Design equals... Play?

[clehrich]

Seems to me that play is not completely limited to SIS.  Further, design can happen in SIS.  So it's not quite clear how we should distinguish design from play.  There is probably value in doing so, but I think it's worth being very careful about this.

Play isn't limited to SIS
Character design is, it seems to me, play, for Mendel's reason #4.  But it doesn't happen in SIS.  I tend to think of play as creative and constructive involvement in building the SIS, which can happen outside of it.  That way, for example, GM preparation isn't intrinsically something totally different from play; GM's do play, and in fact this is one of the things that makes GM-ing so much fun.

Design can happen in SIS
Drift, meta-manipulation, etc. are all design happening within SIS.  Maybe my sense of "design" is rather broad, but I'd also see leaning on a CA like Story Now, particularly through Director Stance, as a kind of design: you're reinventing the SIS and the structure of how play will work.

The point being that design and play probably should be differentiated, but it's not yet clear how to do so.

[timfire]

Let's ignore the game prep issue for a few moments, I think that, at this time, it needlessly adds confusion.

An idea I was trying to communicate through this thread is that I believe actual play and design are (should be?) characterized by completely different mindsets.

I think actual play is characterized by "What do I specifically want to do right now?"

I think the process of designing a game system is characterized by "What do I want other people to do, and how do I convince/encourage them to do it?"

Do people agree with that?
__________

There is a form of game in which the designer can embed an inherent statement, if so inclined. Gamist games.
...
Most versions of AD&D similarly convey a message urging caution and patience as the keys to success...

That's an interesting idea, one that I need to think about a little bit before responding.

[edit]Cross-posted with Chris.[/edit]

[John Kim]

An idea I was trying to communicate through this thread is that I believe actual play and design are (should be?) characterized by completely different mindsets.

I think actual play is characterized by "What do I specifically want to do right now?"

I think the process of designing a game system is characterized by "What do I want other people to do, and how do I convince/encourage them to do it?"

Do people agree with that?  

Well, no.  Personally, I design for myself and people who I game with.  So my designs are what are generally called "house rules" or a "house system".  I try to write clearly enough for my players and prospective players, and I put everything up on the web so other people are free to read it.  Still, I have not yet put effort into packaging them as commercial or even well-laid-out free game designs.  At the same time, I think it's valid to still call this "design", and I think that this can be a useful process for a designer (although not the only one).  

I also think that good play may look forward -- i.e. not just what is best right now, but what will be good for the campaign in the future.  Nor is there any fixed notion of what parts of play are part of the design.  i.e. In some games, if we decide to make all the PCs minions of some evil master, that is play.  But it's also possible to make that a part of the game design.  In some games, the practice of when you speak in-character vs out-of-character is just how you play.  But it can also be a part of game design.

[ErrathofKosh]

Players design characters, GM's design settings and situations; those are considered play, so why wouldn't the game designer designing system be play?

Wow!  I look the other way for a few hours and boom!  

In straight-up Big Model terms, I agree with Ron, these activities are not a part of Exploration.  However, I see parallels, especially in game design.  (A GM designs setting and situation for the same reason that a player designs a character: to prepare for play in a single game.  Game design, however, has a broader scope, it is intended to prepare many individuals to play in many games.)  Perhaps this is a half-baked idea, but I theorize that a designer has a creative agenda for creating a game, much as a player or GM does for playing one.  The designer employs various and differing techniques, and he also prioritizes one or a few of the "Elements of Exploration."

For instance, a designer can design a stunning setting, full of situation and premise, and build the system afterward to support his goals.  Check out Children of Fire (mimgames.com) for a good example of this.  OTOH, there is Donjon, which looks to be focused on system.  Now, I'm not supposing that we can figure out what a designers motives were; reading their work doesn't help as much as observing an instance of play in the roleplayer's case.

I know that one of my motives for game-design was substitution for play.  I started when my group disbanded.
Is design a good substitution for gaming? No.  At least I get to theorize about actual play in a structured manner.  I can explore system and setting or whatever else without a group.  But, I miss the SHARED experience and the input of ideas from others.  
Is design a positive output activity for my creative ideas in a manner that is similiar in form to roleplaying?  Yes.  It fills other needs.  These needs are closely related to those that drive me to roleplay, but they are different.

My comment above was typed out of habit.  In the bad old days of roleplaying, the statement that setting, situation, and character generation are play was assumed to be fact.  Under the Big Model, and here at the Forge, I can see them as separate, but related, activities.  Looking introspectively at design motives would be good for the designer.  Considering how pre-play activities differ from play would also be constructive.

