Setting as Part of System (Long)

[John Kim]

Well, of course all of the elements are intertwined. They're all under the big umbrella of "roleplaying" after all. We're giving names to parts of that larger whole, which sometimes looks seamless when you squint at it.

We have conflicting definitions.  When I say "intertwined", I mean that there is no way to draw a line between them at all.  Another way to say this is that they are overlapping.  Examples:

1) Text which says "Every player rolls a die.  Whoever rolls the highest gets to narrate what happens for the next five minutes of real time."  This is system and has no overlap with SIS.  

2) Text which says "Damage from bladed weapons is tripled after armor is subtracted".  This has definite overlap with SIS.  For example, this might not be true for non-flesh or non-living creatures -- or might change under altered setting conditions.  It also conveys the deadliness of bladed weapons within the world.  

3) Text which says "Fire Giants are immune to fire".  This is simultaneously a fact within the SIS and a rule for resolution.  

My point is that text #3 has a definite affect on resolution.  i.e. If I throw a fire bolt at the giant, then that text affects what the resolution of that is.  We can finesse the definition back and forth, but I think there will always be overlap -- and in fact, overlap is the norm rather than the exception.

[John Harper]

Okay. I agree that they overlap. I don't agree that the terms "setting" and "system" are so intertwined that it is not practical to call them by different names. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you're arguing that Setting and System are part of the same thing and cannot be reduced into separate parts.

The way I understand the definition of "system" (from the glossary and the LP) your position doesn't make sense to me. By definition, system is separate (but related to) setting.

Maybe you're suggesting a new definition of system? I think I'm confused now about what your argument is.

The text examples are confusing, too. "Text which says XX" isn't part of the SIS until it's introduced by the real people at the table. That act of introduction (establishing or changing the SIS) is System. It doesn't really matter what is being established. It's the how that System deals with. Who decides that it's part of the SIS now? When? With what authority?

At least, that's my understanding of the term. I think it's a useful definition, and one that *doesn't* apply to Setting.

[lumpley]

"Fire giants are immune to fire" is a rule, that's all.  It contributes to our assent to one anothers' suggestions about what should happen in the game.  We can call upon it in a variety of circumstances.  When we do, it's part of the process by which we decide what becomes true in our SIS, part of our System.  It helps us coordinate our interactions, the imaginary stuff in the game world, and our real-world tokens and representations.

When we don't call upon it, it's not anything.

John, you say that it's a fact in the game world, but it's not - there can't really be facts in the game world.  The game world is entirely non-factual.  Imagine, for instance, that we forgot that fire giants are immune to fire, had our characters kill one with their flamethrowers and burn its corpse on a pyre, and never realized our mistake.  So much for fact.

You can treat rules as though they were facts in the game world if you want to, but that conceit won't really help you understand what's happening.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Y'know, let me semi-retract that.  It's a pet peeve and all I've done is refute the specific case.  I can refute the general case too, without the peeve.

John, your probs with setting contributing to resolution are all quite fully covered by my post here.

It [System] has to coordinate:
A) the wholly imaginary things and events in the "game world";
B) real-world abstractions and representations of those things and events: maps, numbers, dice, "hit points," etc.
C) the interactions of the actual human beings.

For instance, a rule like "whoever rolls higher on the attack roll inflicts damage on the defender" operates only on B and C: it expects the human beings to interact to manipulate some "attack roll" and "hit points" at the representation level. Add to the rule "... and describe the change in the fighters' circumstances" and you bring in A: now it expects the human beings to make changes to the imaginary stuff, not just the abstractions. Or add to the rule "... but first give the fighters bonuses to their attack rolls depending on their circumstances" brings A in too, in a slightly different way. The former: changes to A (the fictional circumstances) depend on what happens with B (the representations). The latter: what happens with B changes depending on details of A. Both together: A informs B, B informs A. In all cases: ...according to the direct and active attention of C, the players.

Of course things like "fire giants are immune to fire" and "here's a town with 355 people in it, including a blacksmith" and "my character hits him" contribute to resolution.  They contribute exactly as our local System calls upon them to do so.  They're things that System coordinates.  They aren't the Process - they aren't System - they're things that System calls upon and acts upon.  A informs B, B informs A, according to the direct and active attention of C.

-Vincent

[John Kim]

Okay. I agree that they overlap. I don't agree that the terms "setting" and "system" are so intertwined that it is not practical to call them by different names. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you're arguing that Setting and System are part of the same thing and cannot be reduced into separate parts.

The way I understand the definition of "system" (from the glossary and the LP) your position doesn't make sense to me. By definition, system is separate (but related to) setting.

Hold on.  So you agree with me that setting and system overlap -- but then you say that system is separate from setting.  These two appear contradictory to me.  Yes, it is useful to have separate words for "setting" and "system" -- but they are words for overlapping sets.  i.e. So a given thing could be both "setting" and "system".  

