On the term "Interactive": A Rant

[M. J. Young]

I agree with Ralph that most of the examples which Doctor Xero adduces in illustrating "independent" play are purely questions of credibility distribution and director stance. However, in arguing for the definition of "interactive" play, Doctor Xero insists that it is something else--that it is about players interacting with pre-existing elements of the shared imaginary space.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that there are pre-existing elements in the shared imaginary space which are not known to all participants. The very concept of the prepared scenario declares that the players have accepted that the referee has information about the shared imaginary space which they are accepting as true but unknown to them. Many games would not function without this aspect.

However, it seems to me that for Xero's position to hold, these three things must be true:[list=1][*]The world is fully created in every relevant detail prior to play;[*]The character players are interacting with the text;[*]The character players can recognize the difference between information that exists in the text and information that is invented on the fly.[/list:o]It is not that I think these things are not always true. I am persuaded that they are always false.

Ralph does an excellent job of addressing the first of these. In the late seventies and early eighties there were referees who did massive amounts of work on their worlds, trying to have everything in place. I myself was mapping out a city somthing like twenty five miles east to west and twenty north to south, in which ever building was marked and identified on the map. However, I did not have detailed information on the residents of those buildings, in the main. Some of the detail cannot be present. That doesn't mean it's not important detail; it means that it was not foreseen to be important detail at the point at which the information was coded. As referee, I cannot know what details are going to be sought by the players, so I can't have them all in place. I absolutely must invent some on the fly.

This holds true even (or perhaps especially) if I am running a canned scenario. It's not all in the package; I'm inventing some of it.

The second point is that the players are interacting with that text--with the created objects in the materials. They absolutely are not. As someone has said, the text doesn't talk to you. I'm not talking about whether the text is interactive in a literary sense. I'm talking about whether the text is part of the shared imaginary space directly. It is not, and cannot be, because it cannot speak into the shared imaginary space--the players are always and only interacting with the referee, the person who has the credibility to define those objects within the shared imaginary space. The text per se does not get into that shared imaginary space save through his interpretation and presentation thereof.

Having those objects pregenerated and recorded on paper has many advantages for the referee, but their existence in that form is completely irrelevant to the character players. They do not read the text. If the text is read to them (as it sometimes might be), it is only because the referee has decided that the best way to bring this object into the shared imaginary space is to read the description from the text. The players have zero interaction with the text, or with anything in the text. They are interacting exclusively with the referee and with each other.

The third point crept out a few times. Doctor Xero has at least implied that objects created by the referee at the moment they are introduced to the shared imaginary space lack some quality that makes them detectable as less interactive than objects which existed in the text, or even in his mind, well in advance of their introduction. That is, he thinks you can always tell whether the referee is presenting what he wrote before or making it up as he goes along. Now, there are referees who ad lib poorly, and there are referees who prepare poorly; and certainly there are times when we know our friends well enough that we can tell which they are doing. However, I have been known to pick up a book or paper, read from it, and change the words while I'm reading so it says what I want it to say instead of what the paper actually says. I have similarly presented what I thought was in the book, only to realize later that I remembered it wrong but wasn't going to change it now. I have invented material on the fly in response to player questions that they never knew was not part of the package--one of my tips for referees is to make it feel as if the world was fully detailed before they arrived. If you ask me what's on the north wall of the room, I will tell you, even if I've never given it a thought, and you will not know if I invented it at that moment or ten years before.

I'm suddenly reminded of a wonderful game my wife ran years ago. We were stranded, rescued by a primitive tribe, and were being inducted into their group. In the course of our interactions with them, we became acutely aware of their use of feathers to signify status in many ways--we struggled long and hard to work out the meanings of the colors, so we would be able to understand how the culture worked. The module seemed to have created a very richly diverse culture.

Years later I picked up that module to run it for someone else. I discovered that the feathers, and a host of other aspects of their culture which had riveted and driven us to explore, were completely missing from the material. My wife had invented it all on the fly while we were playing.

Finally, I have used material directly from my books or notes and had the players believe it was specifically improvised at that moment because it fit their interests so perfectly.

