In-and-Out of the Box

[Steve Dustin]

I've been lurking on these boards for about a week, and have decided to jump in. I don't think I'm quite up-to-speed on the jargon that gets thrown about here (still having a hard time wrapping my head around Ron's GNS essay in its entirety), but I felt that shouldn't keep me from tossing out some ideas.

I've been thinking of some game rules lately as "in-the-box" and "out-of-the-box." "In-the-box" is when the game brings the imagination to the table. Lists of skills, advantages/disadvantages, feats, spells, etc., are an example. So is all the specific combat resolution rules, like hit points. Games like GURPS and DnD are comprised almost entirely of "in-the-box" rules.

Meanwhile, "out-of-the-box" is when the player brings the imagination to the table. Character creation in Over the Edge is an "out-of-the-box" experience. Anytime you're coming up with a descriptor or a concept without having to refer to a list, or a set of game values then it's definitely "out-of-the-box." Lots of GM duties are "out-of-the-box." Things like scenario and campaign creation.

To give an example, we'll use Unknown Armies. To create a character in UA, you need to formulate three passions, come up with descriptors for your stats, and basically make up your skills. All "out-of-the-box". But UA has four stats which you spread 220 points to, and has lists of spells with specific effects. That's "in-the-box."

Now, maybe there's a concept out there that describes exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm just redundant. I'm sure if anyone would know, it would be around here.

The only reason why I think about this, is its a real issue in my gaming groups. While you want players to be these fountains of creativity, I've found many flounder when forced to be creative on the spot. I first noticed it accutely when playing Feng Shui. Some players could do stunts, some couldn't. Some could create hooks on the spot, some couldn't. Some players could think "out-of-the-box," some thought "in-the-box."

I'll make a bold statement (unsupported by facts) that a game's rules are designed to move "in-the-box" thinkers along, since "out-of-the-box" thinkers probably need no rules anyway.

What's the feel for this around here?

Thanks for listening to me,
Steve Dustin

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Steve,

I think this is a great way to examine RPG pieces. It's so simple, yet it defines one of the elemental differences in RPG design.

In some ways, it reminds me of what I've heard called a "sandbox." When an RPG hands you a constrained area, and the tools to build whatever you want inside that area, it's a sandbox. (I know there was an opposing term, but I can't think of it.) Everway is a great example. Over the Edge is like The Universe's Sandbox - really big, and you can create anything in it.

I'd like to discuss your idea that "out-of-the-box" players probably need little or no rules. I think this is a common fallacy when coming to a wider view of RPGs. I made the same mistake myself, and starting playing games with less and less rules. What I found was that I wanted different rules, rules that let me leverage my imagination. I can't tell you how many times I was frustrated at a rule set that stopped me from using my imagination, and I thought that a smaller rule set would prohibit me less. I found instead that a good rule system designed to let me build whatever I wanted inside it (examples: Over the Edge, Sorcerer, d20 - not D&D, Extreme Vengeance, even my new game Donjon) let me take my imagination and use it to leverage the game world.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Steve, and welcome,

One of the best frees games out there is called "Ghost Light." Its author, Doug Bolden, referred to what you're calling "out of the box" as "loose-element" design. The first game to do this, I think, for really central components of character design, was Over the Edge.

The idea is that we know everyone's going to get four dice in something, no more and no less. So if it's four dice, then what does it matter what you call it? In OTE, four dice of effectiveness is four dice of effectiveness, used as damage or social clout or whatever makes sense for whatever it is.

I recall discussing running OTE one time, and a fellow asked, "So I could play God?" I told him sure. He got this lit-up look in his eyes (which in retrospect alarms me), and said, "I can do anything?" And I said, sure, to the tune of four dice. If you play God in OTE, you do "God stuff" up to four dice' worth.

Most games of this sort are a bit less free about things (eg in Ghost Light the elements are emotions), but the basic idea is there.

So I think that in and out of "the box" look like this:
- fix the game mechanic fairly tightly, and let the definition of the element fly free
- or define the element tightly and provide lots of latitude to vary it relative to the other elements

Best,
Ron

[Steve Dustin]

Clinton R Nixon:

I'd like to discuss your idea that "out-of-the-box" players probably need to rules. I
                      think this is a common fallacy when coming to a wider view of RPGs. I made the
                      same mistake myself, and starting playing games with less and less rules. What I
                      found was that I wanted different rules, rules that let me leverage my imagination.

Well, I would say that "out-of-the-box" players prefer rules, but don't absolutely need them. I think "out-of-the-box" players, when they have similar goals, would be just as comfortable passing the storytelling seashell around the campfire.

For example, I'm going to attempt to switch my heavily-Robin Laws influenced Fudge Pulp game to the
Pool, and see if it works. I believe that the Pool might actually fit the play-style better (of this group, not my creativity-low Feng Shui group). The Pool though, seems to be nothing more then a mechanic that passes for a the storytelling seashell, limiting who gets the seashell most of the time. It's a fun rule (I hope), but pretty thin  line from the campfire.

