thesis : the two approaches to RPG player enjoyment goals

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi.

Sorry for being thick.

Does this thing called VoInd actually exist?  That is, not as in the example RDU Neil offered (which might be summed up as "Boy, I'm glad that's over!")  But as something people are actually doing regularly.

The first post of this thread suggest that these two "goals" of play (VoInd/VoInt) were revealed by reading the threads on these boards.  But, again, I'm not quite seeing anything like VoInd anwhere on the boards -- either in terms of published rules or actual *enjoyed* play.  (The enjoyed play is vital to the example, since the thesis presumes this sort of thing is actually a goal.)

I could *imagine* -- though I'm not saying this is the case -- that someone with a real affection for strong GM authority might look at any game that loosens that power as a recipe for chaos at the gaming table.   Is that what's going on here?  A radical misinterpretation of other styles of play outside of traditional GM/Player relationships?  'Cause I really don't see players on these boards, or any actual games discussed on these boards, advocating people actually having no connection with each other at all.

So, again: any real games, any actual play?  If not, aren't we discussing a straw man made of imaginary straw?

Christopher

PS Universalis might be seen as VoInd if you looked at it from the wrong angle on a cloudy day -- in that reality gets "built" by players one block at a time, but you're still building on what came before, or are at least responsible to it.  You simply *can't* ignore what happened -- even if you change the very fabric of the game's reality you need to a) toss a lot resources b) interact with other players during a bidding process and win against those who might oppose you.  I'm not even saying this is what you're talking about -- but it's the closest thing to VoInd I can think of -- but only if one has only heard of Universalis and never playe it.

[RDU Neil]

Surely this must just be a bad example, and not what you really are trying to describe as being VoInd...

Not sure what Lumpley is... but I'll look it up in a second.

I think what I'm describing above is an example of the only VoIND kind of game I've really been in... and I attribute the total dysfunction (yes, you are right on there) to the fact that this group did not respect the external authority of the GM and the world created by him.  

I'm not saying VoIND can't work... but my only experience with it was ugly.  With the power of the game diffused among every individual, instead of the GM being the leader or at least first-among-equals, then I see dysfunction and chaos.  

Now... as I type this, I begin to think... a VoIND game really requires a solidly established, discussed and agreed upon, Social Contract.  A VoINT game... likely more traditional in the RPG sense... might have such a defined SC, but doesn't need it, as the GM position is a "given" in such a game... there is an excepted shared imaginary space initiated by, and ultimately judged by, one authority.  VoINT comes with a social contract in place (of a sorts.)

VoIND, OTOH, requires the group to actively establish the details of the social contract before the game (Constitutional Convention, anyone?) or it risks dysfunction and choas.

Doc Xero?  Does that match what you were thinking with VoINT and VoIND?

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, man.

This is hard for Ralph and I to discuss, because obviously as the designers of a game that has elements that are similar in some ways to what Xero is calling VoInd, we have a bias in supporting the mode.

But as we've also played the game more than anyone else, our observations are pretty important to the discussion. So, will people accept that the following is an attempt to discuss things in an unbiased fashion? Assuming that's the case, I'll continue.

In play of this sort, the rules stand in for the GM in terms of unifying the action - or, rather, they should. I'd agree with Xero and Neil that play like they're describing can happen with systems like they're describing. Neil has the right of it - in a game with rules like this, there has to be a strong agreement pre-game not to let it get all messy and whatnot, or it will.

In which case, I'm not sure what the point of the rules are, really. In these cases, they might exist to order turns or sometning, but, essentially, what you have here is freeform. Which works, as Neil points out, perfectly well with the right group with the right attitude, etc, etc. That is, the bad play described is the result of bad planning, and people who really didn't understand what they were doing, or people who were expecting more guidance.

That's to say that you can go out there and find way more coherent play of freeform by the truckload if you just look. What the examples above look like to me is Table-top gamers who are trying something outside their experience. No surprise that it would suck so. They don't really know the "rules" that people who play these games correctly do know.

Now, all that said, a game that does not have a GM or established world can actually have reinforcers for continuity. For example, one can have reward systems that are designed around trying to link into the previous actions of the other players. One can even have rewards for "keeping the party together" if one wants (or punishments for doing otherwise). Basically you can design a game that rewards any behavior that's desired with regards to these issues.

So, the example, being only one possible game of the infinite variety of games that can be covered by the definition, doesn't say anything about this style of game. It says that badly designed games don't do what they're designed to do, or that sometimes players play the wrong game. These are universally true, and have nothing to do with the type of game being described. Yes, the feel of the game might be different - as John's essay points out. But then different people play for different reasons.

