Examples of the Lumpley Principle in By-The-Rules Play

[Ian Charvill]

Over in another thread...

Please don't make assertions without some kind of argument to back them up. How is it universal? It does not describe what happens with a "follow the rules" social contract. Unless you can show where those negotiation points are, and suddenly reveal that we've been doing it without knowing it, you're going to have to accept that this is not the case.

EG#1
The GM rolls some dice, consults some tables, and says to a player "your character takes 21 HP damage and dies".  The player replies "I have 22 HPs".  The GM replies "My bad, your PCs still alive."

The Lumpley Principle in Action

EG#2
The GM says "Zhar the Twin Obsenity reaches out it's tenticles and snags you, you die".  The player says "No roll?".  The GM says "No roll."  The player rolls up another PC.

The Lumpley Principle in Action

EG#3
The GM says "I just rolled perception and Con for you, fumbles both of them." The player says "Sounds bad".  The GM says "Roll up another PC".  The player rolls up another PC.

Still The Lumpley Principle in action.

The argument that there's no negotiation in EG#3 is a straw man.  Negotiation is just the process by which consensus is reached - be it by requests for clarification, reference to a character sheet, reference to the rule book or whatever.  The players don't even require access to these things, they just need the power to ask the GM to reference them or ask for clarification.  If they have that - and they either use it or they don't - then the Lumpley Principle is in force.

[Alan]

The Lumpley Principle (From http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ )
"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

I just want to point out that, when a group agrees to "pay-by-the-book" they are agreeing to use their collective understanding of those rules as the system and to include a rule about consulting the rule book to resolve disputes.  This is all just a system for negotiating what will become real in the collective fantasy.  There is nothing outside the Lumpley Principle here.

[Valamir]

Ian great post.  You hit on a item I meant to bring up and then forgot to.

I think the term "negotiation" was a big stumbling block in the other thread.  Negotiation does not require haggling.

I think people were reading the word "negotiate", envisioning some prolonged debate between player and GM where some agreement is reached over what happens, and then saying "that doesn't happen in my game..."

In reality, "negotiation" is nothing more than the process by which terms are agreed to.  This may indeed involve haggling and debate and discussion.  Or it could simply be by fiat as in Ian's examples above.

I walk into a 7-11 and buy a Dew.  The clerk says "that'll be $1.25".  I give him the money and he gives me the Dew.

That's a negotiation.  There was no haggling.  But terms were agreed to.  I agreed that I was willing to pay $1.25 for the soda he agreed to accept it.  There was no discussion about it, because by going into the store to make the purchase, I had already agreed to accept whatever price the item was marked to or simply not buy it.

This is exactly the same in an RPG where dice are rolled and my character misses.  Even if I don't sit there and haggle with the GM over whether or not my character missed or should be allowed to miss, even if I just accept the ruling the way I'd accept the "MSRP"...its still a negotiation.

People misinterpreting this as requiring some sort of "free form collaborative" thing is where the last thread got derailed.

[John Kim]

I think people were reading the word "negotiate", envisioning some prolonged debate between player and GM where some agreement is reached over what happens, and then saying "that doesn't happen in my game..."

In reality, "negotiation" is nothing more than the process by which terms are agreed to.  This may indeed involve haggling and debate and discussion.  Or it could simply be by fiat as in Ian's examples above.

Well, just to be fair, the word "negotiate" is often meant to specifically exclude fiat.  i.e. For example, a price can be listed as "non-negotiable" or a person can demand "We will not negotiate on this point."

[Marco]

My thought on negoitation:

Saying two people negoitate on a price often means one thing. Saying a ship negoitates a channel often means another. I'm not saying the word choice is wrong--just that there's clearly some room for confusion.

-Marco

[kamikaze]

Over in another thread...

Please don't make assertions without some kind of argument to back them up. How is it universal? It does not describe what happens with a "follow the rules" social contract. Unless you can show where those negotiation points are, and suddenly reveal that we've been doing it without knowing it, you're going to have to accept that this is not the case.

EG#1
The GM rolls some dice, consults some tables, and says to a player "your character takes 21 HP damage and dies".  The player replies "I have 22 HPs".  The GM replies "My bad, your PCs still alive."

The Lumpley Principle in Action

EG#2
The GM says "Zhar the Twin Obsenity reaches out it's tenticles and snags you, you die".  The player says "No roll?".  The GM says "No roll."  The player rolls up another PC.

The Lumpley Principle in Action

EG#3
The GM says "I just rolled perception and Con for you, fumbles both of them." The player says "Sounds bad".  The GM says "Roll up another PC".  The player rolls up another PC.

Still The Lumpley Principle in action.

The argument that there's no negotiation in EG#3 is a straw man.  Negotiation is just the process by which consensus is reached - be it by requests for clarification, reference to a character sheet, reference to the rule book or whatever.  The players don't even require access to these things, they just need the power to ask the GM to reference them or ask for clarification.  If they have that - and they either use it or they don't - then the Lumpley Principle is in force.

