Mechanics, Contribution, and Doug the Dice Guy

[LordSmerf]

It occurs to me that "contribute" here is an exact simile for "negotiate" in the sense of "contribute X into the shared imagined space" would have the exact meaning of "negotiate X into the shared imagined space"

Yes, this is basically what I am proposing.

Thomas

[Marco]

While I think that the points that have been brought up are correct in that they are internally consistent and accurate (IMO) I think the real question is this:

Does this (the original quote)

Question: Has Will contributed anything to the game?  

Mean the same as this:

Question: Has Will added something to SIS via the process of negotiation during actual play?

I think that if we decide they are the same we are making a big mistake--and one that we make all too often here. We are taking a general, widely used term and giving it a specific non-intuitive interpertation.

To say that the guy who wrote the campaign, created the mechanics, and generated all the characters has "not contributed to the game" is the sort of thing that gets us looked at funny.

While the counter argument is that "game" or "contributes to the game" is too vague to be of any use, I think that's not so. The term will be used in context where either, IME, it'll be clear or clarification will not be difficult. In the case of a gray area (Walt, the world-book guy) the fact that there is some discussion is probably indicative that the issue should be explored more in the specific context of the conversation (rather than in the sense of adhering to a glossary definition).

-Marco

[Paganini]

I'd like to point out in case anyone is unaware, that the word "contribute" as John is using it is not part of the official Forge jargon. As far as I know, no one has used it before in this context, until I started using it in my Theory Without Jargon articles to describe role-playings fundamental act without needing to use words like Exploration, SiS, Negotiation, Credibility, Authority, and so on.

Maybe I'm guilty of just creating a new type of jargon. If I am, I hope that it's at least intuitive jargon that noobs will find easy to grasp. So, all this hand-flapping is kinda needless. "Contribution" means what I use it to mean, because I find that meaning convenient in this context, and not at all at odds with its conventional usage.

I'd also like to point out that, so far as I remember, I have only used "contribution" as a noun in the articles - "contribution" in the sense of "hey guys, here's what I'm imagining." If I've screwed that up, please point some places out to me so I can revise them.

Anyway, it's obvious that Will has a profound effect on the game. To argue against that is madness. But to argue about whether or not "Will is contributing to the game" is a moot point. Will is not there at the table making stuff up with everyone else. He is not involved with the negotiation process, which is what I'm specifically talking about in my articles.

(Also, I just realized I was kinda sloppy in my earlier post to this thread. I didn't really sit down and think it through like I should have. Sorry for that. I hope this post clears things up a bit.)

[sophist]

it all depends on what you term contribution. Probably there is more one way of contributing.

"creation" I'd say that this is the primary way of contribution. it presets what the rules, assumptions, and objects of interpretation will be. interpretation works within this framework. Wether one uses negotiation of interpretations is decided at this stage and not inherent in all roleplaying.

"interpretation" is the actualization of possibilties within the framework of "creation". A RPG story is not possible with out this dynamic actualization, but it does not follow that this is the "real" or only way of contribution. There could not be a SIS without the "creation" step.

If you say "nah, let's change Will's rule #753", you already have changed levels to the metalevel of "creation" again. Of course, in most games, you will be switching levels during a session.
You could even cross this Modell with marcos distinctions for a more fine-grained model of contribution.

In Wills case the players, even the DM are just interpreting (which does not mean they are not conributing, but Will's with creative contribution, there'd be no game - or at least no game where the question of his contribution could be posed). In many ways the groups playing is like playing RISK. one could interpret the result of a RISK attack ("that was a slaughter"), and "negotiate" assent to this interpretation. Have you now contributed to RISK?

Doug is contributing "interpretations", but only "interpretations of interpretations".[/b]

[LordSmerf]

Sophist,

I'm not entirely sure what you are defining with this "creation/interpretation" dichotemy.  Are you saying that any time any player suggests something new that it's creation, and that any time a player references an existing element it's interpretation?  Let's say that Will has an NPC who is described as having "Long flowing hair".  If the GM says that the NPC has "Long flowing, red hair" is that creation or interpretation?

