Player ignorance, Lumpley Principle, and Setting

[Paganini]

So, according to the Lumpley Principle, System is the means by which the contents of the SiS is negotiated into place. The purpose of System is not to model the physical properties of the contents of the SiS... although the mechanical component of System *may appear to do so.*

The guys who first started playing RPGs as such (i.e., with rules, as opposed to plain old "let's pretend") were probably (I would say certainly) not aware of the Lumpley Principle in the way that we articulate it. The original rules that Gygax and Arneson came up with may or may not be very good, but I don't think that anyone can argue that D&D was presented in terms of anything other than setting. "Here's what the environment is like, here's what the people (and critters) who live there are like, here's what they can do, here are the tools available for them to do it with." We may look back and say, for example, that hit-points are a meta-game effectiveness mechanic for facilitating Gamism, but they're not presented that way in the rules. No way.

So, why? Why did the RPG patriarchs present the rules in terms of setting? For that matter, why was the precursor of RPGs - miniature wargaming, which is, after all, a more basic for of SiS construction - presented in terms of setting?

Here's why:

A genre is basically a way of classifying a body of work in terms of similarities. The root of all this is *communication.* We organize and categorize things so that we don't have to list them individually every time we want to refer to a group of similar things. If I say my game is "Cyberpunk," then you know, more or less, what you're getting into, before we start discussing specific details (assuming you're familiar with the CP genre, that is).

A rule that informs the SiS (let's assume Ralph's points about implicit acceptance are in force here) is basically the game designer pre-loading the imagination of the players.

This finally brings me around to the issue of player ignorance.

For a long time, I wondered how anyone could possibly get any kind of use out of GURPS sourcebooks in terms of actual play. There's just so much *stuff* in there. I viewed a GURPS setting book as basically a whole bunch of pre-fabbed SiS. And I never wanted to play in any game using a GURPS setting book (or any other similar setting-heavy game) because I couldn't *remember* all the stuff that was supposed to already part of the SiS. I was scared of forgetting about some setting content (lots and lots of setting content, actually, given the amount of stuff there is to forget in your standard GURPS book), contradicting it, and screwing up my game.

I now realize that GURPS books are pretty crazy in terms of sheer volume of information, and that most people don't use them as Complete SiS Truth, but instead mine ideas from them.

But the basic idea holds: Any time a game designer makes a rule about "what the setting is like," he's trying to inject his own input into the SiS. As long as the players don't ditch the rule, the result is that the designer has informed the act of play. The players know how the SiS *should* behave, according to the desire of the game's author.

So, what is this *should?* Originally, with historical wargaming, the SiS was intended to be a mirror of reality. Gaming was a procedure to find out *what really would have happened* given a set of fictional input parameters. A lot of games (especially computer games) are still marketed like this... what would have happened if *you'd* been commanding at Gettysburg?

This is important. The whole purpose of this early mechanical component of System was to limit the process of negotiation to plausible propositions. It was sort of like a filter on the negotiation process... propositions that did not mirror reality were (in theory) excluded by the mechanical component of system.

Of course, since no mechanical representation can actually completely encompase reality, there were lots of arguments about which system did what better, based on lots of conflicting personal experience, statistical data, anecdotes, and so on.

And then, you add fantasy into the mix, and sci-fi, and so on down the evolution of gaming, and things change. Since your inputs are, a lot of the time, based on "what the designer thinks it would be cool to imagine," you lose the whole reference point of real-world plausibility. How do we figure out how much Superman can lift? Does it really matter?

The real point of this post is, *know your target audience.* Give the players information that will reinforce the genre that they bought into in the first place. Every time you include a setting-based rule in a game, you are telling the potential players of your game what they should imagine. You may be telling them stuff they don't already know. A lot of people don't know what it's really like to swing a sword, shoot an automatic weapon, pilot a hovercraft, cast magic spells. When you make a setting rule, you're telling your players what it's really like to do that, in your vision of the SiS. Your vision may be wrong, in terms of comparitive reality (i.e., swords in your game weigh 10 - 20 lbs each, real swords weigh 2 - 5 lbs each). Or it may be totally fictional (i.e., magic). The players will either do it your way, or reject you out of hand (maybe your whole game, maybe just that one rule).

ADDENDUM: So, this post is sort of stream of thought from me. Just to clear up a few things, the idea is that genre expectations have replaced the historical "mirror of reality." Originally, when a designer made a rule, it was to enforce the correlation of reality and the SiS. Now, when a designer makes a rule about setting, it's to enforce the correlation of the SiS and designer's expectations WRT the genre in question. If the players do what the designer said to do, and if the designer did a good job constructing his game, the result is that the shape of the SiS will adhere to the genre the players were expecting.