First, as an aside: like anyone, I appreciate it if people spell my name correctly.  Preferably, you should just use the nickname, not throw in an "aka", as if you know what I should be called better than I do.  It's just "kamikaze" or "Kamikaze" (I'm ambivalent about the leading case).  I'll answer to "Mark" sometimes, but there are plenty of Marks in the world, and I don't really like the name.  I'll do you the basic courtesy of calling you by whatever name you want to be called by, correctly spelled, and I expect the same courtesy back.  I'm just going to remove my birth name from my .sig, since it seems to confuse some people.

So.  Let's see what the Lumpley Principle actually says:

The Lumpley Principle:
When one participant says that something happens in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: all the participants have to assent to it. Mechanics can help create and shape this consensus, as part of negotiations, but they cannot make things happen in the game without it. This process -- statement -> negotiation -> consensus -- is the game's System in play.

A negotiation requires two or more people to discuss terms, and both have to come to an agreement on them before anything can happen.  The Lumpley Principle even makes that explicit: "all the participants have to assent to it"; the word "negotiation" only appears as a reference to that bottom line.  If I zap you with a tazer and take your wallet, we have not negotiated a funds transfer, you have not assented, and yet I have your wallet.  You should look the word up before you use it.  And, Mr. Charvill?  Do you really think it's polite to call an argument a "straw man" before it's even made?  I certainly don't.  This is your second strike.  You won't get another with me.

In EG #1, the Judge made a statement.  The player offered additional information.  At that point, two things could happen: the Judge could take that information into account, see that by the rules the character is still alive, and correct the statement; or the Judge could say "no, you only had 20 HP left, I was keeping track".  That's not a negotiation.  That's not a shared consensus.  There's only one person judging the rules, and the Judge is the only person whose assent matters in the end.  If the character really did have 20 HP left, the character dies, and no amount of denial from the player will make the slightest shred of difference.  If the player goes off in the corner and sulks, the character is still dead.

EG #2 and #3 are even more starkly not negotiated, and the players *didn't* assent to them but still had to make new characters.  I can't imagine how you can come to the conclusion that that's "the Lumpley Principle in action", but you're flat-out wrong, which is a thing I rarely say to anyone.  Perhaps you should reread it, it's right above if you're confused.

If you try to redefine it so broadly that it applies to any decision made by anyone in an RPG, then it's completely worthless.  YOU are the one making it worthless in that manner, by watering it down to a homeopathic dose.  I happen to think that, as written, it's a decent description of what happens in freeform gaming social contracts, but not every gaming social contract works that way at all.  Is it really that hard for you to accept that fact?

[C. Edwards]

kamikaze,

Did you happen to read this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7440

If so, did you grok any of it? All I've seen so far is you staunchly denying that nothing but your take on the matter could be true. Do you not even think there is a possibilty that your base assumptions are clouding up the issue for you?

Oh, and everybody makes typos. No reason to get all prickly over it.

And this is just silly. I mean, taunting the guy is one thing, but threats are uncalled for.

You should look the word up before you use it. And, Mr. Charvill? Do you really think it's polite to call an argument a "straw man" before it's even made? I certainly don't. This is your second strike. You won't get another with me.

Maybe you should just take a deep breath, get your head in order, then make a less...  zealous reply.

-Chris

[kamikaze]

kamikaze,
Did you happen to read this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7440

If so, did you grok any of it? All I've seen so far is you staunchly denying that nothing but your take on the matter could be true. Do you not even think there is a possibilty that your base assumptions are clouding up the issue for you?

Yes, I did read it, and understood what was happening just fine; I agree with ejh that if you try to interpret the LP too broadly, it becomes meaningless.  Have you read and understood what it actually says?  I quoted it above, so you can refer back to it if you like.  Perhaps you mean something different when you say "Lumpley Principle" than what the LP actually states.  If so, you should try defining your own terms to cover what it is that you mean.

However, what I'm seeing is that the "defenders" of the LP or what they think is the LP (but not the creator of it, which is the way these things often seem to go) are denying that there is anything outside of it.  I'm merely trying to get them to recognize that it is not a universal principle, as written.  If you're seeing something different, there's a good chance that the problem is not on my end.

Simply describing some scene from a rigged demo and then asserting "See, LP in action!" is not proof of anything.  You need to work a logical argument up on those points *in between*, and it would really help if the examples were drawn from real gaming situations, rather than fabricated thought experiments.

I know, for a fact, that I do not usually play by the method described by the LP.  Denying objective experience in favor of a logically appealing but unproven (preferably unprovable) theory is what I call Greek Philosopher Logic.  GPL is a pointless exercise that can be fun, but it doesn't prove anything about reality.  The Scientific Method has worked quite a lot better than GPL, and that works by looking at the evidence.  I highly recommend that you try it in this case.