I see the "in-out-box" concept as nothing more then a statement on game creativity and fair play. It's kind of gauge to assess whether someone will be a good fit for a game or not.

[Steve Dustin]

"Loose-element" design? Ok. Does that mean its inverse is "tight-element" design?

So I think that in and out of "the box" look like this:
- fix the game mechanic fairly tightly, and let the definition of the element fly free
- or define the element tightly and provide lots of latitude to vary it relative to the other elements

Ok. Mostly whoosh over my head. With all due respect, your writing is very dense. I think I've read your GNS essay three times now, and I'm still having trouble getting everything to stick. Are you a lawyer in your free non-RPG time?

So let me see if I got this straight:

Loose-element design has to have:

(1) A game mechanic
(2) whose meaning is defined by the player?

Tight-element design (if it exists):

(1) A defined stat
(2) which "provide lots of latitude to vary it relative to the other elements"?

I got lost on #2. I'm not sure what you mean there.

And honestly, I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Probably, but it takes me a while to wrap my head around it. As I see it, the main deferences are who defines what. Does the game define the rule, or does the player define it.

Ok, I think we are talking about the same thing, but some examples may help me through here better.

Thanks for letting me know though,  and I'll check out Ghost Light.

[Mike Holmes]

Don't be alarmed Steve, I didn't get what Ron was saying either. And I read him all the time. BTW, he's not a Lawyer. No, it's worse than that. ;-)

The problem with these definitions is that I think they are describing something that isn't exactly binary, or, if it is, is one of those "know it when I see it" things. Might be more of a spectrum with tight on one end and loose on the other. Compare the concepts of hard and soft mechanics, which usually deal with how much actual physical activity is associated with each (rolling dice, recording specifics, etc).

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Steve,

In reading my essay, you should keep in mind that it's written to address existing concerns. If you're coming in without those existing concerns in mind, then you'll have to do some orienting. No, I'm not a lawyer, but your situation is very much like someone wandering into the middle of a court case. The first question should be, "What's being asked?"

On to the "box" issue ....

I'm not necessarily advocating Doug's terminology, but if I did, I'd suggest that the opposite of "loose-element design" would be "fixed-element design."

I'll try to clarify my observation about the distinction between these different types of design. To take my own advice, here's the question I asked myself after reading your post: "Is the 'in-box' or 'out-of-box' issue independent of other aspects of design, or does it relate to some other aspect in a definite way?" I answered it with the idea that it does relate to another aspect. You have raised the issue of naming elements of a character; I am comparing that issue with the second issue of the numerical values of those elements.

In "out of the box" or "loose element" or whatever we call it, the person making the character may call the game mechanic whatever they want (or whatever they want within the parameters; say, "an emotion"). Now for my claim: for this to be functional among members of a role-playing group, everyone must be using the same or very similar values for those game elements. For instance, in Over the Edge, the mechanic in question is a specified number of dice (four, for one's highest score), no matter what it's called. In Sorcerer, which is less "free" or "loose" than OTE, all characters' Will scores are within a fairly limited range, although each player may describe/define Will for that character in any way they'd like.

Contrast this with the more extreme versions of "in the box" or "fixed element" or whatever we call it, in which every character has the same list of attributes and at least the same list of skills from which to choose. My claim in this case is that, to be functional, each attribute and most other elements of the character's features must be permitted to vary. Thus in D&D we have six fixed attributes, no matter what - but note that they have a very wide range from character to character. Same with GURPS: four fixed attributes, tons and tons of fixed/named skills - but the range of each attribute and skill, from character to character, varies a lot.

Now conceivably, one might provide a game with lots of room to define the elements on the sheet, as well as lots of room to vary their values. The Window comes close to this. Or, conversely, one might design a game with utterly fixed elements and essentially fixed values for those elements, which to some extent is what Feng Shui offers. In my opinion, both of these combinations are less welcome to most role-players. Functionally, in playing The Window, I have seen groups tend to "fix" the range of the values they'll permit among members of the group; similarly, in observing Feng Shui in action, I have seen groups tend to permit more latitude in character creation than simply copying down the archetypes in the book.

Now for a bigger issue. I'm afraid I disagree with you very strongly about the designs of games like The Pool and their relationship with "rules."

Compare the design of, say, Vampire and Legends of the Five Rings, in which the authors are careful to specify that if you don't like a rule, you may ignore it. You won't find that in Sorcerer, Hero Wars, or The Pool. Why not? Because these latter games have definite, coherent goals of play, and their rules operate specifically to bring those goals into reality. Ignoring a dice-roll in Vampire is often necessary to preserve the (vague) goals of play; ignoring a dice-roll in The Pool literally destroys the goal of play. Therefore I consider the latter three games actually more rules-oriented than the former two, despite the fact that they have less text or detail or "mass" of rules. Because the rules are focused toward a goal of play, they are simpler and more elegant. They are, however, more important.

