The Forge Archives

On this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10051) Doctor Xero wrote:

Quote from: Doctor XeroBut in the name of sanity, please make a comment which has nothing to do with the use of the term "interactive" in its legitimate, scholarly meaning.

I'm honoring that request as far as the original thread is concerned. But I don't accept this argument from authority. Therefore I'm presenting my opposing point of view here.

Quote from: Doctor XeroIn literature studies, relating to and being inspired by something, such as the already-written text, is called "interactive" and has been for many, many years.

I question why literary scholars would bother with a descriptor that appears to be so uselessly universal. If reading and reacting to a text makes the text "interactive," then no text being discussed can ever fail to be "interactive" (because if no one has read it, or reading is has triggered no thoughts or emotions in the minds of those readers, then what's to discuss?).

Quote from: Doctor XeroAlso, in studies of literature and film and storytelling, the term "interactive" is used precisely as I have used it.  I see no reason to rewrite the pertinent field's lexicon capriciously. As I have mentioned before, if The Forge has a different term for the same notion, I will happily adopt it when writing here and restrict my use of the term "interactive" to writing papers for literary and culture studies journals.

There are many different uses and abuses of "interactive" in many different fields. In the field of cat toy packaging design, for instance, "interactive" means that the toy is designed to be held and manipulated by a human to play with the cat, rather than for solitary play by the cat alone. (And yes, it's meant that for many many years.)

Some cat toy makers abuse the term and slap the "interactive" label onto ordinary cat toys that are suitable only for solo play by the cat. If asked to justify the term, no doubt they'd argue that their toy is properly called interactive because the cat interacts with it. That abuses the term by rendering it meaninglessly universal. A cat toy that is not intended for a cat to interact with it is not a cat toy at all. Labeling any old cat toy "interactive" turns the term into a meaningless buzz-word that's entirely redundant with the part of the label that says "Cat Toy."

Similarly, labelling text or the reading of text as "interactive" doesn't strike me as very informative. If it merely means that the text influences the mind of the reader in any way at all, that's entirely redundant with "readable" or with the text being text in the first place. If there's some higher threshold, such as that the text must be inspiring or thought-provoking to be "interactive," then there are already perfectly good terms for that (such as "inspiring" and "thought-provoking").

But that's not my concern. If the literary scholars find the term in their own jargon useful (such as, I strongly suspect, to disguise a subjective opinion about the merits of a text by using a descriptor that sounds like an objective characteristic), they're welcome to it. However...

Computer game designers, role players, and all kinds of performers have for decades used the term "interactive" to mean something else entirely. "Interactive" applied to a work means the work can be influenced, having its form or presented content altered during the performance, by the audience. A stage play is interactive if the audience can speak to the actors and influence some aspect of the subsequent performance by so doing. A TV show is interactive if the audience can influence future developments in some way, such as by voting (as in American Idol). A performance art piece is interactive if the audience participates in some way that the performer pays attention to and responds to by modifying his or her subsequent performance. A Webcam stripper's performance is interactive if the audience members can tell her through a chat channel what to take off next or what body part to wiggle closer to the camera. A text is interactive if the reader alters its content or presentation as part of the act of reading. A story is interactive if the audience influences the plot of the story.

Computer games are universally interactive in that minimal sense -- that is, if the audience (player) doesn't control some aspect of what happens on the screen, then it's not a computer game. Thus there have been deep and intense debates about what constitutes a sufficiently higher level of responsiveness to the audience for a computer game to meaningfully be labeled "interactive." The most commonly argued threshold is that for a game to be properly called interactive, the overarching story that the game conveys in its outcome must be variable in response to the player's actions. In other words, "interactive" applied to a computer game implies that the game has an interactive story. Since that's rarely true in computer games, many don't accept that as a necessary requirement, and argue instead that changing the minor details of the story (leaving the main plot unaffected) or changing the presentation of the story (such as by deciding which of several simultaneous scenes to monitor) is enough to be "interactive." But that returns "interactive" to near universality in computer games. The debate rages on.

(Note that the same issues can arise in other media. A performance such as a play might be interactive, without its story being interactive, if aspects of the performance other than the story are what the audience is influencing. However, opinions are divided on the degree of influence required to really merit the descriptor "interactive" in any given case. Most, but not everyone, would agree that giving the audience members paper tubes to look through, so that they "alter the presentation of the play" by deciding where on stage to look from moment to moment, doesn't make it interactive. Most, but not everyone, would agree that having the actors talk back to the audience in a way that actually responds to things the audience members say does make the play interactive, even if the plot of the play is not affected.)

Quote from: Doctor XeroI have not once intended VoINT to refer to player-to-player interaction, only to player-to-text interaction (except when the latter influences the former).

As I hope the above exposition has shown, in computer games and role playing, as well as other presentation and performance media, the common meaning of "interactive" is exactly the reverse. A text becomes interactive when and only when the player influences the text.

Quote from: Doctor XeroIf the player brings it, it is not[/i] pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players.  There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing[/b] with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.

By the more common meaing if "interactive," the one thing that everyone agrees a person can truly interact with, the one thing that can always respond to a person's actions in an interesting and meaninful way, is another person. So, this too comes out as just the reverse. You can't interact with text because it doesn't change no matter what you do. When I show up to play, I'd be saying "there's nothing here to interact with" if the text were sitting there on the table but the people were absent.

Role playing is a social activity. It's all about the people. It's natural therefore to interpret "interactive" as meaning relatively more attention paid to what the other people are doing and saying and creating (and therefore, less attention to what a text says), especially when in general people are capbable of being interactive and text is not. Similarly, it's natural to interpret "independent" as meaning relatively less attention paid to what the other people are doing and saying and creating (and therefore, more attention to something else, perhaps a text). That's why people keep misunderstanding VoIND and VoINT as being the reverse of what Doctor Xero has defined them to be.

Do I care? Not as far as the definitions of VoIND and VoINT are concerned. But I'm really sick of being bludgeoned with what the "legitimate" meaning of "interactive" is according to literary scholars. Their opinion on the matter means less to me than that of the cat toy package copywriters.

- Walt

Well said, Walt.

I'm also curious as to what is meant by.

QuoteIf the player brings it, it is not pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players. There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.

I don't understand this distinction at all.

If the GM says "what do you do?"
and the player says "we walk down the road"
and the GM says "you see a cottage".

Then the players can do anything they want to interact with that cottage.  They can go inside, they can climb onto the roof, they can throw rocks at the windows, they can burn it down, they can kick down the door and kill everyone.

If the GM says "what do you do?"
and the player says "we walk down the road"
and the GM says "ok, and what do you find down the road?"
and the player says "I think it would be cool if there were a cottage here"

How is this any different in terms of level of interactivity.  The players can still go inside, climb on the roof, throw rocks, burn it down, or kill the occupants.

The only thing that is different in these two examples is who had the authority to declare the cottage into existance.  That's a director stance issue and a perfectly valid distinction.  But it has nothing to do with "interactivity".

Once the cottage has been accepted it has exactly the same notional existance either way.  Its ability to be interacted with is the same either way.

I think I understand the distinction Dr Xero is trying to make (basically, how is directoral power distributed in the game) but the word "interactive" seems to be a profoundly poor term to try and describe this.

Quote from: Walt FreitagDo I care? Not as far as the definitions of VoIND and VoINT are concerned. But I'm really sick of being bludgeoned with what the "legitimate" meaning of "interactive" is according to literary scholars. Their opinion on the matter means less to me than that of the cat toy package copywriters.

Jesus, Walt.  Doctor Xero only brought up this point (about literary theory usage), what, three days ago?  So I think you're overreacting to say about how awfully sick you are of it.  I mean, it would be one thing if Xero demanded that everyone else use his meaning -- but I don't think he is.  He just wants to talk about "interaction" in the specialized context of "interaction with text" -- as distinct from other sorts of interaction.  (I think this needs to be clarified, but that's a separate issue.)  

Quote from: Walt Freitag

Quote from: Doctor XeroIf the player brings it, it is not[/i] pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players.  There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing[/b] with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.  

By the more common meaing if "interactive," the one thing that everyone agrees a person can truly interact with, the one thing that can always respond to a person's actions in an interesting and meaninful way, is another person.   So, this too comes out as just the reverse. You can't interact with text because it doesn't change no matter what you do.  

Well, there can be abstractions which are not themselves physical people -- like a "group" or "social contract" or "shared imaginary space".  For example, suppose the wife of one of the players might come in and ask if anyone wants some cake.  She is interacting with the people, but she is not interacting with the shared imaginary space.  I think it is necessary to have these abstraction to talk about game interactions in any meaningful sense.  