[Callan S.]

When you make a setting rule, you're telling your players what it's really like to do that, in your vision of the SiS.

Well, rather than being there in person like everyone else, its like you've mailed in your opinion. Sadly though, although its very hard to ignore someone else who is present and talking, a letter or a book has far less push, primarily because it can't shoulder in. Is this the sort of thing your talking about?

So, according to the Lumpley Principle, System is the means by which the contents of the SiS is negotiated into place. The purpose of System is not to model the physical properties of the contents of the SiS... although the mechanical component of System *may appear to do so.*

At first I thought you were going to talk about gaming with people who inherantly believe it models the game world. It's an interesting point, because when someone believes such a thing to be true, they lend their credibility to it as per the standard lumpley principle. Because of that and even though its sort of an antithesis to the lumpley principle, because of how lumpley works, it can let this idea in...at least to the degree that this dude pushes the idea and to the degree it isn't flat out rejected.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Noon,

Pretty much, yeah.

Ron,

I know you've said that, but I don't buy it, at least, not in the sort of proto-form your explanation of it has taken so far. Maybe your ideas already incorporate what I'm talking about, and I just haven't seen you articulate them yet.

Basically, I game a lot without a pre-established setting. We just kinda make stuff up as we go. Negotiating the contents of the SiS is very much a part of the system in these games. In terms of technique, it's all about acceptable uses of director stance, as per the local incarnation of the social contract. From the minute I say "What kind of game are you guys in the mood for tonight?" to when Josh says "Does iron hurt my vampire?" and I answer "Let's roll and see." (Or I answer "no," and Josh says "That sucks dude, it should burn my hands and stuff.")

I think this kind of SiS content establishment negotiation happens a *lot.* Mostly, it's just less visible than the way I do it, like when a player wants a fire extinguisher and the group has to somehow decide if the SiS contains one at this particular juncture.

It also bothers me that, with your distinction, you get this weird situation where you have rules that aren't part of the system.

In the long run, though, I don't think the distinction detracts from my point that much, even if the distinction holds. When a designer writes a rule that defines the setting in some way, he's making a statement about genre expectations. "This is how it works in the real world." "This is how it works in the Star Wars universe." The players either go with it, and get what the designer intended (hopefully, if the design actually supports the intent), or they trash it and do their own thing.

[Blankshield]

Hello,

The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar.

Best,
Ron

Hmm.  Ron, could you expand on this a bit?  I'm not entirely certain that I see a distinction between the contents of the SIS and the events of the SIS.  

As an example, is system not used in establishing the fact that there are goblins in the SIS, regardless of whether or not 'the characters' have met them yet?  What is the systemic difference between a character spying on a band of goblins, and having a band of goblins described with no characters present?  (without delving into ephemerea, which will presumably be different)

If something is negotiated into existance (system) is it not still system to bring that object up later?  "These still exist?"  "Yes, OK."

Feel free to split this off I'm I'm driving too far from the main on this thread.

thanks,

James

[John Kim]

Just to clear up a few things, the idea is that genre expectations have replaced the historical "mirror of reality." Originally, when a designer made a rule, it was to enforce the correlation of reality and the SiS. Now, when a designer makes a rule about setting, it's to enforce the correlation of the SiS and designer's expectations WRT the genre in question. If the players do what the designer said to do, and if the designer did a good job constructing his game, the result is that the shape of the SiS will adhere to the genre the players were expecting.

I'm having trouble placing where in game design you're describing.  The original RPGs (i.e. D&D, T&T, Starfaring) were all fantasy/sci-fi genre games.  Now, this was a big shift from the mainly reality-based wargames that were popular at the time -- so maybe that's what you're talking about (?).  The rules of, say, original D&D really don't try to particularly simulate reality.  While there is some token anal-retentiveness about pole-arms, the rules mainly enforce things like the over-the-top power of high-level fighters along with magic and the like.  Attempts at more realistic RPGs came later.  

I would sort of agree about genre being currently dominant, but bear in mind that genre is a tricky thing.  Genre conventions are things which are alike about sets of stories, often only visible by the end of the story (i.e. conventions about things which don't happen, or how the story concludes).  cf http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/genre/definition.html

[Paganini]

Uh... John, did you read the whole post, or just the addendum? The part about "mirroring reality" was specifically in the context of historical wargaming. A major part of my point was that, when you move from historical wargaming to role-playing, you open up the envelope of setting from "what things are really like" to "what things I think are cool to imagine."

