Quick question on in game consequence

[M. J. Young]

It seems to me that in the movie Rambo the hero did jump off the cliff and took the damage from the fall into the trees rather than face the guns of the enemy. Although I never saw it, I'm pretty sure that in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid they jumped off a cliff, expecting to survive when they hit the water at the bottom. That sort of heroic fantasy may be exactly why the cliff survival thing is possible. It may be that the intent was to make that an option, even though it's a rough one.

On Marco's question of who gets blamed, I have an actual play example of sorts.

Years ago, when we were still playtesting Multiverser, I did a rough interface with Metamorphosis Alpha and versed Ed into it. He played for a while, and started playing with a pack of intelligent mutant wolves in an effort to get control of them for his own private army. Then he versed out, but he had some hope of returning.

My playtesting expanded, and I had Chris, Bill, and Tristan playing regularly. I decided I'd try running a gather with all three of them in Metamorphosis Alpha, so I versed Chris into the place. I mentioned it to Ed.

"If he messes with my wolves," Ed said, "I'll kill him."

This is particularly interesting to me because I'd sort of decided that these other guys weren't on the same world he'd visited, but in an identical one. I'd pretty much reset everything to where it was before he'd arrived and dropped them into it afresh. Thus in a very real sense I, as referee, had prevented Chris from doing anything at all to Ed's wolves. That clearly demonstrates that I had the power to save the wolves. However, even without anything having happened to the wolves, Ed was ready to blame Chris for whatever might happen to them springing from Chris' play. (Since Chris ultimately managed to destroy the entire habitat, Ed's fears were not entirely unjustified, but that's another issue.)

Thus it seems clear to me that players I've known perceive that the referee-adjudicated and implemented consequences of player character actions are the fault of the players whose characters performed the priming action.

Now, it would be completely different if I as the referee am controlling your non-player character sidekick, and you say, "Break that vase for me, would you?" At that point, I have to decide whether the sidekick is going to break the vase. At that point, the waters get very murky. If I break it, is it because my read of the system is that your sidekick would do this, no questions asked? If I don't break it, is it because my read is that the sidekick would balk at this? Or did I make the decision based on what I want? Is the action of your sidekick the consequence of the action of system which you initiated, or is it based on my initiation of system?

That's a much more difficult question.

However, if a player has his own character perform an action in the shared imagined space which has clear probable consequences, most players will hold that player responsible for those consequences. That indicates that most players believe the consequences spring from the initiation of system by the player, not from the resolution of system by the referee.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

*snip*That sort of heroic fantasy may be exactly why the cliff survival thing is possible. It may be that the intent was to make that an option, even though it's a rough one.

From my design example, were not trying to read the rules and guess the authors intention from that. For the sake of example, let's say the authors intention is that you die from falling off a 100 foot cliff but he doesn't write rules that support that intention.

As for the blame question, until I get further info I'm not touching that as much as I'm not touching a question about which side of the road I'd drive on. I'd prefer the thread didn't bend to cover it, because right now (until convinced otherwise) I'm pretty sure it's going to obfuscate the issue. But that's just what I'd like.

[Marco]

Callan,
I think you are not really addressing your thread's content.

You say this:

I think we can get somewhere now. Nope, it's still social feedback. You've simply decided how much negative feedback you are willing to soak. You may have decided you can and will soak a few sighs, but if the other players start throwing dice/the game breaks, this is too much negative social feedback.

Remember, you also said this:

Social approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.

(Emphasis added)

The example I gave you showed me doing something for internal rewards that were greater than the negative social feedback.

In other words: despite your assertion above, the social dimension isn't all there is to the value of a an experience (where does social feedback apply to me eating ice cream or day dreaming?).

I think you are avoiding looking at some fairly common dynamics here ("I like envisioning my character kicking ass").

Same with the blame thing: I don't know why you're avoiding it--but I suggest you examine the possibility that it's because it'll throw the issue into sharp relief, not because it will obfsucate the issue. I find MJ's example illustrative, for example.

-Marco

[Doctor Xero]

Years ago, when we were still playtesting Multiverser, I did a rough interface with Metamorphosis Alpha and versed Ed into it. He played for a while, and started playing with a pack of intelligent mutant wolves in an effort to get control of them for his own private army. Then he versed out, but he had some hope of returning.

My playtesting expanded, and I had Chris, Bill, and Tristan playing regularly. I decided I'd try running a gather with all three of them in Metamorphosis Alpha, so I versed Chris into the place. I mentioned it to Ed.

"If he messes with my wolves," Ed said, "I'll kill him."
---snip!--
Thus it seems clear to me that players I've known perceive that the referee-adjudicated and implemented consequences of player character actions are the fault of the players whose characters performed the priming action.

I have to agree.