Consider further interactive world-building.  i.e. A group of people all engage in creating a fantasy world at a fixed moment in time.  They create continents, nations, cities, cultures, characters, and so forth -- but it is all fixed in time.  Now, the players are all interacting with each other, but there is no in-game interaction.  I think it is worthwhile to distinguish between this sort of interaction, and in-game interactions like dialogue, combat, and so forth.

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: Doctor XeroIf the player brings it, it is not pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players. There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.

I don't understand this distinction at all.
...(example deleted)...
How is this any different in terms of level of interactivity.  The players can still go inside, climb on the roof, throw rocks, burn it down, or kill the occupants.

The only thing that is different in these two examples is who had the authority to declare the cottage into existance.

I don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all.  He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment.  So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".  Within this usage, "interaction with text" means that something was already prepared rather than being made up on the spot: i.e. a map, a character, or other fictional creation.  

So, for example, consider a game where there was only a fixed list of 20 characters (both PC and NPC).  And the whole game takes place within a region (perhaps a manor house) that is mapped out.  This game will have a lot of interaction of pre-existing structures.  

Consider on the other hand a game where the PCs frequently go to a different locale or perhaps a different universe; and maybe there is high PC turnover.  Here there is a lot of creation of new fictional structures, but no a lot of interaction of pre-existing fictional structures.

Glad you brought this up, Walt!

I am not particularly a literature scholar, myself, but it seems to me that insofar as one talks about interaction with a text in the sense of the written, graphic word, the usual focus is on hermeneutics -- that is to say, interpretation.  While some hermeneutic models, notably that of Hans-Georg Gadamer, want to push for the act of reading as a fundamentally conversational, interactive process, he did have to argue for that.  Furthermore, my sense of the hermeneutic philosophy situation right now is that Gadamer has pretty much lost the battle.

{Jargon off}

In fact, what confuses me about this use of terms is that I would also read it precisely the opposite way, but for different reasons than Ralph and Walt have proposed.  Here's why:

The usual distinction made is between textuality and orality.  In speech, we converse with each other, and there is some sense in which there is necessarily interaction at a personal level guiding our interpretations of words.  So when some guy says to me, "Hey, Bob -- bite me!" I have to interpret this.  But I have lots of contextual cues by which to do so.  Does the guy mean this literally?  If not, is he mad at me?  Is he kidding around?  Since my name isn't Bob, is he even talking to me?  If I'm still confused after running through a very complicated version of this process, I ask.  "Hey, what do you mean?"  And he explains, or not, as the case may be.

If I'm reading a book, however, and I turn the page and find the words "Bite me!" written at the top, my interpretive process stops before I get to the author.  That is, I can't say to the book, "What do you mean?" and expect an answer.  In short, the textual situation is not conversational.

Thus the classic problem of interpretation (Plato goes on about this, and everyone since) is that text is not interactive.  It's oddly divorced from its author, as compared to speech.

Now the usual conclusion is that I, as reader, must construct the text by interacting with it within my own mind; this is called interpretation.  Traditionally, the goal was to understand the meaning and intent of the author.  More recently, particularly since Heidegger, it's been recognized pretty broadly that you can't get there from here: you can't get The Meaning for sure.  So what do you do instead?  And then it all goes crazy.  But at base, there is a sense in which interaction with a text is always and necessarily interaction with my construct of the text, which I then check against my expectation, which I then put against the text again, and so forth.

As a result, the traditional read of the speech/writing distinction is that ultimately speech is interactive in a conversational sense, while writing is ultimately independent of author and even of reader.

Now post-Derrida's Of Grammatology, there has been a big push to undermine this distinction, for a whole bunch of reasons I'm not going to get into here, but the upshot is that we have moved toward independence in speech.  Much of the argument has, in fact, argued that the conversational model doesn't even hold for conversation!  In short, the post-structuralist move has been to challenge the interactive and assert the independent.  You don't need to go that far, of course, but to claim conversely that interactivity is necessarily the basis of written interpretation seems contrary to almost every model I know outside the purely mystical (and deliberately transgressive).

To take the video game example, which I like, we could compare video games to speech and television to writing.  You can only view and interpret television; you can't interact with the characters except in your own mind.  In video games, the medium reacts to you, making the process interactive and, in a loose sense, conversational.

I made a little pitch about this at the beginning of the Ritual essay (see Articles section above), where I argued that John Kim's and Ron's uses of literary models for RPG's is a bit deceptive or confusing, because those models necessarily deal with a non-conversational medium; RPG's, by contrast, are entirely conversational, or mostly so.

Thus I am at a loss to explain the "ordinary" meaning of interaction in literature, unless what's meant is interpretation.

{jargon on}
The only way I can parse this is by saying that what the player brings to the table is required for any interpretation to happen, and thus interaction must occur within the confines of what the totality of players bring to the table, which is certainly the case, but that would be true regardless of the hermeneutic situation.  That some RPG's demand a considerable prior structure of particular kinds of data and others do not has nothing to do with the hermeneutic procedure of entering the world in front of the text and returning for reflection and so on.

{jargon off}
I don't buy it.

Chris Lehrich

QuoteI don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all.

I don't think it is either.  Which is why the word is a completely bizarre choice.  The distinction of pre existing vs. spontaneously added is a reasonable distinction to make.  Problem is, and where the discussion got derailed, is that there is ZERO logical association between this distinction and the word "interactive".

I x-posted with John.

Quote from: John KimI don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all.  He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment.  So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".  Within this usage, "interaction with text" means that something was already prepared rather than being made up on the spot: i.e. a map, a character, or other fictional creation.

That may be so, John, but what difference does it make?  If I read a mystery novel in the ordinary way, i.e. from front to back, I know hypothetically that the answer has already been created, but at the same time I do not really know this to be the case.  If I get to the end of the story and find that there isn't any solution at all, I'll be ticked off, but it's surely possible.  Hypothetically, if I put the book down and go away for an hour, and then you sneak in and switch it with an identical copy that does include the final answer at the end, how will I know that anything has changed?

This is an impossible distinction in practical terms.  If I simply assert that everything I have done in the game as GM was pre-planned, does that make everything interaction instead of creativity?  What if I'm lying?  Does it make any difference?

Chris Lehrich

Quote from: John KimDoctor Xero only brought up this point (about literary theory usage), what, three days ago?  So I think you're overreacting to say about how awfully sick you are of it.  I mean, it would be one thing if Xero demanded that everyone else use his meaning -- but I don't think he is.  He just wants to talk about "interaction" in the specialized context of "interaction with text" -- as distinct from other sorts of interaction.  (I think this needs to be clarified, but that's a separate issue.)

Thank you.  I was defending my use, never attempting to impose it upon others except asking it be used within that thread I started to avoid semantic tangents.

Quote from: ValamirIf the GM says "what do you do?"
and the player says "we walk down the road"
and the GM says "you see a cottage".

Then the players can do anything they want to interact with that cottage.  They can go inside, they can climb onto the roof, they can throw rocks at the windows, they can burn it down, they can kick down the door and kill everyone.

If the GM says "what do you do?"
and the player says "we walk down the road"
and the GM says "ok, and what do you find down the road?"
and the player says "I think it would be cool if there were a cottage here"

How is this any different in terms of level of interactivity?

I would have been content to let this issue die, but since you asked, I will answer.

In the first example, the players have an opportunity to demonstrate how creative they can be making use of what they already have -- in your example, a cabin.  In the second example, the players have an opportunity to create fresh, but there is no opportunity for them to make use of what they already have, because (when it comes to landmarks) they don't already have anything.

There's a certain creativity in finding a fixer-upper house and renovating it, restoring parts of it, and altering/building still other parts of it.  In that case, the new owners are interacting with the pre-existing structure.

Of course, there's also a certain creativity in building a new home from scratch, independent from any pre-existing structure.  I have chosen in imitation of one of my fields to refer to that as independent (but I'm sure I might well have named it otherwise were my background different).

I respect people whose sense of style allows them to go out and purchase wonderful clothes to wear (independent of what's already in the wardrobe closet).  I also respect people whose sense of style allows them to stay with what's in the closet, buying nothing new, yet arrange and mix-n-match their clothes such that they look just as wonderful (interactive with what's already in the wardrobe closet).  I don't see the two as identical actions from the perspective of person-to-wardrobe interaction.  But I imagine, from the perspective of how they look, the differences might seem moot . . . but's that not the perspective I was attempting to investigate, just as G/N/S is not intended to address the perspective of which game system costs less.

I do not consider the ability to adapt to one's circumstances to be inherently any less creative than the ability to create fresh.  The ability to interact creatively with my environment is fairly important in this world today, just as valuable as the ability to create independently of pre-existing paradigm.

Side note: this debate about degree of new creation (independent) versus degree of creativity making use of what already exists and going on from there (interactive) is related both to another ongoing thread on whether or not templates help in character construction and to another ongoing thread about whether or not fantastical "races" are of value in an FRPG (or SFRPG).

