proposition: background and foreground

[Marco]

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

Hi Vincent,

It might be enough (although does a module's setting exist in the real world? GM's notes? the soundwaves of description?). But I think that maybe Contra is trying to distinguish between setting elements that are "like" mechanics and those that "aren't"--I'm suggesting that you won't know which is which until after the game is over and people have said what influenced their behavior--that's all.

If background and foreground are words for "not important to the game" or "important to play" I can dig that--I'm just not sure we need terms for it.

-Marco

[ErrathofKosh]

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

Therefore my observation that setting (and character) is DATA, and that system is the engine for processing that data.

Setting: informs that there is a wall between you and your goal
Character: informs that your character is strong (or doesn't, oftentimes)
System: takes the wall and your character's strength and feeds them into a process that determines what will happen in this Situation

The process, like Vincent said, doesn't need to appear in the rulebook and it isn't setting, because it's a process.  In fact, it's a process that produces Situation or, at least, a resolution to Situation.

Jonathan

[Marco]

Therefore my observation that setting (and character) is DATA, and that system is the engine for processing that data.

Setting: informs that there is a wall between you and your goal
Character: informs that your character is strong (or doesn't, oftentimes)
System: takes the wall and your character's strength and feeds them into a process that determines what will happen in this Situation

The process, like Vincent said, doesn't need to appear in the rulebook and it isn't setting, because it's a process.  In fact, it's a process that produces Situation or, at least, a resolution to Situation.

Jonathan

This is an interesting observation: does that mean that system is "mechanics" which is the engine that acts on the data? That'd be true in some cases but what about cases where the scene is resolved without game-mechanics?

Then it's a case of data modifying itself, yes?

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Marco, you wrote,

what about cases where the scene is resolved without game-mechanics?

In Forge-speak, anyway, there isn't any such thing. The scene is resolved using other mechanics, specifically (if I'm reading you correctly) Drama ones. Just because these aren't ordinarily called "mechanics" or are referred to as "system-less" doesn't mean anything - they are still System and they are still mechanics.

Best,
Ron

[ErrathofKosh]

This is an interesting observation: does that mean that system is "mechanics" which is the engine that acts on the data? That'd be true in some cases but what about cases where the scene is resolved without game-mechanics?

Then it's a case of data modifying itself, yes?

-Marco

I'm not sure what you mean by "cases where the scene is resolved without game mechanics."  By game mechanics are you referring to what's in the rules, or something else?  Show me an example.

[lumpley]

And I get real uneasy with phrases like "data modifying itself."  If the imaginary stuff in the game is the data, then play without formal mechanics is the players modifying the data without using formal mechanics.  

If I have my guy punch through the wall, and there are no game-rule type representations of or procedures for a character punching through a wall, so we decide it by me bribing the GM with a Yoo-hoo, so we all agree that yes, indeed, my guy punches through the wall - the data hasn't modified itself.  We've modified it.

-Vincent

[Marco]

Hiya,

Marco, you wrote,

what about cases where the scene is resolved without game-mechanics?

In Forge-speak, anyway, there isn't any such thing. The scene is resolved using other mechanics, specifically (if I'm reading you correctly) Drama ones. Just because these aren't ordinarily called "mechanics" or are referred to as "system-less" doesn't mean anything - they are still System and they are still mechanics.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,
I'm very aware that in forge speak there isn't such a thing--but if, as was posited, setting and character are data and that is processed and resolved by the engine of system then someone, somewhere, quoted above me, seems to be drawing a distinction between setting and system. :)

Even though The Forge says setting is part of System, no?

So if there is a distinction then those drama mechanics--although handled by the people are, IMO, fully informed by the data itself (the setting). That seems to me to be a case of the data more or less modifying itself.

You can say that a rock in the air is data--and the rock falling (gravity) is system-drama-mechanics.

I'm not sure I really see the difference, however, since the presence of gravity is put there the same way the rock is: by someone's use of directoral power.

