The Tyranny of Structurelessness

[xiombarg]

Am I the only one who wants to know what the article originally quoted is? That is, I'd like to read the original article in full...

[Callan S.]

Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

I'm not sure what you mean by correct. In practical terms were looking to avoid the issues raised in the first post. I'm not sure there is any 'correct' except in what is customised to a group so it's functional. One sentence isn't capable of holding a lot of customisation. At best I'd say it's synecdoche, in that the phrase isn't the whole of the matter, it's simply a code word to bring up to play a lot of complex arrangements you have amongst your group.

Like I described, itt may simply be a placeholder "Here's a quick description of how we handle it, but clearly that isn't enough so we'll have to work out the details latter", and that would be the refinement process you mentioned. Ie, you've stuck in some framework for stuff that this hasn't been fully delt with yet and latter it'll need some more work/refinement.

But is even that 'well work on this latter' explicit in such a statement?

[Marco]

Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

I'm not sure what you mean by correct. In practical terms were looking to avoid the issues raised in the first post. I'm not sure there is any 'correct' except in what is customised to a group so it's functional. One sentence isn't capable of holding a lot of customisation. At best I'd say it's synecdoche, in that the phrase isn't the whole of the matter, it's simply a code word to bring up to play a lot of complex arrangements you have amongst your group.

Like I described, itt may simply be a placeholder "Here's a quick description of how we handle it, but clearly that isn't enough so we'll have to work out the details latter", and that would be the refinement process you mentioned. Ie, you've stuck in some framework for stuff that this hasn't been fully delt with yet and latter it'll need some more work/refinement.

But is even that 'well work on this latter' explicit in such a statement?

Well, Noon, I'm going to explain how that rule has served me. Since I think I can relate it directly to the article, I'm going to use real examples from actual play where I think that rule helped us decide things.

Then you or someone else is going to tell me that not everyone interperts it that way and therefore it's prone to causing problems. I'll address that concern when we come to it--but I'm going to say up front that if someone come to me with a set of text and an interpertation of that text I think is unreasonable then the problem exists between me and the person and not with the text. If there are two reasonable interpertations of the a general statement of conduct (which is what this is) then so long as people are willing to recognize that the other person is reasonable in their holding, I think that the problems are minimal (and, IME, they have been).

NOTE: It is my opinion that this rule is of value as a high-level statement. I am not claiming it'll solve all the problems one might encoutner. Certainly if one reads "runs the world" as saying the GM must declare that air-molecules move in order for a PC to move his arm, there will be problems. In an example that extreme, however, I think the problem lies with the reader and not the rule.

Also NOTE: We took GM to mean "Referee" which is what I saw as a 'refinement' of the term (Game Master is a made-up term. You can look up referee in the dictionary). This meant the GM could interpert rules and adjudicate the game system (which was clearly part of the GM power from the books).

The GM, as a referee is expected by definition of his position to be logical, reasonable, and fair.

(1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. If people are selected to do a task after expressing an interest or willingness, they have made a commitment that cannot easily be ignored.

We are talking about specific authority being delegated to GM vs. Players.

1. GM runs NPC behavior influenced by the rules (I.e. the character's comliness would be a factor in seducing the princess. Players do not 'run the king' like he was their PC.)
2. GM determines what exists in the world and holds veto power (referee style) over any player suggestions about it within the boundaries of being fair, logical, and reasonable)
3. GM adjudicates the rules where applicable.
4. GM interpertets the rules where they are judged to be unclear.

1. Players determine background and history and personality of character (subject to game rules and GM approval and logic. A player cannot have winged private detective in a hard boiled noir game)
2. Players determine character actions--GM determines results.
3. Players determine character thoughts (unless acted on by, like, a spell)
4. Players determine character emotions (unless acted on by a game rule)
5. Players in the grip of disadvantages might be played by the GM. I cases where there were no disadvantages (AD&D) or the results were not explicit (GURPS Code vs. Killing makes the character 'morose and useless') the player would be given guidelines and would run within those guidelines resulting in a dual-handling situation which was sometimes confusing but the GM got to adjudicate.

Sample Question: Can the GM tell the player "your character feels afraid."
Use of rule: If the game rules have fear-checks, then the GM can call for one. The Game rules (Champions) do not have explicit fear-check rules so the player is correct.