Thomas

[John Kim]

I'd like to point out in case anyone is unaware, that the word "contribute" as John is using it is not part of the official Forge jargon. As far as I know, no one has used it before in this context, until I started using it in my Theory Without Jargon articles to describe role-playings fundamental act without needing to use words like Exploration, SiS, Negotiation, Credibility, Authority, and so on.

Maybe I'm guilty of just creating a new type of jargon. If I am, I hope that it's at least intuitive jargon that noobs will find easy to grasp.

Well, unfortunately, I think the variety of answers I see on this thread indicates that it is not particularly intuitive.  Particularly since that is supposed to be "theory without jargon", perhaps you should consider replacements?  It seems to me that it is simpler to just say "Mechanics don't negotiate" rather than "Mechanics don't contribute" -- if that's what you mean.  

I'd also like to point out that, so far as I remember, I have only used "contribution" as a noun in the articles - "contribution" in the sense of "hey guys, here's what I'm imagining." If I've screwed that up, please point some places out to me so I can revise them.

OK.  In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14248">Theory Without Jargon Number 2, just before the conclusion (i.e. "The Bottom Line"), you write:

It's also important to note that the mechanics never contribute anything. Since they don't have minds, they can't make stuff up the same way that the players do. Instead, mechanics are used to pick from a list of potential contributions.

and

Even after the dice are rolled, some player still has to contribute the result by describing it to the rest of the group. This is one of those instances where the contribution is pre-approved. Everyone agreed to use the dice to pick a result, so the player narrating assumes that his contribution is accepted by everyone. If the player narrates something other than what the dice selected, it's the same as when Carl broke the social contract earlier.

So are you looking to revise these?  If so, I'd be interested in the replacement.  The first part implies that something has to be totally original and unexpected for it to be a "contribution".  That's something of a new wrinkle that wasn't clear to me in earlier usage of "contribution".  I also find the latter part to be a little odd.  In my experience, it is not uncommon for no one to vocalize the mechanical result -- at least for small bits.  i.e. An action is declared, dice are rolled, and the result is clear enough that the people at the table all understand what happened well enough to move on.  Failed perception rolls and missed attacks are common cases.

[Paganini]

Well, unfortunately, I think the variety of answers I see on this thread indicates that it is not particularly intuitive.  Particularly since that is supposed to be "theory without jargon", perhaps you should consider replacements?  It seems to me that it is simpler to just say "Mechanics don't negotiate" rather than "Mechanics don't contribute" -- if that's what you mean.

The thing is, I feel like people are not reading the articles very carefully, so I don't really feel a strong urge to go and revise them based on this. When I say "mechanics can't make contributions" I mean "mechanics don't have minds. They can't make stuff up. They can't invent imagined facts." I've said this in plain words in the articles, and at least 2 or 3 times in the threads. The bit you you quoted below, even though it uses "contribute" in an imprecise way, immediately clears everything up by using almost these exact words! If people are all "what's contribution? Well, you're wrong, but it all depends on how you define contribution," then I don't see what more I can do. Skeptics can debate semantics and definitions until the world ends.

My goal is to make the theory accessable. I think I've made the balance between the input generated from people right there at the table and the input generated by third parties outside of the game abundantly clear.

<snip excerpts>

Thanks for finding those. In fact, after my previous post, I went through both drafts and found those places (and a few others, I think). I'm not at that computer now, but here's the gist of the revisions:

Number 1 - "It's also important to note that the mechanics never make contributions. Since they don't have minds, they can't make stuff up the same way that the players do. Instead, mechanics are used to pick from a list of potential contributions."

That one was pretty easy. :) In case you're wondering where the list of potential contributions came from, it was either made up by Will the Writing guy (in which case it counts as preloaded material - like my random encounter example) or it was made up on the spot by one of the players (as in Shadows).

Number 2 - "Even after the dice are rolled, some player still has to narrate the result to the rest of the group. This is one of those instances where a contribution is pre-approved. Everyone agreed to use the dice to pick a result, so the player narrating assumes that his contribution is accepted by everyone. If the player narrates something other than what the dice selected, it's the same as when Carl broke the social contract earlier."