Well, that's enough debate for one day. Welcome, again, to the Forge!

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

I'll make a bold statement (unsupported by facts) that a game's rules are designed to move "in-the-box" thinkers along, since "out-of-the-box" thinkers probably need no rules anyway.

The first time I asked myself "what are the rules for, exactly" the answer I came up with was "to make sure we're all talking about the same thing".  I don't think thats all they're for anymore, but I still think their role in giving us something solid and in common to think about is quite important.  For one thing, IMO the reason system matters is that the system frames a part of your thinking and establishes some of your goals and values in play.  I think system can also be explicitly designed so as to produce a box in which certain genre-specific behaviour occurs, and by the ability of players to comprehend and internalise the rules, to imply what other range of activities the rules will permit.  In that scenario, the system would still IMO have a role for "out of the box" players as an expository device about the setting; it still tells them which box to be out of.

It may be that players whom you see as "out of the box" are out because they are actually drifting into narrativism and exerting authorial control, and those who are not doing so may simply have neither the interest or perhaps the aptitude for that sort of play.  They may simply be simmers who want knobs to twiddle rather than to explain their action by stating they twiddled the appropriate knobs; to explicitly go from cause to effect.

[contracycle]

or, systems which are "player configurable objects" may sort of hang over the edge of the box; they have a causal relationship with things in the box, but they themselves are undefined until manifest through player decision.

[Steve Dustin]

Ron Edwards says:

I'm not necessarily advocating Doug's terminology, but if I did, I'd suggest that the
                      opposite of "loose-element design" would be "fixed-element design."

That's fine to me. It keeps me from being a complete egomaniac. Plus it's not as loaded as "the box". It seems to me that since we're talking about two variables we should consider the concept of "loose-element design" and "fixed-element design" as a spectrum on an x-y axis.

Ron Edwards says:

You have raised the issue of naming
                      elements of a character; I am comparing that issue with the second issue of the
                      numerical values of those elements.

So it looks like our x-y axis may look like this:

                     y
                      |    OTE         Feng Shui
                      |                    
                      |                   
                      | 
   values of element  |                    GURPS
                      | No rules             DnD
                       __________________________ x
                       
                         definition of element

The farther from the x-y cross (zero point) you go, the more fixed that variable is. So, I'd define OTE character creation as fixed-value, loosely defined. GURPS is loose-value, definition fixed.

Just so everyone knows where I'm at here, it's not to find a new uber-theory of RPGs. I'm specifically interested in the question of "who is bringing the imagination to the table?" and how do the rules deal with that. I guess while Ron is talking about the whole graph, I'm really focusing on just the definition part, the x-axis. Almost everything I was discussing above, about the "box" was in terms of who defines an element. It seems to me much easier to give an element a value, then to create a element from whole cloth.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how useful this model is. If it's not, I'd rather scrap it, then load this forum with more jargon.

So, let's apply it to the problem that I'm leading up to with this concept of "loose, fixed." Currently, most games have super-loose campaign/scenario creation rules, as in, no rules at all. The only scenario design I can think of that has a heavier fixed definition, fixed value(?) is dungeons in Dungeons and Dragons.

The question is, if so much is riding on good scenarios, then why is there such loosely-defined, loosely fixed scenario options in RPGs? And this begs the question, is it better that way, or is it worse?

This is probably another thread all together, but it shows you why I'm bothering with all of this.

[Mike Holmes]

I like your graph above.

As far as games that define scenario and world building, I'd first offer Aria as a prime example of this. Then Hero Wars has very specific rules for Heroquesting, at least, which is interesting. Also, Rune, Fungeon, and Dunjon (SP?) are examples of highly gameist games that have lots of rules for building scenarios (hell, petty much that's all there is to Rune). Lastly I'd point to Universalis, a game by Ralph Mazza and myself that has a universal currency system that meters out world and plot developments.

So, there are a few systems that do this.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Let's not forget Everway, which has a very highly focused "scenario structure" integrated with many aspects of the system, and even more importantly, the "squad mission" structure found in so many games - the assumption that your little cell or squad is going to begin each adventure with an assigned mission and a couple of clues. Call of Cthulhu is perhaps the king of this, but it's also common for SF games of many stripes.

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

The only reason why I think about this, is its a real issue in my gaming groups. While you want players to be these fountains of creativity, I've found many flounder when forced to be creative on the spot. I first noticed it accutely when playing Feng Shui. Some players could do stunts, some couldn't. Some could create hooks on the spot, some couldn't. Some players could think "out-of-the-box," some thought "in-the-box."

Another issue that might be cropping up for your players is needing to be creative "on the spot".

To disinter some old jargon: some people are better at or prefer to "Develop In Play" while others prefer to "Devolop at Start".  

Someone might be perfectly able to come up with creative elements that are not "fixed" by the game (ie out of the box, or loose, elements) but have a hard time doing so under pressure.

Emily Care