And, BTW, I defined "genre" in my post:

A genre is basically a way of classifying a body of work in terms of similarities. The root of all this is *communication.* We organize and categorize things so that we don't have to list them individually every time we want to refer to a group of similar things. If I say my game is "Cyberpunk," then you know, more or less, what you're getting into, before we start discussing specific details (assuming you're familiar with the CP genre, that is).

If you look over my post again, you will find that I'm not saying that "genre is currently dominant." I'm saying that when a designer writes a rule that defines setting, that rule is equivalent to an offer of a particular genre convention. The game designer is making a proposition about the content of the SiS that defines *how things work* in the game world. The players have to choose whether to accept that input (usually implicitly) or reject it.

[Callan S.]

Hello,

The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Aren't events just contents as well? If your rule book says 'if you shoot this barrel, it explodes' and the group have adopted it into their system, you've added a principle which sits neatly next to the principle that there are barrels and the principle (that everyones agreed on) that there would and is one in front of a speeding bullet.

I mean, the 'bulle+barrel' rule is something that, if adopted, will inflict a change on the SIS. But prior to that the barrel is inflicting itself on the SIS...sure the rule of it isn't too clever, it just says if it existed before, it continues to exist now. But it is 'changing' the SIS...its just that when it sits there you get used to it rather than see it as a continual change.

I'm not seeing your destinction in technical terms. I see it as being more practical to talk about them as seperate things, but simply as convenience. Whatcha mean? :)

[John Kim]

I defined "genre" in my post:

A genre is basically a way of classifying a body of work in terms of similarities. The root of all this is *communication.* We organize and categorize things so that we don't have to list them individually every time we want to refer to a group of similar things. If I say my game is "Cyberpunk," then you know, more or less, what you're getting into, before we start discussing specific details (assuming you're familiar with the CP genre, that is).

If you look over my post again, you will find that I'm not saying that "genre is currently dominant." I'm saying that when a designer writes a rule that defines setting, that rule is equivalent to an offer of a particular genre convention. The game designer is making a proposition about the content of the SiS that defines *how things work* in the game world. The players have to choose whether to accept that input (usually implicitly) or reject it.

Sorry, I think I was definitely missing stuff there.  I completely agree about genre, and indeed about the rest of it.  For most RPGs, the rules and the setting form the start of the SIS which is then built upon further with character generation, campaign generation, and active play.

[M. J. Young]

Any time a game designer makes a rule about "what the setting is like," he's trying to inject his own input into the SiS. As long as the players don't ditch the rule, the result is that the designer has informed the act of play. The players know how the SiS *should* behave, according to the desire of the game's author.

I think at the moment we're trying to distinguish four concepts, two of which we have pretty clear, one of which we think we have clear, and one of which we tend to blur into two others.

We all agree that the system is distinct from the rules; the rules may be an authority to which we refer in deriving system, but the system is that which is actively used to determine the contents of the shared imaginary space. The system is even used to interpret the rules, and to determine which rules have what impact within the shared imaginary space.

We also agree that the setting is that aspect of the shared imaginary space that defines place.

The problem arises in that "setting" is confused with "setting description" in exactly the same way that "system" was confused with "rules". The setting description is not part of the shared imaginary space exactly; it becomes part of the shared imaginary space when it's introduced via system (which functions by apportioning credibility, and thus telling us who gets to define the setting and to what degree). the setting description is an authority concerning the content of the setting in exactly the same way that the rules are an authority concerning the content of the system: anyone with appropriate credibility can reference these as evidence supporting a statement about the nature of the shared imaginary space. Saying the setting description says that there is a secret door in the master bedroom has the same force as saying the rules say that this can be done on a successful dex check. That is, both are appeals to authority in negotiating the content of the shared imaginary space.

The confusion arises in part because we think that the setting description is the setting; it isn't--it's an authority which offers a definition of the setting. The confusion arises also in part because we think that the rules elements attached to the setting must be part of the setting or of the system, one or the other, when in fact they aren't part of either--they're again authority to which we can refer to resolve our negotiations. Thus if player A says "I punch through the wall" and the referee says, "there is now a hold in the wall", we've completely resolve the matter; but if player B says, "he has to roll for that", that's an appeal to authority, asking that certain prescribed procedures be followed to determine the content of the shared imaginary space--check the strength of the wall in the setting description, insert that into the rules mechanic, roll the dice, and determine from this whether there is indeed a hole in the wall. At that point the system is being negotiated--do we do that, or just go with what the referee said? Neither the rules nor the setting description are in doubt; it is the system and the setting that are being negotiated.