As far as not verbalizing the results goes, that's an interesting point. I'll have to think a bit more about it. My knee-jerk response would be say that it doesn't really make much difference. It's just an example of a group being comfortable enough to leave out a step in the process of maintaining continuity between their individual imagination spaces. They know each other well enough that they can assume everyone is on the same page and move on.

[ffilz]

I just had a thought on this. If Will prepares a setting writeup for everyone to read, and everyone agrees that whatever Will writes is part of the SIS, then can't Will be said to have contributed to the SIS? If a group of players decides to play in Tolkien's Middle Earth, and all agree to read the Hobbitt and the Lord of the Rings before play, then isn't everything in those books effectively part of the SIS (to the limits of our interpretation, but then those limits exist even for player contributions, if I describe my PC to the rest of the players, every one of us will have a different picture of that PC)? If a player in the Tolkien game says "You all meet in the tavern in Bree;" he doesn't have to establish that Bree is a small town on the border of the Shire and that it's a bit of a rough and tumble place (and for those who had just read the books, even more of a description would be fresh in their minds). Now someone might have to ask for a reminder of any more information that is part of the SIS (again, no different than having to ask for a reminder of what my PC looked like).

Another, possibly related, insight is that a setting book is just a set of rules providing guidance for what may become part of the SIS. And that goes for any artwork or maps. Or modules. And thus such material is part of system.

Hmm, I guess in the case of everyone reading the books, the information contained is entered into the SIS by the group's agreement to read the books, and grant them credibility.

Not sure if this really helps, it was just a thought I had.

Frank

[John Kim]

I just had a thought on this. If Will prepares a setting writeup for everyone to read, and everyone agrees that whatever Will writes is part of the SIS, then can't Will be said to have contributed to the SIS?

That's what I would say.  However, some people distinguish based on the source and intent of the imaginary content: i.e.

[*] Was it something from a published game book?
[*] Was it created by the GM or players between session?
[*] Was it created by the GM or players spontaneously during a game session
[*]etc.[/list:u]I think it's interesting to analyze the sources.  However, for me in play, all of these get blended together.  Different sources will expand upon and modify each other.  I will often imagine things during play without any idea what the original source of it was.  i.e. Someone may tell me about some local noble on Harn -- and I don't know if it was an NPC spontaneously invented in some previous session, or written up in some module, or presented in written campaign material.

[LordSmerf]

<snip>
I will often imagine things during play without any idea what the original source of it was.  i.e. Someone may tell me about some local noble on Harn -- and I don't know if it was an NPC spontaneously invented in some previous session, or written up in some module, or presented in written campaign material.

We could probably argue the semantics of this all day, but I think this is the key for me when figuring out where things happen.  It doesn't matter what the sources of inspiration are, it only matters what the players at the table say.

Looking at Frank's example, I would say that even if the group has agreed to use the body of Tokein's work, that does not ensure that the body of Tolkein's work is in the SIS.  "You are in the town of Bree."  "The where?"  "You remember Bree, right?  It's like at the very beginning of Fellowship."  "Nope, I'm drawing a blank here."  "Okay, well, it's like this..."

The players are still negotiating what goes into the SIS here, even though they have previously established Tolkein's work a an authority.  In no way am I saying that Tolkein's work, or going back to the example at the beginning of the thread, Will the Writing Guy aren't having an impact on the experience.  That would be a pretty silly argument I think.  What I am saying is that the impact they have is qualitatively different from what the players actually say.

What this means exactly, I'm not sure.

Thomas

[John Kim]

It doesn't matter what the sources of inspiration are, it only matters what the players at the table say.

Looking at Frank's example, I would say that even if the group has agreed to use the body of Tokein's work, that does not ensure that the body of Tolkein's work is in the SIS.  "You are in the town of Bree."  "The where?"  "You remember Bree, right?  It's like at the very beginning of Fellowship."  "Nope, I'm drawing a blank here."  "Okay, well, it's like this..."

Well, but the exact same thing is true of what the players say.  i.e. "You meet up with Ned."  "Who?"  "Remember, he's that guy we ran into last session over at Monique's company?"  "Nope, I'm drawing a blank here."  "OK, well, it's like this..."

