] <index.html> [Home]
+<../index.html>
+
+
+ Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space
+
+*By M. Joseph Young*
+
+
+
+Not very long ago on a list I frequent, someone teased that they were a
+freeformer and as such did not use any system at all. I rather boldly
+responded, explaining in some detail what system is and does, and why
+freeform uses as much system as any other game, whether /Theatrix/ or
+/Fudge/ or /Rolemaster/. Someone else posted to the list, saying that my
+explanation of how role playing games work was rather depressing to him,
+and took a lot of the fun out of it.
+
+I'd never thought of that. Some people really don't want to know what
+makes role playing games work; they just want to play and have fun. It's
+like seeing what happens behind the curtain. Not everyone wants to know
+how the magician does his tricks.
+
+I can see that, to some degree. /Clash of the Titans/ is a wondrous
+adventure to someone who has no idea how it was done. Understanding Ray
+Harryhausen's use of stop-action miniatures may be fascinating for some
+of us, but it does take something out of the awe of watching the movie
+to see not the massive Gorgon rising from the deep but a twelve inch
+model superimposed into the scene. In the same way, some people love
+looking under the hood, as it were, of the games we play, understanding
+what they do and how they do it, while others just want to go for a
+ride. If you wanted to /make/ a movie, you would probably need to
+understand how such things are made; if you just want to enjoy watching
+one, it might be more fun to see the finished product without knowing
+how it was achieved. So too understanding how games work in fundamental
+ways may interfere with the fun of playing them for some people, but
+it's absolutely essential to knowing how to design them.
+
+If you don't want to know how role playing games really work, it's time
+to stop reading. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to know the
+theory, of wanting to watch the magician saw the woman in half with no
+idea how the illusion works. We'll be looking behind the curtain at how
+these things are done, and why they work the way they do. If that
+interests you, read on.
+
+At the moment, a great deal of the most valuable role playing game
+theory is being done through an Internet web site forum called The Forge
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/>.Game designers there are building on the
+work of others, and theorists elsewhere such as northern Europe's Turku
+school of LARP designers <http://users.utu.fi/mijupo/turku/> have found
+their way there to participate in those discussions.The theoretical work
+is driven by the belief that better understanding of the theory will
+produce better games.Most of what is going to be presented in this
+series originated there or was expanded there.
+
+The concept that has emerged as possibly the single unifying and
+distinguishing feature of role playing games is that of the *Shared
+Imagined Space*. In essence, any group of players is making an effort to
+imagine the same events occurring in the same imagined setting. Of
+course, there are some discrepancies between individual images of this,
+but overall the game is able to proceed because there is a common
+understanding of what is happening, a shared agreement of the events of
+the game.
+
+Sometimes people challenge whether this shared imagined space actually
+exists. The easiest way to see that it is so is to consider what it
+would be like otherwise. Suddenly Bob's character is trying to out-draw
+Dead-Eye-Dan in the streets of Laredo while Ann is piloting her
+spaceship through the asteroid field and calling on Bob to target the
+pursuing enemy, while Jim sees them all attacking a dragon. While that
+starts to sound a bit like playing /Multiverser/, the fact is that even
+in that game there is a shared imagined space, an agreed set of events
+and setting elements and character actions which interact, although
+frequently on multiple stages. If we do not have that agreement, then we
+are not really playing together.
+
+How we come to that agreement is the heart of the concept of *system*.
+Vincent Baker <http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/lumpley.html>,
+author of such innovative games as /Kill Puppies for Satan/, /Dogs in
+the Vineyard/, /Animals at Night/, and /Matchmaker/, is credited with
+first recognizing and stating what has become known as the *Lumpley
+Principle*: System is the means by which any group of players comes to
+agreement concerning the content of the shared imagined space.
+
+This principle is the reason freeform and Rolemaster ultimately have the
+same "amount" of system. In play, someone at the table makes a
+statement, system is then applied by the minds of the participants, and
+a consensus is reached as to how this has changed the content of what is
+being imagined. How it does that is different in the details with a
+mechanically complicated game such as Rolemaster as compared with a
+completely socially driven freeform game (a different kind of
+complexity), but in the essentials they are the same.
+
+What system does, fundamentally, is apportion *credibility*. That is, it
+provides the participants with the means necessary to gauge who has the
+right to make what statements about the shared imagined space, and who
+does not.
