How DO Game Designers (or computers) influence play?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Borrowing from Josh's post towards the end of this thread, I'd like to offer a distinction between "participating in" the SIS and "contributing to" the SIS.

"Participating in" the SIS involves engaging in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of and contribution to play.  Over time, IMO, a computer will currently (always? I've no idea, and sugest we shouldn't try to answer that question - or the "is a human just an organic computer"? question - here at the Forge) fail to satisfactorily engage in that process.  That there are moments when it does not fail is not an invalidation of the distinction, merely an acknowledgement that it takes time to fully draw the distinction.

What a computer unquestionably, always does do is contribute to what an individual is imagining.  The programming obviously has an impact on what the individual is thinking about play, how they imagine it, and what meanings they draw from it.  So does their childhood, what mood they are in, and what they ate at their last meal - but usually, the computer's contribution will be significant.

Take "computer" and "programming" in the above two paragraphs and replace them with "Mike Stackpole, author of solo module 'The City of Terrors'."  The statements remain entirely true.  We can and should expect the programmer(s)/solo author(s) to contribute to an individual's imagination.

But let's draw a line; "They" are not participating.  If there is only one player, that player is the only one imagining - and their imagining has been influenced (perhaps heavily) by the programmer(s)/solo author(s).  If you want to personify that influence and thus allow us to call an individuals' IS an SIS ("shared" between the individual and what they are imagining these personified influences to be contributing), that's OK by me - in fact, I like that person-by-proxy way of thinking about it.  But let's NOT confuse that with being the SAME as an actual person actually participating as play continues.

This is also (it seems to me) how a game designer influences the play of their game in standard group play: they shape the SIS by contribution, not participation.

Participation in the SIS is a contribution to it, but contributing to it does not require participation in it.  Participation is a higher bar - but that doesn't mean that contribution isn't significant.  At least, so it seems to me,

Gordon

[efindel]

I'd like to submit that what you have in such a case is a one-way sharing.  Let me see if I can explain...

But let's draw a line; "They" are not participating. If there is only one player, that player is the only one imagining - and their imagining has been influenced (perhaps heavily) by the programmer(s)/solo author(s).

Well, from my own experience creating scenarios for muds and writing solo adventures, the designer is also imagining.  Thus, there are at least two people involved in imagining things for the game.  The designer then attempts to communicate what he/she is imagining through the media of the game or solo adventure -- in the case of the solo adventure, the written descriptions, NPC/monster writeups, maps, and choices given for the adventure.

In a face-to-face game, the same thing happens -- one participant imagines things, and tries to communicate them to the other participants, through the media of speech, gesture, drawing, etc.  Either way, there's no telepathy... nothing can jump from one person's imagined space to another without being communicated.

The key difference, then, is that there is no back-and-forth.  The player can't contribute to the scenario designer's imagined space, and the designer can't attempt to correct mistakes in the transmission.  That, as you say, makes it a contribution rather than participation.

There is a Shared Imagined Space, I'd say... but the sharing is one-way.

[Eve]

I wouldn't call it a SIS. You could argue the rules and all other contributions from the author belong to the SIS, however, whether they enter or not, is never communicated to him, nor are any alterations. As his work is most probably adapted and bent before play even commences, I don't think it's appropriate to speak of it as part of SIS. I think the rules are a proposal for a contribution to the SIS, no more.

[Callan S.]

I wouldn't call it a SIS. You could argue the rules and all other contributions from the author belong to the SIS, however, whether they enter or not, is never communicated to him, nor are any alterations. As his work is most probably adapted and bent before play even commences, I don't think it's appropriate to speak of it as part of SIS. I think the rules are a proposal for a contribution to the SIS, no more.

Everything's a proposal until the other person accepts it and thus gives credibility to it. Some dude at table top telling you he healed you five HP, is just proposing that.

Perhaps this:

This is also (it seems to me) how a game designer influences the play of their game in standard group play: they shape the SIS by contribution, not participation.

Is better rephrased as this:

A game designer is highly likely to influence the play of their game in standard group play via the following: they attempt to shape the SIS by proposals (many of them), not participation.