Long ago, players bemoaned how there was this group of players who didn't play to win, but instead played for what they called "Story". The whole role playing vs. roll playing debate that raged in the eighties and into the nineties. What these people on both sides didn't understand was that both modes of play were valid, despite not being what they thought "role-playing" was supposed to be. To make their points the Roll players would point to sessions they'd played in that were dull because there was no sense of challenge in them. The Role players would point to sessions they'd played in that were dull because the players never got into character.

Please don't accidentally do the same thing here. It's as bad an argument now about what play in the other style is like as it was 20 years ago.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

So, again: any real games, any actual play?  If not, aren't we discussing a straw man made of imaginary straw?

The example I have given is a simplified and abbreviated version of just one of my personal experiences with VoIND gaming.  If this doesn't match your experiences, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a similarly brief example so that I might see what you would consider to be a successful VoIND game.

I started this topic for three reasons.  One is simply the intellectual interest in variety of approaches -- that some people prefer a stable context within which to play (VoINT) and some people prefer a continuously impromptu context (VoIND).  The second is the gaming interest of preventing conflicts between VoINT and VoIND players by recognizing (and addressing) the differences, not unlike the G/N/S motivation.  The third is a personal interest : I have been in a large number of wonderful Vision-of-Interaction games but I have no positive experiences with Vision-of-Independence or collectivist games.  However, many on the Forge praise this other style, so I wanted to learn about Independence playing specifically so that I would be able to give Independence playing the same respect I give Interaction playing.

This seems like nothing more than pure Lumpley Principle, and dysfunctional Lunmply Principle at that.  The Lumpley Principle basically says that nothing said in any game has any credibility except to the extent that the player give it credibility.  These players aren't giving credibility to anything but their own statements.

The term "Lumpley" is new to me, Valamir.  However, that describes every one of my experiences with VoIND gaming.  Since a number of people who post on the Forge seem convinced that VoIND gaming is superior and more mature than the style I enjoy, my hope is to evoke from them insights into good VoIND gaming -- but without disrespect for VoINT gaming since I'd rather learn about VoIND gaming than have to spend time defending VoINT gaming.

Now... as I type this, I begin to think... a VoIND game really requires a solidly established, discussed and agreed upon, Social Contract.  A VoINT game... likely more traditional in the RPG sense... might have such a defined SC, but doesn't need it, as the GM position is a "given" in such a game... there is an accepted shared imaginary space initiated by, and ultimately judged by, one authority.  VoINT comes with a social contract in place (of a sorts.)

Makes sense . . .  It explains why the VoINT gaming I've experienced has usually avoided "Lumpley gaming" except when powergamers became involved (and the game master was expected to handle them or expel them).

VoIND, OTOH, requires the group to actively establish the details of the social contract before the game (Constitutional Convention, anyone?) or it risks dysfunction and chaos.

That makes a great deal of sense as a means by which to avoid the chaos I've experienced. ^_^

Doc Xero?  Does that match what you were thinking with VoINT and VoIND?

It does a lot.  It still doesn't quite help me understand the appeal of playing independently of a set imagined space off which to play.

I think of my VoINT playing not unlike my writing a haiku : I exult in the creativity in working within certain parameters such as the haiku's requirements apropos cadence et al.  I suspect that VoIND playing is not unlike writing free verse.  I have successfully written and performed amateur free verse, but I have trouble translating that sense to RPGing.

When I feel inspired to create my own material instead of playing off someone else's creation, I don't game, I sit at my computer and write my own stories (and sometimes submit them for publication) -- a heady but solitary activity.

When I game, I take pleasure in seeing how well I can immerse myself within my character and act out how she/he reacts to and interacts with a pre-existing stable reality, a pleasure which is lost if I also control that reality at my will and whim -- because then I'm not interacting with someone else's imagination, I'm playing within myself, and if I'm going to do that I will derive more pleasure from staying home and writing my stories for possible publication.  There's just no pleasure for me if I can have my character hired to solve a mystery and then declare that the butler did it without any puzzle-solving effort on my part, and how can I solve a mystery if nothing exists until we improvise it when we feel like it and can always be retroactively changed?  That pleasure is also lost in a GMless game if all players control that reality according to some sort of reality-by-committee and continuity-revised-by-committee approach, because then I'm not interacting with a stable imagined world but one which changes constantly and one on which I can not rely -- therefore my character must be forever independent of his/her reality since it can shift without warning.

The above must be a flawed understanding of VoIND play.  I started this thread in part to have the flaws in my understanding corrected.

What the examples above look like to me is Table-top gamers who are trying something outside their experience. No surprise that it would suck so. They don't really know the "rules" that people who play these games correctly do know.