Edited to add: I want to make sure everyone knows that I agree that it's got to be people making the action happen. The idea that gravity is an in-game construct that "makes everything fall down" and a rock is an in game construct of a hard, heavy object is, IMO, enough to say that the presence of both things will mean that if the rock doesn't fall (with no other acting force on it) the player running the SiS Setting (the GM, traditionally) will break continuity by having the rock stay there. It might happen--but to suggest that there aren't likely some basic social contract rules that say things in gravity fall down in this game (and I'm assuming a usual game with gravity and material objects) seems a bit nit-picky.

-Marco

[ErrathofKosh]

That's why I asked Marco for clarification.  I cannot imagine a situation where the situation is resolved without some "mechanic".  Bribing the Gm, or player consensus, or Director Stance; all are parts of the system, the process of determing how the situation is resolved.

As an aside, the reason system does matter is that there always improper ways of manipulating data.  Or the reverse, there are methods that simply "work" and there are those that seemingly become simply an extension of the setting.

[Marco]

ErrathofKosh,

The creation of the wall and the character and the character's punch are all System, IMO, in the same way. I see the wall, the character, and the physical punch as all identical things from a setting stand point. The fact that the player is "acting on the wall" doesn't make a difference to me.

Putting the wall there has to go through the same resolution steps that the character punching through it does (in this case--both are done by fiat). I don't see one as "data" and one as "resolution"--either both are resolution, the data modifies itself, or we are drawing a distinction between nouns and verbs that I'm not convinced gets us anywhere useful yet.

Maybe it does (I could well be wrong)--but I'd want to see more to believe it.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Even though The Forge says setting is part of System, no?

See, it's this sort of statement that just boggles me. What are you talking about?

No. Setting is not part of System. These are two of the five components of role-playing that imaginatively rely upon one another to be present.

This is the third of two recent threads in which I'm forced to repeat myself about something very easy: System introduces imaginary time, and therefore imaginary events, into the SIS. That's what System is.

I've seen a whole bunch of setting/system discussion recently that forgets this and tries to shoehorn all manner of weird assumptions or necessities into either term, or both. It's almost all unnecessary.

(Also: see my statements regarding fire giants in response to John Kim in one of these threads; will look up the link later)

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hey,

Even though The Forge says setting is part of System, no?

See, it's this sort of statement that just boggles me. What are you talking about?

No. Setting is not part of System. These are two of the five components of role-playing that imaginatively rely upon one another to be present.

This is the third of two recent threads in which I'm forced to repeat myself about something very easy: System introduces imaginary time, and therefore imaginary events, into the SIS. That's what System is.

I've seen a whole bunch of setting/system discussion recently that forgets this and tries to shoehorn all manner of weird assumptions or necessities into either term, or both. It's almost all unnecessary.

(Also: see my statements regarding fire giants in response to John Kim in one of these threads; will look up the link later)

Best,
Ron

Like I said, okay--if all in-game action is system, what about the creation of the wall itself? Because it's not mutating in game, that doesn't count? I mean, when it first appears that's considered setting but not system until it changes, again, by someone's fiat?

Like I said--I'm not real sure I'm impressed by the differences there. All objects have a start-event and an end-event (the end of the game). An object created with velocity or an object created "on impact" isn't, IMO, any different from a stable one--since all may have to go through the same creation process (or will go through the same creation process if we're dealing with GM directoral power).

-Marco

[ErrathofKosh]

[You can say that a rock in the air is data--and the rock falling (gravity) is system-drama-mechanics.

I'm not sure I really see the difference, however, since the presence of gravity is put there the same way the rock is: by someone's use of directoral power.

Edited to add: I want to make sure everyone knows that I agree that it's got to be people making the action happen. The idea that gravity is an in-game construct that "makes everything fall down" and a rock is an in game construct of a hard, heavy object is, IMO, enough to say that the presence of both things will mean that if the rock doesn't fall (with no other acting force on it) the player running the SiS Setting (the GM, traditionally) will break continuity by having the rock stay there. It might happen--but to suggest that there aren't likely some basic social contract rules that say things in gravity fall down in this game (and I'm assuming a usual game with gravity and material objects) seems a bit nit-picky.