I'll stop rambling now.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Bill Cook]

I think the process of designing a game system is characterized by "What do I want other people to do, and how do I convince/encourage them to do it?"

Sure. The designer designs to have his game played. As to mindsets, I think there's design, preparation and play.

I'm inspired by Ron's standard that play be a sharing of SIS stamps. That's just a hell of a thing, to me. Imagine that your character sheet is a collection of rub-off tattoos and the SIS is a wall-sized marker board. Until you press your sheet to the board, it is unrealized preparation; what's not shared may as well not be.

You can apply the same standard at the level of campaign and system. If it didn't come out in play, we still respect the GM's effort, but cannot honestly say that it mattered. Likewise, with the system: clearly, the intricately worded paragraphs and supporting examples reflect vision and exhaustive playtest, but if a concept or mechanic doesn't lend itself to low cost prep inclusion, it can only be vanity.

(Note: the above expresses an ideal, with no claim to its veracity, and is not a criticism of a specific person or game.)

[M. J. Young]

I passed over this yesterday, but coming back to it I think I've got something to suggest.

There is a degree to which what we call character generation is not the creation of the character; it is the creation of the character sheet. The distinction is not meaningless. Who this person is within the shared imagined space will be created as it is revealed there. This is only an outline providing some framework for that creation. In this sense it stands in the same relationship to the character itself as the rules in the book stand to system: it is an authority to which the participants appeal in presenting the defined character in play.

On that basis, prep is not play; it is creating the authorities needed for play. The time the referee spends creating the world or the situation outside the game is not part of play, it is his way of being ready to play. Play happens when that is shared as part of the imaginative experience.

To analogize it to something more concrete, before we can play baseball we have to acquire a bat and ball, set up the bases, agree on the rules, choose teams, and decide who bats first. We don't start to play until that part is finished, even though in retrospect we might say that that was part of the game. It is part of the game, in that during play those preparations impact what happens. The selection of rules, the development of the world, and the creation of the character sheet are all preparatory to play, creating the authorities that will impact events once play begins.

That isn't to say that prep and design aren't fun; but if they aren't part of the ongoing creation of the shared imagined space as they are created, they aren't role playing, and if they are, then they are.

--M. J. Young

[ffilz]

Ok, so for example, in Everway where there is a character story sharing time, this part of "character creation" would be considered play because at that time, the character is being inserted into the SIS.

In Universalis, the tenet phase which produces some of the same stuff that a GM of a more traditional RPG might produce in preparation for a campaign is play because the players together are forming the SIS, they are just starting from a totally clean slate, whereas the traditional GM often brings a pretty full slate to the table (especially when using a commercially published setting like Glorantha, Tekumel, or Forgotten Realms).

Hmm, what about Traveler character creation where the player is running his character through the services? I think that isn't play because while he is generating information through something that resembles play, it isn't entered into the SIS until he musters out and brings his PC to the table. His activity during this phase of creation doesn't interract with the other players at all.

Frank

[John Kirk]

I think we need to be careful in distinguishing what isn't play in current games and what cannot possibly be considered play when thinking about character generation.  Suppose we decided to design a game very much like Puppetland, but where all characters start out as blank sock puppets.  The characters start with zilch, not even a name.  There is nothing to distinguish one sock from another, nothing to provide a character with any kind of identity.  Nothing to make a character into something unique.  So, there is no basis for saying that character generation is complete.  Then, we put them into the world of Velcro and, as part of the game, allow the characters to add features to themselves.  In effect, we specifically make character generation part of play.  A session might start as follows:

Puppetmaster: "All the sock puppets woke up snug and safe in their beds.  Everything was dark.  Everything was quiet.  Suddenly, Sock 1 felt a sharp pain in his side. "

Sock 1:  "Mmmmrrmmm.  How fortunate that, as I bolted up from bed, I bumped into this velco mouth.  Ouch!  That hurts!  What could possibly be distressing my soft sockish self?"

Puppetmaster: "But Sock 1 had no eyes and couldn't see what was paining him."

Sock 1:  "If there was a mouth lying around here, perhaps there are some eyes as well.  I shall thrash about until I find some.   Ouch.  That still hurts!"

Puppetmaster: "Sock 1 thrashed around the bedroom, getting all kinds of velcro things stuck to him.  Three eyes of various sizes and colors, an ear, and a polka dot tie all ended up adorning him helter skelter."

