proposition: background and foreground

[ErrathofKosh]

To bring this post full circle, I submit that background setting material and foreground setting material are already present in the model.  Background setting is simply Color.  Foreground setting is Setting.  Mechanics that determine what happens in the background are mechanics for color and so on...

[lumpley]

We're playing a game and I say "I punch through the wall."  "I," the punch, and the wall are all imaginary.  Otherwise we'd look somewhere and see them, right?  They exist in our imaginations, nowhere else.

Maybe there are some numbers on a piece of paper in the real world.  That's great!  We look at them and we see that I have listed on my character sheet "Strength: 5" and the GM has listed in her notes "Wall Strength: 4."  Do my character, the punch, the wall exist in the real world because of those numbers?  Not at all.  If they did we could look somewhere and see them.

So now the question is, do we all imagine that my character punches through the wall, or what?

Maybe we manipulate those numbers written on paper in some way.  I roll 1d10+5 and the GM rolls 1d10+4, for instance.  Or we straight compare.  Or I roll 5 dice, and count all that come up 4+.  Whatever.

Do the numbers still exist in the real world?  Yep.  There they are, written on paper, we can look and see them.  Does my character, the punch, or the wall?  Nope.  Otherwise we'd look somewhere and see them.

Curve ball: the GM tells me that it hurts my character's hand!  But not badly enough, she says, to change any of the numbers on my character sheet.  Did it really hurt my character's hand?

If we agree that it did, it did.  I'm like, "owie, dang," and I pantomime my character shaking his hand because it hurts.

Exactly what I'm saying is:

System is how we agree what happens in the game.

System coordinates three things:
A) The imaginary stuff and events in the game;
B) Real-world words, numbers, dice, or other tokens;
C) The interactions of the players.

The difference between A) the imaginary stuff and events in the game and B) the real-world tokens is that A) is imaginary stuff and events in the game and B) is real-world stuff in the real world.

The rules and stuff in the game book tell us how to coordinate A, B and C.  Whether we follow them or not is up to us; either way, if we're agreeing what happens in the game, we've got a System.

Would it help if I point out that in Chess or Monopoly, the System coordinates exclusively B and C; in diceless freeform roleplaying with no character sheets, the System coordinates exclusively A and C; and in most roleplaying the System coordinates all three?

Neither A nor B are System, because System is what we do with them.  System's the process by which we come to agreement about what happens, it's not the imaginary wall or the "Wall Strength: 4."

(I don't actually care whether you consider Setting to consist of parts of A plus parts of B.  That is, it's fine with me if the imaginary wall is Setting and "Wall Strength: 4" is Setting too.  Although, well, just let me point out further that Chess and Monopoly don't have Setting, while diceless freeform roleplaying with no character sheets does.)

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I've laid out most of what I need to say in this thread already in:
Wait, what matters again? (top of third page)
Setting as part of System (long) (posts at middle and bottom of first page)

I'm not really seein' anything here that isn't covered by those points.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

This thread is fascinating to me.

Because I can't understand its existance.

I literally cannot perceive of where the hang up is.


Setting and Character are the elements of the imaginary space shared by the players.

Situation is how the players perceive these elements relating to each other

Color is the tone and flavor we give to these elements to evoke emotional response in the players.

System is how the players all come to agreement on what these elements are and how they change through play.

Collectively we call the iterative process whereby these elements are established and altered Exploration.


Therefor setting is one of the elements being manipulated by system.  Clearly the presence of system implies the existance of elements to be manipulated and clearly the presence of elements implies the existance of a system to manipulate them with (or else there would be no game).

Can someone explain to me why it isn't this simple?

[efindel]

Can someone explain to me why it isn't this simple?

Well, personally, I find myself in perfect agreement with you.  System implies Setting, and vice-versa... I just can't get into the idea that one includes the other.  Heck, I can even buy that there's overlap in that something can be a "setting element" but also part of "the system"... but I can't see the statement "everything in the Setting is part of the System" nor "everything in the System is part of the Setting" as making any sense.

[Callan S.]

Well I just screwed up on the system thing. I'd learnt before what the forge meant by system, I just forgot and thought it ment rules instead.