Players are completely in the dark about what actually is in the "text" that they've agreed to use. I could bring one of my old creative writing notebooks to the table and pretend it was a scenario, and you probably would never know otherwise.

Doctor Xero likes to explore cultures and peoples and other aspects of the created world. He believes that these will be more real if they are created in advance of play. I can see an argument for that, and perhaps indeed there is truth to the notion that the same person will create a more consistent and believable culture if he takes time in advance of the game to think it through than if he makes it up on the fly. However, some referees can improvise a culture so swiftly and consistently that Margaret Meade wouldn't know it wasn't pre-written; and some can't create a consistent or interesting culture if they spend five years hammering out the details with cultural anthropology text books in front of them.

I think the entire idea that the pre-existence on paper, or even in someone's mind, of a fact about the explored elements is a red herring. It is irrelevant to play. I say this as one who does put a lot of facts about many of his scenarios on paper in advance of play. They are not the scenario; they are not explored by the players. Those are nothing more than notes for the referee, so that he can more readily create the scenario in the shared imaginary space.

When professional witnesses take the stand, they often have notes. Detectives have notebooks, medical witnesses have charts and nursing notes, engineers have calculations--all of these things seem to the layman to be evidence. They are not. The only evidence in these situations is the words of the person testifying. The notes lend that testimony the appearance of veracity and so enhance the credibility of the witness in the eyes of the jury.

In the same way, reams of description of an imaginary world are nothing to the players but a tool to make it seem that the referee knows what he's going to say.

I'm tired; I hope I haven't rambled too much.

--M. J. Young

[Alan]

Hi MJ:

I notice we're using two different definitions of "text" in a role-playing game.  I've written about it as the actual material in the shared imagined space.  You're talking about text as actual written material that the GM has, either from his own work or a published source.

I only mention this because, if we place the shared imagined material in the place of text, players do indeed interact with it - at least in the literary sense Doc is using.

Hey Doc, what do _you_ mean by text in an rpg?  Is it something recorded somewhere in advance of play?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi M.J.

I don't think you rambled at all.  (In fact, I'm once again in awe at the generous gift you make of your clarity and intellect on these discussions.)

Everyone,

While I'm not willing to insist (yet) this whole VoINT/VoIND isn't a drug-addled chimera, until Dr. X clarifies, with specific answers, the questions raised by Ralph, Alan, Walt and others, as well as responding to M.J.'s excellent post, no one really can go further with this discussion.  There's just too much in the air that's currently undefined in terms of what he actually mean in practice.  (Not theory, but actual peddle to the metal practice.)

Everyone, let's step back a moment and see what Dr. X has to offer.  If we don't, we're just spinning the axel on this one.

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

Respecting the wish to wait for Xero, I'll address a side topic that was brought up. I didn't see Walt explain to John why this is such a touchy subject for him. Consider, John, that Walt as a founding member (I think) of the Society for Interactive Literature he's been fighting these definitional wars about the term interactive since before many of the posters here were born. What, 1982 or so, Walt? This is far from a new issue. People have been abusing the term Interactive for a loooong time now. Walt is know in many disciplines as an expert on the topic.

Mike

[Caldis]

However, it seems to me that for Xero's position to hold, these three things must be true:[list=1][*]The world is fully created in every relevant detail prior to play;[*]The character players are interacting with the text;[*]The character players can recognize the difference between information that exists in the text and information that is invented on the fly.[/list:o]It is not that I think these things are not always true. I am persuaded that they are always false.

--M. J. Young

I have a few other comments I'll hold back until Xero comments but I did want to react to this.  

I think your comments are excellent and very true but there is one thing you missed, Xero's claim was that his two modes were opposite ends of a spectrum.  At one end was the ridiculous examples of what he termed independant play where each player was creating play that had no relation to anything the other players were doing.  At the other end would be the equally ridiculous example of the dm railroading players through a scenario he created with pregenerated characters where the players have no choice but to simply follow along with his plot and role dice where appropriate.  Both of these ends would be the extremes and are no longer socially functional games as no one will enjoy them, all actual play would take place somewhere between these ends.