However, I've seen situations like your example except that the player, after reacting as Ed did apropos Chris, would then add to the game master, "And you had better not pull any deus ex machina or coincidences to keep this from happening!"

So there is also a recognition, at least in fantastical campaigns, that the game master can enforce a different will by way of the gods or other metaphysical entities or through earthly NPCs of power in the campaign world(s).

The unspoken rule is that the game master must run his or her NPCs, human or divine, within the continuity of the campaign.  Capricious coincidences and meaningless acts of deus ex machina elicit distrust in the game master, and pretty soon, the game master has no players who will trust him or her enough to participate in any of his or her campaigns.  (This fits in with Noon's assertions about the ultimate power of social approbation -- regardless of whether social approbation is an immanent or ubiquitous force, an idea which Marco disputes.)

Doctor Xero

[Marco]

The unspoken rule is that the game master must run his or her NPCs, human or divine, within the continuity of the campaign.  Capricious coincidences and meaningless acts of deus ex machina elicit distrust in the game master, and pretty soon, the game master has no players who will trust him or her enough to participate in any of his or her campaigns.  (This fits in with Noon's assertions about the ultimate power of social approbation -- regardless of whether social approbation is an immanent or ubiquitous force, an idea which Marco disputes.)

Doctor Xero

Although perhaps unspoken, I think that if you put the question to people they'll speak fairly clearly on this. And to be clear, I certainly wouldn't ignore the social dimension--a very important part of any RPG activity (amongst many others).

The idea that it's the only thing an RPG has to offer seems very Forge-esque to me (Gamist is all about gettin' cred with your buddies--what if I just like the thrill of victory and my buddies lightly disapprove my step-on-up actions--am I Sim?)

So, yes: the GM can do anything--but if the GM does unexpected things with basic physics for reasons that have no obvious cause, and no real reason than 'because I say so' then I can't really imagine that being especially functional.

-Marco

[Callan S.]

Social approbation is all you can have (or lack), in terms of the experience being good or suffering.

I'll write the indulgently long version of the sentence:

Social apphrobation (or feedback, I'd prefer to call it) is all you can assert in responce to any other persons assertion, in terms of what influences a good or bad session (to any individuals perception).

Read through it carefully. I know I'm being cheap in not answering your question, but this is basically the reason why I'm not answering it.

The example I gave you showed me doing something for internal rewards that were greater than the negative social feedback.

In other words: despite your assertion above, the social dimension isn't all there is to the value of a an experience (where does social feedback apply to me eating ice cream or day dreaming?).

No, I mean the social dimension is all there is available to influence someone else. Your example of ignoring someone elses feedback doesn't change that...it just means that whatever social influence was there wasn't sufficient to influence you. In your above post for example, you talk about certain play not being functional. I don't get how you read such play as being non functional without identifying this from social feedback. I mean, what else are you identifying it from...there's no scientific measurement of functional...you judge it from social feedback (unless you ignore that and then your removing yourself from the activity by doing so).

Yes, I agree, most people would groan at the vase not breaking...thus you can consider it non functional if you want. But look at what really happened...people groaned. That's it...that's what I mean by 'social feedback is all you can have'. All you can have in responce, to be precise. If someone pushes a vase in RL, its goes through a series of reactions. If it's pushed in an SIS, the only responce is people groaning or whatever way they react. Plenty of people here have cooked up all sorts of ideas as to what happens to the vase, especially if play stops or whatever. The answer is, there is no vase, there is only the following assertions/social feedback.

I must be shit at describing this, so I'm going to fall back on the forge glossary:

"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

At the very least, it's clear this doesn't include the vase breaking as a 'must have to be functional play'. In any individual case the people involved may have a system of assertions that leads to the vase breaking. But the lumpley principle does not include the vase falling, in and of itself. You'd think it would, since the vase falling is so straight forward a reaction. It doesn't, and that's the basics of what I'm getting at.

Which leads me to your question and my avoidance. Who would I blame? I don't want to answer because what I'm trying to describe here, is like the lumpley principle. And you can't ask the lumpley principle who it would blame, it isn't about defining that. To answer it is to go off topic.

Probably what I'm talking about is the details of the lumpley principle. How they interact with each and how that forms a System. What an assertion of vase pushing would create or who would be blamed doesn't tell you anything about the idea...the idea is like a container and the vase push and the blame are just possible contents. I'm not interested in the contents though, I'm interested in the container.

Perhaps it was kind of poor of me to start the thread by refering to a contents example to see if others at the forge grasped a similar container idea. But I thought it would be similar to asking 'Do I have to have stats like STR and DEX in my RPG...or even stats at all?', which is a container question too (different container, keep in mind). And STR/DEX aren't nessersary parts of that container. Nor is the vase smashing a nessasary part of the container I refer to.