Sock 1:  "How fortunate that I now discern the cause of my ailment."

Puppetmaster:  "Sock 1 looked down to see a big round nametag whose pin was stuck entirely through his middle".

Sock 1:  "Why look! A nametag!  I wonder what it says."

Puppetmaster: "Sock 1 read that the nametag said 'Argyle'"

Sock 1:  "That must be my name!  Oh, joy.  I shall call myself Argyle from this day forward.  Now, what to do about this painful pin!  Surely there is an arm lying somewhere about that I could procure."

...

Okay, so it's not the greatest example.  But, I think it illustrates my point.  Just because current games don't make character generation part of play doesn't mean it's not possible to do so.  All that is required is that characters start as indistiguishable blanks and alterations to that standard form be allowed as actual modifications to the Shared Imagined Space.

[Bill Cook]

Can't post . . . laughing . . . uncontrollably . . .

I can hear Kevin Neilan's voice in my head: "Or, wait, what about Potato Head: the RPG, and everyone starts out as an untouched spud!"

** ** **

Seriously, (wipes tears away) I went to a coffee house at a church tonight and I saw this whole progression in action: you write the material, you prepare it and then you present it. Sharing alone does not qualify play. Universalis was co-written, right? And (I think) Legends of Alyria requires two players to GM, which may suggest shared preparation. (I'm speculating about the system there, but my point remains.)

I think it's a group-connected SIS that establishes play.

An interesting side topic is dysfunction as inability to complete the above cycle. It may be broadly characterized as pursuing one stage in an effort to gain what another provides. This reminds me of a friend who's been writing poetry since high school, but won't read others' work and refuses to workshop his stuff.

This course of thought is reminding me of one of Ron's postings to a recent Publishing thread in which he admonished the poster to define his own success. I'm making the connection that doing so informs activity at every stage.

[clehrich]

I think it's a group-connected SIS that establishes play.

The example is hysterical.  "Oh joy!  I shall call myself Argyle...."  I can just hear it: "Is this a sock I see before me, the gold toe toward my mouth?"

But I think John is dead right: it's entirely possible to design games in which various factors currently normally excluded from play are made part of play, even the point of play.  Which brings us back to Mendel's point in the first place: is there any a priori way to define what is and is not play on the basis of mechanics?

I think the answer is no.  The choice to distinguish between play and setup or mechanics is a design choice, not part of the nature of gaming itself.  And that entails that in formulating a complete model of gaming, we have to take into account strategies of such discrimination.

I see this as a process of formal delineation, which could take us into all sorts of stuff about discursive spheres and whatnot.  But the fundamental point is that within that messy thing called Social Contract, there are all sorts of techniques by which we are taught and told to distinguish between in-game and out-of-game.  In my Ritual essay, I argued that this is best understood as what Bell calls "ritualization," but I won't insist on it right now.  The point at stake is simply that these are choices, not facts; the choices are significantly dominated by a normative sense of what gaming has traditionally been like, but creative design can break tradition if it's exciting and clever.

Personally, I'd like to see more historical examination of how games have traditionally run carefully distinguished from what is at base possible.  Some of what has made Ron's work so effective is precisely that it recognizes that lots of things people took for granted for years, as obviously how games are, were actually simply following in established patterns and not requirements.  Opening up new dimensions can be as simple, and as difficult, as recognizing that something everyone takes for granted is actually open to manipulation in design.  

Analytically, this gives a wider perspective on how and why types of systems, and CA's I suppose, have often had such narrow boundaries.  For example, I think one of the reasons Narrativist games are so exciting and challenging right now is precisely because relatively few boundaries are taken as known, since Ron's model really hasn't been around all that long.  If allowed to ossify, however, that model will produce increasingly similar Narrativist games and correspondingly less excitement.

I'd like to see Mendel's model succeed, to be honest, because I think if we stop looking at these various distinctions as intrinsic to the form and start seeing them as strategic choices, we will be in a better position to understand what making any given choice, traditional or otherwise, entails for gameplay.

And besides, the sock-puppet game cracks me up.  Thanks, John!

[Caldis]

I've played in a game recently that somewhat resembled the sock puppet example.  I'll make no claims to the universality of my experience or that lack of familiarity with the system wasnt also a concern.  