And as much as it pains me to say this, the game designer has no input into the shared imaginary space. His input is into the authority to which the participants will refer in defining the shared imaginary space. It's a subtle difference, but it could perhaps be illustrated by comparison to a legislative assistant to a Senator or a clerk to a Judge, in each case someone not able to make a decision nor to address the matter directly, but who offers advice to the person who does make the decision and address the matter directly. The game designer is thus one step removed from the shared imaginary space, not actually contributing to it himself, but recommending to the participants what they should contribute to it.

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

M. J.

There's no confusion. I'm not talking about setting description, I'm talking about mechanics that define setting. Your final sentence is almost an exact rephrasing of my original point. :)

[John Kim]

The confusion arises in part because we think that the setting description is the setting; it isn't--it's an authority which offers a definition of the setting. The confusion arises also in part because we think that the rules elements attached to the setting must be part of the setting or of the system, one or the other, when in fact they aren't part of either--they're again authority to which we can refer to resolve our negotiations.

And as much as it pains me to say this, the game designer has no input into the shared imaginary space. His input is into the authority to which the participants will refer in defining the shared imaginary space.

I don't think this is a source of confusion.  As far as I have seen, everyone within RPG gaming accepted long ago that the rulebook is not the final authority -- i.e. the group can and will change rules, setting, or anything else to their tastes.  For example, everyone pretty much laughed off Gygax's early rants against house rules.  However, I think it is going overboard to say that the game designer has "no input" into system or setting.  The game designer clearly has input, but she does not have control.

[M. J. Young]

However, I think it is going overboard to say that the game designer has "no input" into system or setting.  The game designer clearly has input, but she does not have control.

the game designer has no direct input into the shared imaginary space.

Clearly in defining the authority on which the setting is based, he has a great deal of input into what will be done in the game. However, just as the book cannot speak its content into the shared imaginary space, neither can the game designer--he is not there, and cannot create anything within the shared imaginary space directly. What he creates is an authoritative reference, in the not entirely unreasonable hope and expectation that the people who are contributing to the shared imaginary space will follow his advice on the subject.

Probably no one actually has "control" in most games, if by that is meant unilateral ability to define the content of the shared imaginary space. Even in the most heavy-handed illusionism, the content of the shared imaginary space exists because the players accept what the referee proposes, not because he forces it upon them. Ultimately, the players construct the shared imaginary space. The text does not; it informs the players. The designer defines the text which informs the players who create the shared imaginary space. His contribution is isolated from the shared imaginary space accordingly, whether it is his recommendations for system or his recommendations for setting.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Clearly in defining the authority on which the setting is based, he has a great deal of input into what will be done in the game. However, just as the book cannot speak its content into the shared imaginary space, neither can the game designer--he is not there, and cannot create anything within the shared imaginary space directly. What he creates is an authoritative reference, in the not entirely unreasonable hope and expectation that the people who are contributing to the shared imaginary space will follow his advice on the subject.

I don't agree with this.  Something can enter the Shared Imaginary Space (i.e. group diegesis) if (1) it is communicated to everyone; and (2) they agree to it, either explicit by assent or implicitly by not contesting it.  Let's consider a few cases:

(A)  I as GM speak aloud a description of some part of the fictional setting.  The players do not dispute it, and thus it becomes a part of the SIS.  

(B)  I as GM write a one-page handout which has a description of some part of the fictional setting.  The players do not dispute it, and thus it becomes a part of the SIS.  

(C)  I as GM hand out a paper which has a description of some part of the fictional setting -- but I did not personally write it.  Again the players do not dispute it, and thus it becomes part of the SIS.  

Note that all of A, B, and C can be word-for-word identical.  I think it is pretty clear that there is no magical property of the spoken word here.  Something can be written and accepted into the SIS.  At this point, there is no obvious distinction between text written by a participant and text written by a non-participant.  As long as everyone reads the same text, the text written by the game designer is functionally exactly the same as any other statement.  It is introduced to the group for acceptance, and may proceed into the SIS if no one disputes it.  

Nothing has "direct" access to the SIS.  Everything has to come through communication -- by spoken word, gesture, or written text.  Sure, the group can reject what is in the rulebook -- but the group can equally well reject input from any one of its members.

[Valamir]

John, I don't think you and MJ are really disagreeing here.

I doubt MJ would try to argue that the spoken word is the only process by which something enters the SiS.

Rather the distinction I see being made (and I tend to agree with it) is that nothing enters the SiS without passing through one of the players acting as gate keeper.

In all three of your examples above it was the GM providing that role of gatekeeper.  The GM is submitting the item for approval, the players (through active assent or silence) approve it.  

It doesn't matter whether what the GM submits is his own spontaneous invention, his own carefully crafted written work, or a game designers carefull crafted written work.  None of those things has any special meaning until some human being submits it to the group.