In no way am I saying that Tolkein's work, or going back to the example at the beginning of the thread, Will the Writing Guy aren't having an impact on the experience.  That would be a pretty silly argument I think.  What I am saying is that the impact they have is qualitatively different from what the players actually say.

What this means exactly, I'm not sure.

I'm not disagreeing that there are differences.  Will the Writing Guy's written input is different than a typical player's verbal input, and both are different than Doug the Dice Guy's spontaneous numeric input.  And a player's verbal input may be different than a GM's verbal input.  

My concern is that in some analyses, people simply define Will the Writing Guy's input as out of the picture.  Since they aren't even considering it, it is then impossible to compare it's input with verbal input.  I think this difference is fruitful ground for study.

[ffilz]

Another interesting question is when Will creates new material based on communication with the players about what they did last session.

"Oh, you guys are on the road West? Well, it will take you several days to cross the wasteland. On the other side of the wasteland is the City of the Dead..."

In this case, the primary difference is the frequency of interraction. In this case, is there a real difference between Will and Co. and a play-by-mail game?

And as John mentioned, the SIS is always fragile. In fact, I would assert that there are sub-SIS which various people share. For example, if a player is absent one session, then the SIS created during that session will somewhat exclude the absent player (though he presumably would be filled in, but gaps would exist). Different players will remember things differently.

But here's a new insight. When we talk about SIS, are we talking about the body of creation that is shared memory, or are we talking about the instantaneous "live" SIS? If SIS is "live" then a player is only part of that SIS to the extent that he is actively interracting with the group. Certainly that is something that can be considered a distinguishing point, but in that case, a PBM game really doesn't have a live SIS (though a IM campaign would have one, though it is still qualitatively different from a  face to face campaign since there are cues missing).

Now another distinction would be if the author of the material is part of the negotiation process. If Will is interracting with the players, then he is part of the negotiation process. Tolkien certainly isn't. A module writer probably isn't either (however - if the players communicate with the module writer and ask questions and receive answers, then the module writer does gain at least a weak negotiation link).

And perhaps that's a key point. What is really interesting is not the SIS itself, but the process by which it is established. Will clearly is much more a part of the establishment of the SIS than Tolkien, even though Tolkien may be contributing more raw material to the Middle Earth campaign than Will is contributing to Will and Co.'s campaign.

Frank

[daMoose_Neo]

Heres the thing I'm finding odd that no one has picked up on - Will is Us.

* Homebrew system
* World Design
* Pregenerated characters

Quick way to get to some heart of it: If you took your own system, wrote up a con session for it, and handed it to Bob because you have another obligation, have you "contributed to the imaginary space?"
I'd be *inclined* to say no. As a game author, as soon as we hand that book over to the player we have no control of what is done with it, same as Will. We can *IMPACT* it by filling the game with easy rules, vivid and exciting characters and possibilities, and the like. Us and Will are similar in another respect: We form an attachment of sorts with the con players we meet. The folks I've personally dealt with, taught them to play Twilight, and talked with them are almost rabid fans even if they were a little "Eh, I'll just give it a shot" at first. Store purchases, on the other hand, are more lackluster. They know the game, know the rules, just...'Eh, its not bad.'
Will has already had this impact on his group. They know him, know his material, just like a congoer would see "Ralph's Indie Game, GM'ed by Bob!" and get excitied- someone else is GM'ing, but they know its Bob's material.
Will indirectly has a hand in the gameplay same as one of us. The impact is undeniably there, but it has no where near the same worth as the group at the playing at the table. If they decide to go with Will's Options over Bob's Options, thats still the players choice, Will just presented an option.

[John Kim]

Quick way to get to some heart of it: If you took your own system, wrote up a con session for it, and handed it to Bob because you have another obligation, have you "contributed to the imaginary space?"
I'd be *inclined* to say no. As a game author, as soon as we hand that book over to the player we have no control of what is done with it, same as Will.

Will indirectly has a hand in the gameplay same as one of us. The impact is undeniably there, but it has no where near the same worth as the group at the playing at the table. If they decide to go with Will's Options over Bob's Options, thats still the players choice, Will just presented an option.

