A Theory on Role, inspired by character class debates

[John Peloquin]

It just occurred to me that "players influencing players" should probably be stricken from my list. The definition of social contract is: "All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and expectations. All role-playing is a subset (emphasis added) of the Social Contract." If I understand the "Big Model" correctly, the social contract exists even before play starts. Therefore, "player influencing player" roles are not played - they're just formed as a consequence of socialization. The other three categories exist in Exploration, and roles in those three categories must be played, since they don't naturally exist.

"Players influencing players" could also be called "people influencing people" - it's just that these people happen to be playing an rpg. They still have roles in society, though.

So: A theory on "role" in general would have to structure all the myriad roles of human existence. But a theory on "roles in role-playing and the influence thereof" would fit what I came up with, provided that "players influencing players" is removed from the list. The better we understand the explorative roles, the better (theoretically) we can play them and design games to play them. One of the ways we understand things is by understanding their influence.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

the social contract exists even before play starts. Therefore, "player influencing player" roles are not played - they're just formed as a consequence of socialization.

That the social contract exists before play (or, more precisely, a social contract always already exists before it is explicated) does not mean that there isn't further interplay within the boundaries of the SC. So I think if you drop that category, you're weakening your theory.

Besides, you should preferably take inspiration and guidance from already-existing theories, not try to make yours fit within one of them, regardless of how influential or accurate-seeming that theory is.

-Jiituomas

[Ari-Pekka Lappi]

That the social contract exists before play (or, more precisely, a social contract always already exists before it is explicated) does not mean that there isn't further interplay within the boundaries of the SC. So I think if you drop that category, you're weakening your theory.

Yes. A (shared) social contract should exist before play and probably every player have a social contract in their mind at the start. Unfortuntely, quite commonly the social contract a player suppose to be shared is not shared. Thus every now and then a player catches himself thinking that others are not good players since they won't play within his social contract. If you suppose that there exists a social contract before play, aren't you prone to mix up your own expectations and, in reality, the shared ideas?

I think, we shouldn't take the shared social contract for granted but consider it to be a result of a complicated hermeneutic process.

Actually this is the reason why I don't like the Big model at the moment. If I have understood right it presuppose the social contrat to be primitive. Why the Big model works in practice, is the fact that it is a way to reacht a coherent enought social contract (in many cases). The ultimate theory of role-playing should describe (and partially prescribe) the hermeneutic processes of reaching a shared SC, as well as of reaching shared visions, motivations etc. It shouldn't presuppose anything to be shared from the outset and, at the same time, it should state that anything can be shared.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Discussions of what Social Contract does and does not mean should be taken to new threads in the GNS forum. I'll be happy to explain how the Big Model's being misrepresented in the last few posts, if anyone is interested.

Here, let's stay focused on the topic of role.

Best,
Ron

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

Here, let's stay focused on the topic of role.

Knowing what Ari-Pekka is thinking about (we've been discussing this stuff for a /long/ time) I'd say the SC discussion here is actually intended solely for the purpose of clarifying the question of social roles that game participants are bound to when they enter the situation called gameplay. So I think that perspective deserves further discussion here. And John has displayed exceptional initial perception concerning the way the roles (both social and in-game) affect gameplay, and I'd really love to get a more thorough exposition of what he has theorywise extrapolated thereof.

Nevertheless, I also consider it very important that some clarifications are made as far as the Big Model is concerned, and am thus initiating a new thread on the GNS forum for that purpose.

-Jiituomas