Quote from: John KimI don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all.  He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment.  So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".

Precisely!

Quote from: Walt FreitagI'm honoring that request as far as the original thread is concerned.

Thank you.  I appreciate it.

Quote from: Walt FreitagSimilarly, labelling text or the reading of text as "interactive" doesn't strike me as very informative.
---snip!--
I question why literary scholars would bother with a descriptor that appears to be so uselessly universal. If reading and reacting to a text makes the text "interactive," then no text being discussed can ever fail to be "interactive"
---snip!--
A text becomes interactive when and only when the player influences the text.

Quote from: Walt FreitagBut I'm really sick of being bludgeoned with what the "legitimate" meaning of "interactive" is according to literary scholars. Their opinion on the matter means less to me than that of the cat toy package copywriters.

If so, then why do you go on about it?  Why argue against a field which means less to you than that of cat toy package copywriters?

I had avoided explaining the origin of the use of "interactive" in my original thread because I wanted to avoid semantic tangents.  As anyone can see, I failed at that effort more than I succeeded.  Still, the Forge people continue to impress me with their sense of courtesy, so while there was obvious anger in Walt's original post, I do not think he was trying to disrespect me personally.

So, I will try to answer your question within my abilities, Walt.

The term "interactive" was originally used in a time before literary scholars began to investigate thoroughly the power of fandom.  Fandom has only been investigated relatively recently (by academic standards).

At the time, the term "interactive" was used as part of the attempts to investigate the differences between the degree of involvment in reading a book (interactive) and the degree of involvment in seeing a film or watching a television show (less interactive because much of the imaginative speculation has been done for you).  It was used to understand the different levels of involvement/interaction between my imagining what Frodo looks like and my being told that Frodo looks like Elijah Woods with his height altered by SPFX.

Since then, we have discovered that both with books and with film the level of interactivity or involvement has become more determined by whether the reader/viewer approaches it as someone seeking diversion or as a fan-culture devotee (those involved in the more creative fanfics and such).

A fan's own personal "mythology" or personal lexicon of images and ideas will be influenced by the text of the book or the text of the film because she or he will interact with it, using its pre-existing images and ideas as inspirations and springboards for his or her own thoughts.  People seeking diversion will be unaffected by the book or film, so they will not incorporate any of the images or ideas into their own thoughts nor will they be inspired by them -- they will remain "independent" of the text of the book or the text of the film.  This is one reason why many people have read comic books but only a few have gone on to become comic book writers.

My personal involvement with my own creations is highest when I create something from whole cloth, such as writing a short story, and it becomes less as I read someone else's short story and less further as I watch someone else's cinema interpretation of a short story someone else wrote.  My personal involvment with what already exists is highest when I am able to adapt it to my uses, renovate it, rework it, re-envision it, whether given me by my game master or by a story I'm reading or a television series I love, and that involvement becomes less and less as I move to writing my own stories with little reference to anything that already exists.

Other than the obvious -- complete originality is impossible, of course, but pointing that out is a technicality.  Heed the spirit of my words, not the letter of them!

So, for a person trying to understand the level of player involvement with creatively utilizing what is already there in new ways on one extreme ranging into creatively constructing from whole cloth on the other extreme, the continuum from "interactive" to "independent" makes sense.  If people do not care about the impact on an RPG of the degree of player improvisation and the degree of player interaction with what is already there, then no, that continuum would be useless to them.

I genuinely hope that helps clarify.

Doctor Xero

P.S. Clehrich, I apologize for not addressing your points, some of which are excellent.  However, as I hope you can see from my posting, you were referencing a different segment of literary scholarship than I was in your posting.  Still, it was very welcome to read the familiar language! <smile>

[Wow, I wrote a whole damn essay, when I just started out saying, yeah, what they said.]

Doc Xero uses the terms "interactive" and "independent" as they are used in literary criticism to describe the relationship of a reader to a text - or a viewer to a movie. Now, I do think that literary criticism has some validity when applied to role-playing games, but we must be ready to adapt to the differences between the media.

A text, in the literary criticism sense, is a static thing - it is complete in toto _when_ the reader encounters it, even before he goes through the process of experiencing it. When the reader experiences is a text, he cannot change it. His only means of interacting with it, is by responding with emotions and thoughts and conversation to others about the text.

On the other hand, a role-playing game does not have a text in this sense. The material of an actual play session is a series of elements added to a collective fantasy that all the players agree exists for the purpose of their game. I like to call this body of material the "shared fantasy". Others have referred to the "place" this material exists as the "shared imagined space."

The shared fantasy has some similarities to a static text, but does have some differences. The key one being dynamism. While some shared fantasy material may exist (my character, my sword, the kingdom, the history of past adventures) before a given session of play, the complete material (events, new NPCs, new places) of a game session does not exist _until_ the play session is complete. The material of a game session is created by the players.

So, unlike a static text, where the reader's only means of interaction is emotional, intellectual, or conversational, the participant in a role-playing game can also interact by _creating_ new elements of the "text." Even if those new elements are only "what my character does," they are a proactive act of creation.

For these reasons, shared fantasy is a cumulative entity that comes into existence during play. Imagine a cycle, as Ralph did:

GM: "You find a road. What do you do?"
Player: "We walk down the road."
GM: "You see a cottage."
Player: "I knock on the door."

The GM's first statement introduces a road into the shared fantasy. The player then introduces his character's action into the fantasy. Then the GM produces the cottage and the player adds another action to the shared fantasy.

Both the player and the GM are making additions to the shared fantasy - the "text." The only distinction is that the GM has introduced elements of the environment, while the player has introduced elements of action restricted to his character.

Noth the GM and the player conceived their additions to the shared fantasy _based_ on the existing material. They interacted with the existing material. Yet, some of the material they interacted with did not exist until just seconds before they addressed it.

Now, in the other example, we see the player contributing, not just action elements, but environmental elements:

f the GM says "what do you do?"
and the player says "we walk down the road"
and the GM says "ok, and what do you find down the road?"
and the player says "I think it would be cool if there were a cottage here."
GM & other players: "Ok"
Player: "I knock on the door."

In this case, the process remains the same. First, the cottage did not exist in the "text." Then it did, and then the player interacted with it. The only difference that I can imagine is that, in the first example, the player continues to experience the novelty of the unknown, while in the other case, he may _also_ experience the novelty of knowing what he wants to find in the cottage.

At first, it may seem strange to players to create then interact with an imaginary element - they may feel that they no longer have the wonder of discovery if they are the one who created it. However, I argue that creation itself also has a wonder of discovery. Though from my personal experience with writing, I know that the sense of wonder is often also tinged with performance fear: not knowing what your next creation will be.

Finally, the point of all this is that the "text" of an RPG comes into existence as players add to it. Each new element is created to be consistent with what has already been agreed to be part of the "text." This consistency may lead the player to address what exists in the text, but they may also create new elements that dove-tail into the fantasy in a way that doesn't violate previously created material.

Consistency of creation is one of the general traits that shows up in all role-playing.  Each time a player must create something consistent with the existing material, he is also interacting with that material.  I think that the scale between "interactive" and "independent" may have some application if we look at how strict players are in enforcing consistency with existing material. But the use of director stance techniques (where players have some control over the fantasy environment) are not related to enforcement of consistency. Players who enjoy director powers can also work hard to maintain consistency with existing "text." I can offer myself as an example and many other people I've played with.

So I think "VoInt" vs. "VoInd" breaks down into two separate scales which address things we already have terms for:  One scale is how much Director stance power a player prefers, and the other is how strict the player likes their consistency.  Because these scales are uncorrelated – one can be high while the other is high, or one can be high while the other is low – they cannot be conflated into a single scale.

Wow, you have some good points, Alan!  I hadn't considered the way many people are used to thinking of books as static things.  Mea culpa.

Quote from: AlanA text, in the literary criticism sense, is a static thing - it is complete in toto _when_ the reader encounters it, even before he goes through the process of experiencing it. When the reader experiences is a text, he cannot change it. His only means of interacting with it, is by responding with emotions and thoughts and conversation to others about the text.

You're correct.  However, I think that the involvement between fan culture and static texts makes a nice parallel to the involvement between player and what called "the shared fantasy".  Your posting came in at the same time as mine, so you didn't have a chance to read it first.  Now that I have explained the origin of the terms I was using, what are your thoughts?  I'd really like to know.

Quote from: AlanEach time a player must create something consistent with the existing material, he is also interacting with that material. I think that the scale between "interactive" and "independent" may have some application if we look at how strict players are in enforcing consistency with existing material.

