A New take on the Lumpley Principal - or a new application?

[hawklord2112]

OK so i'm going to stick my neck out here since
a) i'm at work and a little pressured
b) i dont fully understand the principle inthe first place
and
c) i am more than a little tired.

The lumpley principal, as i take it, states that
"the mechanics of a games rules can be thrown out provided that all participants agree that they detract from the enjoyment of the game"

first off, is this right?

secondly, my new application of this statement concerns online games.
specifically i'm running a game over on RPOL.net, using monte cook's variant d20 rules.
NOW... d20 is very systematic in its approach and its randomiser really demands realtime interaction, espoecially when it comes to combat.
this will prove difficult (one player in japan, two in the US and me in the UK) so i'm thinking about the following:

we have character sheets showing a mechanical interpolation of what character X can do, how strong, how skilled, and so on. this is good for most players since it forms a concrete base upon which they play out their character.

the medium we're using kicks in and if combat ensues, and we can use IRC to act it out, then (as long as the players agree) i can slip into a narrative mode and play out the fight that way.

then when things settle down, heck, whenever some numerical arbitration is necessary, we slip back into gamist mode and dice start rolling.

do i have this right? does it sound coherent?

RossK

[Jonathan Walton]

first off, is this right?

Not really.  What you're talking about is something different, sometimes called "The Golden Rule" of roleplaying, which White Wolf never fails to stick in the GMing section of their games.

The Lumpley Principle states that what we call "system" decides who has the right to say what happens.

In most systems, if I say "I hit the Ork," I don't have the right to narrate the Ork being hit.  I have to jump through all these hoops until the GM says, "Sure, you hit the Ork."  So the system gives the GM power to determine what actually happens.  The system is a way of allocating narrative authority over any in-game situation.

do i have this right?

Of course.  But what this may indicate is that the system you're using doesn't support the kind of play that you want.  If you keep feeling the need to ditch the guidelines that you've agreed to use, then perhaps you shouldn't be using that set of rules.  PBeMs and Chat games usually scale down rules sets that come from Tabletop, because they're way too cumbersome for online play.

This is, in a way, related to the Lumpley Principle.  You want the game to give you (the GM) narrative authority to just determine what happens for whole swaths of combat action.  But, it currently doesn't do this.  It makes you jump through all these hoops before you're allowed to say "Okay, you hit the Ork."  The Lumpley Principle, then, shows that your system doesn't give you the narrative authority that you want.  So you ignore it and create a new system that says:

"Okay, we're going to use these rules MOST of the time, but then, the GM has the authority to narrate anything he wants, as long as the players don't object."

Honestly, I'd say many, if not MOST, roleplaying groups follow a guideline very similar to this, though it's usually unspoken.

[greyorm]

Lumpley Principle states that what we call "system" decides who has the right to say what happens.

Johnathan, is that right? Last I looked at the Lumpley Principle it's purpose was to state that the only reason for a game's rules were to provide a framework of deciding what occurs -- it was developed to counterpoint the widespread belief that a game's rules are meant to simulate reality.

Can I get clarification? Vincent?

[Jonathan Walton]

Um, Raven, isn't that the same thing?  Maybe I'm giving it a slightly different emphasis ("who says what happens" rather than "what occurs"), but it sounds like we're in the same ballpark here.  It's all about dealing out authority/legitimacy, right?  Or am I going mad?

[greyorm]

Yeah, it is, but the phrasing is what bothers me. That particular phrasing spawned ugly semantic arguments in the thread which Ross' post and question comes from. Maybe I'm just gun-shy after reading those.

I think the slight difference in how those two explanations are put is what brought on Ross' question/confusion about the Principle. So, yeah, we're saying the same thing (to most people, at least).

Ross, do our definitions help?
Need clarification on anything either of us has said?

[hawklord2112]

The Lumpley Principle states that what we call "system" decides who has the right to say what happens.

surely the fact that one participant is the GM/DM/Judge decides who has the right to say what goes, and the mechanics of teh game enforce the player's right to say "err, no, actually i do hit the orc?

@both of you:
clarified somewhat, i'm still confused a little, thankfully  my players believe in the sovereign rights of the DM to enforce the rules and the ironclad application of the rules to determine what happens.

RossK

[Eero Tuovinen]

The Lumpley Principle states that what we call "system" decides who has the right to say what happens.

surely the fact that one participant is the GM/DM/Judge decides who has the right to say what goes, and the mechanics of teh game enforce the player's right to say "err, no, actually i do hit the orc?

It'd probably be more productive to state the principle, instead of telling about it's implications, as RossK clearly isn't familiar with the canonical form. Here goes, in the form I'm used to:

All rules are part of Social Contract.

That simple. What it means is that when talking about the right way to play or the wrong way to play we are simply talking about what the players have agreed to, and we cannot talk about anything else. So if you are uncomfortable with vanilla D20, just change the rules so that the GM has unconditional narrative power unless contested. If it's OK with everyone, the principle says, it is a rule, as that is the only epistemological condition for it to be a rule.

Could be that I remember this all wrong, but that is the impression I've got from the numerous conversations here. Usually Lumpley himself comes out about this time and tells us that no, you all have again implemented the rule in a scurrilous fashion. I wonder why such a selfevidently simple fact of life as this can produce so much confusion?