That may be.  My VoIND experiences have been with online VoIND gaming (my only experiences with online gaming at all, actually) and with groups I didn't know well (at convention or otherwise).  My own current gaming groups have been steadfastly disinterested in experimenting with VoIND gaming.

This is hard for Ralph and I to discuss, because obviously as the designers of a game that has elements that are similar in some ways to what Xero is calling VoInd, we have a bias in supporting the mode.
---snip!--
Please don't accidentally do the same thing here. It's as bad an argument now about what play in the other style is like as it was 20 years ago.

However, that makes you well qualified to explain further and to do so without devolving into a VoIND vs. VoINT dichotomy.  I would very much appreciate your insights, such as the "rules" you mentioned in the early excerpt I quote.

I explain VoINT play in the hope that such will provide a  basis for comparison.  Obviously, a number of intelligent posters love VoIND gaming, however, and I wish to understand, and maybe someday I might experience the sort of VoIND gaming they enjoy, just as I hope someday they get to experience the sort of VoINT gaming I enjoy. That won't be possible until I understand better VoIND intuitively and not merely intellectually.

Doctor Xero

[Christopher Kubasik]

Doc,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that what you're defining as VoIND Gaming no one here likes.

Who are these people who are saying playing this way is a fun time?   Can you point me to any examples?  Can you name any games?

I understand you like what you like, and you don't like what you don't like.  But as far as I can tell, what you're describing as what you don't like nobody here would like.

As you have defined VoIND gaming, I have no examples of a successful game.  I don't even know why you asked me to offer examples, since I suggested in my first post on this thread, I have no idea of how such a thing would work, let alone have played such a thing.

Is there anyway I can make this clear and get an answer to my question?  Who are these people advocating such things around here?  What are the games?

Your description of of VoIND ("the player derives gaming enjoyment specifically from independence from anything outside him or herself -- independence from other players, independence from any shared setting given coherence by someone conscripted to organize/cohere the setting for them, i.e. the game master.  In the independent context, it would be intrusive and restrictive for anyone -- game master, other players -- to provide any pre-existing setting or static/stable NPC with which the player through his/her character must interact. The player alone decides what setting or what NPCs exist for his/her character's interaction, limited only by group consensus as defined by the game system's mechanics." ) as a workable game play seems to me to be an null set.  As far as I can tell, such a thing (a workable things) simply DOES NOT EXIST.

Who ever on this board advocated such a thing?  Can you please direct me to threads, quotes, actual rules, actual examples of play?

You seem to be saying, "There's X and there's Y, and it's just my opinion, but I like X, and really haven't liked Y, but a lot of people claim Y is 'more mature (or whatnot)' and that's their business, but I like X, and here are my problems with Y."

And that's all well and good -- but who is playing Y?

And I'm simply asking, bluntly as I can: Who are these people who like what you've defined as VoIND?  Where are they on these boards?  What rules are they using?  Where are these claims of maturity?  Where are actual examples of anyone arguing for this thing you don't like?  I've been here for years now and I don't ever recall anyone saying, "I can't wait for that session next week where I derive gaming enjoyment specifically from independence from anything outside myself -- independence from other players, independence from any shared setting given coherence by someone conscripted to organize/cohere the setting."

Could you please point me toward something concrete?  Because as it stands you seem to be creating this nightmare version of something without a GM -- and I don't know who the heck would want to play you're suggesting.

Please, Doctor.  You're the one who claims people are advocating it.  I can't illustarate a thing I don't think exists as an actual goal of people on these boards.

Please.  Offer up some specific of actual people around here saying acutal things advocating actual rules or actual gameplay.

Thanks,

Christopher

[Valamir]

Edited to note cross post with Christopher.

The example I have given is a simplified and abbreviated version of just one of my personal experiences with VoIND gaming. If this doesn't match your experiences, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a similarly brief example so that I might see what you would consider to be a successful VoIND game.

Hmmm.  I don't know that I'll be able to help you there.  I honestly don't see anything in your VoInd, VoInt division that remotely resembles a description of any roleplaying I've ever seen.

Frankly, it seems to me to be an entirely artificial dividing line seperating "how I play" from "everything else"

I started this topic for three reasons. One is simply the intellectual interest in variety of approaches -- that some people prefer a stable context within which to play (VoINT) and some people prefer a continuously impromptu context (VoIND).

See, this seems like a completely false dichotomy to me.   I have no idea where you get the idea of "continuously impromptu context" from.

Further, I have no idea what you're trying to say with your use of the word "Impromptu".  Your example seems to do great injustice to any legitimate form of Improv I've ever heard of.