[Marco]

Callan,

That's a much better post--and it's a good deal clearer with you being explicit. I take issue with you being "indulgent." Adding multi-word bolded blocks that make all sorts of changes to the original statement strikes me as being clear--not indulgent.

But aside from that:

In your above post for example, you talk about certain play not being functional. I don't get how you read such play as being non functional without identifying this from social feedback. I mean, what else are you identifying it from...there's no scientific measurement of functional...you judge it from social feedback (unless you ignore that and then your removing yourself from the activity by doing so).

Here is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversiation will be non-functional?

I believe that on the microcosom, cause-and-effect scale you have specified where someone is trying to interact with you in a conversation and your answers are all nonsequitors, the dialog will break down.

But, ultimately, who cares?

If we agree that the vase is a groaner, where does your realization get us? And I'm not being snarky here--I'm serious: what does the fact that the GM can ... and might, do anything, even the random-and-unexpected get us?

I think maybe it gets us somewhere--but I'm not sure where. If that's the core of your statement, I agree with it.

Also: Yes--I think anything that's a traditional RPG where the PC's play standard corporeal human beings who can take physical actions must have STR and DEX. Since you asked* :)

-Marco
* Meaning that there has to be some piece of system that will adjudicate a PC trying to pick up a mountain range or a paper cup (that's STR) or perform some impossibly incredible stunt or tie his shoes (that's DEX) and once you resolve those issues, you have "STR and DEX."

[Walt Freitag]

At the very least, it's clear [the Lumpley Principle] doesn't include the vase breaking as a 'must have to be functional play'.

This all becomes pretty clear when you think of the vase in terms of participant expectations, rather than physical laws.

One or more particpants expects the vase to break, and yet when system is applied and consequences are narrated into the shared imagined space, it turns out the vase didn't break. To say that this is necessarily dysfunctional would be to logically imply that all expectations must always be met in order to have functional play. Which is fundamentally incompatible with role playing itself.

There are only three reasons to involve other people in shared imagining: as an audience, as passive assistants helping to work the levers of mechanical system and/or keep track of data, or as participants in creating the shared imagined space. The third of these is absolutely required for role-playing as the Forge defines it; that is, role-playing with a Creative Agenda. There is no creative participation without the freedom to affect the shared imagined space in ways that other participants don't expect, whether that's describing a character action that other players feel is "out of character" or ruling as a GM that a vase doesn't break even though the known situation leads others to predict that it will. If you're doing only what's expected, your participation is superfluous (except as audience or assistant).

We tend to think of unexpected decisions as going against the prevailing Creative Agenda. And of course they often are. But they cannot always be so, or there could be no Creative Agenda in the first place.

Is this at all relevant to the point you were making, Callan? I have to admit I've been somewhat in doubt of my ability to decipher what this thread is actually about.

- Walt

[Doctor Xero]

So, yes: the GM can do anything--but if the GM does unexpected things with basic physics for reasons that have no obvious cause, and no real reason than 'because I say so' then I can't really imagine that being especially functional.

Agreed!

(Unless, of course, it is one of those antagonist-game master types of gamist campaigns, such as some interpretations of Hackmaster, in which part of the fun comes from the  game master being arbitrary except where explicitly and specifically constrained by the rules books.)

Here is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversation will be non-functional?

I think Noon is working from the idea that roleplaying gaming is social whereas the conversation may involve information transmission or such.  If two people who don't speak the same language are trying to bond, such as when a man who speaks only English is trying to bond with his brother-in-law who speaks only Spanish, the issue of social functionality becomes relevant -- but only insofar as a shared tongue is necessary to sociality (I've been able to enjoy social time with people who barely spoke any language which I spoke).

No, I mean the social dimension is all there is available to influence someone else.

I would have to disagree with you here, Noon.

There are also the aesthetic and inspirational dimensions.

Someone may not like me but still be influenced by a moment of eloquence when I argue for an issue or by an artistic vision I maintain while I game or by the way I inspire her or his characters by the actions of my own in the game.

I think it would be stretching it a bit to encompass oratory, sermons, theatre, artistry, and inspiration under the umbrella of social influence.

And, yes, I have been involved with gaming groups wherein a disliked player was still influential because he or she had such wonderful ideas.

Doctor Xero

[Marco]

I think Noon is working from the idea that roleplaying gaming is social whereas the conversation may involve information transmission or such.  If two people who don't speak the same language are trying to bond, such as when a man who speaks only English is trying to bond with his brother-in-law who speaks only Spanish, the issue of social functionality becomes relevant -- but only insofar as a shared tongue is necessary to sociality (I've been able to enjoy social time with people who barely spoke any language which I spoke).

Understood--but that's not exactly what I was getting at. I wasn't being that literal.

Player-GM interaction is in some ways like a conversation. I say "Hello" and if you say "Empire State Building" I don't know what to say next. I respond "Huh? Didn't get you." and you go "Taco salad."

