proposition: background and foreground

[contracycle]

This is an attempt to square the apparent circle in which setting, situation, and system have become confused.  I want to propose some setting-specific terminology to clear up this mess.

My suggestion is that within setting we refer to background and foreground so as to differentiate two roles that setting fulfills.  I think much of the confusion regarding setting = system comes from dealing with setting as an undifferentiated whole.

Background and foreground have differing characteristics.  The foreground is what the viewers eye falls on and focusses on for the overwhelming majority of the action.  Forgeround includes all the active dramatis personnae, but does not include the members of crowd scenes and whatnot.  Foreground is very much where situation is happening; it is where the game happens in the RPG context.

Background provides context and colour for the foreground. Itn provides answers to secondary questions, and frames the limits of the possible available to the characters.  It also serves to provide information to the viewer implicitly rather than explicitly; for all most of our attention is focussed on the action in the foreground, the background will often be the first thing we acknowledge and examine.

Now it seems to me that recognising the distinction between background and foreground resolves much of the confusion of setting = system.  I would submit that a setting entity can be in either ground, but only matters, and constitutes system, when in the foreground, that is, is an actual in-focus element shaping the direction and content of play.  Elements that reside purely in background serve to inform play, but the characters are not expected to interact directly with these elements.

I also think that this distiction exists on a per-story basis (in this context I use story to mean 'mini-campaign').  An element could be in foreground in one story and in background in the next, or vice versa.  Arguably, character selection is a contribution to those elements of setting which will be in the foreground; frex, the rangers favoured enemy thing; useless if they never show.  Thus selecting the ranger and this ability indicate a preference for this type of conflict.

Similarly this sort of structure could be used for foreshadowing, or for informing character design, or proposing premises or challenges to be addressed.  Anyway, I just think that reference to undifferentiated setting is pretty sterile at the moment.

Thoughts?

[Marco]

Contra,

Is something important because it's in the foreground or is it considered in the foreground because it's important? If I, as a player, find myself drawing heavily from what I know about the world in the setting book even if the GM isn't emphasizing those elements then do they become foreground?

If the latter then I don't think the nomenclature will distinguish between what I'd call situation as opposed to setting. In that case you'll just describe whatever is important to play as in-the-foreground and what's not as in-the-background and it won't tell us about how that got introduced.

We could just say "things the GM creates that act on or are acted on by characters are like rules changes" but to me that doesn't describe the real impact that a knowledge of the cosmology as in Call of Cthulhu has on informing player behavior.

-Marco

[efindel]

Now it seems to me that recognising the distinction between background and foreground resolves much of the confusion of setting = system. I would submit that a setting entity can be in either ground, but only matters, and constitutes system, when in the foreground, that is, is an actual in-focus element shaping the direction and content of play. Elements that reside purely in background serve to inform play, but the characters are not expected to interact directly with these elements.

This bit about "only matters, and constitutes system" still sounds to me like people are thinking that "System Does Matter" implies "System is all that matters".  I don't think that that was ever Ron's intent, or Vincent's in creating the Lumpley principle.

Setting can matter without being part of System, and so can Situation.  

The foreground/background distinction still seems useful, though.  One thing that I'd point out is that System determines what's in the foreground vs. what's in the background -- to re-use an example of mine from another thread, if the System doesn't allow for any differences in combat someone due to him/her not having a helmet, then whether or not anyone has a helmet is automatically a background element in combat.

It strikes me that my idea of Representation, Resolution, and Interpretation comes in here.  (see my first post in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1191.)  The Setting factors that are picked out in the Representation stage are the foreground factors for any particular act of Resolution.[/url]

[lumpley]

Yeah, I don't see that Setting is "part of" System ever.  System coordinates the fictional stuff in the SIS, including Setting, with the real-world dice and numbers and stuff, according to the peoples' interactions.

(Travis: ha!  I knew that I'd gotten that from somewhere.  Your Representation, Resolution, Interpretation post is where!)

I think foreground/background is useful.  I've been using on screen/off screen to mean the same thing, casually.  But I don't see how being in the foreground means that an imaginary thing is part of System.  Being in the foreground means it's being currently acted upon and considered by the players, according to System.

-Vincent

[Callan S.]