+
+For example, in traditional games, those participants we tend to call
+the players (or the "character players" for the sake of clarity) have
+the credibility to say what actions their characters are taking and what
+words they say. The one player responsible for "everything else", whom
+we will here call the referee but who has many names in many games, has
+the credibility to determine the success or failure of such actions and
+the consequences, the actions of antagonists and adversaries, and the
+general shape and situation in the world. We call this credibility
+because we all agree to believe statements made by these participants
+when those statements are within the extent of their credibility. We
+believe that what a player says about his character is true within the
+image we share, and that what the referee says about everything else is
+true. These are thus credible statements. Although there are exceptions
+even in traditional games, the limits on credibility usually follow
+these lines rather closely. A player could not say, "Suddenly I see a
+door to the right I had not previously noticed, and finding it unlocked
+rush through it to safety." Similarly, a referee could not normally say,
+"Your character draws his sword and rushes forward to attack the huge
+ancient red dragon." A player character who announced the presence of a
+door would in most games be ignored, as he does not have the credibility
+to insert such doors in the shared imagined world. Sometimes a referee
+can get away with statements of player character actions, but the
+players will expect that there is a good reason why under this
+circumstance the referee is claiming the credibility to make such a
+statement, and in many groups the statement will be openly challenged
+for that explanation.
+
+Once this is understood, it becomes possible to change the way
+credibility is apportioned.For example, /Universalis
+<http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/>/ eliminates the referee entirely and
+instead provides a resource system through which players bid for control
+of what happens.Numerous other independent games allow players to create
+problems for themselves and for each other.
+
+As part of this, it has become clear that the referee is one of the
+players. His role in the game is different from the others, but it is a
+role that can be defined by the game rules in many different ways.
+Changing what the referee does, distributing aspects of that credibility
+in different ways, has led to many challenging ideas in game design. We
+also see that game play is an essentially social activity, built
+entirely on defining the relationships between the members of the group
+such that they know what to believe of what the others say and what they
+are entitled to say themselves. Thus a role playing game system is a set
+of specific modifications to the social contract of a group of friends,
+a sort of ritual in which they engage that has the specific function of
+creating this object of shared imagination. It is a means of relating to
+each other toward that end.
+
+In attempting to categorize different ways of distributing credibility,
+Ron Edwards <http://www.adept-press.com/> has put forward the concept of
+*Stance*.The author of many games of which /Sorcerer/, /Trollbabe/, and
+/Elfs/ are the best known, Professor Edwards received the Diana Jones
+Award <http://www.dianajonesaward.org/> for his contributions to game
+design.Stance refers to the relationship between a player, his
+character, and the rest of the shared imagined space, and provides
+general categories within which specifics may vary from game to game or
+group to group.The four major stances are Pawn, Actor, Author, and
+Director.
+
+Pawn stance is rather simple to understand. The character is a token
+used by the player to act within the game world. Like a /Monopoly/ or
+/Parchessi/ piece, no one cares whether the actions of the character
+make sense. What matters is that the character does what the player
+wants within the world.
+
+Actor stance approaches the world solely through the character, but also
+solely through the character's perceived desires and personality. This
+is the approach to play in which much depends on what the player
+believes the character would "really" do, if he were a real person in
+that situation, and is closely associated with the concepts most people
+call immersion. Actor stance springs from the perceptions and thoughts
+attributed to the character, and limits the player's credibility to
+control over that character and the impact that character can
+realistically have in the world.
+
+Author stance is in some ways a complicated fusion between Actor and
+Pawn. In this case, the player is still controlling the character only;
+however, the player is permitted and even expected to use his own
+knowledge and desires in making character decisions, while at the same
+time providing justification after the fact for why this is what the
+character would have done. For example, we have the brash uncouth
+fighter who is always getting in brawls, but suddenly the player decides
+that he wants play to move toward an alliance between the fighter and a
+particular non-player nobleman, so when they meet he chooses not to
+fight even though everyone expected him to do so. He justifies this by
+stating that his character was for once impressed by someone of noble
+bearing, or that the character was suddenly smitten by the Duke's lovely
+daughter and so out of character at that moment. What matters here is
+that the player is allowing his own knowledge and desires control the
+direction the story takes, but is doing so by controlling his character
+and creating reasons for the character to have done what the player
+wished. It is thus like Actor stance to the degree that the player
+controls only his character and does so in a way that preserves
+character integrity, but like Pawn stance in that the player uses the
+character to accomplish player goals, not character goals, to the degree
+that these differ.
+
+Director stance is fairly simple to understand but shocking to accept by
+most players. It means that the character players have credibility to
+create bits in the shared imagined space that are outside the control of
+their characters. In essence, it gives a great deal of credibility
+traditionally reserved for the referee to the other players. Yet it is
+something that nearly all role players have used to some degree.
+
+Imagine for a moment that a player character has just entered a room.