On a nihilistic side note, it looks like I'm stating it being 'highly likely' as a concrete fact. Really I only have faith in this and have faith that end users would accept my proposals. Too often though, faith slips from 'could happen' hope to 'will happen' fact in some designers minds. Problematic to say the least.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Unless I'm misreading here, all the comments so far are basically consistent with what I was going for - a contribution can always be rejected by the participants.  "Proposal for a contribution to the SIS" makes that possibility for rejection clear, but I certainly mean for that possibilty to be implicit in "contribution."

The question of whether one-way contribution to the SIS really is in the SIS . . . I actually have no real opinion on.  I'd say that sometimes (when refering to the designer/author/programmer) it's useful to talk as if it were - as long as you remember that it's not the same as participating as play occurs.  But if there's a clearer way to talk about the impact on the SIS of a contributer that is not there when play occurs (i.e., that is not a participant), I'm fine with that too.

My hope is just that by referring to these two different but related types of contribution as two seperate things, we can get a little more clarity in the discussions.  Because they are both different AND related, IMO, and arguments that try and force one or the other to be the real answer create an antagonism that seems unneccessary tto me.

Gordon

[Eve]

One important point we need to clarify: SIS, shared between whom?

If just between the players, a totally unrelated thing such as Planescape Torment might be contributing to their SIS, simply because some player's character is (perhaps vaguely) inspired upon someone of that game.

I wonder, is there a difference between this kind of contribution and the contribution made by the guy who wrote the rules? If yes, could you point it out exactly?

[Wysardry]

Borrowing from Josh's post towards the end of this thread, I'd like to offer a distinction between "participating in" the SIS and "contributing to" the SIS.

"Participating in" the SIS involves engaging in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of and contribution to play.  Over time, IMO, a computer will currently (always? I've no idea, and sugest we shouldn't try to answer that question - or the "is a human just an organic computer"? question - here at the Forge) fail to satisfactorily engage in that process.  That there are moments when it does not fail is not an invalidation of the distinction, merely an acknowledgement that it takes time to fully draw the distinction.

You already point out that a computer contributes to play, so using the definition you gave it only needs to additionally engage in an ongoing, constantly-in-flux assesment of play to be participating.

If there is one thing a computer is good at, it is relentlessly doing repetitive tasks with multiple varaibles without stopping.

In any relatively modern CRPG, the computer constantly keeps track of dozens - possibly even hundreds - of NPCs in the nearby area, the state of the game world and displays the latest visual representation of that world and/or various stats between 30 and 100 times every second.

The last task is so involved that many games require a video card with its own separate processing unit and a large chunk of additional memory.

It also constantly checks for input from the player, and reacts to it in some way in a fraction of a second. Even if the player does nothing, the state of the game world is calculated and updated quickly and efficiently.

It will continue to do all this (and more) until the player instructs it to pause or stop the game, or the game ends.

Even if a human GM were able to imagine a couple of dozen NPCs moving around, (s)he would not realistically be able to relay their positions and actions to the player(s) as quickly nor for as long without taking a break or being distracted.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Eva:

The contribution from the guy who wrote the rules is (potentially) stronger and more prevalent than that of Planescape Torment, but as far as what KIND of contribution it is under this distinction (one-way, totally at the discretion of the participants as to how significant the contribution is), to me they are exactly the same.  In particular, the system that is actually adopted by the participant(s) has a significant impact on play, and the degree to which that system is influenced by a particular factor will (IMO) have a big impact on how important we should consider that factor to be.

Wysandry:

Yupr, the computer can sure do all that.  But if I "ask" the computer about what things mean in the game, what it thinks about my participation, whether it feels I'm doing a good job, if I want to renegotiate something about our Social Contract/Creative Agenda . . . eventually (at least under current technology), I will be disatisfied by its' involvement in the conversation.

Gordon

[Wysardry]

Yupr, the computer can sure do all that.  But if I "ask" the computer about what things mean in the game, what it thinks about my participation, whether it feels I'm doing a good job, if I want to renegotiate something about our Social Contract/Creative Agenda . . . eventually (at least under current technology), I will be disatisfied by its' involvement in the conversation.

The main problem in that situation is communication: you and the computer do not fully comprehend the other's language or thought processes, so a simpler intermediary method is implemented.