I think the scale is even more valuable if applied as part of an effort to look at the range of player creative adaptability (taking what already is and using it) going from players who can be highly adaptive (interactive) to players who try to be highly independent not adaptive (when possible).  (My personal suspicion is that everyone can be both adaptive and independent.)

Now that I've read your post, I'm specifically interested in your thoughts about my comments on adapting to what is as an act of creativity equal to constructing independently.

Quote from: Doctor XeroI respect people whose sense of style allows them to go out and purchase wonderful clothes to wear (independent of what's already in the wardrobe closet).  I also respect people whose sense of style allows them to stay with what's in the closet, buying nothing new, yet arrange and mix-n-match their clothes such that they look just as wonderful (interactive with what's already in the wardrobe closet).  I don't see the two as identical actions from the perspective of person-to-wardrobe interaction.  
---snip!--
I do not consider the ability to adapt to one's circumstances to be inherently any less creative than the ability to create fresh.  The ability to interact creatively with my environment is fairly important in this world today, just as valuable as the ability to create independently of pre-existing paradigm.

When I enter a game world, the very first thing I want to know is what all the parameters are.  It's like putting together a puzzle by assembling the frame-pieces first, to provide structure for the rest of the puzzle.  It's like wanting to know whether my poetry professor wants me to write in free verse, a haiku, with a specific cadence, etc.  If not given specifics, when in a flow, I was the student who handed in seven poems, each decently well done and each in a different style, since I wasn't given guidelines and boundaries beyond the idea that I was to write a poem.

If I'm given permission to design a new race for a fantasy campaign, I want to know what races already exist, what mythic/metaphoric niches are already taken, what ambience is preferred for that campaign, etc., so that I might interact with it.  If I create independently of that campaign world, there are two dangers it seems to me : the practical danger that I create a race which replicates or elbows out another race or violates the ambience (e.g. creating a race of bone-marrow vampires in a world that is based on My Little Poney), and the personal concern that, if I'm going to the bother of creating from scratch, why waste it on a game when I can be sitting home writing it as a story?

(Yes, I know that VoIND games such as Fungeon and DonJon already have some structure, if only the idea of a classic dungeon-crawl.  I'm not putting down either approach.)

To bring all this back to the original posting which started this thread : yes, there are valid reasons for the original terminology I had used, and they were derived from literary scholarship as people began to study first the difference between reading a book and watching a film/television series and then went on to study the difference between a passive audience and the interactive audience found in creative fandom.

But we all feel free to use different terminology in our own posts, don't we?

Doctor Xero

Quote from: ValamirI don't think it is either.  Which is why the word is a completely bizarre choice.  The distinction of pre existing vs. spontaneously added is a reasonable distinction to make.  Problem is, and where the discussion got derailed, is that there is ZERO logical association between this distinction and the word "interactive".

It might be a bit obscure, but bear with me a moment.  Now, we're working on the level of fictional objects (i.e. characters, setting, etc.).  Imagine them as physical toys, and there is a little carpet which all the players are sitting around which is shared play.  When they set a toy on the carpet, it is put in shared play.  The players may also have other toys which are sitting around the edge of the carpet -- corresponding to bits which are create but not yet interacted with in play.  Thirdly, the players can create new toys and put them down (either on the carpet or around the edge).  

Now, the word "interaction" implies at least two pre-existing objects which, well, interact.  So having one toy do something to another is "interaction", whereas creating a new toy is something else (perhaps just "creation").  That said, I also have problems with the original terms.  But first let's try to clarify the distinction, and then make practical suggestions for what the terms should be.  

Quote from: AlanSo I think "VoInt" vs. "VoInd" breaks down into two separate scales which address things we already have terms for:  One scale is how much Director stance power a player prefers, and the other is how strict the player likes their consistency.  Because these scales are uncorrelated – one can be high while the other is high, or one can be high while the other is low – they cannot be conflated into a single scale.

I don't think this is correct.  VoINT/VoIND are related to these, but not the same.  As I understand it, if a GM makes up a cottage on the spot, that is still VoIND.  If a player makes up a cottage on the spot, that is also VoIND.  It is only VoINT if the cottage has already been conceived of by either GM or players.  

This isn't something treated in current theory, but it is interesting, I think.  Chris Lehrich suggests that it is invisible, but that seems nonsensical.  It is incredibly visible to the person who is acting.  Moreover, I expect that it also has an effect on play.  i.e. If the GM makes things up completely off the cuff, the game will likely turn out differently than if they prepare.  The players might not be able to perfectly identify what bits were prepared vs not, but they will definitely notice that something has changed if the GM goes from one extreme to the other.

QuoteNow, the word "interaction" implies at least two pre-existing objects which, well, interact. So having one toy do something to another is "interaction", whereas creating a new toy is something else (perhaps just "creation"). That said, I also have problems with the original terms. But first let's try to clarify the distinction, and then make practical suggestions for what the terms should be.

Understood, but I don't this is a useful distinction.

For this to be the case, every cobblestone of every road must be mapped in advance.  Every room in every cottage and every item in those rooms must be known with precision in advance.  *EVERYTHING* must be known in advance.  Because only then can everything the player character encounters in the game be said to "pre-exist" and only then can the game be said to be VoInt.

Of course, quite the contrary is true.  We know that every road is not mapped nor every room inventoried.  What happens when the players stray beyond the borders of the GM's map?  What happens if the player looks for a hair brush in a room the GM hasn't fully inventoried?

Obviously, the GM improvises.  The GM has always improvised.  Go to the most hardcore traditional old school game imaginable and you'll find the GM improvising.  

The road the party travels down didn't exist until the players decided to go left (not mapped) instead of right (mapped).  The cottage didn't exist until the GM felt the need to break up the monotony of the road with an encounter of some kind.  The inventory of the cottage didn't exist until the players decided to go inside and look around.

Sure.  Some roads are mapped.  Some cottages are placed.  Some rooms are inventoried.  But clearly not all.  And clearly on those occasions the GM is expected to improvise.

At that moment the GM is creating something new out of whole cloth...exactly what you describe as creating a new toy.  According to the definition, this is not "interactive", but clearly it goes on quite frequently in every session of every game which Dr Xero would or could ever label VoInt.

It is obvious to me that Dr Xero has confounded two completely unrelated topics.  What he is trying to differentiate is *not* whether something pre exists or doesn't pre exist.  What he is trying to differentiate is who he's willing to give the authority to spontaneously create that which doesn't pre exist.

In "VoInt" play only the GM has the authority.
In "VoInd" play other players also have such authority.

This has nothing to do with interactivity or independence at all.  Its purely 100% a matter of how Credibility gets divided during play...which is why I said this whole thing was pure Lumpley Principle.


The issue gets further complicated with issues of "consistancy".

Unfortuneately for these discussions the idea of consistancy has been confounded with the idea of credibility.  The proposal indirectly asserts that only the GM's spontaneous creations are capable of being consistant and that any player spotaneous creations are doomed to be inconsistant.

Dr. Xero quite rightly prefers consistancy over inconsistancy; but then quite wrongly asserts that only the GM can be trusted to maintain consistancy.  In point of fact, GMs are mere human beings as are every player at the table, and as a human being the GM has no greater or lesser ability than anyone else to be consistant.  It is perfectly possible, plausible, and typical for all players to be ready, willing, and able to maintain consistancy.

Trying to describe all of this with words borrowed from another discipline only marginally even related to the idea of roleplaying has created quite the muddled mess.


Ultimately, however, I think we've collectively managed to tease apart the real issues which are these.

1) Director Stance:  The concious adding to and altering of the game world

2) Credibility: Who at the table has the ability to employ Director Stance (expandable to include how much)

3) Trust:  Whether or not any player can be entrusted with the power of Director Stance, or whether only the GM can be trusted with such power.


These are the real issues at the heart of these threads I think.  It is perfectly possible to discuss any and all of these without ever needing to resort to questionable vocabulary like "Interactive vs Independent".

Quote from: ValamirIt is obvious to me that Dr Xero has confounded two completely unrelated topics.  What he is trying to differentiate is *not* whether something pre exists or doesn't pre exist.  What he is trying to differentiate is who he's willing to give the authority to spontaneously create that which doesn't pre exist.

In "VoInt" play only the GM has the authority.
In "VoInd" play other players also have such authority.

This has nothing to do with interactivity or independence at all.  

OK, this is a simple one to solve.  Xero -- if a GM has nothing prepared about the game-world and instead makes stuff up off-the-cuff as he tells it to the players, is that VoIND or VoINT?  

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: John KimNow, the word "interaction" implies at least two pre-existing objects which, well, interact. So having one toy do something to another is "interaction", whereas creating a new toy is something else (perhaps just "creation"). That said, I also have problems with the original terms. But first let's try to clarify the distinction, and then make practical suggestions for what the terms should be.