-Marco

Ah ha!  Now I understand where you are coming from.  From my POV, gravity is still data, it gives me the potential energy of an object at any point in space.  Whether that object transfers that potential energy (in the SIS) into kinetic energy is entirely up to the system.  If the unconscious assumption is that it falls, everyone says "setting!"  But, what if someone asserts, "I use telekinesis to keep it up,"  is that then system?  

This is, of course, a single example.  In general, I would assert that even unconsicous assumptions about the HOW the laws of physics work in a particular game is SYSTEM.  Saying that a particular setting has gravity doesn't preclude floating rocks. (as in the CrossGen comic Meridian) System informs us of what happens under a set of particular circumstances, drawing from both setting and character and the assumed laws of physics and magic, whatever...

So, I can see where you're coming from.  But, I must disagree. :)

Jonathan

[ErrathofKosh]

Like I said, okay--if all in-game action is system, what about the creation of the wall itself? Because it's not mutating in game, that doesn't count? I mean, when it first appears that's considered setting but not system until it changes, again, by someone's fiat?

-Marco

The creation of the wall is missing something: a need to resolve a situation.  I can create a billion walls, in fact I can create a billion worlds, and NOT BE ROLEPLAYING.  Not until my character runs into this element of setting and needs to get through it does the wall gain any import.  In fact, it is color until it becomes an obstacle to my character.

In other words, without my character the wall would be meaningless.  Without the wall there would be no conflict for my character.  They are parts... in a situation.  To resolve the situation, I need system.

Like M.J. says, these are interrelated, but they are not the same things.

Jonathan

EDIT:  I would also like to point out that the creation of the wall and the wall are two distinct things.  Creation of a character is system, the character is not.

[lumpley]

In order to create a wall, yes, we have to have System.  Somebody says "[let's imagine that] there's a wall."  We all (eventually) agree that yes, there's a wall.  System is the process by which we agree.  System is interactions that really happened in the actual world.  The wall becomes part of the Setting.  The wall is something we picture in our heads and talk about, but that isn't really there.

Via System, we agree to change the Setting to include a wall.

Marco, are you saying that there's no difference between a) how we agree to imagine a wall and b) the imaginary wall itself?

edit: The imaginary punch is the same as the imaginary wall: are you saying that there's no difference between a) how we agree to imagine a punch and b) the imaginary punch itself?

Even the act of describing something static in more detail requires System, because every detail you add is a change to the SIS, and thus subject to negotiation.  (Ron, do we disagree about this?)

-Vincent

[M. J. Young]

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.

Does it?

I see the words and numbers on my character sheet as a representation of that which exists in the shared imaginary space.

I would say the same thing about the written description of the world.

Does that mean that the written description of the world is mechanics?

Or is it that it only works the other direction--that if it exists in the shared imaginary space, it's setting, but if it doesn't it's mechanics? Does the damage done to a character exist within the shared imaginary space, or not? What if this is an abstract damage system such as D&D or Multiverser in which the specific injuries are not considered relevant (except in defined circumstances)? We can argue at great length exactly what down five of twelve hit points means within the shared imaginary space, but surely it means something, even if we have no direct means to convert from the mechanical statement of damage to a descriptive formulation of injuries and effects--or if, having such a means of conversion, we fail to use it?

I don't really see that there's such a clear distinction there, unless you mean that the statement of the setting (established as being an authority which may be referenced, and not the setting itself) is mechanics, distinct from the setting. I think mechanics is too strong a word for that; but I do agree that mechanics, as recorded in the book, are not system itself, but an authority referenced to define system. System, though, is very much part of the shared imaginary space.

Exactly what are you saying, Vincent?

--M. J. Young