It's a little like running a game with a player who only speaks English, a GM who only speaks Chinese, and a bored, amateur interpreter who only knows a little of either language and virtually nothing about the rules.

The second is that rules systems do not always allow for negotiation (they're more rigidly defined), which is not an inherent fault in the computer itself. It is implemented to greater or lesser degrees in some games.

I can't tell you that all CRPGs rate your participation (that would be system-specific), but they do all keep track of it to some degree.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I can't tell you that all CRPGs rate your participation (that would be system-specific), but they do all keep track of it to some degree.

Sure - and my point is mostly just that the way they keep track of it is sufficiently different from what happens when real people are directly interacting that we shouldn't call it the "same" thing.  In fact, I see it as most like the way a game text/author is involved in the process.  Yet, it is also similiar in some ways, so . . . contribute, not participate.

I should also add that, IMO, this doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG.  It's because of the human end of the process - when I, a human, am dealing with another human, a whole set of possibilities and issues are present that just aren't there for the machine (or book, or etc.)  As a trivial example, I never have to worry about hurting its' feelings.  The designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way.  That possibility can only exist for participants.

Gordon

[Wysardry]

Sure - and my point is mostly just that the way they keep track of it is sufficiently different from what happens when real people are directly interacting that we shouldn't call it the "same" thing.  In fact, I see it as most like the way a game text/author is involved in the process.  Yet, it is also similiar in some ways, so . . . contribute, not participate.

No, it is not exactly the same thing, but then again neither would it be if a traditional game included a different group of players. It's all a matter of degree, and IMO attempting to draw a definite rigid line would be a futile exercise as technology, programming methods and our understanding of the way the human minds work will continue to improve.

I should also add that, IMO, this doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG.

I'm sorry, but to me that seems like the equivalent of saying "It doesn't matter what is written in the rules book or what the state of the GM's mind is".

Some of the early games labelled as CRPGs played almost exactly like the Fighting Fantasy solo books. In other words, they consisted solely of screens of text and an image or two with multiple choice questions. Now they were rigid and static.

The only aspect that changed from game to game which wasn't directly controlled by the player was the dice rolling, and all the program needed to keep track of was a few stats and which page/screen the player had reached.

It's because of the human end of the process - when I, a human, am dealing with another human, a whole set of possibilities and issues are present that just aren't there for the machine (or book, or etc.)

When you're dealing with a computer, another whole set of possibilities are present that aren't there for a human GM. It would take an extremely lengthy discussion to sort out which directly related to participation, and even longer to work out if any combinations of them did.

As a trivial example, I never have to worry about hurting its' feelings.  The designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way.  That possibility can only exist for participants.

It's a matter of personal preference whether that is an advantage or disadvantage.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know I would find it frustrating if I wanted to play my favourite CRPG and the computer started whining about me ignoring it all day and not appreciating what it does for me etc. or merely saying "I don't feel like playing today".

[Gordon C. Landis]

Wysardry (don't know where that "n" came from before - sorry),

We may be at the "agree to disagree point" here - I don't see any time in the near future that technology, programming methods or our understanding of the human mind will change the aspect that I'm getting at.  A computer would have to become an entity that I am capable of caring about as an individual for that to happen, and while I certainly believe that is theoretically possible, it doesn't seem likely anytime soon (and as a topic of discussion, probably doesn't belong here at the Forge at all).  And to me, the difference between what's available with other humans present vs. when they are not isn't difficult all - when they are there, our play can have a direct, interpersonal social impact.  If they aren't, it can't.

But as a clarification - when I said that "this" doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG, I didn't mean that the programming didn't matter at all - of course it matters, just like the rules text matters.  I simply meant that for purposes of the distinction, the specific programming (or text) didn't matter.

The state of the GMs mind also matters, though I put that in the domain of participation.  So it matters in a different way.  But the overall importance of  contribution  vs. participation is highly situational - this distinction isn't designed to trivialize either of 'em.  But IMO, if you try and treat them as in all ways the same, you're going to miss some important aspects of each.

Which your last point is an example of, to my mind.  Depending on situation, personal preference, Creative Agenda, and probably a bunch of other things, it sure can be either an advantage or a disadvantage!  And it seems to me that that point is in danger of getting lost unless we have something like this distinction.