Understood, but I don't this is a useful distinction.

For this to be the case, every cobblestone of every road must be mapped in advance.  Every room in every cottage and every item in those rooms must be known with precision in advance.  *EVERYTHING* must be known in advance.  Because only then can everything the player character encounters in the game be said to "pre-exist" and only then can the game be said to be VoInt.

Eh?  Well, obviously this isn't a simple binary distinction (i.e. exists vs not-exists).  But in my experience, I feel a difference between high levels and low levels of existance.  i.e. Playing a PC or NPC who has been establshed for years feels different than making up a new character off-the-cuff.  Of course, even when the character has been established for years, it could be that I add new facts about him as I play -- but there is still a big difference in degree.

Quote from: RalphIt is obvious to me that Dr Xero has confounded two completely unrelated topics. What he is trying to differentiate is *not* whether something pre exists or doesn't pre exist. What he is trying to differentiate is who he's willing to give the authority to spontaneously create that which doesn't pre exist.

In "VoInt" play only the GM has the authority.
In "VoInd" play other players also have such authority.

Yet, this is contradicted by Doctor Xero's assertion (by agreeing with John Kim's suggestion earlier in the thread) that GM improvisation (e.g. the invention of a cottage on the spot) is VoIND ("creation" rather than "interaction").

[Edit to note: This post was cross-posted with John Kim's immediately above, in which John asks again about GM improvisation. I also asked the same question in the previous VoINT/VoIND thread.]

Suppose the issue were pre-existing vs. non pre-existing. Where does that leave us? Well, pre-existence isn't an all-or-nothing quality. We know that a GM can have a lot in mind that isn't written down at the start of a session. We know that a GM can have a lot written down that ends up being ignored or modified during play. We also know that what's written down can be contingent. Does a random encounter rolled from a table during play pre-exist (because the table itself existed) or not (because the specific encounter wasn't decided on)? Does it matter if the table was specifically prepared by the GM for the adventure's current locale or if it was a subtable of a universal table from the system book selected based on climate? Does it matter if the GM fudges the roll? If the GM introduces a cottage on the spot, but the cottage had previously been planned out in detail for a different location, is that INT or IND? What if the cottage wasn't planned at all, but when the GM decided to introduce it he reached for a sourcebook of 100 small dwellings that he had on his shelf?

On the one hand, the pre-existence of anything prior to its introduction into the shared imagined space through play is a shaky concept. Fang Langford called this the "myth of reality." On the other hand, I've always maintained that it does make an important difference in play if the GM is improvising rather than following a rigid map and/or plan, even if the GM holds all the directorial authority either way. This is certainly something that players could have preferences for, one way or the other.

So does VoIND vs. VoIND just point out that players might have a preference (or at least two separate preferences, one for whether the GM improvises setting and one for whether the players do so)? If so, then it's one of many points of preference in play, and we must inquire whether it matters more than other preferences like combat system crunchiness and amount of character advancement. Or does the theory specify certain consequences of playing one way or the other -- in which case, we must inquire whether the consequences necessarily follow from the behaviors? That's where all the questions of consistency come in. (Why does it follow that players will be less consistent than a GM, or that a GM improvising on the fly will be less consistent than one writing notes in advance?)

I think a case could be made that, quite apart from consistency issues, the ability of a GM to express a certain "vision" through play when holding all the directorial power can give certain qualities to play that it cannot have when expressive power is shared with players through the use of Director stance. But that doesn't appear to align with VoINT (as corresponding to GM-vision) vs. VoIND (as corresponding to shared-vision) as defined in terms of whether explored elements pre-exist, because GM expressive power is if anything enhanced rather than reduced when the GM improvises, so GM improvisation would have to be VoINT.

- Walt

Walt Freitag writes (at length) wisely and clearly on the topic of interactivity, and the way this phrase is interpreted (and not). However; at the end he makes a statement I consider to be slightly problematic:

Quote from: Walt Freitag... especially when in general people are capbable of being interactive and text is not.

The problem with this statement, is that we're talking roleplaying games here, and those are meant to cater for interactivity. In fact the gamesmith may be considered a kind of "guiding spirit" in the game, and someone you interact with through his text. The fragments of text, on milieu and method, gives the gamesmith a presence. He has already planned how to interact with his players, and have written game-fragments which are more or less open, for the players to use in this respect. Still he can not decide how the players actually use the game. They may use, misuse and interepret at will, under the influence of his writings, so we may talk of a true interactivity, through the text.

Why make this point? Well... quite a lot of players tend to think that system don't matter. It does. So it is important to give the text of the game book it's due respect. The gamesmith lay the foundations too, and certainly influence, the game through his work.

I agree with Ralph that most of the examples which Doctor Xero adduces in illustrating "independent" play are purely questions of credibility distribution and director stance. However, in arguing for the definition of "interactive" play, Doctor Xero insists that it is something else--that it is about players interacting with pre-existing elements of the shared imaginary space.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that there are pre-existing elements in the shared imaginary space which are not known to all participants. The very concept of the prepared scenario declares that the players have accepted that the referee has information about the shared imaginary space which they are accepting as true but unknown to them. Many games would not function without this aspect.

However, it seems to me that for Xero's position to hold, these three things must be true:[list=1]

• The world is fully created in every relevant detail prior to play;
• The character players are interacting with the text;
• The character players can recognize the difference between information that exists in the text and information that is invented on the fly.[/list:o]It is not that I think these things are not always true. I am persuaded that they are always false.
  
  Ralph does an excellent job of addressing the first of these. In the late seventies and early eighties there were referees who did massive amounts of work on their worlds, trying to have everything in place. I myself was mapping out a city somthing like twenty five miles east to west and twenty north to south, in which ever building was marked and identified on the map. However, I did not have detailed information on the residents of those buildings, in the main. Some of the detail cannot be present. That doesn't mean it's not important detail; it means that it was not foreseen to be important detail at the point at which the information was coded. As referee, I cannot know what details are going to be sought by the players, so I can't have them all in place. I absolutely must invent some on the fly.
  
  This holds true even (or perhaps especially) if I am running a canned scenario. It's not all in the package; I'm inventing some of it.
  
  The second point is that the players are interacting with that text--with the created objects in the materials. They absolutely are not. As someone has said, the text doesn't talk to you. I'm not talking about whether the text is interactive in a literary sense. I'm talking about whether the text is part of the shared imaginary space directly. It is not, and cannot be, because it cannot speak into the shared imaginary space--the players are always and only interacting with the referee, the person who has the credibility to define those objects within the shared imaginary space. The text per se does not get into that shared imaginary space save through his interpretation and presentation thereof.
  
  Having those objects pregenerated and recorded on paper has many advantages for the referee, but their existence in that form is completely irrelevant to the character players. They do not read the text. If the text is read to them (as it sometimes might be), it is only because the referee has decided that the best way to bring this object into the shared imaginary space is to read the description from the text. The players have zero interaction with the text, or with anything in the text. They are interacting exclusively with the referee and with each other.
  
  The third point crept out a few times. Doctor Xero has at least implied that objects created by the referee at the moment they are introduced to the shared imaginary space lack some quality that makes them detectable as less interactive than objects which existed in the text, or even in his mind, well in advance of their introduction. That is, he thinks you can always tell whether the referee is presenting what he wrote before or making it up as he goes along. Now, there are referees who ad lib poorly, and there are referees who prepare poorly; and certainly there are times when we know our friends well enough that we can tell which they are doing. However, I have been known to pick up a book or paper, read from it, and change the words while I'm reading so it says what I want it to say instead of what the paper actually says. I have similarly presented what I thought was in the book, only to realize later that I remembered it wrong but wasn't going to change it now. I have invented material on the fly in response to player questions that they never knew was not part of the package--one of my tips for referees is to make it feel as if the world was fully detailed before they arrived. If you ask me what's on the north wall of the room, I will tell you, even if I've never given it a thought, and you will not know if I invented it at that moment or ten years before.
  
  I'm suddenly reminded of a wonderful game my wife ran years ago. We were stranded, rescued by a primitive tribe, and were being inducted into their group. In the course of our interactions with them, we became acutely aware of their use of feathers to signify status in many ways--we struggled long and hard to work out the meanings of the colors, so we would be able to understand how the culture worked. The module seemed to have created a very richly diverse culture.
  
  Years later I picked up that module to run it for someone else. I discovered that the feathers, and a host of other aspects of their culture which had riveted and driven us to explore, were completely missing from the material. My wife had invented it all on the fly while we were playing.
  
  Finally, I have used material directly from my books or notes and had the players believe it was specifically improvised at that moment because it fit their interests so perfectly.
  
  Players are completely in the dark about what actually is in the "text" that they've agreed to use. I could bring one of my old creative writing notebooks to the table and pretend it was a scenario, and you probably would never know otherwise.
  