Some mention has been made of the difference between setting and rules, though, and I was trying to make a point on things like that. Really rules and setting are the same thing, both influence and inspire users who are managing the system.

Really, I'm pretty certain rules and setting don't deserve different names, except to make them easier to talk about with traditional language. Some written down numbers don't make rules any different, that's something you decide to do as part of system, like you might write down your lost hitpoints or remember them or use jelly beans and then eat one by mistake, etc. It's the same as the setting inspiring me to write fan fiction...the bits known as rules just inspire me to write numbers and such. Yeah, you might create something in reaction to this writing in a book...that doesn't make that writing stand out from the rest as really requiring a different name.

Spark any responce?

[Silmenume]

Really rules and setting are the same thing, both influence and inspire users who are managing the system.

Really, I'm pretty certain rules and setting don't deserve different names, except to make them easier to talk about with traditional language.

Well you've sorta touched on the whole hot potato there!

Here's what I am seeing.

In one sense all the elements of Exploration all share the same quality in that they are all tools used to Explore.  So speaking from the act of roleplay/subjective point of view, you're right that they are all the same – in so far they are all tools being employed.

However, from a diagnostic/objective point of view these tools do have individual qualities that make them distinct from one another and all they serve different purposes/roles within the roleplay process.  Thus if one wants to figure how roleplay works it is easier to talk about those tools with "traditional language."  That they all fit together well does not make them the same.  As one does not confuse a 10mm box end wrench with that of the object upon which it is working, a bolt with a 10mm hex head, one should not conflate system and setting just because they fit hand in glove or bolt in wrench with each other.

[Marco]

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?

-Vincent

Hi Guys,

First things first: when I said "setting is part of system" I meant "the chapter in the game-book that lays out the world and the monsters and whatever is the same in many (important) ways as the chapter that lays out the mechanics since both chapters inform play, limit action, and so on."

I had thought that was pretty well agreed on (although Ron is boggled by it--are we using a different defition of Setting here?) If it's not agreed on--okay--but I'd describe what we're talking about here more as situation--and I'd leave setting to all the previous conditions about the world (at the start of the game that might just be the stuff in the rule-book).

I'd also distinguish maybe between static setting (stuff in the book that usually isn't changed) and dynamic situation (or setting) which is stuff that's being rapidly introduced during play--but I think calling it all setting is not distinguishing between "there are vampires in this world and magic too" and "there's a dude shooting at you"--although both are very similar in some ways, I'm not sure I'd use the word setting for the latter in a very clear fashion.

Secondly, Vincent: I think I'd say there's a difference between how the punch is imagined and the imaginary punch itself--but I think there's clearly no difference between the wall and the punch or how the two are imagined (which, I think, we agree on).

This means that as soon as the punch is imagined it becomes, immediately, a "new rule" that is factored back into system (now there's a hole in the wall, when the characters talk that will factor into who is ruled to be able to hear them).

So you might argue that at the raw instance of imagining the punch is data but not-yet 'system'--but, as I said, I'm not that impressed with the difference.

It might get us somewhere--it might not--I'm not seeing the need to split hairs there.

-Marco

[Valamir]

We have a featureless empty space.  It is our SiS.

Whatever means we use to establish and agree that there is a wall present is system.  The wall itself is Setting.

Whatever means we use to establish and agree that there is a guy present is system.  The guy himself is Character (or potentially Setting depending on how one views PCs and NPCs).

Whatever means we use to establish and agree that the guy is standing near the wall is system.  The relationship, relative position, and proximity  of the guy to the wall is Situation (not very involved given the limited number of elements to work with).

Whatever means we use to establish and agree that the guy is punching the wall is system.  Since the relationship between the guy and the wall has changed, the Situation has changed.  Where before the situation was "man stands next to wall" now the situation is "the man standing next to the wall, punches the wall"  

Whatever means we use to establish and agree on how much damage the guy did with his punch (to the wall or himself) is system.  What has been altered through system is Setting, Character, and Situation.  Instead of "the man standing next to the wall, punches the wall", we now have "a man with a bloody hand is standing next to a wall with a hole in it".


How is it not immediately clear that setting, system, and situation are seperate and distinct elements?

How can there be any confusion over this?