The game was Fudge playing superheros in a near future setting.  We started our characters with names, a superhero catch phrase and little else.  We begin unemployed and looking for work, we've heard a nearby corporation may be looking for people so we head there.  As we approach a big blue man crashes out of the front of the building and storms down the street.  We decide to approach him and find out what's going on, it rapidly turns into a battle and one of us finds a situation where his catch phrase seemed appropriate.  He says it and the gm dealt out cards to all the players, whoever got an ace gained a superpower, a face card was an aspect (like skills), and the joker was a negative aspect.  

This is the point where the game ground to a halt.  We all had to stop and think about our newly gained abilities, question the gm as to the appropriateness of our ideas, then mark them down on the character sheet.

Design happened during the game but it wasnt the same activity as play.  It wasnt something taking place in the SIS, it was very personal that would later be shared in play.  I think this holds true for other activities as well such as solving a riddle or puzzle, or the playersor gm stopping to think what they should do or what should happen next, they affect play but they arent actual play.

[clehrich]

To take the superhero example a little further, though, suppose you had simply been given the narrative power to define your superpowers on the hop?

So you're chasing after one of the bad guys, and he leaps into a passing getaway car and takes off in traffic.  You say, "I pick up speed, running even faster than the car."  You have now defined that one of your character's powers is that he can run faster than a speeding getaway car.  Maybe we didn't know that before, but now we do.  

Another character next to mine also wants to chase the car, but let's suppose there can't be precise overlap between powers for some reason, so he can't just run fast as well.  So the player says, "I jump into the air and fly after him."  Okay, so he flies, and my character runs, both real fast.

A third character says, "I use my super magnetism powers to hold that car just where it is."

And so on.  After a few sessions, everyone has clearly defined powers and minimal overlap.  If you wanted to, you could even have this "discovering my power" thing be part of the story, where the characters didn't know they could do this stuff until they really wanted to catch that bad guy.

Of course you'd need to think out how this works, whether balance matters, what the limits are, what the weaknesses are, but I don't see it as a problem.  Now my run-real-fast guy is chasing someone on the Bullet Train, and we decide that no, he just can't go that fast.  Okay, we've got a limit.  Or maybe a villain laughs at the magnetism guy, "Ha!  I have a moon rock in my trunk, Ferrous-Man, negating your power!  You'll never catch me now!"

Sorcerer comes pretty close to this at times, when you summon a new demon, and it could be made even more part of regular play if you wanted to do so.

[M. J. Young]

Dang, I'm wondering whether people read my post.

Frank has it right. In Traveler, the life-paths are generally done as prep, not as play; the character is developed to some degree independently, and then brought into the game. I think from what you describe of the other two games, yes, that's all part of play, even though it looks like prep.

I think we need to be careful in distinguishing what isn?t play in current games and what cannot possibly be considered play when thinking about character generation.

I thought I'd done that. Let me use a different example.

When I run Multiverser at conventions, we use the on-the-fly character creation system and the players play themselves. That means we take about five minutes to jot down a few critical numbers, some important skills, and the most obvious and important equipment, and the rest is filled in as needed during play.

The valuable point of this illustration is that as the game begins, there are really three "versions" of the character. The first is the player who is sitting at the table, who exists in near infinite detail but is not really known to me. The second is that outline of a few numbers on the character sheet. The third is the guy in the shared imagined space, revealed with each move the player makes.

In a sense, everything this guy has ever done in his life is "character generation" for this game. Those few minutes putting it on paper is also "character generation" in the traditional sense. Yet the character does not exist within the game world except as revealed through play.

Legends of Alyria was mentioned, incorrectly claiming it had multiple referees. What it does have is group character generation--all of the players work together to create all of the major characters, heroes and villains, and then decide who plays what once they are fully developed. I think you could make a good case for that being play: the players are sharing ideas together to create the backstory that leads up to this moment when the story opens. They are using a form of role playing to develop the history of the world.

Those two games contrast sharply. In one, the character is fully "created" long before anyone even thinks of playing the game, and the character generation process is merely a means of orienting the real person to the game world; play begins with the character fully formed, but completely unknown within the shared imagined space, to be unfolded by the player as he defines himself within these parameters. The other begins unfolding characters within the shared imagined space from the instant they are conceived, creating the characters as part of the sharing.

Nothing I wrote says that character generation or world creation can't be part of play. It says that traditional creation of a character sheet to be the basis for a character presented once interaction begins is not part of play.

Which brings us back to Mendel's point in the first place: is there any a priori way to define what is and is not play on the basis of mechanics?