Seeing it as a spectrum invalidates point one on your list, the gm will be creating at some point the frequency will just be smaller the closer you get to the 'interaction' end of his scale.  I fully agree with point two but again when viewed as a scale you can see that the gm will have less to interpret the closer he sticks to the text.  As for point three I may be getting this wrong but I dont think that differentiating which is created on the fly and which was in the text is the concern, I think it's more having the text as common ground to start from and a safety net to more fairly adjudicate when a possible conflict could occur between two visions of the same situation.

It's an interesting supposition that has some merit however I'm not sure that it really is a spectrum or if it is I think we may already have a few points plotted on the scale.  Alan brought up director stance but I dont think it's the only one at play here, it's just the final step along the line of preferences actor stance would be the first stop, probably followed by author stance, and finally full blown director.

[M. J. Young]

Xero's claim was that his two modes were opposite ends of a spectrum.

I was aware of that; suffice it for now that it appears that Doctor Xero is claiming that for him play is only interesting to the degree that it conforms to those three statements. I can present examples of play in which none of those items are true ever, but none in which they are all true always. I'm trying to get at what it is that really defines his concepts, which have been very evasive thus far--all the examples given of "independent" play (and I really don't care about the labels, I'm just trying to get to the definitions) have ultimately been about the use of director stance by character players, but he insists it is more than that, and as he does I find nothing that remotely resembles his efforts to define, except stance.

Seeing it as a spectrum invalidates point one on your list, the gm will be creating at some point the frequency will just be smaller the closer you get to the 'interaction' end of his scale.  I fully agree with point two but again when viewed as a scale you can see that the gm will have less to interpret the closer he sticks to the text.

I'm not sure this does invalidate my points.

Xero seems to be very focused on interacting with the pre-existing text. It doesn't, to my mind, matter how closely the referee follows the text--the players interact with the referee, not with the text. But I think this is brought into sharp relief by point three.

As for point three I may be getting this wrong but I dont think that differentiating which is created on the fly and which was in the text is the concern, I think it's more having the text as common ground to start from and a safety net to more fairly adjudicate when a possible conflict could occur between two visions of the same situation.

Well, let's pick a couple of statements from what's been said.

If the player brings it, it is not pre-existing, and therefore there can be no interaction with any pre-existing structure if the structure is brought by the players. There is nothing physically or notionally with which to interact if people sit down at a table and say, "Okay, what do we want to be here?", and therefore since there is nothing with which to interact, their actions must be grounded independently of the non-pre-existent structures.

[quote="Then, earlier in this thread, Doctor Xero himself[quote="John Kim"]I don't think this is the distinction Xero is drawing at all. He is talking about interaction with "pre-existant structures" -- by which I think he means ideas created prior to that moment. So if the GM invents a cottage on the spot, that is still "creation" rather than "interaction".

Precisely![/quote]
That seems pretty conclusive to me that Doctor Xero is not merely objecting to character player use of director stance to create objects on the fly, but to the creation of objects on the fly by the referee. It is from this that I derive the three points I think his position requires: All information must be pregenerated; the players are interacting with that pregenerated information; the player will know if the referee is improvising, because this will inherently result in substandard play experience.

I have experienced play in which no information was pregenerated, and the players interacted solely with what the referee invented on the fly, and not one of the players was aware that this was happening at the time they were playing. I have never experienced play where nothing the players discovered was invented on the spot, or where the players had direct access to the pregenerated information (as opposed to getting it through the referee), or where the players could always differentiate the improvised from the fixed elements in play to the detriment of the play experience.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

The second point is that the players are interacting with that text--with the created objects in the materials. They absolutely are not. As someone has said, the text doesn't talk to you.

This is not right. The text is conveying methods, themes and atmosphere, which you the player emulates in the game, thus making the text an important part of the interaction.

The players all relates to the text, at a minimum through the character generation, at a maximum by being a gamemaster who reads and conveys large portions of it in the game. Strictly speaking no guide is needed when players relate to the gamebook this way, other than the inherent guide in the book (the gamesmith). When filling out the character sheet the players interact with the text/gamesmith, trying to create a new element in the game (his character) from the elements and instructions given in the text. This active relationship has all the markings of interaction.

