"Murk" needs a better example

[James_Nostack]

"Murk" is described in the wiki, in part using this example:

Murk happens when we hide all the stuff we do, pretend to do, or fail to do in making any of this happen successfully. In fact, I'd say role-players spend a lot of time hiding what they do, especially from themselves, to the extent that they do not know how they make anything happen. And when they don't know how, they don't do it well, either.

The cannibal king muses, 'Boy, I wish I could marry that hot princess from the neighboring island," as the tribe cook eyes you eagerly.

So, uh, this means ... what? A signal for you, saying you, the player, must now offer to act as go-between to the other tribe, or we cannot play further in this scenario? Or does it mean, the king isn't interested in you, and you better fight now or your characters are going to get killed and eaten? Or does it mean, I sure like playing this ditzy, romantic cannibal chief, and I'd love to see how you guys riff off him, no matter what happens?

The first is a signal that I want you to receive, to volunteer to go fetch the hot princess or carry a message to her, or something like that. The second is an equally directed signal that I want you to do something else, i.e., move to the combat rules now. The third is an opening for you to do whatever you like, no more and no less. But in each case, the sentence itself gives no indication which one.

This example does not strike me as murky in the least.  The GM has provided an encounter with an NPC who (likely) defies expectations, wants something, and it's a charged situation, in which players (theoretically) are empowered to resolve the scene in any of several different ways.  That ain't murk: it's (potentially) very good play. 

It is also fundamentally different than the more detail-oriented half-examples of murk described elsewhere on the page, of the, "You're taken by surprise by Polka-Dot Trolls!"  "No we aren't, I specifically said we were watching for Polka-Dot Trolls!"  "Well, true.  So you aren't taken by surprise, but you don't have your weapons at the ready."  "My character's eyes fire Proton Blasts, how can I not be ready?"  "Errrrh... how do we roll for initiative again?" variety.

In the examples described immediately above, there's no shared imaginary space, and thus, it's literally impossible to RPG.  But in the Lovelorn Cannibal Chief example, we know exactly who's present ("you," the Cannibal Chief, the cannibals, and by implication the Nice Girl Next Door), we know exactly what's happening (the cannibals want to eat you, and the Cannibal Chief is musing aloud), and we know what's at stake (you might get eaten).  The ball has been handed back to the "you."  Granted, it could turn out that there's hidden information in this scenario--the tribesmen don't take the Chief seriously; the tribe stages this whole thing with every victim because they find their desperate conversation funny; etc.  But in a lot of games that sort of hidden information is perfectly kosher. 

If the Lovelorn Cannibal Chief stuff is murky, I'd like to see a contrasting, non-murky example using that same set-up.

edited to fix quote-ending - RE

[Jesse Burneko]

Hey James,

I think the key is this part of the definition: "Murk happens when we hide all the stuff we do, pretend to do, or fail to do in making any of this happen successfully."

That's talking about us, the players, not just clearly communicating the state of the fiction.  In the cannibal example the state of the fiction is crystal clear but the process and *reason* for that state of affairs is obscured.

The things in your post remove the murk.  YOU'VE told us that this an open encounter with the opportunity for the players to take directed action on their own account.  But the statement itself doesn't tell us that.  You're assumptions about "functional play" told you that.  But not every group holds that assumption.

I've been precisely in this situation where I've done something like that fully expecting the players to pick up on the "quest".  And then the players instead flip out and kill the cannibals and now I'm left holding a pile of useless adventure notes because the players just killed the quest giver.

That's the result of murk.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Jesse's nailed it, but the entry could be better written to make that exact point. Murk is never about the fiction; it's about real-world confusion about the fiction. Sometimes murk obscures what could be quite functional fiction and sometimes it obscures the fact that there isn't any.

I was thinking perhaps of focusing more on the frequent example of a fight scene beginning, and no one knows what the fuck is happening in terms of physical position, readiness, who's holding what, and whatever, and everyone starts shouting to establish such things on the "first and loudest into the SIS" principle.

Worth pointing out that by definition, good IIEE technique dispels murk in this situation. The trouble is that murk isn't only about fighting, and using this as the example could fall into the trap of accidentally implying that it is.