Rules, mechanics, or chapters in the game book are simply tools that we choose to use or choose not to use.  These things do not limit action.  They suggest limits to action which, through system, the players agree or disagree to be limited by.

If a rule gives the wall a Difficulty of 5 and provides a die mechanic whereby the guy may manage to beat this Difficulty with a punch, the only thing that has happened is that the rules have suggested a method to "establish and agree" on how the punch to the wall could be adjucated.

If the guy is a superhero we may, through system, decide to accept the suggestion and use the rule to adjucate the change in situation.  If the guy is an average joe, and the wall is a bank vault and the rule just suggested that joe be allowed to punch a hole in the bank vault than we may, through system, decide to throw the suggestion out and ignore the rule as it violates our sense of how the situation should be adjucated.


As to whether the chapter on setting is similiar to the chapter on mechanics...sure.  Both are suggestions by the game designer on the elements of exploration.

The world offers suggestions on where things are, what they look like, how the world functions, what different world elements are in relation to each other etc.  It is saying "when you use system to establish and agree upon setting (and often Situation, and Character), here are the default answers provided by the game designer we suggest you agree to".

The mechanics chapter offers suggestions on methods to use to resolve situation.  It is saying "when you have used system to agree upon a situation and you have used system to agree that the situation is about to change, here is a suggestion on a procedure to use to agree on how that change resolves"

The same exercise can be performed on the chapter on Character creation as well.

[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?  

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

Jonathan

I understand what you're saying--I think--and I'm not in, like, rabid disagreement or anything: I'm just saying a couple of things:

1. data can exists with properties such that if whoever is running the world does not act within accordance of those properties then it'll break continuity (the rock, in a real-world detective game, hangs in the air for no reason other than the GM doesn't want to let it fall).

Certainly in one level of abstraction this disruptive event is still System. No argument--but I'm making the case that the pre-established gravity and the pre-established "real rock in air" mean that very, very likely the guy implementing system (the GM) is under social contract to have it fall.

This is, IMO, not all that different than saying the-data-contains-"commands"-to-change-itself. If the objection is "The GM could decide it doesn't fall" I agree--but where does that get us?

Some pieces of data pratically demand certain actions on the part of the players in the context of existing system (social contract that says this is a real-world game and it's important that physics be accurately represented).

If you consider those properties of the object (unsupported in a gravity field with positive real mass) to system then you can make a case for active and passive elements of setting (active ones are those which require systemic intervention or the breaking of some important social contract).

I'm not sure if that gets anyone anywhere but it seems to distinguish between a castle up on a lonely hill which (in context) doesn't imply anything and the creation of someone swinging a sword at your head which probably will.

2. You mentioned the need for resolution and I think that's a useful distinguishing trait but not a fundamental differentation (the description of the wall may well require resolution when the players remind the GM there are no stone walls in the villiage of Woodfield--you won't know which is which until it happens and no one objects*).

-Marco
* and, in fact, I'm aware the GM saying "you see a wall ..." is system--but Johnathan distinguished between the wall and something that needs "resolution"--so I'm assuming that he meant "adjudication" or something. I'm not 100% sure, clearly.

[Marco]

How is it not immediately clear that setting, system, and situation are seperate and distinct elements?

[snip]

How can there be any confusion over this?

After thinking about it, I think I agree with this--I do believe that one can look at aspects of setting like pieces of the resolution system (for example if the rules for interperting a die roll were:

Rules for Roll
1. Roll dice.
2. Check and see if dice roll is under 5

then the wall situation is:
1. Make perception roll (see dice roll)
2. Check if there is a method by which sound could feasibly travel in the game Sis

Then the hole becomes a sub-set of the rules for checking to see if anyone can hear each other through the wall.

But I'm cool with it either way.

-Marco

[Christopher Weeks]

How is it not immediately clear that setting, system, and situation are seperate and distinct elements?

I think I'm on board with the definitions involved in these threads as presented by Vincent, Ron and Ralph.  But there are a number of factors that I think contribute to making this hard whether those of you who find it easy think it should be that way or not.