  Doctor Xero likes to explore cultures and peoples and other aspects of the created world. He believes that these will be more real if they are created in advance of play. I can see an argument for that, and perhaps indeed there is truth to the notion that the same person will create a more consistent and believable culture if he takes time in advance of the game to think it through than if he makes it up on the fly. However, some referees can improvise a culture so swiftly and consistently that Margaret Meade wouldn't know it wasn't pre-written; and some can't create a consistent or interesting culture if they spend five years hammering out the details with cultural anthropology text books in front of them.
  
  I think the entire idea that the pre-existence on paper, or even in someone's mind, of a fact about the explored elements is a red herring. It is irrelevant to play. I say this as one who does put a lot of facts about many of his scenarios on paper in advance of play. They are not the scenario; they are not explored by the players. Those are nothing more than notes for the referee, so that he can more readily create the scenario in the shared imaginary space.
  
  When professional witnesses take the stand, they often have notes. Detectives have notebooks, medical witnesses have charts and nursing notes, engineers have calculations--all of these things seem to the layman to be evidence. They are not. The only evidence in these situations is the words of the person testifying. The notes lend that testimony the appearance of veracity and so enhance the credibility of the witness in the eyes of the jury.
  
  In the same way, reams of description of an imaginary world are nothing to the players but a tool to make it seem that the referee knows what he's going to say.
  
  I'm tired; I hope I haven't rambled too much.
  
  --M. J. Young

Hi MJ:

I notice we're using two different definitions of "text" in a role-playing game.  I've written about it as the actual material in the shared imagined space.  You're talking about text as actual written material that the GM has, either from his own work or a published source.

I only mention this because, if we place the shared imagined material in the place of text, players do indeed interact with it - at least in the literary sense Doc is using.

Hey Doc, what do _you_ mean by text in an rpg?  Is it something recorded somewhere in advance of play?

Hi M.J.

I don't think you rambled at all.  (In fact, I'm once again in awe at the generous gift you make of your clarity and intellect on these discussions.)

Everyone,

While I'm not willing to insist (yet) this whole VoINT/VoIND isn't a drug-addled chimera, until Dr. X clarifies, with specific answers, the questions raised by Ralph, Alan, Walt and others, as well as responding to M.J.'s excellent post, no one really can go further with this discussion.  There's just too much in the air that's currently undefined in terms of what he actually mean in practice.  (Not theory, but actual peddle to the metal practice.)

Everyone, let's step back a moment and see what Dr. X has to offer.  If we don't, we're just spinning the axel on this one.

Christopher

Respecting the wish to wait for Xero, I'll address a side topic that was brought up. I didn't see Walt explain to John why this is such a touchy subject for him. Consider, John, that Walt as a founding member (I think) of the Society for Interactive Literature he's been fighting these definitional wars about the term interactive since before many of the posters here were born. What, 1982 or so, Walt? This is far from a new issue. People have been abusing the term Interactive for a loooong time now. Walt is know in many disciplines as an expert on the topic.

Mike

Quote from: M. J. Young
However, it seems to me that for Xero's position to hold, these three things must be true:[list=1]

• The world is fully created in every relevant detail prior to play;
• The character players are interacting with the text;
• The character players can recognize the difference between information that exists in the text and information that is invented on the fly.[/list:o]It is not that I think these things are not always true. I am persuaded that they are always false.
  
  --M. J. Young

I have a few other comments I'll hold back until Xero comments but I did want to react to this.  

I think your comments are excellent and very true but there is one thing you missed, Xero's claim was that his two modes were opposite ends of a spectrum.  At one end was the ridiculous examples of what he termed independant play where each player was creating play that had no relation to anything the other players were doing.  At the other end would be the equally ridiculous example of the dm railroading players through a scenario he created with pregenerated characters where the players have no choice but to simply follow along with his plot and role dice where appropriate.  Both of these ends would be the extremes and are no longer socially functional games as no one will enjoy them, all actual play would take place somewhere between these ends.

Seeing it as a spectrum invalidates point one on your list, the gm will be creating at some point the frequency will just be smaller the closer you get to the 'interaction' end of his scale.  I fully agree with point two but again when viewed as a scale you can see that the gm will have less to interpret the closer he sticks to the text.  As for point three I may be getting this wrong but I dont think that differentiating which is created on the fly and which was in the text is the concern, I think it's more having the text as common ground to start from and a safety net to more fairly adjudicate when a possible conflict could occur between two visions of the same situation.

It's an interesting supposition that has some merit however I'm not sure that it really is a spectrum or if it is I think we may already have a few points plotted on the scale.  Alan brought up director stance but I dont think it's the only one at play here, it's just the final step along the line of preferences actor stance would be the first stop, probably followed by author stance, and finally full blown director.

Quote from: CaldisXero's claim was that his two modes were opposite ends of a spectrum.

I was aware of that; suffice it for now that it appears that Doctor Xero is claiming that for him play is only interesting to the degree that it conforms to those three statements. I can present examples of play in which none of those items are true ever, but none in which they are all true always. I'm trying to get at what it is that really defines his concepts, which have been very evasive thus far--all the examples given of "independent" play (and I really don't care about the labels, I'm just trying to get to the definitions) have ultimately been about the use of director stance by character players, but he insists it is more than that, and as he does I find nothing that remotely resembles his efforts to define, except stance.

QuoteSeeing it as a spectrum invalidates point one on your list, the gm will be creating at some point the frequency will just be smaller the closer you get to the 'interaction' end of his scale.  I fully agree with point two but again when viewed as a scale you can see that the gm will have less to interpret the closer he sticks to the text.

I'm not sure this does invalidate my points.

Xero seems to be very focused on interacting with the pre-existing text. It doesn't, to my mind, matter how closely the referee follows the text--the players interact with the referee, not with the text. But I think this is brought into sharp relief by point three.

QuoteAs for point three I may be getting this wrong but I dont think that differentiating which is created on the fly and which was in the text is the concern, I think it's more having the text as common ground to start from and a safety net to more fairly adjudicate when a possible conflict could occur between two visions of the same situation.

Well, let's pick a couple of statements from what's been said.

Quote from: According to Walt Freitag's original post, on the parent thread Doctor Xero"]If the player brings it, it is not pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players. There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.[/quote][quote="Then, earlier in this thread, Doctor Xero himself

Quote from: John Kim"]I don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all. He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment. So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".[/quote]Precisely![/quote]
That seems pretty conclusive to me that Doctor Xero is not merely objecting to character player use of director stance to create objects on the fly, but to the creation of objects on the fly by the referee. It is from this that I derive the three points I think his position requires: All information must be pregenerated; the players are interacting with that pregenerated information; the player will know if the referee is improvising, because this will inherently result in substandard play experience.

I have experienced play in which no inIf the player brings it, it is not pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players. There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.

[quote="Then, earlier in this thread, Doctor Xero himself[quote="John Kim"]I don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all. He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment. So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".

Precisely![/quote]
That seems pretty conclusive to me that Doctor Xero is not merely objecting to character player use of director stance to create objects on the fly, but to the creation of objects on the fly by the referee. It is from this that I derive the three points I think his position requires: All information must be pregenerated; the players are interacting with that pregenerated information; the player will know if the referee is improvising, because this will inherently result in substandard play experience.

I have experienced play in which no information was pregenerated, and the players interacted solely with what the referee invented on the fly, and not one of the players was aware that this was happening at the time they were playing. I have never experienced play where nothing the players discovered was invented on the spot, or where the players had direct access to the pregenerated information (as opposed to getting it through the referee), or where the players could always differentiate the improvised from the fixed elements in play to the detriment of the play experience.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe second point is that the players are interacting with that text--with the created objects in the materials. They absolutely are not. As someone has said, the text doesn't talk to you.

This is not right. The text is conveying methods, themes and atmosphere, which you the player emulates in the game, thus making the text an important part of the interaction.

The players all relates to the text, at a minimum through the character generation, at a maximum by being a gamemaster who reads and conveys large portions of it in the game. Strictly speaking no guide is needed when players relate to the gamebook this way, other than the inherent guide in the book (the gamesmith). When filling out the character sheet the players interact with the text/gamesmith, trying to create a new element in the game (his character) from the elements and instructions given in the text. This active relationship has all the markings of interaction.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm not talking about whether the text is interactive in a literary sense.

Neither am I. Forget about the special way this word is used in literary research. Such groups often make use of words in special ways, not applicable to other fields of society.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm talking about whether the text is part of the shared imaginary space directly. It is not, and cannot be, because it cannot speak into the shared imaginary space--the players are always and only interacting with the referee, the person who has the credibility to define those objects within the shared imaginary space. The text per se does not get into that shared imaginary space save through his interpretation and presentation thereof.