Sample Question:  Player, playing a thief, claims his character knows someone in "that part of the city." This is is judged to be 'overly convinent' by the other players and GM. The game has no specific rules for contacts.
Use of rule: The player gets to determine background within logical boundaries. The character is an experienced thief. There is agreement that it is possible and plausible that this is the case although it was certainly not specified. The GM is allowed to rule. In the interest of being fair the GM says there will be a dice roll. The GM determines the odds and states them. A roll is done on the table. The odds are chosen with a short explanation of how the GM sees the possibilities ("Yes, you have some contacts--but the chance of having one right where you need one is 1 in 4"). The roll fails. No contact. The player is vetoed.

(in one case, the GM set the odds at 1:100 and the player was okay with that. The roll was a 00. The GM lived with it).

(2) Responsiveness of those to whom authority has been delegated to those who delegated it. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised. this is how the group exercised control over people in positions of authority.

IIEE questions are handled by the GM. This is an in-game measure of responsibility.

Sample Question: A player acts to attack an NPC which the GM doesn't want attacked. The GM says "His body-guard stops you." The player feels that isn't fair.
Use of Rule: The player says "Nuh-uh. They've gotta roll initative and mine is higher than theirs." The GM, acting as a referee, sees that the printed rules do indeed state that they have to roll initative. He also has printed rules for the stats of the body-guards. The game system dictates IIEE for combat so the player is judged correct. The player slays the NPC.

Example 2: A player is flying away from a non-flying villain. The player invokes the little used Non-Combat Flight Rule to go really fast. The GM says "You can't use that rule, you're in combat!"
Use of rule: The exact text was consulted and, indeed, the penalties for Non-Combat-Flight stated that the character was simply 'easy to hit' and couldn't attack (IIRC). It said nothing about stopping the character from running away. The player was ruled correct.

(3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising their authority. Such decentralization also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.

We did not decentralize GMing or Player responsibilities per-se. Other people did GM, certainly but not in an official, rotational fashion.

(4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities that are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's property, and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn the job and acquire satisfaction from doing it well.

We didn't rotate tasks. We did switch off when people got tired of running or playing. People felt ownership of their characters of GM-ownership of the game (i.e. "this is my fantasy setting"). This was, if anything, judged to be a good thing.

(5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria such as ability, interest, and responsibility.

Certainly. There were some players who didn't want to run games and we didn't want to force them.

(6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power.

The GM's notes were at times displayed to prove something had not been meddled with by the GM (both for and against players, I'll never forget a player with a dead character demanding to see that the ressurection Item I'd given them did what it said it did).

We considered "Running the world" to mean that the GM was responsible for running the world in a logical and consistent manner: if the GM had determined something was so, then he shouldn't just decide it wasn't for arbitrary reasons later on.

Example: I don't always 'stat out' things I'm running for people I've known for ages--so I wouldn't be able to produce stats if someone felt I was 'making them up to disempower them.' However, when I ran a game for an entirely new group (in Savage Worlds) I did stat out everything simply as a matter of course.

I didn't think there would be problems--and there weren't--but if someone had said "that demon is WAY unfair, you're changing on the fly it to prevent me from doing X" I would've had the notes to show him.

(7) Access to needed resources. Skill and information are resources as much as physical equipment, space, or dollars. Skills can be made available equitably only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

I don't recall serious allegations of dice hoarding.

One thing that this does point out is that we did allow cross-talk and out of character discussion. We interperted the text surrounding 'good roleplaying' for early games (based on AD&D) to mean:

1. In-game actions were to be stated in character as much as possible (i.e. players would not speak in character using modern slang).
2. Discussions between players should be held in character if appropriate (i.e. if you were asking a player if his character had gone up a level, that was fine to do using game terms. If you were asking what he had seen in the tomb-chamber, we thought that was better done character-to-character).
3. The GM could "get the game back on track" or "move things along" by halting out of game discussions. The GM could also prevent player-to-player talk in the case where a player was separated from the group (the player and GM would go off alone and play out some stuff that was not known to the group).

This was considered a factor of the GM acting as a referee. I will note that in some games (Champions) there were not "rules" concerning how players could talk (that I recall).

I think that if there had been another group and our GM had tried to limit player conversations and been challenged, I expect that a player could've said "on what basis do you say we can't discuss combat tactics? The rules say that I can make a speech however I want."

I think that player would've been judged correct.

What I think about that 'rule' is that while it doesn't answer everything, it also isn't a total cop-out. Our interpertation may not be the only one out there--but I think it is a reasonable one. If someone agreed to play under those stated conditions, I don't think they would find it terribly surprising.

It doesn't involve all KINDS of things like in-game 'squik' levels, player-vs-player competition, GM-as-adversary or GM-as-facilitator. Dramatic expectation vs. realistic expectation, etc.