I'm not talking about whether the text is interactive in a literary sense.

Neither am I. Forget about the special way this word is used in literary research. Such groups often make use of words in special ways, not applicable to other fields of society.

I'm talking about whether the text is part of the shared imaginary space directly. It is not, and cannot be, because it cannot speak into the shared imaginary space--the players are always and only interacting with the referee, the person who has the credibility to define those objects within the shared imaginary space. The text per se does not get into that shared imaginary space save through his interpretation and presentation thereof.

I think the example given above show that the text is indeed a "part of the shared imagnied space". It may be isolated to the shared space between player and text (as often is the case in character generation), and it may be extended to the shared imagined space of the whole player group.

The GMs role as mediator is not important in this context. That's merely a practical issue on how the gamesmith chooses to organize his game.

On the "interpretation" of the text; it is indeed interpreted, in the same way as all verbal communication also is interpreted. In a normal, traditional roleplaying game the GM is not the sole interpreter of the text in the game book. it is quite normal to let the players have the book to make characters. it is normal for them to have their own books, using them as referee works during play, on geography, culture and trade. All this makes the book a part of the interaction, even though the text speaks silently. Through this silent and ongoing dialogue, the gamesmith makes his presence felt in the game, laying the foundations for it and serving it with new elements all the time.

The gamesmith is an active player in the game, represented by a predetermined set of hints, nugs, banters, revelations, instructions, proposals, and atmospheric descriptions. It is all very similar to what any other player in the game do, except for the missing sound.

More than the Gm, the gamesmith is the guiding spirit of the game.

[Walt Freitag]

I agree with M. J.'s interpretation of what Xero said and implied so far in regards to improvisation by the GM. But I wish we had a more definitive statement on that from Doctor Xero.

So, let me pose the question again: If a GM improvises with no prepared notes or plan at all, while the players decide only their characters' actions just as in traditional tabletop play, is that VoINT or VoIND?

This is equivalent to asking, which is the critical difference between VoIND and VoINT: whether or not elements are being invented during play, or whether or not players other than the GM are doing the inventing?

Until we have a definitive answer on that from Xero, we're just debating interpretations and speculating (as I did in my last post) on what the implications would be if the intended meaning was one or the other.

Thomas, you're right that that the form of interaction with the text you're talking about, such as following system procedures expressed as text during char gen, does take place. But I don't think that has any bearing on the VoIND vs. VoINT distinction that Xero is trying to establish, because there's no discernable difference in the use of text for such purposes between the systems and play styles he describes as VoIND and those he describes as VoINT. Most systems have character sheets and rule books that describe procedures for character generation. Except in those rare cases where participants discuss and create rules on the fly, rule systems always pre-exist and reference texts describing those rule systems are often brought to the table.

Since what we're discussing is text that might or might not pre-exist, I've assumed that we're talking about maps, descriptions of locations, NPC descriptions, timelines or schedules or other forms of planned events, and all the related stuff that would generally be called "the GM's notes," or material that would be included in a module or in a sourcebook for a specific setting.

- Walt

[Tomas HVM]

Walth; you yourself said in the opening of this thread: Do I care? Not as far as the definitions of VoIND and VoINT are concerned. Neither do I care for the distinction between these. They sound like too much gibberish for me. Who of sane mind would try to distinguish anything by inventing two phrases so close to eachother? Please!

Walth; you continued with this: But I'm really sick of being bludgeoned with what the "legitimate" meaning of "interactive" is according to literary scholars. I fully agree with you in this; no full and final meaning of the word "interactivity" may be founded on how the word is used within the clique of literary scholars. Their special use of the word is limited to their particular field.

Since what we're discussing is text that might or might not pre-exist, I've assumed that we're talking about maps, descriptions of locations, NPC descriptions, timelines or schedules or other forms of planned events, and all the related stuff that would generally be called "the GM's notes," or material that would be included in a module or in a sourcebook for a specific setting.

This distinction is not important, even if we limited the argument to this material. The GM is a player of the game. This material is indeed some way for the gamesmith to interact with his players.