I think the example given above show that the text is indeed a "part of the shared imagnied space". It may be isolated to the shared space between player and text (as often is the case in character generation), and it may be extended to the shared imagined space of the whole player group.

The GMs role as mediator is not important in this context. That's merely a practical issue on how the gamesmith chooses to organize his game.

On the "interpretation" of the text; it is indeed interpreted, in the same way as all verbal communication also is interpreted. In a normal, traditional roleplaying game the GM is not the sole interpreter of the text in the game book. it is quite normal to let the players have the book to make characters. it is normal for them to have their own books, using them as referee works during play, on geography, culture and trade. All this makes the book a part of the interaction, even though the text speaks silently. Through this silent and ongoing dialogue, the gamesmith makes his presence felt in the game, laying the foundations for it and serving it with new elements all the time.

The gamesmith is an active player in the game, represented by a predetermined set of hints, nugs, banters, revelations, instructions, proposals, and atmospheric descriptions. It is all very similar to what any other player in the game do, except for the missing sound.

More than the Gm, the gamesmith is the guiding spirit of the game.

I agree with M. J.'s interpretation of what Xero said and implied so far in regards to improvisation by the GM. But I wish we had a more definitive statement on that from Doctor Xero.

So, let me pose the question again: If a GM improvises with no prepared notes or plan at all, while the players decide only their characters' actions just as in traditional tabletop play, is that VoINT or VoIND?

This is equivalent to asking, which is the critical difference between VoIND and VoINT: whether or not elements are being invented during play, or whether or not players other than the GM are doing the inventing?

Until we have a definitive answer on that from Xero, we're just debating interpretations and speculating (as I did in my last post) on what the implications would be if the intended meaning was one or the other.

Thomas, you're right that that the form of interaction with the text you're talking about, such as following system procedures expressed as text during char gen, does take place. But I don't think that has any bearing on the VoIND vs. VoINT distinction that Xero is trying to establish, because there's no discernable difference in the use of text for such purposes between the systems and play styles he describes as VoIND and those he describes as VoINT. Most systems have character sheets and rule books that describe procedures for character generation. Except in those rare cases where participants discuss and create rules on the fly, rule systems always pre-exist and reference texts describing those rule systems are often brought to the table.

Since what we're discussing is text that might or might not pre-exist, I've assumed that we're talking about maps, descriptions of locations, NPC descriptions, timelines or schedules or other forms of planned events, and all the related stuff that would generally be called "the GM's notes," or material that would be included in a module or in a sourcebook for a specific setting.

- Walt

Walth; you yourself said in the opening of this thread: Do I care? Not as far as the definitions of VoIND and VoINT are concerned. Neither do I care for the distinction between these. They sound like too much gibberish for me. Who of sane mind would try to distinguish anything by inventing two phrases so close to eachother? Please!

Walth; you continued with this: But I'm really sick of being bludgeoned with what the "legitimate" meaning of "interactive" is according to literary scholars. I fully agree with you in this; no full and final meaning of the word "interactivity" may be founded on how the word is used within the clique of literary scholars. Their special use of the word is limited to their particular field.

Quote from: Walt FreitagSince what we're discussing is text that might or might not pre-exist, I've assumed that we're talking about maps, descriptions of locations, NPC descriptions, timelines or schedules or other forms of planned events, and all the related stuff that would generally be called "the GM's notes," or material that would be included in a module or in a sourcebook for a specific setting.

This distinction is not important, even if we limited the argument to this material. The GM is a player of the game. This material is indeed some way for the gamesmith to interact with his players.

A roleplaying book is something quite different from a novel, and should be treated differently. The novel is an artistic endgoal, and a drama to be read as is. The gamebook is a tool, used to form and propel the artistic performance of the players, focussing on the drama they are able to create.

As a player of the game, the GM is given special assignments, by the gamesmith or the other players. He is still a player! As such he interacts with the material in question, wether it is made by him or by someone else, and he will continue his dialogue with it throughout the game. As the setting and drama evolves, he needs to reassess the material and his use of it, against the ever changing game environment and it's demands. To a certain extent the other players also particpate in this dialogue with the material (premade or not). The borders between players vary, and so does the use fo the material. One moment the GM has the map to himself, pondering it's influence on the drama. In the next moment he places it in front of the players, and they all discuss it.

Interactivity permeates the roleplaying game in all aspects. It is a media saturated with a dramatic flow created by all participants, however they participate. This includes the gamesmith (even in a spontaneous game, where the gamesmith is one or more (or all) of the present players).

To discuss how the interactivity behaves in the different relationships within the game, is a highly meaningful discussion. What sort of demands does the verbal and written interaction place on it's human source? What possibilities for influencing the gameplay is inherent in each of these forms of interactivity? What pitfalls are there? How can we map the various forms of interactivity at play in a single game?

I, for one, is especially interested in the way gamesmiths make their presence felt in the actual game.

By the way: my name is Tomas.

Quote from: Tomas HVMAs a player of the game, the GM is given special assignments, by the gamesmith or the other players. He is still a player! As such he interacts with the material in question, wether it is made by him or by someone else, and he will continue his dialogue with it throughout the game.

I'll grant that without objection.

However, what Doctor Xero seems to be arguing is that the character players (a distinction I have made in this thread before now) are themselves interacting with the text; and it appears that this means that objects in the shared imaginary space get their directly from the text. Clearly, they do not.

Quote from: This is shown even by what youAs the setting and drama evolves, he needs to reassess the material and his use of it, against the ever changing game environment and it's demands.

That is, the text itself is not accessible to the character players except through the mediation of the referee.

I just watched a film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and I've several times seen a film version of Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think I've read either of those plays. I have read several Shakespearean plays which I've never seen performed, and at least two that I have both read and viewed--Romeo and Juliet in two very different film versions. What is clear is that when I read the play, I am interacting with the text; but when I watch the play, I am interacting with the director's vision of the text, as reproduced by the actors.

In the same way, if I pick up a game text that describes a setting or an adventure, I can interact with the text; but if the game is run in play, I cannot interact with the text as a character player--I can only interact with the referee's interpretation and presentation of that text, and that is not the same thing.

Further, as your quote implicitly admits, if I as a character player have read the text, that provides no guarantee that I know how that text will be presented in play. In the more recent Romeo and Juliet, all references to "blades" were satisfied by having the characters fight with knives. Reading the play one would have anticipated these to be swords. The director changed them to achieve a specific outcome (in this case, the modernization of the setting). A similar change could be made in role playing--and I as a player can get all up in arms and say, "that's not what it says in the text", but that's immediately dysfunctional--if only the referee and I have read the text, I have disrupted the game because his understanding and adaptation of the textual information doesn't match mine. The other character players would have been totally unaware of the discrepancy had I not brought it up, because they are not interacting with the text; they are interacting with the referee's presentation of the information he draws from the text, as he interprets it into the shared imaginary space.

Certainly with known settings, such as Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Buffy, Star Trek, and Babylon Five, you've got players who are familiar with massive amounts of the setting in advance of play. However, the degree to which they are interacting with this in the sense Doctor Xero seems to mean is minimal. Interaction, as Doctor Xero appears to be using it, seems to require that an object pre-exists its discovery, that it is revealed to the players through their explorative efforts, and that they have the ability to learn about this object through play. It doesn't apply to anything they know before they begin play. It absolutely requires that the referee present the object to them in layers as they uncover it. That means they are exploring not the text but the referee's understanding of the text. It's not the same thing.

I agree that game designers have significant influence on play, both through rules construction and setting/situation construction. However, as with a play, in practice that influence passes through the filter of an individual whose mediation forms it into something unique to that time and place. The game designer does not speak into the shared imaginary space; he speaks to the referee, who speaks into the shared imaginary space.

It's a bit like me calling home and telling one of my sons to tell another of my sons that I expect him to finish some chore before I get home. I don't know how that message will be delivered; I don't even really know that the message will be delivered. Nor am I in a position to clarify my intent if the message is unclear. I am relying entirely on the intermediary to deliver a message, and must accept that he will deliver his understanding of the message, which may differ from my intent. So, too, in designing a setting or situation, I have no ability to convey this to the character player or to speak it into the shared imaginary space. I cannot sit at the table and say, "this is one of those situations in which you should make a skill check; now you need to roll a general effects roll; there should be a bonus on that check because of this situation." All I can do is explain in my book what kinds of situations require skill checks, when to use general effects rolls, and how to assess situation-based bonuses. I have said nothing into the shared imaginary space. I have rather instructed someone else as to what I think he should say. My influence ends there; it then becomes his influence, and the degree to which he wants what I want.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young... the text itself is not accessible to the character players except through the mediation of the referee.

This is really not true!