Setting isn't part of system? What if walls aren't given stats in two different systems. In the first, a detective game, the muscley hero tries to crash through a wall but just bounces off like you or I would even if we were buff (well, perhaps you are buff). In the other, a super hero system, the relatively same strengthed hero tries to crash through a wall and does so very well. The setting description has many stories of heroes crashing through walls and saving the day, all read prior to that.

I mean, rules are just something used to mutually agree on how things will happen. Setting is used the same way. No?

[efindel]

Setting isn't part of system? What if walls aren't given stats in two different systems. In the first, a detective game, the muscley hero tries to crash through a wall but just bounces off like you or I would even if we were buff (well, perhaps you are buff). In the other, a super hero system, the relatively same strengthed hero tries to crash through a wall and does so very well. The setting description has many stories of heroes crashing through walls and saving the day, all read prior to that.

I mean, rules are just something used to mutually agree on how things will happen. Setting is used the same way. No?

Well, so far for this discussion, we've been using the lumpley Principle's definition of System:

"The System is the means by which players negotiate the contents of their shared imagined space."

Note that "the System" by this definition includes a lot more than just the written rules -- indeed, there's no mention of 'rules' at all.  Even if there's no formal rule about whether you can break through a wall or not, any means by which the participants decide whether or not a certain character can break through a wall is part of the System.

To put it another way, the LP version of System includes not just the written "game mechanics", but all the unwritten rules -- including things like "the GM decides the actions of NPCs" and "when the written rules don't address something, the GM decides what happens".

(Side note:  IMHO, the biggest part of grasping the lumpley Principle is seeing that these things are part of the System.  Once you recognize that the 'unwritten rules' of RPGs are part of the System, you can start thinking about what happens if you change them.)

Now, ideally, you want System to fit Setting; however, there's nothing that absolutely requires them to do so.  And indeed, the fact that in some cases System and Setting make a poor fit to each other is, I believe, part of the reason that Ron originally made the statement that "System Does Matter."

Setting and System are interrelated; some Settings work poorly with some Systems, and vice versa.  But this does not have to mean that Setting is a part of System, or vice-versa.  "X works well with Y, but Z does not" does not necessarily mean that "X is a part of Y, but Z is not".

(And I find it interesting that people are arguing that Setting is a part of System, rather than the other way around.  After all, the System dictates the possible transformations within the Setting... and a list of "these things can possibly happen within this world, and these cannot" would seem to be a necessary part of any Setting that isn't meant to be purely static, would it not?  Not to sound like a broken record, but I think that the reason that people are arguing "Setting is part of System" instead of "System is a part of Setting" is because they're hearing a "... and therefore Setting doesn't matter" after "System Does Matter".)

[M. J. Young]

Last things first: my argument has always been that all five elements are parts of each other.

Specifically as to whether the stats on the walls are system or setting, they are the system definition of a setting element. They enter the imaginary space when two elements within setting (one of them the character) collide (in this case literally). In one sense, those stats are not part of the system until they're needed to resolve this situation; in another sense, they are always part of the system. In the same way, the character is always and never part of the setting and the system, integrated and yet discrete.

The background/foreground distinction is useful to some degree, but I'm not sure I agree that the distinction is based on whether system impacts it.

Let's suppose for the moment that my game is set within petty medieval citystate kingdoms. I have a mechanic behind the scenes that determines the succession of power--when a king is displaced, how that happens, and who replaces him. It's a very streamlined mechanic designed so that the referee can quickly and easily know when the government changes in up to a hundred different cities. Obviously, for the players, it isn't even completely certain whether it matters to them that the king has been succeeded by his son in the city in which they are currently staying; it certainly doesn't matter at the moment it happens whether there has been a succession of powers in a distant city. Yet the game provides system to determine changing background because change in the background is a defining element of the setting. It may become important later, if the player characters travel to a city where there has been a change, or which has been impacted by the change. It may never be important.

A similar example would be in a game world in which there are two or more warring empires, and within the background portion of the setting they are each gaining and losing ground against the others. If you don't happen to be near the boundaries, this may have very little impact on you; but then, since the boundaries are moving, it may eventually come to wherever you are.