[hawklord2112]

It'd probably be more productive to state the principle, instead of telling about it's implications, as RossK clearly isn't familiar with the canonical form. Here goes, in the form I'm used to:

All rules are part of Social Contract.

Thankyou and at last! the core of the matter is revealed!
the Social Contract, here, within my group, being implicit, implied and never stated. the same one that says that since we play at my house, i dm, i dont make the tea. the one that says if a player is more than half an hour late we start without them. the one that says because i am running the game, i am the one responsible for x,y,and z aspects of the game.

i think i have to stop thinking about this now. my head hurts and with the type of players i have, it really doesnt matter.

RossK

[greyorm]

Honestly, I think Ross' confusion arises from the whole "WHO gets to" phrasing. WHO gets to is really part of the rules -- it's a subcategory of them.

The LP just applies to rules: The LP states the rules are how the game is run, not how the world works. When you say, "THIS person gets to say what happens" you have a rule. When you say, "THIS person gets to say what happens, unless this has happened (ie: the player's roll takes precedence or etc)" you have a rule.

So, in the situation Ross gives us:

surely the fact that one participant is the GM/DM/Judge decides who has the right to say what goes, and the mechanics of teh game enforce the player's right to say "err, no, actually i do hit the orc?

What is going on is precisely the above -- or rather, what the rules say about who (or what) has the right to determine what has occurred in that situation. Or more simply, what rules are applied. Pretty basic. What happens and who says what happens are very explicitly understood parts of a game: "I rolled a 20, that's a critical hit," is a rule which says what happens (and who/what says what happens: the person who rolled the die).

That's why I really despise that other thread for the confusion it sowed -- the discussion became a confusing morass of crap, IMO, populated by some individuals with very clear agendas (which had nothing to do with understanding the LP) -- and it gives rise to problems like Ross'.

So, unless the LP has undergone some serious and severe redefinitions, what I've understood the Principle to be about from the beginning is a response to game designers and players who believe that the mechanics of a game are supposed to reflect the physics of the game world.

The LP was a way of saying that, no, rules weren't meant to detail physics, they only determine what happens in a game. They were a way of point out that detail (aka: "realism") is not superior to abstraction in use of mechanics, because detail is not the purpose of mechanics (though they can be used for it) -- that a game system is not inherently better because it is more "realistic" (contains more mathematically accurate design and probabilities).

LP is just "the rules exist solely to determine what happens" as opposed to being used to determine "how the world works" (and they can do the second, but they still fall under the former statement even then).

All this talk of "who says what" seems something covered by the LP, but not necessarily what it's about -- hence the confusion. Ultimately, a lot of wordage over something pretty minor and obvious, which becomes confusing only because of the wordage. Rules exist to determine what happens. Can't get any simpler. Does that make your headache go away, Ross?

[hawklord2112]

Rules exist to determine what happens. Can't get any simpler. Does that make your headache go away, Ross?

yes. thankyou.

RossK

[Paganini]

Raven, you're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. The Lumpley Principle is way more simple than that.

For the new guys, here's a recap (and for the old guys, shame on you! Trying to explain the LP without mentioning Credibility! ;)

"Explore" in GNS jargon means "to imagine collectively." Credibility is the middle step... how we get from a bunch of individual people imagining separate things, to an "official" shared imaginiation that the group agrees on.

Credibility is the statement "we'll take your word for it," made verbaly, or tacetly. The Lumpley Principle says that all rules, without exception, are distributing credibility in some way or another.

[Bob McNamee]

It also a way of saying that even the most rules-lite or freeform RPG has a System.

[M. J. Young]

Gee, I'm surprised Vincent hasn't spoken to this yet. I think everyone is talking around the principle.

First, there was a recent thread that was entirely too long, but which demonstrated that the Lumpley Principle was descriptive (not prescriptive). That's important.

Pag has gotten very close to the main point.

Role playing is about a shared imaginary space. We all agree on the events happening in that shared imaginary space, and that's how the game progresses.

All the Lumpley Principle states is this: Whatever means are used to come to that agreement regarding the content of the shared imaginary space, that constitutes the system.

So if rolling a 20 on a D20 is a critical success, that's part of the system. If making sure that Bob's character is never killed because we need to keep Bob happy so we can play in his basement is one of the things that control how we play, that's part of the system. If no one makes a pass at Cheryl's character in the game because her boyfriend George is jealous and takes it wrong, that's part of the system.

It is derived from this that all systems apportion credibility, and that is their primary function--the system is the means by which we decide what is happening in the shared imaginary space, and therefore it must inherently give someone the right to make a conclusive statement about that. That someone could be the referee throughout (who must at least give tacit approval to player statements) or it could be much more broadly spread among the participants; but since statements (and silences) by the players create the events in the space, the system must function by providing everyone with a way of identifying which statements are true, and thus apportioning credibility.

That aspect, however, is a major corrolary, and not the principle itself.

At least, that was what I understood. Have I missed it (too)?

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

M.J.

So, you said the same thing I did with about 3 times as many words, and made it 10 times more clear. That works for me. :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Thanks, to all. This thread has achieved its purpose (after unconscionable gyrations) and needs to be over now.

Best,
Ron