Since a number of people who post on the Forge seem convinced that VoIND gaming is superior and more mature than the style I enjoy, my hope is to evoke from them insights into good VoIND gaming -- but without disrespect for VoINT gaming since I'd rather learn about VoIND gaming than have to spend time defending VoINT gaming.

This is you projecting your own interpretations onto others.  The entire point to the existance of design theory here is to fight against the false notions of "superior and more mature".  But critical analysis does mean asking hard questions and challenging long held assumptions.  That doesn't equal being dismissive and ideally shouldn't trigger defensive feelings such as feeling one's preferences are being slighted.

But I'm a firm believer in stated preferences being completely useless unless they've stood up to challenge and experimentation.  If the only flavor of ice cream some one has ever eaten is Strawberry, them saying "my favorite ice cream is Strawberry" has no value.  

Forgive me if I think the burden of proof lies with the ice cream eater to demonstrate they have thoroughly tried several other flavors before declaring Strawberry their favorite.

When I game, I take pleasure in seeing how well I can immerse myself within my character and act out how she/he reacts to and interacts with a pre-existing stable reality, a pleasure which is lost if I also control that reality at my will and whim -- because then I'm not interacting with someone else's imagination, I'm playing within myself, and if I'm going to do that I will derive more pleasure from staying home and writing my stories for possible publication

This entire section literally is completely foriegn to me.  You criticized Itze for reversing your terms...but I know exactly why he did.

Because your terms seem completely and utterly backwards.

Where on earth you came up with this bizarre notion that giving players more authority to influence the game means they suddenly are no longer interacting with others imaginations and are playing in their own little world I can't even fathom.  I mean...it literally does not make any sense.  


Giving players more ability to influence the game increases the level of interactivity...it doesn't decrease it.  I've never experienced a decrease in interactivity as a result of enhancing player involvement in the game.

In fact, I would alter your terminology as follows:

I'd keep your term VoInt, and I'd replace VoInd with VoEMInt...for Interactive and Even MORE Interactive.

Because instead of being restricted to just interacting with other human beings at the table through the construct of their characters...what you're attempting to describe as VoInd actually gives you 100% of all of that...PLUS the ability to interact with the other human beings at the table as fellow players and creative entities directly.

Folks mentioned Universalis above...I can honestly say I've never seen more interaction between human beings at a gaming table than I have with games like Universalis, or Inspectres, or My Life with Master, etc.  These games encourage interaction...not discourage it.

Everyone gets the benefit of interacting with everyone's full imagination, rather than just with that piece of everyone's imagination they're able to portray "in character".  But that doesn't have to mean that it then isn't possible to fully enjoy the interaction with each other via character also.

That's why I said its a false dichotomy above.  You've latched on to this immersion thing, and you're bound and determined not to let it go...but the reality of it is...no ones asking you to.  You can have it both ways and enjoy being immersed in character AND allow yourself to participate directly with the other players.

This doesn't require breaking immersion to a game experience ruining degree (another false dichotomy..."if I do that, I'll never be able to just enjoy being in character"...its just not true).

In fact, I'd argue that often this direct participation enhances your ability to enjoy being in character because it gives you some influence over the sort of scenes you want to portray your character being in.  You don't have to be limited to just enacting your character in whatever scene the GM happens to give you.  You don't have to sit quietly waiting for the opportunity to portray your character in some fabulously great way, hopeing that some other player or the GM will feed you the lead in you need to get there.  You can have it both ways.  

You can get the GM and other players to feed you that lead in, you can then give the oscar winning performance you were hoping for.  You can get the cooperation of the other players to help you make it even better so they don't unknowingly do something that will defuse your triumphant moment.  

You can do all of these things.  And what that means is that EVERYONE at the table gets to enjoy, experience, and marvel at your virtuoso performance.

If instead, you don't, then there's a good chance you won't get the chance to act out that scene.  The opportunity will be lost, and all of the other players will be deprived of what could have been one of the most memorable moments of the campaign...all because you didn't want to engage the other players directly for fear (misplaced fear I'd add) that doing so would ruin your immersive experience.

[Mike Holmes]

For examples of Universalis play, see:
http://universalis.actionroll.com/ExamplesOfPlay.html

Now that Ralph and I have blathered on about this, could somebody with a less biased position please come in and either deconstruct or support what he and I have said. I don't want our word for this to be the only one presented.

In any case, Ralph isn't saying (or would be wrong if he did, IMO), to say that there aren't differences in the feel of play of these styles. He's just saying that a lot of people assume that you have to "give up" more that you probably do when playing in the non-concrete world style. It may be that your players will never change their opinions on the subject, perhaps for very good personal reasons. But that, again, is just their preference, and says nothing about whether or not other people can enjoy the other mode.