So I think that system can be integrated with background elements. That doesn't invalidate the distinction between foreground and background (although as Marco observes whether it's foreground or background seems primarily to be defined by what matters to the characters); it only means that system involvement is not the basis for the distinction.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Marco wrote:

Is something important because it's in the foreground or is it considered in the foreground because it's important? If I, as a player, find myself drawing heavily from what I know about the world in the setting book even if the GM isn't emphasizing those elements then do they become foreground?

Background and foreground are properties of images; necessarily, what the image is of is what is important.  I think your question is posed overly definitional terms; if you ARE dealing with something frequently and attentively, it has been fore-grounded whether you wanted it to be or not.  I fully agree that what specifically gets located in the foreground and what consigned to background is a negotiation amongst the players and, significantly, they may disagree with what should be where, leading to problems.

If the latter then I don't think the nomenclature will distinguish between what I'd call situation as opposed to setting. In that case you'll just describe whatever is important to play as in-the-foreground and what's not as in-the-background and it won't tell us about how that got introduced.

No I'm specifically trying to identify something OTHER THAN SITUATION.  This is because I made a mistake in my Hamlet example; in orthodox terms, it is the situation that is transposed from setting to setting.  Thus, phasers or rapiers are part of situation.  But I don't think this particular breakdown works well for RPG; I am arguing that in RPG terms situation in this sense does not work well for the following reason: linear media require almost no spontaneous improvisation so the details of setting (phaser vs rapier) can be exported to situation as a singular act of creation.  But in RPG where the setting is more 'live', phaser vs. rapier MUST be part of setting; but it's clearly not an important part of setting.  Thus, I suggest, it is a setting element in the background.

Please note I've said nothing about how any such element was introduced.


Efindel wrote:

This bit about "only matters, and constitutes system" still sounds to me like people are thinking that "System Does Matter" implies "System is all that matters". I don't think that that was ever Ron's intent, or Vincent's in creating the Lumpley principle.

I'm trying to explode setting in the way that the GM has been exploded.  I agree that was not the intent, but I also think that the implications of system does matter applied to setting as has recently been discussed needs to be focussed.

One thing that I'd point out is that System determines what's in the foreground vs. what's in the background -- to re-use an example of mine from another thread, if the System doesn't allow for any differences in combat someone due to him/her not having a helmet, then whether or not anyone has a helmet is automatically a background element in combat.

Yes that's exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking of.  In this case the system has forcibly rejected consideration of helmets in combat, its overtly saying "this doesn't matter and doesn't count".  And its an excellent example of the kind of thing different peoples tastes may become excited about, for or against.

So there may be cases where there is mismatch of player expectations as to what is grounded where; I hope that by opening up background and foreground as distinct entities that can be obviated.  You might be able to agree that wizards don't use swords purely by agreeing never to have a sword-carrying wizard in the foreground for aesthetic reasons; this says nothing about the internal causality of the simulation but is instead an artist-to-artist discussion.  System/Mechanism is a/the major method of foregrounding an entity bar direct exposition, I think.

Lumpley wrote:

But I don't see how being in the foreground means that an imaginary thing is part of System. Being in the foreground means it's being currently acted upon and considered by the players, according to System.

Noon wrote:

Setting isn't part of system? What if walls aren't given stats in two different systems.

I have another formulation to propose: setting IMPLIES system and system IMPLIES setting.  This means they are still linked but the linkage is not an identity.  In order for something to be acted on according to system, that entity has to be systematically described, realised within system.

It's exactly this I'm trying to disentangle.  There is nothing preventing any given system giving an answer to any given setting-based resolution question, even if the system is inappropriate.  The end-users can use it any way they wish.  But I do NOT think that means that all setting elements are of equal significance, or that all setting elements constitute system.

To say system matters is to say system frames play; but that is not to say that the "temperate deciduous forest wandering monster table sub-table 7: bears" frames play.  Not even every part of system necessarily frames play in a meaningful way.  Both system and setting have parts that are important, definitional, and parts that are supportive, secondary, ancillary.

But it seems to me anything in the foreground must be systemised.  Even if you have not detailed the combat effects of a spade, in the moment where a character uses one as a weapon, that spade has been brought into the foreground and must now be represented so that resolution can occur.