A roleplaying book is something quite different from a novel, and should be treated differently. The novel is an artistic endgoal, and a drama to be read as is. The gamebook is a tool, used to form and propel the artistic performance of the players, focussing on the drama they are able to create.

As a player of the game, the GM is given special assignments, by the gamesmith or the other players. He is still a player! As such he interacts with the material in question, wether it is made by him or by someone else, and he will continue his dialogue with it throughout the game. As the setting and drama evolves, he needs to reassess the material and his use of it, against the ever changing game environment and it's demands. To a certain extent the other players also particpate in this dialogue with the material (premade or not). The borders between players vary, and so does the use fo the material. One moment the GM has the map to himself, pondering it's influence on the drama. In the next moment he places it in front of the players, and they all discuss it.

Interactivity permeates the roleplaying game in all aspects. It is a media saturated with a dramatic flow created by all participants, however they participate. This includes the gamesmith (even in a spontaneous game, where the gamesmith is one or more (or all) of the present players).

To discuss how the interactivity behaves in the different relationships within the game, is a highly meaningful discussion. What sort of demands does the verbal and written interaction place on it's human source? What possibilities for influencing the gameplay is inherent in each of these forms of interactivity? What pitfalls are there? How can we map the various forms of interactivity at play in a single game?

I, for one, is especially interested in the way gamesmiths make their presence felt in the actual game.

By the way: my name is Tomas.

[M. J. Young]

As a player of the game, the GM is given special assignments, by the gamesmith or the other players. He is still a player! As such he interacts with the material in question, wether it is made by him or by someone else, and he will continue his dialogue with it throughout the game.

I'll grant that without objection.

However, what Doctor Xero seems to be arguing is that the character players (a distinction I have made in this thread before now) are themselves interacting with the text; and it appears that this means that objects in the shared imaginary space get their directly from the text. Clearly, they do not.

As the setting and drama evolves, he needs to reassess the material and his use of it, against the ever changing game environment and it's demands.

That is, the text itself is not accessible to the character players except through the mediation of the referee.

I just watched a film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and I've several times seen a film version of Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think I've read either of those plays. I have read several Shakespearean plays which I've never seen performed, and at least two that I have both read and viewed--Romeo and Juliet in two very different film versions. What is clear is that when I read the play, I am interacting with the text; but when I watch the play, I am interacting with the director's vision of the text, as reproduced by the actors.

In the same way, if I pick up a game text that describes a setting or an adventure, I can interact with the text; but if the game is run in play, I cannot interact with the text as a character player--I can only interact with the referee's interpretation and presentation of that text, and that is not the same thing.

Further, as your quote implicitly admits, if I as a character player have read the text, that provides no guarantee that I know how that text will be presented in play. In the more recent Romeo and Juliet, all references to "blades" were satisfied by having the characters fight with knives. Reading the play one would have anticipated these to be swords. The director changed them to achieve a specific outcome (in this case, the modernization of the setting). A similar change could be made in role playing--and I as a player can get all up in arms and say, "that's not what it says in the text", but that's immediately dysfunctional--if only the referee and I have read the text, I have disrupted the game because his understanding and adaptation of the textual information doesn't match mine. The other character players would have been totally unaware of the discrepancy had I not brought it up, because they are not interacting with the text; they are interacting with the referee's presentation of the information he draws from the text, as he interprets it into the shared imaginary space.

Certainly with known settings, such as Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Buffy, Star Trek, and Babylon Five, you've got players who are familiar with massive amounts of the setting in advance of play. However, the degree to which they are interacting with this in the sense Doctor Xero seems to mean is minimal. Interaction, as Doctor Xero appears to be using it, seems to require that an object pre-exists its discovery, that it is revealed to the players through their explorative efforts, and that they have the ability to learn about this object through play. It doesn't apply to anything they know before they begin play. It absolutely requires that the referee present the object to them in layers as they uncover it. That means they are exploring not the text but the referee's understanding of the text. It's not the same thing.

I agree that game designers have significant influence on play, both through rules construction and setting/situation construction. However, as with a play, in practice that influence passes through the filter of an individual whose mediation forms it into something unique to that time and place. The game designer does not speak into the shared imaginary space; he speaks to the referee, who speaks into the shared imaginary space.