Like Ralph says, a lot of work has been done to get away from the "X is superior" mindset in game theory (something we owe mostly to the work done on the Threefold Model, if I'm not mistaken). So, as long as you trust us not to berate your methods, we'll trust you not to berate ours (analyze, yes, berate, no).

Mike

[John Kim]

Let's give Xero a little chance here.  I would point out that he gave an example earlier in the thread.  Quoting from his earlier post (end of page 1):

My longest experience with VoIND was an online GMless game I played once during one of those times I am able to allot to leisure time.  I spend enough time in the role of teacher or alone in research and creative writing and such that I look forward to my communal experiences, and one of my friends encouraged me to try my hand at this online stuff.
 
All the other online players were completely involved in their private character development and their individual character interactions with the reality they individually controlled, only noticing what other players did long enough to veto this action or that addition to the shared game world.  

So here we have a game where players have a lot of director-stance power, and they seem to be pursuing independence.  There may not be advocates for this type of play currently here on The Forge, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  

Now, I think Xero is wrong in associating this "Vision of Independence" with the sorts of director-stance-heavy play common on the Forge like Universalis.  However, he is speaking from his experience just as we are speaking from ours.  I don't think online play-by-post games are considered much at The Forge (at least not that I've seen).  So maybe we just haven't seen the play he's talking about, just like he hasn't seen (say) Universalis.

[Christopher Kubasik]

John,

A fair point.  But the "thesis" named at the start of this thread, and reiterated several times during the thread, claims to be inspired by threads read here at the Forge.

If I may, Dr. X seems to be conflating his bad experience on-line with ideas floating around here that he doesn't get (either because he hasn't yet played such games mentioned around here, hasn't read their rules, or simply is mapping "my bad experience online" to "games I'm reading about here that I don't yet understand.")

Using Ralph's ice cream metaphore, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Dr. X has eaten other kinds of ice cream than Strawberry.  He ate, if I may, Shitty Ice Cream and said, "I don't like it."

My concern about the way this thread is running is that he somehow inferred that other people around here are pushing Shitty Ice Cream, prefer Shitty Ice Cream, and think Shity Ice Cream is more more mature.

None of this is the case, however.  What he described sounded like Shitty Ice Cream to me, and I'd want no part of it.  I'd wager money everyone on this board would agree that sure sounded like Shitty Ice Cream and they'd never want it in their mouth either.

So if Doc wants to write a thread that says, "There's this Shitty Ice Cream I ate, and it was sure shitty.  I never want it again.  I'm sticking to Strawberry over that."  That's cool.

But when he says, "I had Shitty Ice Cream, and I've noticed there are people around here he seem to want shity ice cream," when in fact no one around here wants Shitty Ice Cream -- well, that's just plain weird.

Now, if Doc really believes this and wants to go on believing this, that's fine.  But my concern, as always, is for the guy who shows up on the Forge, is struggling to understand something he's drawn to but can't quite understand, and comes across a thread like this where the good doctor is laying down a whole paradigm about certain kinds of games that are just wrong.  

I feel compelled to get him to either back up the statement with actual examples of actual rules or actual play (so I learn something I never knew about my fellow Forgers before), or he says, "You know, maybe I've been going a tad overboard with these statements," so the new guy to the Forge doesn't think, for lack of reisistance to doc's ideas, that doc was making any sense.

Cause at this moment his new concept of VoIND seems to have no connection to anything that's posted here at the Forge, and I just can't see how he's making any sense.

Christopher

[Valamir]

I'm fully in agreement with Christopher's point about the necessity of clarifying these things for posterity.

But John is absolutely right.  We've thrown a heck of a lot of stuff at Dr. Xero in this thread (much of it by me) and its now over 4 pages long.

I'm going to channel Ron a minute here and suggest we all take an extended breather (myself included...ok, included squared) and perhaps Dr. Xero would be good enough to start a whole new thread when he's had a chance to digest and integrate.

[Gordon C. Landis]

hmm, maybe this will help . . .

"Lumpley" (for which I am NOT finding any good links for at the moment - "good" meaning non-flamey) is the principle that underlies both Doc Xero's customary game play and Universalis.  Which is no surprise, since it's the principle that underlies ALL RPG play.  In one version:

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.

The extreme of VoIND as described in Doc Xero's post - as Christopher and others have pointed out - simply doesn't exist.  If no one is "negotiating" the statements that other people people make and integrating that into a consensus about what's in the game world, there's no gaming happening.  But there are TONS of ways in which you can do that negotiating, from up-front assignment/division of (ultimately revokable/re-negotiable if desired) rights to full-fledged in-the-moment negotiation of everything amongst all participants - and plenty more between and around those.