As far as I see, this is in complete agreement with the glossary entry and the Lumpley Principle.  Written rules are used as a means by which imaginary events are established.  The players obviously have to agree on them, but if they are agreed upon then they become part of System.  These written rules can be purely meta-game (i.e. "The GM decides when the next scene is") but they can also be purely in-game (i.e. "Oroogs have no heads").  Now, the players can break from the prior System at any point -- but that is true for both meta-game and in-game rules, as well as anything in-between.  

Now, this does seem to contradict Ron's Big Model, which suggests that Setting and System are separate and presumably non-overlapping.  

The text examples are confusing, too. "Text which says XX" isn't part of the SIS until it's introduced by the real people at the table. That act of introduction (establishing or changing the SIS) is System. It doesn't really matter what is being established. It's the how that System deals with. Who decides that it's part of the SIS now? When? With what authority?

I disagree with this.  There is no such thing as authority.  Everything is done by consensus.  Someone can point to text on a page -- or a verbal agreement -- that suggests they have authority, but unless everyone agrees to that interpretation, their contribution isn't part of the Shared Imaginary Space yet.  

However, when we talk about System in a practical sense, we do mean words on a page as well as verbal agreement.  i.e. We say that a game of The Pool has a different system from D&D, even if in both cases the players use the same negotiation processes to arrive at consensus.  Now, they can refer to written rules to support their point in both cases.  For example, suppose in a game of The Pool, the player tries to add a new trait of +3 and spends 6 dice to do it.  The GM calls him on that, and says that it actually costs 9 dice.  He points to the rules where it explains.  The player agrees, and pays the extra three.  By the same token, a D&D player tries to use a fireball on a Fire Giant.  The player rolls damage, but the GM then tells him it has no effect.  Again, there is disagreement, and it is resolved by referencing the rule.  In both cases, the players agree to use the written rules as System.  

Of course things like "fire giants are immune to fire" and "here's a town with 355 people in it, including a blacksmith" and "my character hits him" contribute to resolution.  They contribute exactly as our local System calls upon them to do so.  They're things that System coordinates.  They aren't the Process - they aren't System - they're things that System calls upon and acts upon.  A informs B, B informs A, according to the direct and active attention of C.

In a larger sense, the process is always the same -- use negotiation and social contract to reach a consensus.  What differs from game to game, though, is the text of the rules which they point to and agree upon as well as other customs/conventions/social contract.  [/b]

[M. J. Young]

I'm not sure that the glossary definition of "authority" is clear; Mike Holmes and I distinguished this from "credibility" some time back when the terms were originally introduced, and although the stated definition isn't exactly incorrect, I think it's missing an important element.

We would say that the rules were an authority, or that they have authority, in this sense: the group has agreed to be bound by them, and thus if there is a question someone (possibly anyone, possibly one particular person) may appeal to the authority of the rules to resolve the matter. However, the matter is still resolved by the credibility distribution between the players: do we accept that this text applies, and that it applies in the way this person claims that it does? There are many situations in which appealing to the authority does not win the case. Here are a few:

[*]Someone says, "That's a dumb rule; we never do it that way," and everyone agrees.[*]Someone says, "Well, I'm the game master, and that's not how I run things," and everyone accepts that.[*]Someone says, "Actually, that rule is only supposed to apply in these specific situations, of which the current situation is not one," and everyone concurs.[*]Someone says, "I didn't know that; I was counting on this other rule controlling," and everyone says, "All right, this time we'll let you do it that way, but not again."[/list:u]So in being an authority, the rules in the book aren't actually part of "the system"; they're evidence which can be introduced by someone with the credibility to reference them in informing the system.

In exactly the same way that there's a difference between the rules in the book and the system in play, there is a difference between a document that contains the setting material and the setting in play. Those elements in that document are agreed to as authoritative; they have authority in answering questions regarding the setting. They are not, however, the setting. The setting is that which is described and revealed in play within the shared imaginary space. The text which defines the setting is not more the setting than the rules in the book: neither become part of the game until someone uses their credibility to invoke them.

The two are still hopelessly intertwined, because they have to work together constantly and each is defined in terms of the other (as are all five elements). But what's in the book is only reference material which can be cited; it's not the system or the setting, but a guide to help define and create the system and the setting.

--M. J. Young

[simon_hibbs]

I'm with Mark on this, and see a pretty clear distinction between setting and system. I'd analyse the Fire Giants example by saying that in this system some characters can be immune to damage from fire, and that the setting includes Fire Giants which have this attribute. As an aside I'd add that some game systems do not easily allow for this. HeroQuest is notoriously bad at representing absolute abilities like this in game mechanical terms.

I see character (monster, NPC, etc) stats as being part of system. The confusion may arrise because there may not actualy be any background text that says that fire giants are immune to flames, and the game stats for them may be the only place that this is made explicit. This would merely a presentational issue though. The fire giants are part of the setting, and their game stats, including their resistance to fire damage, is merely the representation of them in the game system.


Simon Hibbs