It's a bit like me calling home and telling one of my sons to tell another of my sons that I expect him to finish some chore before I get home. I don't know how that message will be delivered; I don't even really know that the message will be delivered. Nor am I in a position to clarify my intent if the message is unclear. I am relying entirely on the intermediary to deliver a message, and must accept that he will deliver his understanding of the message, which may differ from my intent. So, too, in designing a setting or situation, I have no ability to convey this to the character player or to speak it into the shared imaginary space. I cannot sit at the table and say, "this is one of those situations in which you should make a skill check; now you need to roll a general effects roll; there should be a bonus on that check because of this situation." All I can do is explain in my book what kinds of situations require skill checks, when to use general effects rolls, and how to assess situation-based bonuses. I have said nothing into the shared imaginary space. I have rather instructed someone else as to what I think he should say. My influence ends there; it then becomes his influence, and the degree to which he wants what I want.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

... the text itself is not accessible to the character players except through the mediation of the referee.

This is really not true!

I have stated the obvious fact before; that all the players may relate to the text in the gamebook one way or other.
Examples:
- The "character players" relate to the gamebook when creating the characters.
- They relates to pregenerated handouts found in the gamebook.
- They relates to maps, and the text on the maps.
- They may even read the whole gamebook, or sections of it, for themselves.
- In some games the character players have their own gamebooks, the so called "Players handbook".

It is obvious that all players may interact with the game text, even in the course of gameplay. It is done to a varying degree, of course, depending on how the gamesmith chooses to organize his game, depending on what style of play the gamemaster prefer, and depending on the demands inherent in the scenes and themes of the drama.

... if I pick up a game text that describes a setting or an adventure, I can interact with the text; but if the game is run in play, I cannot interact with the text as a character player--I can only interact with the referee's interpretation and presentation of that text, and that is not the same thing.

First part is true; you may interact with the text, in the literary meaning of the word, when reading a gamebook.

Second part is not true; if the game is run in play; you may still interact with text from the gamebook, and even be the mediator of it in the game, enriching the game with your interpretation and presentation of it. As a character player I may interpret a certain text in the gamebook, and maintain my interpretation in conflict with the interpretations presented by the GM. This is a often used way of interacting. In some games it is frowned upon. In other games it is a recommended and expected way for character players to participate.

The GM interact with the text, and the players, and at the same time teh character player interact with the text, and the players, and the GM, and who knows what will come out of it? Maybe the GM will concede the point, and give my interpretation priority? Maybe the GM will bide his time, and show us his ruling through the consequences? Maybe the two interpretations may live side by side, as an example of cultural diversity, as interpretations said to be coloured by the characters point of view?

I fear that your argument is contrary to such an open way of playing the game, and as such it is an argument not suited to enrich the way we play RPGs. It is too deterministic to be valid in a game-environment, with it's many interrelations, and it's everchanging drama.

... if I as a character player have read the text, that provides no guarantee that I know how that text will be presented in play.

You are right; it does not, of course. And still; as a character player I may read a text in the gamebook, introduce it in the game, and see how the interaction between me and the rest of the players develops. The ensuing gameplay may influence my interpretation, and it may let my interpretation influence the game. I have no guaranty that anything I say will be incorporated in the game, really. The GM may demand that I rephrase anything. The other players may make such demands too. And anyone may interpret my interepretation, giving it substance in the game by playing out the reaction to it by their character.

There is no guaranties given on how the game will develop, in a truly interactive roleplaying game.

We may agree to play a fantasy game, but we do not share the same fantasy on what a fantasy game should be. It varies. Due to these variations, minute or major, we have the ability to create a drama that may flow in lots of directions at the same time.

We may break up roleplaying games in small parts, to discuss them, but we must remember to check our arguments against the rich tapestry of actions and interactions in a real roleplaying game.

[Alan]

Guys, I notice that Tomas' disagreement with MJ is based on a disagreement about defnitions.

Tomas uses "text" to refer to the gamebook itself.

MJ uses the term to mean all recorded materia, including hand written notes, thatl the GM might have about the adventure.


Maybe we should agree on what is what - and be careful not to confuse analogy with actuality.  