You made a peculiar shift here from "contribute" to "control" in your answer to the question.  i.e. You imply that in order for you to contribute, you have to be able to control others into accepting your suggestions.  I find this odd, since even if you are physically present, you aren't guaranteed control.  To my mind, the important issue is acceptance.  i.e. If Will's group ignores what he's written and plays a D&D module instead, then Will hasn't contributed.  However, if they faithfully accept what he wrote, then he has contributed.  

To deal with this more concretely, I'd add another hypothetical case: George the Game Author.  Essentially, George is much like Will except that he's also physically present during the session.  George has written a new game along with an adventure module to demo it (i.e. a written adventure with pregenerated characters).  He has three friends of his GM this adventure at a gaming con, and he sits in on the games.  He is available to answer questions, but may also correct the GM if he sees something going awry or quietly offer suggestions (probably by passing a note to the GM).  

So, has George contributed to the game?  

I can see this going a few different ways:
1) Both George and Will have contributed, because they gave creative input which was accepted as part of the game.  

2) "Contribution" means that someone needs to be actively there to back up their input.  Being actively there makes a difference, because then if their input is not accepted, they can argue.  i.e. They can object or make a scene if they are ignored.  So Will hasn't contributed, but George has.  

3) "Contribution" by definition means that you are part of the defined players.  Since George isn't part of the defined circle of players, he can't "contribute".  

I personally think #2 and #3 are a bit non-intuitive, essentially creation of more jargon out of "contribution".  But the first hurdle is just understanding what we mean.

[clehrich]

I think John's on to something here.

First, it seems to me that when we play My Life with Master, to say that Paul Czege has contributed nothing to our game is problematic.  It denies the relevance and importance of his writing to our game.  Taken strongly, it seems to suggest that it makes no difference whether we are playing MLwM or some other game, which leads ultimately toward System Doesn't Matter.  I do not think that this is a matter of intent: if we play My Life with Master in a manner never intended by Paul, or which he might even object to, the fact that we are doing so from his initial text contributes something regardless.

Second, somebody brought up the question of constraint, and that seems to me a significant contribution.  Theoretically, anything is possible in a game, but constraints make that not the case.  When we sit down and formulate a social contract, however formally or informally, I think we are making a significant contribution to play.  But much of what happens in that process is constraint: we agree that when the GM says, "Okay, no more discussion, here's what happens," that will be accepted as in the SIS (for example).  Similarly, most game systems impose constraints on the SIS and what can go into it, which is very much part of the social contract: we agree to play this game in particular and not another, and thus to abide by any rules we haven't specifically agreed to set aside.

Third, mechanics as such carry baggage.  What I was referring to in Paganini's thread was a little different from this, but it hits on Doug the Dice Guy.  When we choose to make decisions by a Fortune mechanic rather than a Karma mechanic, for example, we have imposed constraints of some sort.  This is by itself a contribution to how the game plays.  And when we now bear in mind the rhetorical and cultural distinctions between dice-based and diceless gaming (see Eric Wujcik's article as an example) we are bringing something to the game that is not simply "well, which way should we arbitrate decisions?"

Here's an example.  Suppose there is a mechanic that says, "If you don't like a rule, set it aside."  That's a rule.  Now how do we decide when it is applicable?  As soon as somebody tries to apply it in play, we are faced with a social contract problem: did that rule mean "whenever you like," or "by GM fiat," or "by general agreement in advance"?  Now compare this to a game that does not say this and makes clear, directly or otherwise, that it should never be applied.  If the rule is in there, it stays, or you play another game.  We are now straight into the ways in which groups decide about the nature of the authority of the rules text.

My point is that simply saying "okay, so then you roll dice" adds something, and I don't mean it adds a mechanic for arbitration.  Sure, it does that, but it also says something about what kind of game this is, and how it ought to be played.  Saying that your mechanics are diceless has cultural implications, since the assumed baseline is a diced system.  If you look at Theatrix, for example, which is a diceless but in many respects traditional GM-dominated game, a big part of their shtick about diceless is that it's free and liberated, unlike all those narrow-minded old-fashioned games that use dice.  Similarly, when a group decides to go with diceless, they are making a choice that has implications far beyond "how is decision-making handled?"

I'll pause here....