M.J. Young wrote:

Let's suppose for the moment that my game is set within petty medieval citystate kingdoms. I have a mechanic behind the scenes that determines the succession of power--when a king is displaced, how that happens, and who replaces him.

OK; I'd agree that just because this has been systemised does not mean that it is necessarily foreground in any given game.  But that opens us to the charge that system does not matter, if this part of system is so trivial.  In response to that I would suggest that such a thing has been systemised on the expectation that it will be a part of foreground, that there is some expectation this will be a topic of play; this I imagine is why the writer bothered to write such a system in the first place.  While it is true that it is not clear that the characters care, one must consider that the writer probably did not systemise the care and feeding of cows, and by comparison the welfare of said cows must be considered to be a much lower priority than the fate of the city-states.

Now lets suppose the game in question was a western which did have a system for determining what ugly fate befalls the cows in your care; even if your at-the-table game comprises gamblers on a riverboat, the system has still be constructed to enable the foregrounding of cattle farming.  In your actual game – this game as opposed the next game – the cows are not in the foreground, but they might be in the next game.

To summarise, system matters because it frames play, and setting matters because it implies system.  It seems to me that if the intent is to focus on a setting element, it must be brought to the foreground, for which purpose system exists.  If the intent is to not focus on that element, it probably should not be systemised merely for completeness.  The rule of thumb for game design would then be: decide what you want in the foreground, and systemise that.

[Marco]

Marco wrote:

Is something important because it's in the foreground or is it considered in the foreground because it's important? If I, as a player, find myself drawing heavily from what I know about the world in the setting book even if the GM isn't emphasizing those elements then do they become foreground?

Background and foreground are properties of images; necessarily, what the image is of is what is important.  I think your question is posed overly definitional terms; if you ARE dealing with something frequently and attentively, it has been fore-grounded whether you wanted it to be or not.  I fully agree that what specifically gets located in the foreground and what consigned to background is a negotiation amongst the players and, significantly, they may disagree with what should be where, leading to problems.

I think I understand what you're saying--but I don't think that's a particularly good distinction. I think everyone agrees that the more important elements of setting are more like mechanics than the less important ones--but, like a little used mechanic, when the "background" elements do "come up" they move to the foreground.

Thus there's no way to say what element was what until the game is over and you can say element X never came up.

Put another way: if you describe a color-changing octopus shifting through the spectrum of colors and then 'evaporating' into the ultra-violet--and you have a player who has the ability to change into any animal he's eaten ... your cool background-color element will suddenly become foreground.*

So if no one can know before hand, during (the GM doesn't know what I'm thinking--but I'm basing my play on my Clan's philosophy), or maybe even after the fact which elements were informing who's play then I'm not sure this gets us anywhere.

But even if we do know, I think the utility of having a distinguishment between two forms of setting would be useful before the introduction of said elements into play. I think it'd be nice to be able to say "creating a keep is not the same thing as introducing Elder Gods into the campaign"--but I don't think you can.

-Marco
* this really happened in a game I played in. The player went "ooh--invisiblity!!" and took off on a chase.

[contracycle]

but, like a little used mechanic, when the "background" elements do "come up" they move to the foreground.

I know - please see discussion of the spade above.

Thus there's no way to say what element was what until the game is over and you can say element X never came up.

That is quite possible, but I'm not sure its relevant to whether or not foreground and background are useful concepts.  I already pointed out to you that I have not discussed who introduced it or why.

So if no one can know before hand, during (the GM doesn't know what I'm thinking--but I'm basing my play on my Clan's philosophy), or maybe even after the fact which elements were informing who's play then I'm not sure this gets us anywhere.

Because then conceivably the player could say to the GM, by the way I'm interested in this aspect of the clan and would like to have it in the foreground rather than the background.  Or the GM might say, can we hold off and foreground that in the next story, as its inappropriate to foreground it in this one.  All of this seems a lot more constructive to me than arguments about the continuity and veracity of setting.

[Marco]

Because then conceivably the player could say to the GM, by the way I'm interested in this aspect of the clan and would like to have it in the foreground rather than the background.  Or the GM might say, can we hold off and foreground that in the next story, as its inappropriate to foreground it in this one.  All of this seems a lot more constructive to me than arguments about the continuity and veracity of setting.