Best, Ron

[James_Nostack]

Okay, so here's the deal: "Murk happens when we hide all the stuff we do, pretend to do, or fail to do in making any of this happen successfully" is, itself, the vaguest sentence I've read all week.  If this sentence communicates anything, it's a miracle; if it doesn't communicate anything, it should be removed IMO.

Jesse, my read on what you're describing is that there was a miscommunication about when the players were free to make a move.  There's that classic line of GM dialogue, "...And so, guys, what do you want to do now?" and the players thought you uttered it, when in fact you hadn't yet.  (And in fact we usually get out of the habit of saying it explicitly; in a functional group, we can pick up on the unspoken cues, but learning to do so is tricky.)  Can you confirm that I'm reading you right?

Ron, I agree that a combat example is the easiest to see this happen, and also agree that a non-combat example is necessary.

Here's a combat example, if I'm understanding murk correctly which maybe I'm not, drawn from actual play:

Dungeons & Dragons.  The adventuring party's gone down to a lower level of the dungeon than they've ever explored before.  At the table, the players would be tense, but it's been a very long day, it's a very large group tonight, and it's pretty late at night, and there are few empty beer bottles, so people are a tad sloppier than they would be otherwise. 

In fiction, the party sees signs of spider-webs, which they know means giant poisonous spiders.  Heroic swashbuckler Martin Le Noir recoils: as a front-line warrior, he's been bitten by more than his share of poisonous beasties, and knows he's pushed his luck as far as it will go.  "Spiders?" says Martin's player, "The hell with that.  Martin scurries behind the magic-user."  Martin's player says this, but it's a very large group with some side conversations going on, and Martin's player neglects to reach across a very wide table to move his little figurine.

Naturally the battle with spiders occurs.  The GM declares that, because Martin is standing on the front lines, he's bitten by the spiders: he must Save vs. Poison at a -4 penalty or die!  Martin's player objects: "Hey, I said I was nowhere near the front line, I was cowering behind James's magic-user!"  GM: "I don't see that in the figurines.  Roll your save."  (Group, collectively: "Wait, so the figurines trump our expressed declarations now?  Has that always been the case?")  Martin le Noir fails his Save and perishes in agony, because it was a late night and a large group.  And the little pewter figurines are the official indication of where your guy stands, apparently.  (Some folks, myself included, quit playing after this.)

The bold part is what I'm thinking of as murk.  At that point in time, the group hadn't reached consensus on how absolute positions in space should be indicated.  A player thought just stating something would be enough - and certainly not worth standing up and walking to the end of the conference table to do - and the GM thought otherwise.  This didn't completely unravel the process of play - this was the gang's 100th session, and they'd invested the GM with the power to resolve these types of misunderstandings.  But for a moment there, it was a genuine misunderstanding, and one with severe consequences both in-fiction (a beloved character died for a while) and socially (some of us didn't like the way that call got made, and quit). 

====A possible example of non-combat murk====
Traveller, with a first-time virgin GM; it's been ages since I've played with one and didn't know what it meant.  "So you're in a space port on an asteroid, when there's a leak in the pressure dome!  A voice on the intercom says, 'All personnel retrieve oxygen masks or perish in 10 seconds.'  What do you do?"  "Can you describe where we're at?  Is the leak in a place I can see and maybe plug with something?  Are there women and children who need oxygen masks first?"  "You're in a spaceport: there's a cabinet with oxygen masks.  You can't see the leak and have nothing to plug it with unless you wrote 'leak-plugging glue' on your character sheet, which you did not.  You see no women or children needing help.  9 seconds.  What do you do?"  "I'm healthy.  I'm going to sprint to behind some airlock or safety bulk head, so that there are more masks to go around for the crowd."  "There is no crowd.  3 seconds.  Do you want to put on a mask?  If you don't put on a mask you'll die."