Independent creation and Interactive relation are both always happening, in a theoretic totally dictatorial GM-run game (players must indepenently create agreement with that process - or walk out of the game) or a theoretic every-player-for-themselves game (players must accept interaction from the others or there's not point in having them there).   All we can talk about is degrees and styles of creation and interaction.

Does that make sense?

Gordon

EDIT to note cross-post with Ralph's excellent idea and I'll shut up now.

[Doctor Xero]

Most game systems exist somewhere on a spectrum between these two visions

As I had implied from the very start of this thread, I was using the commonplace theoretical technique of presenting the extreme ends of the VoINT and VoIND spectrum to establish parameters, with the hope that those who are more familiar with VoIND play could fill in that side while I could fill in the VoINT play side as that is the segment of the spectrum with which I am most familiar.

Who are these people who are saying playing this way is a fun time?   Can you point me to any examples?  Can you name any games?

Sure.  However, like most real life examples, they are not on the theoretical extremes of either VoIND or VoINT.

Note: I have a great deal of respect for the creative output of both Clinton R. Nixon and Zak Arntson.  Please do not assume otherwise merely because I list games by them as examples of VoIND play.  As I've pointed out repeatedly, I don't dislike VoIND play -- I simply have a weak intuitive grasp of it!

In Clinton R. Nixon's DonJon, secret passages come into existence the moment that the player declares that they do.  They do not pre-exist, so the player can not possibly interact with them (since they don't yet exist).  Instead, the player independently summons them into existence by the very act of looking for them.  This is a classic VoIND technique.  I've read various posts on the Forge praising that particular game.

In Zak Arntson's Fungeon, players will actually compete with each other over who gets to declare what the reality is of the next room in the dungeon.  The reality of that room does not exist until the players declare it, so again, there is nothing extant with which the players might interact.  The players' characters exist independently of the game reality since the game reality comes into existence in bits and pieces as it is adlibbed by whoever wins the competition for declaring it ex nihilo.  Again, this is VoIND.

In an interview, Ian Millington, the creator of Ergo, stated,"Because there is no GM, there are no PCs or NPCs, each player plays multiple characters of different importance, and some characters get passed around occasionally."  This is an example of VoIND NPCs -- to use a television show analogy, it would be like having Shatner and Nimoy and Kelly and Nichols and Doohan all take turns playing the guest alien emissary from scene to scene.  Yes, one can interact with the functional role of the alien emissary, but the subtle nuances brought by a specific actor to her/his character is lost.  Millington also stated, "It doesn't make sense for a GM to get too attached to one NPC and become stroppy if that NPC gets injured. In the same way it doesn't make sense for CoRP players to get too attached to their characters."  Again, this reinforces player independence from rather than player interaction with the continuity of their created reality.

Ferry Bazelmans in Soap specifically writes in the rules that each player-character "can do anything it wants in the sentence, but there are limits to the sentence itself" (3.1.3.1) although "you can annoy the hell out of other players by forming a sentence in which something unwanted happens" (3.1.3.1).  Again, this is an example of a vision of player independence from a stable created reality rather than a vision of player interaction with the imaginary reality.  Since gameworld reality is endlessly mutable within the parameters of the theme (in this case, cheesy soap operas), the player has nothing stable with which to interact.

I hope these real world examples work better for everyone than had my efforts at pristine models of the extreme ends of the spectrum.  I wish to avoid turning this into a research paper, which is why I stick to models rather than, to use Valamir's analogy, listing every flavor of ice cream I've tried.

Now that I have given a few examples, could someone please use this to clarify for me the VoIND style?  I know such impermanence and mutability would ruin suspension of disbelief and immersion for me, but it doesn't for VoIND players, and I would like to understand why.  (Or is it seen as a trade-off for other things which a VoINT doesn't usually provide, such as increased player input?)

I've no interest in posts suggesting either approach is superior.  Until I have a better grasp of VoIND play, I will never be able to attempt it myself.  I've shared my love of VoINT play in the hopes to inspire similar sharings of people's love of VoIND play.

And, yes, the example I provided of a VoIND was based on my actual experiences at one convention.

Doctor Xero

P.S. It occurs to me only now one possible confusion which my example may have made worse.  I hope no one has gotten the absurd misimpression that I'm claiming there is never player-with-player interaction in VoIND games or that players never operate independently in VoINT.  I'd like to think my models have made it clear that I am referring to player interaction with the created reality and its continuity, not to player interaction with other players.  I'm concerned with ongoing story aesthetics (round robin or auteur, independent episode or sustained continuity) not with player comraderie except as it is influenced by a game's ongoing story aesthetics.

[M. J. Young]

I don't think I've said anything on this thread; and now that I've suddenly got  something to say, everyone is saying be quiet.