Those are all outside of that statement and could be clarafied. But in terms of a role split, I think that during play it's not a bad basis for one.

-Marco

[Per Fischer]

Am I the only one who wants to know what the article originally quoted is? That is, I'd like to read the original article in full...

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html

Very interesting that it comes from the International Anarchism webpages ;) I think, though, that the article - haven't read it except for the quote here - is about organisational democracy seen from the womens' movement perspective. I am not sure whether the year next to author's name (1970) is her birth date or the year the article was written. Probably the last.

Per

[C. Edwards]

The version of the article I posted came from the Communities Directory (1995 edition), a directory and resource for "intentional communities" all across the world. The article has obviously been revised for the various subjects to which it has been applied. If you follow pfisher's link you can see with a minimal of reading that the two versions of the article vary quite a bit. Since it does have such a wide application I don't see that as a problem.

I left out the first and last paragraphs from the version of the article I posted. They didn't have any application to the area of gaming and were mostly just loose verbage for the purpose of introduction and conclusion.

-Chris

[C. Edwards]

Marco,

For me it comes down to how many assumptions that statement of credibility distribution leaves up in the air. It's simply too vague and too broad to be of any practical use in actual play. Why even use it when most potential conflicts can be avoided by being specific about credibility distribution?

If the players don't like the rules, they can alter how they play. At least they'll have a solid base to work from and won't have to deal with ugly assumption clashes.

Unless anyone has something more to add concerning the article, I think it's about time to wrap this thread up and take any related issues to their own threads.

-Chris

[Callan S.]

I'm not sure I can work up a whole new thread on this, so I'll keep it fairly short.

Then you or someone else is going to tell me that not everyone interperts it that way and therefore it's prone to causing problems. I'll address that concern when we come to it--but I'm going to say up front that if someone come to me with a set of text and an interpertation of that text I think is unreasonable then the problem exists between me and the person and not with the text.

There's no problem with the text...it just wasn't the right tool for the job.

I'll quote Contracycle:

I would think rather that it accords with a certain ideology, that of moralism. In a structureless environemnt in which, in essence, personal charisma is the determining factor in a given decision thens its often impossible to have a procedural or technical discussion of the point. What substitutes for analysis, then, is moral criticism. Thus IMO we have structureless games which are rationalised by the criticism "if you can't make it work its your fault". Hence we end up with a pernicious, emotive dialogue about gaming that assiduously defends badly or non-structured games.

Emphasis mine.

On a parrallel, it seems if someone else can't make the structure of "The GM runs the world, the players run their PC's" to work, it seems an assumption that they are at fault. Or that you are both at fault. The structure, or lack there of, isn't to be questioned though.

I think the idea of structure is that it is questioned rather than people (otherwise, why bother with making it?). Question it to find out what to do next, on certain matters. If that questioning isn't answered by the structure, but instead by other peoples explanations of it, the structure is inadequate. And one would have to be careful of not entering the issues the first post brought up, once you encounter this inadequacy.

Once you run out of structure, and you want someone to do something in particular, there are only a few tools left and as contra noted, they are emotive. Like laying blame or fault. If you have adequate structure, you don't need to use these to achieve a group goal.

[Marco]

I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

Well, the key lies in the bit of your text quoted above: if someone comes to you with an intepretation of a gaming text you find REASONABLE.  The problem is that there is no gaurantee that two people will find it reasonable in the same way.  If all you can do is accuse one another of unreasonableness, you're probably dead in the water.

[Mike Holmes]

Again, I think that the phrase is quite accurate, just not very precise.

Think about it this way - I'd say that right now something like 95% of all RPG play (depending on how you define that) falls into "Players play characters, GM plays world." As such, you simply aren't making much of a distinction. In fact, this sort of play is so prevalent that many people think any other power split is no longer a RPG.

Yes, what happens is that everyone refines this for their play. But, again, the refinements do not get mentioned in many cases. Actually in some they do. Some texts do go on to explain what they mean more specifically, and some people do explain what it means to them more specifically. The problem is that many don't, assuming that there's some shared meaning for the implied style.

Yes, if one says "Story Now" and assumes that this will be the same for them as it is for everyone, then they've made the same mistake. And that probably does happen. There's nothing about the phrase Story Now that makes it any less susceptible to misinterpretation as a single clear method (when it's actually a categorization of many methods). I think that Ron's essay shows how to get past using such a phrase without expansion or clarification. But, no, there's nothing superior about the phrase in question in delivering meaning. In fact, I'd buy into the argument that "Story Now" is even potentially more confusing, if one doesn't read more about what it means as a category.