Gordon

[contracycle]

The designer might have worried about hurting my feelings, and I might imagine something significant about hurting the feelings of the computer-run NPC, but I'm never going to change its' life in any way.  That possibility can only exist for participants.

Why does that matter?

My problem with this particular approach is that it proposes a sort of romantic purpose to the activity, instead of examining the activity in its own right.

[Gordon C. Landis]

[quote="contracycle]Why does that matter?

My problem with this particular approach is that it proposes a sort of romantic purpose to the activity, instead of examining the activity in its own right.[/quote]
Well, I sure didn't mean to be overly romantic here, but I concede that the ultimate use I'm putting it to might be seen that way . . .

How about this: why does this matter?  Certainly it doesn't matter because it is romantic (if it is).  It seems to me that it matters because it fundamentally colors my participation in the activity.  I don't treat the game designer in the same way as I treat my fellow players - and I'd say the prevalence of Drift in the hobby indicates this is true of most people.  Yet the designer (via his or her rules and text) is not entirely absent from my play, either.

This is mostly (IMO) a functional aspect of play - a person who is there has a different impact than the person who is not.  Enough so that I see it as appropriate to highlight that fact.

For solo/computer play, I think this matters because it is only by distinguishing out what does NOT apply to it that we are able to apply ANY of the other Forge-stuff to such play.  I'm assuming a goal there of being able to apply Forge-stuff in those circumstances, but - the fit seems to me "close enough" tha such a goal is reasonable, though obviously not required.

Does that help?

Gordon

[Wysardry]

We may be at the "agree to disagree point" here - I don't see any time in the near future that technology, programming methods or our understanding of the human mind will change the aspect that I'm getting at. A computer would have to become an entity that I am capable of caring about as an individual for that to happen, and while I certainly believe that is theoretically possible, it doesn't seem likely anytime soon (and as a topic of discussion, probably doesn't belong here at the Forge at all).

It may already have done so, it's unlikely to be immediately available to the masses if it had though, as it isn't something that most people would have a use for, nor feel comfortable with. The cost would therefore be prohibitive.

My main point was that the technology and programs available to home users are rapidly improving, and any definition we came up with based on participation levels would need to be re-evaluated on a regular basis.

And to me, the difference between what's available with other humans present vs. when they are not isn't difficult all - when they are there, our play can have a direct, interpersonal social impact.  If they aren't, it can't.

The "shared" part of SIS doesn't only mean social contribution/participation though.

I'm not even sure what the purpose of this particular discussion is. CRPGs are already identified as being different to other forms of RPG by the additional "C". If you're attempting to place them in some sort of hierarchy, then I would place them somewhere between solo RPGs without a GM and solo RPGs with one. How close they are to each of those varies depending upon the actual program.

(My main interest is in discovering/defining ways in which a CRPG can be more like a one player + one GM game.)

But as a clarification - when I said that "this" doesn't really have anything to do with the specific programming code of the CRPG, I didn't mean that the programming didn't matter at all - of course it matters, just like the rules text matters.  I simply meant that for purposes of the distinction, the specific programming (or text) didn't matter.

Well, it does to a certain extent, because the programming defines how the computer contributes to and participates in play. That can vary even in two games from the same series.

The state of the GMs mind also matters, though I put that in the domain of participation.  So it matters in a different way.  But the overall importance of  contribution  vs. participation is highly situational - this distinction isn't designed to trivialize either of 'em.  But IMO, if you try and treat them as in all ways the same, you're going to miss some important aspects of each.

The state of the GM's mind also affects participation, as they may well be less involved/imaginative if tired, drunk, sick, bored, uncertain... or simplistically programmed.

Which your last point is an example of, to my mind.  Depending on situation, personal preference, Creative Agenda, and probably a bunch of other things, it sure can be either an advantage or a disadvantage!  And it seems to me that that point is in danger of getting lost unless we have something like this distinction.

Why can't we just use the GM as the distinction? In other words, define the categories as "Solo: No (or Self) GM", "Solo: Computer (or Artificial) GM" and "Solo: Human GM"?

That way, even if CRPGs become capable of precisely simulating a human GM, there would still be a distinction, and the definition would not need to be changed.