The Tyranny of Structurelessness

[Mike Holmes]

Thomas, I'd propose that, in fact, Universalis is a tad incoherent in some ways, and that may be your group's problem there.

That's not to disagree with your overall point. But it's been a basic tenet of the Big Theory that all play occurs in the context of a Social Contract, and hence can never be good unless the contract is good first. Hence the model:

Social Contract -> GNS -> Techniques

Mike

[LordSmerf]

Mike,

That is precisely my point.  I have some friends, we have fun doing plenty of other activities.  We want to learn how to get along with Role Playing as well.  How do we do that?  The only method currently available is trial and error, trying different games and different authority structures until we find something that "hits the spot".

I want something more.  I want methods and techniques that allow us to analyze and manipulate our Social Contract on a level outside of any specific game, so that we know which specific game(s) we can play together.

Ron gives the excellent advice that if your Social Contract is broken, you shouldn't really be playing.  I want to know how to fix the Social Contract in question so that we can play without an intervening period of dysfunctional play while we experiment.

Thomas

[C. Edwards]

The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.

(That, and other tasty bits can be found on anyway, Vincent's website.)

That's what it's all about. The essence of game design. It makes an excellent mantra. Stays crispy in milk.

I dream of this giant flow chart. It shows, starting with the initial overarching Social Contract aspects of authority and influence and continuing down through Creative Agenda, Techniques, etc., the compatibility matrix of a functional instance of gaming. It would link the combinations that work together. You could create a functional rpg by just picking a path on the flow chart and following it. It would be incredibly information dense, but attractive in an alien way. Like the skill matrix in Final Fantasy X. What a dream.

I want to know how to fix the Social Contract in question so that we can play without an intervening period of dysfunctional play while we experiment.

I'm not sure how the creation of a functional Social Contract can be anything but an evolutionary process. Like in any evolutionary process, there's no guarantee that any particular product of the process is going to be fit. For the Social Contract to be relatively stable it has to be tested.

I was going to say that perhaps a list of different social contract configurations might at least help expedite the process, but I'm having trouble imagining how it could in any way take into account the dynamics of your specific play group. Or if it would even need to at that level. I suppose it depends on just what factors are keeping your group from functional play.

-Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Thomas, since this is a CA problem, and, as such a subset of the social contract, the only tools for this can be social.

Which is mostly just what Chris said.

You've said that you don't have a problem outside of RPGs. So I'm not sure why you then say that you want to have tools to "fix" the social contract "outside" of a specific game. You seem to be implying that there's some layer in between the social contract, and CA. There is not.

Mike

[Marco]

Hello,

I suggest that many groups who say that the "players play characters, GM plays the world" are engaged in far more sharing of the relevant GM-tasks than anyone perceives or admits.

Best,
Ron

I say that--in fact, I'd say it's the cornerstone of our group's social contract. It's how I'd express a high-level description of the role-split for play in traditional games too.

Well, really, I'd probably phrase it: "The GM runs the world and the players play their characters" (is that different? I don't know. I'm not stuck on runs-vs-plays or 'their characters' vs 'characters' (save that players don't usually, IME, run NPC's) )

In terms of GM-relevant tasks, what do you think this is obscuring (I have a bunch of game write-ups that should give at least some insight into our groups social dynamics).

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Marco, for example, do the players ever say, "I cross the busy street, and enter the building?"

If, indeed, everything outside of the character is the realm of the GM, then isn't it incorrect for the player to establish that the street is busy? Even if, in your contract, the GM has the right to say, "You mean empty street," but doesn't always take away player additions, then aren't they "sharing" the duty?

This is just the example I always use. The principle can be extrapolated a lot into other areas.

Mike

[Marco]

Marco, for example, do the players ever say, "I cross the busy street, and enter the building?"

If, indeed, everything outside of the character is the realm of the GM, then isn't it incorrect for the player to establish that the street is busy? Even if, in your contract, the GM has the right to say, "You mean empty street," but doesn't always take away player additions, then aren't they "sharing" the duty?

This is just the example I always use. The principle can be extrapolated a lot into other areas.

Mike

Yes they do--or use directoral power to 'materialize' a drink on the bar counter when it wasn't explicitly put there by the GM. I totally see that.

As a total expression of dynamic the phrase doesn't measure up if our definition of "runs the world" is interperted to mean "all words concerning the extermal physicality of the PC must come out of the GM's mouth."

Thing is, I'm not sure anyone ever really means it that way. Saying "The sky is blue" isn't usually seen as denying the existence of clouds, for example, even though they (and the airplane) haven't been specified.

The article is talking about sharing of tasks and authority and the clarity of role within a group. For work-related taskgroups that's usually something close to achievable: you often have a measurable goal. You may have a rigid military command structure with a body of law concerning legal orders.

For a gaming group, or a group of friends, however, being exactingly specific about roles is nearly impossible with any amount of language because there isn't usually a definable role in the group (Sid may be declared the 'group leader' by an observing sociologist but if you start dictating exactly what that means you'll get pages and pages of text and people will still find holes in it).

-Marco

[Callan S.]

This is one reason that games like My Life with Master and Primetime Adventures are so good, they include a partial hashing-out of Social Contract within the rules.