This is a reverse of Jesse's hypothetical, where the GM thinks he's giving us a choice, but there's nothing to choose.  If the idea is to empower us, it's failing because it just emphasizes that there's no choices to be made yet.  If the idea is to highlight that, when atmosphere domes spring a leak, you should get an oxygen mask, we can probably establish that without going through the kabuki.  Meanwhile, as a player, my attempts to show my character's technical skills are shot down, my attempts to show compassionate valor are shot down, and my attempt at stoic-yet-butt-saving pragmatism are shot down.  (Actually these courses of action were suggested by 3 different players.)  Anyway, huge miscommunication about what the fuck this scene was about (in-fiction: "yikes, oxygen mask time;" socially: "do what I say") which is arguably murky.

Are those "murk" by the official definition?

[Callan S.]

I'd split these notions of murk into two seperate things.

First with the cannibal chief, lets say the GM's intention is that you go and collect the princess. Controversially, I'll say this is more an example of failed participationism. The example seems to refer to 'what it means' sans any particular person giving that meaning (ie, the GM). Once you attribute someone in particular as giving it a particular meaning of what to do next to make further game play happen, the participationism becomes evident. That or poorly done illusionism/railroading. I'd say that's why James doesn't find it murky in the least - because he's not looking for any cue as to where to go next - he'll just choose whatever merry thing he decides on, thanks!

Definately no social contract is explicity communicated by the description, no matter how intense the GM is or how much of a gleam in their eye they get as they say it.

The second example of 'No, I was in the back, not the front!' seems to fall to an authority issue - those involved do not all share the ONE method of determination (to put it mildly). The pieces on the board aren't treated by all participants as a method of position determination (or aren't if someone isn't able to reach - though this hasn't been stated in any explicit social contract). Further you get down to the issue of peers trying to claim authority over each other - amongst adults, this can get ugly. It's too easy for an implicit notion of 'I get to be in charge for game stuff' seems to slip the leash into 'I get to be in charge of you, as an adult, in real life - I wear the viking helmet in this tribe!'

It also suffers from 'If the GM missed something, I will retract part (or all!) of my sense that he is a determining authority'. So the GM doesn't hear something, then in working from the mini's on the board, players retract their notion he has the authority to determine anything at all.

[Ron Edwards]

My take is that murk is murk, and anything procedural can be murky. The subject can be anything in the fiction (SIS). The problem, however, is System, which is to say, how do we do it? So naming various things that have been used as examples is not really to the point. I'm talking about a breakdown or an ongoing condition of breakdown about what we do or don't know we're supposed to do next.

To forestall a certain misinterpretation that might come up, I'm not saying that Murk can "be about anything." It's about procedure, specifically procedures that establish understanding - and by understanding, I mean relevant expectations about what can or cannot be done with the system next.

Therefore simply not getting the initiative mechanics and hoping the table as a whole will effectively play this part of the system for you contributes to murk. Not knowing whether the way the GM played a particular NPC is supposed to signal a set of expected actions on your characters' parts is murk at a larger scenario-level scale. Not having a functional group mechanism for the transition from inaction (which uses one set of rules, the GM calling for perception and whatnot) to action (which uses another, based strictly on rules-savvy player announcement) is murk too.

[Callan S.]

I don't understand? Particularly in regard to procedures that establish what can or cannot be done with the system next, given that procedures are system and vise versa? At best it seems to treat the first system as beholden to some sort of second system (with the second being ill defined/murky). Rather like when someone has their PC stab another PC and people call that douchey - even if the first system has absolutely no limits on who you can target, they have a second (unwritten) system that play of the first system is supposed to beholden to - and the second system says no PC targeting (when it's mentioned at all - usually after the fact).

Do we have here that the second system is not being particularly well described or articulated? Indeed even here in this thread, mayhap that even the existance of the second system is left murky?

Because why is there concern with 'relevant expectations about what can or cannot be done with the system next.'? If there are movement rules or attack rules, then those are available. Throw burning oil at the cook. Walk out. Beg for your life. A number of rules options are either available, or are avaiable if the GM doesn't cut off their availability. Stop worrying about what anyone means and just play. If that is the case - that's what leaves me not understanding this procedure/murk thing?

[Ron Edwards]

OK, you don't like the word "procedures." I get it. I like it, but OK.

I think you have a pretty good idea of what murk is, after all our discussions at the Forge. How would you write the entry?

Best, Ron

[Callan S.]