Well, forgive me if I speak out of turn; I'm hoping this will help.

Now, I've seen online play, particularly in chat rooms, that had very little resemblance to a game. People came and went as they wished, had their characters do whatever they wanted, and attempted to enjoy the moments. It was entirely dysfunctional--a quiet philosophical discussion in the corner between a sorceress and a bartender was suddenly disrupted by a bar fight between a Conan look-alike and a Space Marine. No one was happy with this sort of play, but it happens all the time--in chat rooms, places where no one knows anyone and people come and go as they wish. You can't really establish a social contract in such an environment, because the participants are constantly in flux, and everyone acts based on his own decision of what he wants to have happen there without determining what the others are already attempting to do. If this is what is meant, I'll concede that it happens. Most of the people to whom it happens are not happy with it.

I will also argue that within that context there are people who are creating interactive play, and establishing a social contract between them in subgroups. If they were not, they probably wouldn't bother being in the chat room at all. Conan could create the space marine and describe to all of us how he cleaned the guy's plough, but since the rest of us aren't going to applaud him he should get bored and go away. The sorceress could have a philosophical discussion with a non-existent bartender, but unless she's doing it to make a point, essentially staging a play for others to observe, why would she? Perhaps she is producing her own drama; but she's not really role playing in that case. Perhaps she's trying to lure someone into her game, but in that case this is game prep, really--she doesn't want to play alone, she just thinks that the best way to attract like-minded players is to start doing what she wants to do and hope someone joins in.

But let me look at Real Role Playing Games, and see what features of what Doc describes I can find in those I know.

Multiverser is one of the most player-independent games I know. Each player really is in his own little world, doing his own thing--quite literally, most of the time, each player character is creating his own story in his own world. Yet the game has a tremendous amount of structure, more often than not. The referee holds most of the credibility for what happens in the world most of the time. (There is a chance--about one in a thousand--that a certain die roll will allow the player to describe the best possible outcome of a situation, but even this passes through the referee's filter.) Many, even most, of the scenarios most people run have solid structure, unavoidable facts. The skill system is rather intricately constructed to determine what is possible in the current world. Most of the time, players are spectators in each other's worlds.

Legends of Alyria is one of the least structured game systems I know. There are no skills. Three attributes, a virtue rating, and some non-specific number of traits define the a character's effectiveness. Players have the power to define the geography of the world at will--at any moment, a player could say, "My character has just decided to seek refuge at a village which she sees ahead at the bottom of the hill" or "I find that I have reached the Sea of Mist, and have no more running room" or "The place I need to be right now is the Ark, which fortunately is only one day's journey from here". Yet it also strongly demands (facilitates is too weak a word) that the players interact and that their characters interact. Independent character play is virtually impossible in the Legends of Alyria system--you can't actually roll to do anything unless you are opposed by another player's character. The game is about interactive play, precisely because of the way it is structured.

There is a traditional approach to play in which a referee decides everything that is happening in the world and the players work together through characters working together to explore within that created framework. There are a lot of divergencies from that model. Multiverser and Legends of Alyria are just two, very different, such divergencies. Universalis is yet another. Other games here represent other divergencies.

Sure, if you took all the elements of player independence in Multiverser and combined them with all the elements of player independence in Legends of Alyria plus all the elements of player independence in Universalis, you would probably approach the sort of completely independent play that seems to be described here--but by letting the varying forms of independence cancel out the varying forms of structure retained or redefined, you're left with half a dozen people sitting in the same room describing their daydreams to each other.

I suppose it's entirely possible that the confusion has arisen precisely from this aspect of what we do. If you say you are designing a game that has some element of traditional structure in it, we'll ask why you're retaining that element. This creates the impression that we think you should eliminate all traditional elements of structure. That is not at all what we mean. We mean you should retain those elements of structure that best suit your design objectives, revise those that will do so better if modified, and eliminate those which obstruct. Multiverser eliminates the party concept and the belief that player characters have to be together. Alyria eliminates the concept that the world has to have a map. Universalis eliminates the concept that one person gets to define the bulk of the world. No game eliminates all structure, and no one really plays like that. Even freeformers are bound by the Lumpley Principle.

And to reiterate, the essence of the Lumpley Principle is that whatever means are used to create agreement between the players on the content of the shared imaginary space, that is the system. Whether it's Rolemaster or Freeform, such a system always exists. Lumpley is a screen name identity of Vincent Baker, author of Kill Puppies for Satan and Matchmaker, who originally gave voice to this profoundly simple definition of system which has come to dominate discussion here at The Forge.