Agreed. That could well be useful. I'm Looking at the spade example.

-Marco

[Marco]

I think it's interesting that you say anything that comes to the foreground must be systemitized--if that *is* true then that would be a meaningful distinction.

I'm ... not sure it is--what happens in a game with no interaction mechanics when two characters are falling in love? Is the fact that the NPC lover has stats evidence of systemitization even though it's not relevant to the action directly?

I'm also imagining a situation where a character punches through dry-wall in a game where walls have no game stats. If the GM says "you can do it" is that "systemitization?" It isn't mechanical.

I can see "systemitizing" in a tautological context (saying that if important parts of setting are like mechanics then important parts of mechanics have been systemitized) but I'm not sure it means it in the more (IMO) useful meaning of "represented mechanically."

Which do you mean?

-Marco

[lumpley]

Yes!  Definitely it's time to distinguish between "system" meaning rules and mechanics, and System meaning how we're making decisions.

If I say "my guy punches through the drywall," what has to happen among the real people playing before we all agree that yes, my guy punches through the drywall?

It might be rolling dice.  It might be comparing strength values.  It might be an argument about whether my guy "really could" punch through drywall.  It might be nothing but nods - of course he does.  It might be we all turn to the GM for a yea or nay.  I might have to bribe the GM with Yoo-Hoo or sexual favors!  It might take a lot of effort and attention, it might be invisible.  Whatever it is, that's our game's System at that moment.

What appears in the game rules - the game's mechanics - only contribute to System insofar as we, the players, call upon and apply them.  Maybe a lot, maybe not so much.  Either way we've got a System going strong.  Otherwise the game would stall out because we wouldn't be agreeing what happens.

I think it's easy to read the causality in this sentence backward: "The System is the means by which players negotiate the contents of their shared imagined space."  You might read it and say, "well, here's a bunch of rules in a book, that must be how we'll negotiate what happens."  Really it says, "we're negotiating what happens, how are we doing it? That's the System."

If you follow rules, you're creating System based on them.  If you don't follow any rules, you're creating System based on your instincts, negotiation, charisma, social aggressiveness, friendship, sex, whatever.  Both can be good or bad, depending on what you're after.  My job as a game designer is to design rules that create a System in play exactly suited to what you're after.

I have another formulation to propose: setting IMPLIES system and system IMPLIES setting. This means they are still linked but the linkage is not an identity. In order for something to be acted on according to system, that entity has to be systematically described, realised within system.

I like this.  This is what I'm getting at when I say that System (people agreeing) coordinates the imaginary things in the game with real-world representations.  I'd have it: In order for something to be acted upon strictly according to our manipulations of real-world representations, that entity has to be described in terms of those representations.

The hump to get over is that people can agree what happens - thus, System - without such real-world tokens of the fictional stuff of the game at all.  The wall doesn't have a strength rating, but that doesn't mean my guy can't punch through it.  He punches through it when we all agree that he does, strength rating or no.  If it has a strength rating, that's a tool we can use to make our negotiation smoother, not a real limit on what can happen in the game.

In order to see how roleplaying works, you have to tear "the mechanics are the physics of the game world" down to nothing.  Enacted, the mechanics create a social dynamic, not (or not primarily) a simulation of an imaginary world.

-Vincent

[Marco]

I can see "systemitizing" in a tautological context (saying that if important parts of setting are kind of like mechanics then important parts of setting have been systemitized) but I'm not sure it means it in the more (IMO) useful meaning of "represented mechanically."

Which do you mean?

-Marco

Emphasis to clarified text. I'm editing myself and replying to Vincent.

The above is what I meant to write and I agree with everything you wrote. My problem comes in trying to disentangle setting and mechanics--I think they pretty much *are* the same wrt the entire System construct (note that some parts of setting just as some mechanics may not be relevant to a given game--but as far as I can see foreground and background could apply as easily to mechanics as to setting elements.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Well...  Isn't the difference that one (Setting) is wholly imaginary and the other (Mechanics) exists in the real world, enough?  That disentangles 'em cleanly and clearly for me.

I agree with you that both Setting and Mechanics can be in the foreground or the background, though.

-Vincent