First, the fact that many of us have spent more than 20 years thinking "rules" when we say, read or hear "system" means that even though the explanations hereabouts are fairly clear, our human cognitive foibles trip us up.  You could be writing about "system" in the proper Forge context and I could be nodding my head and reading "rules."  Sure it's my own sloppy thinking, but there it is.  I think things would be easier for newbies to the jargon if "system" were allows to mean "rules" as it will continue to mean in typical non-Forge vernacular and were replaced by something like "accordance."  "Accordance is informed by the game's rules and the social contract" is, I think, an example of how this term is more accessible.

Further, I chugged at "Color * [System * [Situation = Character + Setting ] ]" for a long time before finding a level of comfort with it.  And I'm still uncomfortable with Color appearing outside the domain of System (so if anyone wants to clear it up for me, I'd be much obliged).  The "Situation = Character + Setting" section is fairly easy, but until you really digest what System means, the relationship is tricky.  The use of the multiplicative "*" is largely responsible for the confusion.  For a long time I tried to convince myself that it indicated some synergistic relationship, but I now think of it as domain-hierarchical.

And that relationship -- "Situation = Character + Setting" kind of precludes the distinction that you're suggesting between at least Situation and Setting, since you can't have one without the other.

The world offers suggestions on where things are, what they look like, how the world functions, what different world elements are in relation to each other etc.  It is saying "when you use system to establish and agree upon setting (and often Situation, and Character), here are the default answers provided by the game designer we suggest you agree to".

What's a world?

Chris

[Valamir]

What's a world?

that should have read, "the world chapter offers suggestions..."

[M. J. Young]

One thing that has emerged from this discussion which actually may be "on topic" relative to Gareth's original post is that there is a difference between two usages of the word "setting" that perhaps ought to be distinguished--exactly the same difference as existed between two distinct usages of the word "system" before we determined to distinguish these meanings by calling the one "rules". We chose to use the word "rules" for the meaning of "system" which was not one of the five elements of exploration--the real "system" is the one Vincent identified in the Lumpley Principle, and the "rules" as they appear in the book are not the system, but an authority to which we refer in determining the system.

Thus in the same way, the world description is not the setting. The setting is that which actually exists and/or is created/revealed within the shared imaginary space. We may have agreed that the contents of that world description in that book are an authoritative statement of the setting to which we will refer for setting details, but that does not make it the setting, in the sense of the elements. We are not exploring the content of the book; we are exploring the content of the shared imaginary space. The content of the book becomes part of it through system introducing it into the shared imaginary space, but it's not ever the setting itself.

The clearest example of this is the situation in which a referee makes a "mistake" in his description of the setting. He gets a distance wrong, or misremembers a direction, or misunderstands a description and so presents it in a way that is contrary to the book. The question is, what is the setting? Is it what is in the book, or what was described? If no one ever checks the book, it is what is described. If someone eventually does check the book, then system makes the determination as to whether we "correct" the shared imaginary space or leave it as it is. Some types of errors are almost always "corrected" (such as map errors in a module in which the relative positions of things is important), while other types of errors are almost never corrected (such as a missed, altered, or added encounter because the referee looked at the wrong room description and ran something from a different room). The setting exists in the shared imaginary space; that thing on paper is something else--an authoritative representation of the setting, perhaps; a description of the setting, certainly.

In any event, when we're talking about "the setting" in terms of the five elements, that's not it.

That also explains why the system numbers that appear in the setting description aren't part of the setting. The description of the wall in the setting description may say that it has a resistance of 4, but the wall itself, inside the shared imaginary space in the real setting, doesn't have that written on it. That's a system note describing how the setting interacts with other items, in the same way that the character's strength rating is a system note, and not actually the character's strength (strength is not a mathematical constant; it is represented by a mathematical constant).

That might clear up a lot of this.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Can someone explain to me why it isn't this simple?

Because entities move (or can move) from Colour to Setting to Situation in RPG*, it seems to me.  I mean, I even have to use a term as vague as entity becuase I can't use terms like "prop" and "backdrop". Repeating the top level definitions is only a starting point, and I have come to find them overly vague.  Its pointless saying something is an element of setting if what we mean is that it is an element of setting until a certain character action occurs that renders it into Situation.

* This tacitly adopting Errath's identification of background with colour.