We're not getting anywhere.

If the GM responds with non-sequitors in terms of handling SiS (a series of arbitrary rulings that follow neither from the internal nor meta-game situations) then the 'dialog of play'--the player's ability to interact with the GM in the context of the game, and thus the GM's ability to interact with the player, breaks down.

I think Noon is looking at this in terms of approval and disapproval ("after it breaks down, there'll be hard feelings or lack of trust.") This is true--but the breakdown occurs first--and that's what I'm suggesting people interested in having an RPG try to prevent.

-Marco

[Callan S.]

Here is why I say it's not functional: imagine you are going to talk to another person on a telephone and you speak only English and the other person speaks only ancient Chinese.

What scientific principle would you cite to say that the conversiation will be non-functional?

I believe that on the microcosom, cause-and-effect scale you have specified where someone is trying to interact with you in a conversation and your answers are all nonsequitors, the dialog will break down.

Interesting idea, in terms of the telephone. Your example has two people who don't have any synchronised knowledge between them, in terms of the knowledge (language) they must use to communicate through the rather limmited media of a telephone line.

Which your comparing with someone who says something which makes it apparent were not sharing the same knowledge base. I don't think we should bring the idea of random non sequitors into this...the guy speaking chinese isn't talking rubbish, after all.

Likewise, the GM's 'no, it doesn't break' responce isn't an issue of him spouting random crap. Just like the person speaking chinese, he was (or atleast lets now establish this clearly) working from his own knowledge base. I can think of a few reasons he might...for example, did you know you can sit a car on top of four china cups (one per wheel) without the cups breaking? Yeah, the cups can take the pressure...blame ripleys believe it or not for that factoid. So maybe the GM imagines the vase lands perfectly on its base and can takes its own weight just fine.

The issue is, that they aren't syncronised in knowledge base. How will the situation be sorted out (if at all possible)? Social feedback is the only mechanism to sort it out (even though it can be ignored).

That's sort of my point in the 'it must make sense' thread. Saying it must make sense is like saying it must make my kind of sense. In the language example, it's like trying to say 'We MUST speak my language, not yours!' as if one language is the only language to use.

But, ultimately, who cares?

Ouch.

If we agree that the vase is a groaner, where does your realization get us? And I'm not being snarky here--I'm serious: what does the fact that the GM can ... and might, do anything, even the random-and-unexpected get us?

The starting posts point was about the idea that no matter how clear cut the apparent outcome, whatever outcome is narrated is only influuenced  by social feedback. The most logical outcome (by anyones opinion) will not get used just because its the most logical...social feedback determines if what gets used.

This also flows through to the following: Whats important to address here is how you've mentioned the GM saying non sequeteurs or random and unexpected stuff. It's not...were not talking about a nutter GM, were always going to find this other person has some message he's trying to get across. I'm talking about the idea that at any point a user could fail to share a syncronised knowledge base with another user.

If you approach that failure to synchronise with a 'how it works is that the most logical idea gets through' attitude rather than 'okay, social feedback is my only influence on this...X is important to me so I'm going to give feedback on it', your headed for a fight.

It also has implications for designers but I can't go into that now because RL calls right now (sorry to other posters I'd like to reply to). Anyway, I believe its a fine distinction but an an important one in its implications.

[DannyK]

OK, so this thread (which has baffled me) is really about a sort of a social constructivist theory of gaming.  That's an interesting idea, and I'm sorry it took me 6 pages to figure this out.  

Honestly, I think it's maybe worth starting a new thread to think through this: I don't think the vase example is going to get us there.

[Doctor Xero]

The issue is, that they aren't syncronised in knowledge base. How will the situation be sorted out (if at all possible)? Social feedback is the only mechanism to sort it out (even though it can be ignored).

I still have to amend you somewhat here.

If the game master states that the vase didn't shatter in a fashion which elicits admiration for the eloquence and/or artistry with which she stated it, or if the game master has the aura of a game imagination maestro, the players will still go along with it regardless of social feedback.  You might argue that they have become audience, but in a game, when I am not the one playing or game mastering, as I watch the other players, I am their audience!

Doctor Xero

[Callan S.]

OK, so this thread (which has baffled me) is really about a sort of a social constructivist theory of gaming.  That's an interesting idea, and I'm sorry it took me 6 pages to figure this out.  

Honestly, I think it's maybe worth starting a new thread to think through this: I don't think the vase example is going to get us there.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. My prefered method of thought on the matter is probably quite nihilistic. In order to get it across though though I found I needed to connect it to established lines of thought, like the lumpley princple. This transition took a few pages. Sorry for Ron for the six pages, too, if I could get accross my message neatly without the refining process I would.

Yes, I'll start a new thread (I'll edit this post to link to it in a moment) and cover the posts of people that I haven't tried to cover yet.

[Callan S.]

Here's the link