Curious - I like the word 'procedures'. Sure it's a common enough gamer habit it seems to peer loathingly at rules, let alone rules that can't be washed away in a moment of GM fiat. You've attributed me as being 'hardcore' at one point, Ron - it's not a loathing of procedure, it's not seeing anything else but procedure! Opposite end of the spectrum to disliking the word! The whole procedure/system thing is like a fish/'in mail never clanking' thing, to me. Just saying the same thing again, but in riddle form.

To me it all merits further investigation. I think I'd agree with the wiki entries comparison to playing music together and would recommend the direction to look at is in regard to how riffing off of someone else sets up aesthetic boundaries for further contributions. But these boundaries could, problematically, be treated as if they are hard rules - even treated as if they are a system. So as much as musicians might think a certain following contribution to riffing is jaring, so too can gamers think stabbing another PC is jaring(douchey) - in as much as it doesn't fit their aesthetic boundaries. But how they'll go on about it for pages and pages on forums indicates they don't identify it as an aesthetic boundary, but instead system or social contract itself (when they've never said 'No PVP' or anything like that explicitly). When aesthetics are obviously very subjective and so really unsuitable for being the basis of co-operation (heck, even in romantic relationships they can and often do fail to enable co-operation). Another basis for the muddling of authority (where appeals to aesthetics to resolve situations is treated as a genuinely objective method of arbitration!!)

Then add on top of that that while in music generally you can kind of have a feel for what fits in next, with something like the cannibal chief it's oblique - murky - it really gives no clue as to what follows. So, add onto that any individuals present that are carrying the notion that aesthetic boundaries are actually a mutally agreed system or social contract and your up for a hot bed when no one else has a clue of what direction they are to contribute toward next! That's why I like Jame's approach - in just playing, he just cuts through that gordian knot of missunderstanding. Why I'm so very much at one end of the spectrum.

Then add on top of that any personal asset risks - I mean, take the issue of who is at the front (and about to have their PC poisoned). What if the GM had simply declared a recently encountered NPC that no one has formed any attachement to, as being at the front. Then that NPC gets poisoned as a result of this otherwise not heavily established positioning. I doubt you'd see an eyebrow raised. But it's the same deal - it's just a matter of what is the property of whom, raising the issue to even worse levels.

I feel it needs playtesting - I'd do a write up, but it'd feel to me to be in the 'just trust me on this, bro!' vein.

[Ron Edwards]

Look, the point of the wiki is to be helpful to people reading it for the first time. So this forum's totally the opposite of the Forge - we're not here to thrash out every little possible nuance and fiddly bit, we're trying to find the right thing to say at first contact, in plain language.

Can you help me do that, please?

[Callan S.]

In definite terms, dunno? But taking a shot at it, I wrote this up with the idea of being added between 'A core contributor to Murk is...' and the paragraph above that

~~~
Much like playing music together, the base situation involved parralels with riffing off each other in improvised music. However, murk is a dysfunction of that arrangement. We can all register that certain music 'follows on' from prior music contributed by someone else playing. But even in musical play though, some peoples notion of what music follows beutifully on may jarringly conflict with someone elses notion. Murk is a reflection of how seriously one or more participants take it to avoid giving the 'wrong' contribution (wrong in an aesthetic sense - but were talking about how much it's taken as an objective wrong rather than an aesthetic wrong). The seriousness is rather like a dial - at the extreme end of the dial, giving the 'wrong' contribution is percieved as an actual social contract violation. Ie, people not only don't know what to do next, but are afraid of doing something for how it might be the wrong thing to do! Play clams up as a result. Or with a participant who has the dial down to zero and they are fine with doing whatever seems to be available in the explicit range of rules options - effectively negating any issue of murk if everyone elses dials are at zero at that point. Or compounding the issues of murk where some might have their dial set in the middle, ala the players attempting to start a fight and the (mid dial) GM simply continuing to talk as his NPC's. Or worse, someone has their dial at the high end and the resulting percieved break in social contract can break friendships.

This may well seem as if this could not be personally inapplicable, as a person who confuses aesthetics as being emperic measures obviously doesn't relate to the idea they are using an aesthetic measure. Instead it all seems 'clear cut' or 'obvious'.