I think the answer is no.

Respectfully disagreeing, I think the answer is obvious: any function in which players cooperate actively to imagine the same things within the shared imagined space is play; any function which is performed individually as a way of preparing for play or providing materials which will facilitate play is not play.

Often when I play I keep a character journal, a written record of the events of the game from my character's perspective. I write that journal between sessions; I often read excerpts from it at the beginning of sessions as a means of bringing everyone up to date and back in mind of where we were and what we were doing. When I'm writing that journal, we're not playing the game, and thus writing the journal is not play. When I read the journal to the others, that's renewing the shared imagined space, and so play is occurring as I input my recollections of where we are and how we got there. The journal thus becomes part of play when it is read, but not when it is written.

Nothing says that any part of design can't be play; it only says that for it to be play it must be shared as it happens. Every example in this thread, including the sock puppets and the superheroes, makes the same distinction. We can make up all the rules of the game as we play it, if we like (I know that E. R. Jones made up a substantial part of Multiverser by creating rules as he played to make it work the way he wanted it to). There's nothing that delineates what must or can't be part of play or part of prep, but that that which is shared in creating the imagined space is part of play, and that which is done in anticipation of sharing it within the imagined space is prep.

(I'm sure there's a hole in this somewhere, and I could probably shoot it down myself if I took a minute to re-read it, but the gist of it sounds right to me, so I'm going to post it.)

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

M.J.,

We're actually, I think, in agreement.  One of us is not getting what distinction was originally being made, or attempted.

Which brings us back to Mendel's point in the first place: is there any a priori way to define what is and is not play on the basis of mechanics?

I think the answer is no.

Respectfully disagreeing, I think the answer is obvious: any function in which players cooperate actively to imagine the same things within the shared imagined space is play; any function which is performed individually as a way of preparing for play or providing materials which will facilitate play is not play. .... Nothing says that any part of design can't be play; it only says that for it to be play it must be shared as it happens.

Total agreement as of right now.  Here's how:

My issue, which I thought was the original question asked in this thread and Mendel's other parallel one, was whether one could a priori define a formal distinction between play and non-play elements of gaming.  In other words, can we know for sure that there are certain parts of gaming that are always play elements, or that there are certain parts that are always non-play elements?  I think the answer is no: the particular game must determine this for itself.

Your issue, I think, is whether one can empirically determine whether some element is a play or non-play element.  In other words, can one know on the basis of observation whether something is fundamentally in one sphere or the other?  I think you feel the answer is yes: it is always possible to define any element as one desires, but in the actuality of play this is not left open and indeterminate.

On this basis, you have proposed a criterion which would allow us to evaluate any actual element of a game, in real life, right now, and determine whether it's play or non-play.  Sounds good to me.  But you have also said that there is no way to know in theory that some element can't be play; in other words, there is no a priori categorical distinction.

Thus my point is that one has to choose.  If it's open before you start the game (design, play, whatever), and determined in actual play, then somewhere along the line people have to make some decisions.

So this leaves me with a basic question.  Were we supposed to be discussing this as a theoretical or empirical issue?

[John Kim]

I think the answer is obvious: any function in which players cooperate actively to imagine the same things within the shared imagined space is play; any function which is performed individually as a way of preparing for play or providing materials which will facilitate play is not play.
...
When I read the journal to the others, that's renewing the shared imagined space, and so play is occurring as I input my recollections of where we are and how we got there. The journal thus becomes part of play when it is read, but not when it is written.  

OK, let me just make sure of how we stand, then.  

1) If Traveller character creation occurs with the player by himself, then it is not itself a part of play.  

2) However, if the player were to describe his character's career at the table with the other players, that would be play.  

3) Presumably, if the character creation occured openly in a face-to-face session, then it would also be play.  i.e. As long as the events of character generation are communicated to the other players as they are determined, then this is the same as, say, a PC doing some action independently.  

There's nothing that delineates what must or can't be part of play or part of prep, but that that which is shared in creating the imagined space is part of play, and that which is done in anticipation of sharing it within the imagined space is prep.

(I'm sure there's a hole in this somewhere, and I could probably shoot it down myself if I took a minute to re-read it, but the gist of it sounds right to me, so I'm going to post it.)  

Well, the problem case that I see is Play-by-Email, or any similar posting format.  So I'm writing out an entry to be posted to others.  Is that prep, or play?  If we consider it prep, then Play-by-Email doesn't have any actual play.