I've thought that often, without an arranged social contract, a cruddy social contract revolving around the rules and not much else, begins to form. Like clinging to a piece of drift wood when you need a boat, the group clings to the rules to manage the social level (especially as RPG culture tends to revolve around immersion being "the thing" and that we should ignore RL, mostly when we play).

That's where the marketability comes in, in terms of what I said before on structurelessness. If the game doesn't actually cover a lot of the areas it says it will, then someone else is going to fill that in...and the other people will cling to that like they did to the rule driftwood before. Clinging to the rules as a replacement for social contract policing was dangerous enough. Clinging to the 'rulings' of someone else for policing is...well it's basically an insta cult product. Just add followers.

Being a psuedo cult leader is highly attractive...which would mean the design sells.


Bill Cook: It is creepy. And fiscally, it's very viable.

[Mike Holmes]

As a total expression of dynamic the phrase doesn't measure up if our definition of "runs the world" is interperted to mean "all words concerning the extermal physicality of the PC must come out of the GM's mouth."

Thing is, I'm not sure anyone ever really means it that way.

Which was precisely the point being made, I think. That is, people talk about this simple divide of power when it's not at all as simple as it's cast. Yes, I think that what's meant is clear to people, but often it's not the same from group to group. For example, I've seen groups where the GM will correct the player, "You attempt to go across the street, which is, by the way, busy with traffic, but only because I said so." And other groups that are much more free with player control, but who still claim to be using the divide in question.

So, yes, people have an idea of what they mean by this divide, and it works fine in play. But just saying "GM controls world, players control characters" doesn't really tell us what's happening, because, as you say, nobody ever really means it that way.

Mike

[Marco]

As a total expression of dynamic the phrase doesn't measure up if our definition of "runs the world" is interperted to mean "all words concerning the extermal physicality of the PC must come out of the GM's mouth."

Thing is, I'm not sure anyone ever really means it that way.

Which was precisely the point being made, I think. That is, people talk about this simple divide of power when it's not at all as simple as it's cast. Yes, I think that what's meant is clear to people, but often it's not the same from group to group. For example, I've seen groups where the GM will correct the player, "You attempt to go across the street, which is, by the way, busy with traffic, but only because I said so." And other groups that are much more free with player control, but who still claim to be using the divide in question.

So, yes, people have an idea of what they mean by this divide, and it works fine in play. But just saying "GM controls world, players control characters" doesn't really tell us what's happening, because, as you say, nobody ever really means it that way.

Mike

Mike,
Hey, I do dig it. But I think you're not answering the question I asked. If Ron had said

"I suggest that many groups who say that the "players play characters, GM plays the world" are engaged in stating a more complex power-sharing arangement in a simple phrase"
(quote altered)

I'd agree with him:
This was the original quote "far more sharing of the relevant GM-tasks than anyone perceives or admits."

That's different: that implies that people who say that are either not precieving things correctly or are precieving them correctly but consider their stating to be obfusicatory in some way (i.e. it is not an admission).

If I am one of these people who say that, how do I know if I am in that group?

Point: If you ask one of these groups that isn't perceptive or is engaged in a non-admission "do players say 'I cross the street' in your games'" do you think they'll say:

(a) "No, um, no. No one ever crosses the street. That would be runing the world."
(b) "Yes they do. I consider that playing their character. If the GM has an ambush set to happen halfway across the street, then the actions of the world will intervine."
(c) somthing else?

'cause if it's like (a) they are lying.
If it's like (b) I think they have a point.
I'm guessing there's a (c) I'm missining.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Marco, I accept your "kindler & gentler" paraphrase as fully expressing my point better.

That puts me, Mike, and you all on the same page, I think.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Rockin' (If that's agreeable all around, then I consider my question fully answered)

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I'll quibble only techically. That is, people usually don't put this sort of thought into this. So, in fact, they don't consciously percieve these things. They know how things work by a general impression of their own play, and they associate that play style with the phrase. The problem becomes that they don't realize that other people may mean different things by the phrase. So when someone uses it, they think "Aha, just like I play!" When that's not neccessarily the case. The phrase is too simple to capture the sometimes not incosequestial nuances involved.

I mean, my Hero Quest game could be described by this phrase, but it looks a ton different in some ways regarding this than some other people's play.

Mike

[Callan S.]

"players play characters, GM plays the world" is sort of like how we quickly describe G, N or S around here in a sentence, in order to not over load newer posters.

But typically whoever does that here notes that its a simplification or notes something that says "That's not the whole story".

That last bit is important, because if the phrase is being used to form social contract, it tells you that weve only covered this briefly and in terms of it, the SC still needs work done. And without this, "players play characters, GM plays the world" all too easily falls into this structurelessness issue here. Even if you don't have structure here, by explicitly noting that this structure will latter need to be worked out like the rest of the SC was, it is adding some framework.

[Marco]

Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

I think there is a level of social interaction both in games and in real-life where there is no easily defined structure. I know what "who chooses the movie" amongst my friends would be very hard to articulate and be based on a vast number of factors (he saw mine last time and my choice turned out to be a dud so my 'credibility' is damaged, etc.)

-Marco