I have stated the obvious fact before; that all the players may relate to the text in the gamebook one way or other.
Examples:
- The "character players" relate to the gamebook when creating the characters.
- They relates to pregenerated handouts found in the gamebook.
- They relates to maps, and the text on the maps.
- They may even read the whole gamebook, or sections of it, for themselves.
- In some games the character players have their own gamebooks, the so called "Players handbook".

It is obvious that all players may interact with the game text, even in the course of gameplay. It is done to a varying degree, of course, depending on how the gamesmith chooses to organize his game, depending on what style of play the gamemaster prefer, and depending on the demands inherent in the scenes and themes of the drama.

Quote from: M. J. Young... if I pick up a game text that describes a setting or an adventure, I can interact with the text; but if the game is run in play, I cannot interact with the text as a character player--I can only interact with the referee's interpretation and presentation of that text, and that is not the same thing.

First part is true; you may interact with the text, in the literary meaning of the word, when reading a gamebook.

Second part is not true; if the game is run in play; you may still interact with text from the gamebook, and even be the mediator of it in the game, enriching the game with your interpretation and presentation of it. As a character player I may interpret a certain text in the gamebook, and maintain my interpretation in conflict with the interpretations presented by the GM. This is a often used way of interacting. In some games it is frowned upon. In other games it is a recommended and expected way for character players to participate.

The GM interact with the text, and the players, and at the same time teh character player interact with the text, and the players, and the GM, and who knows what will come out of it? Maybe the GM will concede the point, and give my interpretation priority? Maybe the GM will bide his time, and show us his ruling through the consequences? Maybe the two interpretations may live side by side, as an example of cultural diversity, as interpretations said to be coloured by the characters point of view?

I fear that your argument is contrary to such an open way of playing the game, and as such it is an argument not suited to enrich the way we play RPGs. It is too deterministic to be valid in a game-environment, with it's many interrelations, and it's everchanging drama.

Quote from: M. J. Young... if I as a character player have read the text, that provides no guarantee that I know how that text will be presented in play.

You are right; it does not, of course. And still; as a character player I may read a text in the gamebook, introduce it in the game, and see how the interaction between me and the rest of the players develops. The ensuing gameplay may influence my interpretation, and it may let my interpretation influence the game. I have no guaranty that anything I say will be incorporated in the game, really. The GM may demand that I rephrase anything. The other players may make such demands too. And anyone may interpret my interepretation, giving it substance in the game by playing out the reaction to it by their character.

There is no guaranties given on how the game will develop, in a truly interactive roleplaying game.

We may agree to play a fantasy game, but we do not share the same fantasy on what a fantasy game should be. It varies. Due to these variations, minute or major, we have the ability to create a drama that may flow in lots of directions at the same time.

We may break up roleplaying games in small parts, to discuss them, but we must remember to check our arguments against the rich tapestry of actions and interactions in a real roleplaying game.

Guys, I notice that Tomas' disagreement with MJ is based on a disagreement about defnitions.

Tomas uses "text" to refer to the gamebook itself.

MJ uses the term to mean all recorded materia, including hand written notes, thatl the GM might have about the adventure.


Maybe we should agree on what is what - and be careful not to confuse analogy with actuality.  

If we use Tomas' definition, he is right that players can read and respond to the game book.

If we use MJ's we see that players can indeed only know the referee's notes from what the referee says about them.

This disagreement isn't useful because it's about two different things.

Quote from: AlanTomas uses "text" to refer to the gamebook itself.

- and other written material included in the game.

To quote myself: To a certain extent the other players also participate in this dialogue with the material (premade or not). The borders between players vary, and so does the use of the material.

In my view, the distinction between gamebook material and notes made by the GM is not significant, not in this context. It is a practical distinction though, as the GM usually keep his notes to himself. But I'd like to argue that if we accept that interaction between character players and text may enrich the game, we may find it more natural to let them study our GM-notes too. It may be quite effective to let most (or all) of the elements of play be disclosed, playing with them in an open creative environment.

I walked away from this and came back, because I wanted to consider it.

It seems to me that the example of the player reading a handout from the text does not violate my assertion that the player only interacts with the text through the referee. The very name "handout" (in English, at least--Tomas may have meant something else by it) implies that I, as a character player, receive it when the referee decides to give it to me.

I will admit that there are games in which the position of the referee is functionally eliminated, and that in such games all players interact directly with the text. Universalis is only the most convenient and uncontroversial that comes to mind. However, in such cases, what players are doing is exactly what Doctor Xero says is not interacting with the text--they are creating at that point, expressing individual vision.

So while I'll concede to Tomas that games could be and have been designed in which players do interact directly with the text, I'm going to suggest that in this context that is moot. Doctor Xero wants character players to interact with the text by having objects in the text appear in the shared imaginary space which were previously unknown to them, so that they can explore these and uncover aspects of them which are found in the text but not known to the players prior to this exploration (a very simulationist objective, in my opinion). I maintain that in this case, all such exploration is mediated through the referee. Even if the referee reads from the book, or hands the player a handout at that moment, this is mediated by the referee, who has made the decision that this material should be given to the players in this form at this moment.

The literary example that springs to mind is the first time I read Lord of the Rings and Merry and Pippin encountered Fanghorn. I had no idea that there was anything like this in Middle Earth, and I was at that moment riveted by the idea of exploring what these creatures were like--a desire which Tolkien obliges by providing a great deal of detail about their psychology, their culture, and more. I was not similarly interested in the halflings or the dwarfs, as having read The Hobbit I knew to expect these, as well as the elves and the wizards. The experience Xero wants is akin to this, discovering something about which nothing is already known, and exploring what it is about. When you do that from a book, you're interacting with the text. When you do it in a roleplaying game, you're either inventing those details yourself (which he categorizes as independent) or you're getting them from the referee. His distinction, however, appears to be that if they are recorded in the papers from which the referee is running the game, that's interactive and the players are interacting with the text, and if it's invented on the spot by the referee that's independent. My answer is that the players are not interacting with the text in either case--they are interacting with the referee, who is either presenting his view of what the text presents or making it all up as he goes along, and that in either case the players cannot tell which he is doing, and are not interacting with the text at all, but with the referee. Hence the interactive/independent distinction fails here, because what he calls interactive does not in this context exist as he defines it.

Clear?

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young... discovering something about which nothing is already known, and exploring what it is about. When you do that from a book, you're interacting with the text. When you do it in a roleplaying game, you're either inventing those details yourself ... or you're getting them from the referee.

Of the drama we participate in, in a roleplaying game, little is known before play. We set out to explore it together, as we invent it, together. That's the basic of the game.

The invention of the drama is a joint venture. We do not introduce anything outside of interaction, while the game is played. The drama, and the significance of each element in it, is invented through interaction with the other participants. Interaction in this context, may indeed be performed through text, by the gamesmith, the gamemaster and/or the character players. It is not significant in relation to the principle, whether the text is introduced by the GM, or by other members of the game.

I think I am repeating myself now, so it may be that this part of the debate has gone it's full course at present. I have enjoyed it. It has forced me to reflect on this aspect of RPGs more thoroughly than before. M.J.Young is a nice opponent to have in such ponderings. Thank you!

Quote from: TomasTo discuss how the interactivity behaves in the different relationships within the game, is a highly meaningful discussion. What sort of demands does the verbal and written interaction place on it's human source? What possibilities for influencing the gameplay is inherent in each of these forms of interactivity? What pitfalls are there? How can we map the various forms of interactivity at play in a single game?

I, for one, is especially interested in the way gamesmiths make their presence felt in the actual game.

I agree that that would be an interesting topic to discuss. However, I think one of us should start a new thread for it.

This thread has had too many topics already. I didn't expect the initial post to get much response. I just wanted to air my point of view on the different uses of "interactive" and explain to Xero why the "gamer" usage is almost diametrically opposite to the "literary criticism" usage. This segued into a resumption of discussion of Xero's VoINT vs. VoIND concept, which I went along with because I thought (and still think) the concept may have some merit if separated from the objections to Xero's specific terminology.

Continuation of that discussion, though, would seem to depend on Doctor Xero answering the question I've now repeated on this thread as well as the parent thread: Is world-building by GM improvisation VoIND or VoINT?

M. J. and Tomas seem to me to be arguing somewhat askance to one another, because M. J. is still addressing a particular facet of Xero's concept while Tomas has declared the VoIND - VoINT distinction to be of no concern to him.

Given the hodgepodge of topics that this thread has turned into (largely my fault), any further discussion of any of these topics -- the meaning of interactivity, the question of what is the text (which already has a separate thread going), Doctor Xero's VoIND-VoINT distinction, or the idea expressed in Tomas's quote above of published material as an agent of the designers/authors/gamesmiths that makes their presence felt at runtime -- would be better served by threads of their own.

- Whalt