If we use Tomas' definition, he is right that players can read and respond to the game book.

If we use MJ's we see that players can indeed only know the referee's notes from what the referee says about them.

This disagreement isn't useful because it's about two different things.

[Tomas HVM]

Tomas uses "text" to refer to the gamebook itself.

- and other written material included in the game.

To quote myself: To a certain extent the other players also participate in this dialogue with the material (premade or not). The borders between players vary, and so does the use of the material.

In my view, the distinction between gamebook material and notes made by the GM is not significant, not in this context. It is a practical distinction though, as the GM usually keep his notes to himself. But I'd like to argue that if we accept that interaction between character players and text may enrich the game, we may find it more natural to let them study our GM-notes too. It may be quite effective to let most (or all) of the elements of play be disclosed, playing with them in an open creative environment.

[M. J. Young]

I walked away from this and came back, because I wanted to consider it.

It seems to me that the example of the player reading a handout from the text does not violate my assertion that the player only interacts with the text through the referee. The very name "handout" (in English, at least--Tomas may have meant something else by it) implies that I, as a character player, receive it when the referee decides to give it to me.

I will admit that there are games in which the position of the referee is functionally eliminated, and that in such games all players interact directly with the text. Universalis is only the most convenient and uncontroversial that comes to mind. However, in such cases, what players are doing is exactly what Doctor Xero says is not interacting with the text--they are creating at that point, expressing individual vision.

So while I'll concede to Tomas that games could be and have been designed in which players do interact directly with the text, I'm going to suggest that in this context that is moot. Doctor Xero wants character players to interact with the text by having objects in the text appear in the shared imaginary space which were previously unknown to them, so that they can explore these and uncover aspects of them which are found in the text but not known to the players prior to this exploration (a very simulationist objective, in my opinion). I maintain that in this case, all such exploration is mediated through the referee. Even if the referee reads from the book, or hands the player a handout at that moment, this is mediated by the referee, who has made the decision that this material should be given to the players in this form at this moment.

The literary example that springs to mind is the first time I read Lord of the Rings and Merry and Pippin encountered Fanghorn. I had no idea that there was anything like this in Middle Earth, and I was at that moment riveted by the idea of exploring what these creatures were like--a desire which Tolkien obliges by providing a great deal of detail about their psychology, their culture, and more. I was not similarly interested in the halflings or the dwarfs, as having read The Hobbit I knew to expect these, as well as the elves and the wizards. The experience Xero wants is akin to this, discovering something about which nothing is already known, and exploring what it is about. When you do that from a book, you're interacting with the text. When you do it in a roleplaying game, you're either inventing those details yourself (which he categorizes as independent) or you're getting them from the referee. His distinction, however, appears to be that if they are recorded in the papers from which the referee is running the game, that's interactive and the players are interacting with the text, and if it's invented on the spot by the referee that's independent. My answer is that the players are not interacting with the text in either case--they are interacting with the referee, who is either presenting his view of what the text presents or making it all up as he goes along, and that in either case the players cannot tell which he is doing, and are not interacting with the text at all, but with the referee. Hence the interactive/independent distinction fails here, because what he calls interactive does not in this context exist as he defines it.

Clear?

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

... discovering something about which nothing is already known, and exploring what it is about. When you do that from a book, you're interacting with the text. When you do it in a roleplaying game, you're either inventing those details yourself ... or you're getting them from the referee.

Of the drama we participate in, in a roleplaying game, little is known before play. We set out to explore it together, as we invent it, together. That's the basic of the game.

The invention of the drama is a joint venture. We do not introduce anything outside of interaction, while the game is played. The drama, and the significance of each element in it, is invented through interaction with the other participants. Interaction in this context, may indeed be performed through text, by the gamesmith, the gamemaster and/or the character players. It is not significant in relation to the principle, whether the text is introduced by the GM, or by other members of the game.

I think I am repeating myself now, so it may be that this part of the debate has gone it's full course at present. I have enjoyed it. It has forced me to reflect on this aspect of RPGs more thoroughly than before. M.J.Young is a nice opponent to have in such ponderings. Thank you!