+The referee states that it looks like a woman's bedroom. The player then
+says that his character will move to the dresser and examine the
+knick-knacks on it. Note that the referee never stated there was a
+dresser, or that there was anything on it; the player made the
+assumption that a woman's bedroom would have a dresser, and that a
+woman's dresser would have something sitting atop it that was
+decorative. He then made the assertion incidentally that such things
+existed, and requested more information about them. That is a very
+limited example of director stance. The majority of games would extend
+sufficient credibility to the player to make such statements. If the
+player did not have that much credibility, he would have to ask whether
+there was a dresser, whether there was anything on the dresser, and
+possibly whether there was anything preventing him from moving to the
+dresser to get a better look, in each case awaiting confirmation by the
+referee, who is the only person with the credibility to place such
+objects in the shared imagined space. Going the other direction, a
+player with more credibility might state that he was opening the top
+drawer, rifling through the lady's undergarments, and finding a wrapped
+packet of correspondence that looked like it might be love letters,
+which he pockets for future examination. Again, none of that is in the
+referee's statement of the contents of the room, but a player might have
+sufficient credibility to create those elements, as they are consistent
+with what is given.
+
+Given sufficient credibility, a player could create the side door
+through which he escapes. That is the concept of director stance.
+Referees do it all the time, but there is no inherent reason why players
+could not do it.
+
+It should be said that there is no right or wrong stance, no better or
+worse way to play. There are only individual preferences of how to do
+things and practical considerations in how to make any particular game
+work. All of these stances are the right choice for some type of role
+playing game. It might or might not be a type you would enjoy, but
+people do enjoy playing in games that do these various things.
+
+Of course, if system is all about apportioning credibility, what then
+are rules? Are the baker's dozen books of /Original Advanced Dungeons &
+Dragons/ completely meaningless? Is there no difference at all between
+/Aftermath/ and /Amber Diceless/? Are those who work to create new games
+wasting their efforts in view of the fact that the rules in the book are
+not the system?
+
+The relationship between rules and system took some time to develop, and
+is difficult to understand. Rules have *authority*, or perhaps more
+precisely are authorities. They are authorities in the same sense that
+case law is an authority for courts, or that scriptures are authorities
+for religions: the people involved refer to these and invoke them in
+support of their statements, and so increase the credibility of those
+statements.
+
+Thus for example a player running a ranger in /Dungeons & Dragons/ might
+say that his character was going to use his tracking ability to identify
+which way the opponent went. Probably this would be accepted as within
+the credibility of the player. However, if the referee were unaware that
+the ranger had tracking skill, the player could point to the section of
+the rules in which tracking skill is identified and explained and so
+give credibility to his stated action.
+
+Note that rules do not have credibility. They cannot make statements of
+themselves, but must be cited by a person with credibility. Further, the
+authority of the rules is subject to the credibility of persons involved
+in the game. Can the ranger track an opponent across the ocean floor?
+Someone has the credibility to decide whether the rules apply, and how
+they are to be understood. There may be a rule somewhere in the books
+that covers this situation, but if no one uses it, it is not part of the
+system, as it does not influence what is mutually imagined.
+
+Once we recognize that rules are authorities used to support the
+credibility of statements made by people, it is a short step to realize
+that everything else outside the minds and statements of the people is
+at best another authority. The dice are not part of the system, but
+rather an authority to which someone appeals in determining an outcome.
+Whether the referee can ignore the dice or not is part of the system;
+whether the players can force him to follow the dice is part of the
+system; but in using the dice, we are appealing to the authority of the
+dice. This applies also to charts and tables, character papers, world
+descriptions, modules and supplements, and the wealth of other
+informational supports we use in play. We are using the real system of
+the game whenever we decide what happens in our imagined reality; if we
+use dice, or charts, or ability scores, or skill ratings, we are
+appealing to authority to support those decisions, but it is still
+always we the players who decide.
+
+In the end, a role playing game is a conversation between a group of
+people in which they describe to each other certain imagined events that
+they create as they describe them. Everything else that we see as part
+of the game exists to support that activity, and to determine whose
+statements about what happens will be accepted by everyone.
+
+If your reaction to that is, /Is that all there is?/ you have my
+condolences. In a sense, yes, that is all there is. However, that is the
+most powerful secret of game design that has yet been uncovered, and to
+the degree that you can understand, support, and exploit this central
+concept, you can design or play a great game.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+/M. Joseph Young is author game books and novels for Multiverser: The
+Game <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish>, and a prolific contributor to
+role playing game literature. Among his online work is his long-running
+/Game Ideas /Un/limited/ series at Gaming Outpost
+<http://www.gamingoutpost.com/>, /Faith and Gaming/ series in the
+Chaplain's corner of The Christian Gamers Guild
+<http://www.geocities.com/christian_gamers_guild/>, and the three-part
+/Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms/ in this e-zine, beginning with
+/The Source of Law <http://ptgptb.humbug.org.au/0009/law01.html>/ in
+issue nine./
+
+[Next Article] <narrativists.html> [Previous Article] <retro.html> [This
+Issue] <index.html> [Home] <../index.html>
+
+
+ /Copyright © 2005 Places to Go, People to Be/, all rights
+ reserved. May be reproduced for non-commercial use. Refer to the
+ copyright page <../copyright.html> for full details. Email us:
+ editors@ptgptb.org <mailto:editors@ptgptb.org>.
+
+Click to Go Back <index.html>
+