--M. J. Young

[Gordon C. Landis]

Also channelling some sort of moderator for just a moment - Doc Xero has replied in-thread rather than starting a new one, so since he's the thread-starter here - I guess continuing in-thread is just fine.

Operating on that assumption - Doc, that last post from you makes it a bit clearer to me what issues you're looking at.  I think there are MANY angles and explanations about what you're calling the VoIND style.  I'm going to think a bit about my personal angle, but one bit I'll throw out right now:  for some people and/or from a certain perspective, there literally is NO fundamental difference between VoIND and VoINT as you describe them.  Dealing with a secret passage created by the GM before hand or dealing with one created by a player at the time of play - eh, either way you're interacting with something that is created in the shared imagined space of the game.  Just because the GM drew it on a map hours/days/weeks ago doesn't mean it's REAL - it's still just an imaginary creation that "exists" for the purpose of playing the game.  Just like the one a player creates in Donjon.

Now, I don't mean to trivialize a preference for one over the other as a personal/group desire.  Just because they are equivalent in some theoretical way does mean that the experience of  playing will be the same for a particular group/individual in both cases.  But I think for some folks, the realization that there IS this fundamental similarity is what lets them play Donjon-style with identical "immersion"* and "suspension of disbelief"* as you have in your GM-created situation.

[* on "immersion" and "suspension of disbelief" - here at the Forge, these phrases are widely regarded as not very useful in discussion.  The best replacement I've heard of - from Ron, probably - is "engagement with the imagined characters/situation/events."  Now, I *think* I know what you mean when you use those phrases, but if what YOU think you mean is wildly contrary to "engagement with the imagined charcaters/situation/events" (which, for some people, it is), that may become a stumbling block to discussions.  Just a heads-up . . . . ]

Well, that's actually more than I was going to say before thinking about your most recent post in more depth, but - hopefully it's a START on addressing your question about "VoIND" play: some folks just don't see the distinction you are pointing to as a barrier to . . well, anything, really.

Gordon

[John Kim]

For some people and/or from a certain perspective, there literally is NO fundamental difference between VoIND and VoINT as you describe them.  Dealing with a secret passage created by the GM before hand or dealing with one created by a player at the time of play - eh, either way you're interacting with something that is created in the shared imagined space of the game.  Just because the GM drew it on a map hours/days/weeks ago doesn't mean it's REAL - it's still just an imaginary creation that "exists" for the purpose of playing the game.  Just like the one a player creates in Donjon.  

I think you are confusing the distinction a bit here.  The secret passage is never physically real even after it has become announced in-game.  The difference is when the secret passage is considered real within the game.  Donjon and other games follow a storytelling paradigm.  Within this paradigm, the only important step is when something is announced to the Shared Imaginative Space.  However, that isn't required or natural.  Consider some cases:

1) A paradigm of collaborative writing.  This allows re-writing of past details, going backwards and forwards in fictional time.  So the secret passage is never considered "real" until the story is published.  

2) The storytelling paradigm suggests that once announced openly in play, the secret passage is considered "real".  

3) The experiential paradigm suggests that the secret passage is considered "real" when the person who has authority over it is sure within her imagination that it is "real".  Some things may require announcement and approval, but many things may not.  For example, PC thoughts or beliefs could be validated by the player, while external world details could be validated by the GM.  In troupe-style play, the world may be broken up into the authority of different players.  


An issue some people have with #2 is that this means that the game can in principle trample over people's individual imaginations at any time.  Maybe I have thought of some cool background, and the addition of the secret passage means that the backstory I had thought of now makes no sense.  Now I have to go back and rethink it all.  Similarly, facts about my PC may be rewritten, forcing me to internally re-process my character.  

The experiential paradigm means that you are trying to protect people's individual imaginations from this sort of clash or retcon.  One way to do this is by agreeing on facts in advance -- like a map of the world and published worldbook.  Another way is to agree in advance on a predefined split of authority -- so that a player, say, is given permission by the others to determine anything within a certain sphere.  

* on "immersion" and "suspension of disbelief" - here at the Forge, these phrases are widely regarded as not very useful in discussion.  The best replacement I've heard of - from Ron, probably - is "engagement with the imagined characters/situation/events."  Now, I *think* I know what you mean when you use those phrases, but if what YOU think you mean is wildly contrary to "engagement with the imagined charcaters/situation/events" (which, for some people, it is), that may become a stumbling block to discussions.  

I don't have the thread reference, but someone suggested a distinction of "character-immersion" versus "world-immersion" vs "situation-immersion" as different types.  I think this is good because it still allows us to discuss the distinction of "character-immersion" -- because it is different from the sort of immersion which allows meta-game play.  They might be considered both sub-types of a larger category ("engagement" or "immersion"), but they are definitely different.