That doesn't make the other catch phrase any less problematic, however.

Mike

[Marco]

I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

Well, the key lies in the bit of your text quoted above: if someone comes to you with an intepretation of a gaming text you find REASONABLE.  The problem is that there is no gaurantee that two people will find it reasonable in the same way.  If all you can do is accuse one another of unreasonableness, you're probably dead in the water.

Well, yes: if someone thinks they're finding secret soviet messages encoded in my grocery list, I'm not going to have much recourse but to find them acting unreasonably.

In real life, though, what I think we're distinguishing here is "rules" vs. "principles" (I am using this terminology for the purpose of this discussion).

In the case of what I am calling a rule, we have a very, very clear publically stated (hopefully textual) statement which applies directly to the situation at hand. In order for a rule to be commonly known, I think there also has to be a body of experience with interpertation of it.

In gaming an example is this: "When combat is delcared by the GM, each player will roll iniitative and the GM will do so for NPC's."

In society an example is the military codes of conduct for officers and enlisted: there are certain things one cannot do with each other and you can look in the books and see that--and if you're not clear there is documented case law.

A principle, on the other hand (as I'm using the term here) is an overarching guideline--a philosophical statement from which rules can be derrived.

In gaming, an example is "The GM runs the world."

In society, an example is "be excellent to each other."

In both cases the principle does not tell you exactly what you are to do when faced with a specific--however, all that is necessary for the principle to be useful is for both parties to share a general philosophical agreement on what the principle is saying. Profitable discussion then reliably follows.

In terms of gaming, I think a good rule is better than a principle if you have one and could be expected to know it. That is, if the rulebook becomes seven volumes and the GM is always springing surprise rules on the players, even though they are clearly stated, it is not a preferable situation.

However, what I think I am seeing here is that people are saying that guiding principles are of no value since people might not agree on an exacting read of the principle (read as a rule) ... and if that happens then they have no recourse but to just blame each other.

How that last bit follows as a given is beyond me: I don't hang out with people I think are unreasonable and I surely wouldn't want to game them. However, even when someone says something I don't agree with, I usually assume they're willing to explain themselves--maybe even discuss it.

[ I think people are reading what I'm calling principles as what I am calling rules--i.e. that a general statement must literally and exactingly apply to every possible situation. Yes, that's going to get you into trouble. I don't expect you do that in real life, why do it in gaming? ]

If we're going to limit ourselves to social interactions where every input is circumscribed by a rule then we're going to avoid some very satisfying, very profitable interactions.

While it's a reasonable stance to take (i.e. people get to decide what they are going to do to keep themselves emotionally safe) in my opinion, it is a poor one.

-Marco

[Marco]

Again, I think that the phrase is quite accurate, just not very precise.

Think about it this way - I'd say that right now something like 95% of all RPG play (depending on how you define that) falls into "Players play characters, GM plays world." As such, you simply aren't making much of a distinction. In fact, this sort of play is so prevalent that many people think any other power split is no longer a RPG.

Right--I quite agree. If one reads a high level principle as a low-level rule there will be problems (the problem with the guys who think Universalis isn't an RPG lies with those guys, not with Universalis nor with the term "RPG"--those guys are applying a specific literal context to the words that, really, cover quite a broad spectrum of possible entities).

If someone takes the "golden rule" (do to others what you'd have them do to you) and interperts it as an exacting, literal mandate then they will do things like send you off color dirty jokes they'd like to get.

I would assert to them that they are not behaving well and if they argued their point from a literal interpertation of that dictum (one which I, in principle, agree with) I would find them to be, yes, unreasonable. I don't think that sending dirty jokes to my mother is a valid take on that principle and wouldn't have much of an opinion of someone who argued it "from the text."

The point is that even though that societal/religious dictate is called a "rule" it is, what I am calling for this discussion, a "principle."

That's not to say there are not areas where there can be legitimate problems of interpertation between two reasonable people. That can happen. It does happen. IME, it is part of life.

However, if someone comes to me and says "Story Now," while I may not know what that means exactly I do know that a resonable response would lie somewhere in saying "Um, okay: what premise would you like this game you've asked me to run to be about ... and tell me how the action should generally go."

This is because I see Story Now as a request for a lot of unrestricted input into the game both before and during play even though I may not know precisely how to apply the term to any specific given situation.

So is it a 'rule' like who rolls initative? No--it isn't and I don't think it should be read that way. But as a 'principle' I think it does have value (so long as we're both Forge memebers. If a person who'd never heard of Narrativism said they wanted "Story right now!" I'm not sure what I'd make of it).

-Marco