Oh, and everybody makes typos. No reason to get all prickly over it.
And this is just silly. I mean, taunting the guy is one thing, but threats are uncalled for.

Actually, I rarely make mistakes in writing, and I proofread before I post, but sure, most people do make mistakes and I make allowances for that.  However, when someone mangles your name *and* takes the effort to rewrite it in a creative manner, it's no longer a typo, it's disrespectful.  If he could verify that my given name is "Mark", he could copy-and-paste "kamikaze", even if the word was unfamiliar.  I don't think that's too much to expect of anyone.  Nor was I taunting, threatening, or zealous.  Those are very rude things for you to assert, and I hope nobody else got the false impression I was; I was stating a cold fact, because I believe in being up front with people who've made mistakes, otherwise they continue making those mistakes.  I will not tolerate rudeness.  At a third strike, I would normally dump someone in my killfile; here I'd have to remember "oh, that guy" and page down when I see his posts.  Hopefully it won't come to that for anyone, but life's too short, and I don't care to see another content-free flamewar again in my life.

There will be no more comments on this issue from anyone.  Drop it, and post on-topic.

[contracycle]

In EG #1, the Judge made a statement. The player offered additional information. At that point, two things could happen: the Judge could take that information into account, see that by the rules the character is still alive, and correct the statement; or the Judge could say "no, you only had 20 HP left, I was keeping track". That's not a negotiation. That's not a shared consensus. There's only one person judging the rules, and the Judge is the only person whose assent matters in the end. If the character really did have 20 HP left, the character dies, and no amount of denial from the player will make the slightest shred of difference. If the player goes off in the corner and sulks, the character is still dead.

IMO, you are mistaken.  Any behaviour short of withdrawal is tacit consent and tacit approval of the decision, regardless of whether the player actually feels iot was legtimate in rules terms or social contract or whatever.  A group activity cannot be non-consensual if the participants are free to leave; the very fact that the activity continues indicates that it has ENOUGH consent to, at least, stagger on.

You say only the judges assent matters in the end... but to whom will the decisions matter if the judge consistently alienates their players?  Judges are on a short rope, frankly, and are just as bound by the tacit needs of consensus as anyone else.

[Nicolas Crost]

I don´t know if this is going to clarify the issue, but I am going to try.

What else could happen in case then Judge declares a character dead instead of the player sulking? Well the following:
Judge: "Your Character is dead." Player:"No, isn´t!" Judge:"Yes, he is, and that´s final!" Player:"lalala, can´t hear you..." and leaves.
So what we see here is that the player did give his consent in the examples kamikaze mentioned. It is not just the Judges statement that matters, but the player had to consent, even though by just sitting there sulking. Not conseting would have meant to just leave.

Looking at the Limpley Principle (LP), it states that "When one participant says that something happens in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: all the participants have to assent to it."
Now you could argue that the character is still dead, with the player leaving the room or not. The PC is still dead, right?
I would argue against it. What is roleplaying? It is the creation of a joint imaginary space (I hope I got this right and would like to postpone the arument about there not being any joint imaginary spaces at all...) Now, when the player leaves, he breaks the joint imaginary space, thereby breaking the game.
So if the Judge and all the other players insist on the character being dead, he is. In their imaginary space, in their own game. And this game is a different one from the game they played before, using a different imaginary space (excluding the leaving player). And in this new game all players consented to the events happening (the character dying).

So my point is, in a case of a player not consenting any more, the joint imaginary space is broken, a new one (and thereby a new game) may form immediately, including all consenting players. But still all players have to consent to what happens in that new game.

I don´t know if that helped or not. I sure hope so and would gladly try to clarify my point (which as I have to admit is not so well worded)

Nicolas

[lumpley]

Mark, for the record, I agree with everyone else.  What you've consistently described is Lumpley Principle play with a certain, clear, pretty common distribution of credibility.  (GM is final arbiter, non-GMs can like it or lump it.)

I'm going to make one last stab at finding common ground.  

The difference between "freeform" play and "follow the rules" play is in the social contract, not the rules.  That is, the difference is in how the participants (GM and players) treat the rules, not in the rules themselves.

Do you agree?

If you do, you've agreed to the Lumpley Principle as written.

If you don't believe that you've agreed to the Lumpley Principle as written, you don't understand the Lumpley Principle as written.  You'll have to either a) live with it, which frankly I can too, b) reread what we've written, progressively setting aside your incorrect assumptions until you do understand it, or c) ask for further clarification, in such a way that one or some of us feel inclined to give it.

Railing against this probably won't help.

-Vincent

[Ian Charvill]

W/r/t the status of the thread generally: it would be better if people didn't get sidetracked about whether Kamakaze was rude and abrasive to me in his response - it's a red herring and has nothing to do with the thread topic.

At this point, I have nothing to add to Vincent's reponse, unless Kamakaze has anything further.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is now closed.

For people new to the Forge, that means, don't post again to it. If any topics remain of outstanding interest to you, then start a new thread.

Best,
Ron