Defining roleplaying; an alternative approach

[Merten]

PS. Merten, you defined the name of the discussion as "Defining
roleplaying; an alternative approach". An alternative to what?

Alternative to the theories and models disccussed here. I know, I know - they all have similarities and thus won't probably classify as "alternative" approaches.

You don't know how long I tried to come up with better headline. ;)

[greyorm]

the distiction between larps and traditional is so vague that the term larp is not valid in any theoretical sense

I'd say there's a world of difference between table-top playing and LARP playing, based on my experiences with both, enough so that stating "the distinction is not valid" is in error. I agree, both are role-playing games, but of terribly different varieties.

The distiction between rolepaying and a child's play is the presence of a game master.

The difference between roleplaying and child's play is the presence of a set of standardized rules which determine the abilities of the participants and the results of actions undertaken. ie: A gamemaster is not necessary for a role-playing game.

Actually, all the narrative power, determining what is true in the game, rests with the gamemaster...this doesn't mean that the game master is not still omnipotent within the diegetic frame...during the game the Gm must have that power.

Again, I take serious issue with the logic of this, especially as it relates to the necessity of defining a role-playing game. You have declared that an RPG can only be a game wherein a single individual (ie: GM) has final say as to the state or the truth of the gameworld.

This simply isn't a necessity for an RPG. It is traditional, but hardly a necessity.

There are a number of RPGs, many of which you will find here, which break this standard convention of omnipotence, and yet remain, quite easily, within the definite realm of an RPG.

I suggest, as Emily did, you check out Sorcerer and Donjon, and browse around as (in a number of cases) the GM's say is not all-important, the player can add and state items or events which exist without the GM having the power to veto such or any control of the item or events personally.

Further note that even in a traditional game, the GM's power is constrained by the rules of the system. Yes, he can break those rules, but then so can the players, and thus you are right back to a childhood game of make-believe.

The gamemaster always has final say on everything. If there is a dispute, can you hide behind a rock, does the door open, what is the blood type, whatever, it is the gamemaster's call in the end.

Again, not necessarily. Let me explain...

Let us assume a standard game of D&D, complete with battle-map and miniatures. The situation, a red dragon has come upon the party (or vice versa) and battle has ensued. When the dragon breathes, the party's rogue decides to dive behind a rock for cover.

Can he?
1) Initiative: did his initiative beat the dragon's? If so, he moves his character's token behind the rock on the battlemap, presuming enough movement left to do so.
2) Saving Throw: the character rolls a saving throw against the dragon's breath, if successful, the presumption is that he rolled out of the way. With the way the map is set up, the location of the rogue and the area of the dragon's breath, the only safe area is behind the rock, thus the only possible ruling on a successful roll is that the character rolled behind the rock.

In either case, and particularly in the former, the DM does not and can not have final say, because the rules already explicitly declare what the possibilities and probabilities are.

Or more over-the-edge: Presume a modern game wherein one of the characters needs a blood transfusion. A die is rolled, a point is spent or some other form of mechanic is employed that allows the player to state the donor they have found has the correct blood-type...perhaps the donor is even one of the other characters!

Or, of COURSE the door opens -- it opens to reveal Princess Barovnia tied to a chair with the villian pointing a gun at her head! (Dum-dum-da!)  This could be a player declaration in Theatrix (if I understand the system well enough) or the result of a failed roll in a game of Sorcerer, where the princess has been established as an important element to the character. But both would be choices made by the player (moreso in the case of the former), and neither would be overrulable by the GM.

When Lumpley argues that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I do not really understand what he means.

Because, ultimately, it is the group which decides whether the GM is the one in charge, what they wish to occur during their game, and how they wish their characters to proceed.

Particularly, when you get into intense forms of Narrativism, the role of the GM as overseer and ultimate authority is replaced by their role as facilitator for the group, they become unlike "God" and more akin to "Physics," if you get my meaning.

Even if the gamemaster gives the players the possibility to define stuff in the gameworld and play some NPCs, as Merten mentiones things are done in Zone, even then the GM has final say...Even whan it comes to the player charecters, the gamemaster can override the player's choises.

Not if the rules say he doesn't get final say, and even further if the rules give the players the ability to define stuff in the game, play NPCs and so forth.

Honestly, there's a lot of assumptions here that seem based in "traditional" modes of play, and clearly no note of other modes or methods is taken into account, which would invalidate the premise if examined (the premise I refer to being: A role-playing game differs from make-believe in that one specific individual is given the final authority over what ultimately occurs or exists).

[Valamir]

Hey Jaako, welcome to the Forge.  You'll find alot of people here who, like you, have spent alot of man hours thinking about these topics also.  Its always enjoyable to get some fresh perspective on our "deep thoughts" so I hope you'll hang out here for a while and discuss / debate with us.  I'm sure we have a lot of good thoughts to share with each other.

One point that I know we can get started discussing right off the bat is something that we are pretty enthusiastic about here on the Forge, and it goes directly to the following:

Actually, all the narrative power, determining what is true in the game, rests with the gamemaster, but in order for a roleplaying game to take place the gamemaster must surrender a part of that power to the players, as otherwise there will be no meaningful action. This doesn't mean that the game master is not still omnipotent within the diegetic frame.


It can be argued, that there is a social agreement, that when a person joins a game, s/he surrenders the authority to the gamemaster. Still, during the game the Gm must have that power.

The gamemaster always has final say on everything. If there is a dispute, can you hide behind a rock, does the door open, what is the blood type, whatever, it is the gamemaster's call in the end.

If you spend some time on the Forge you will find ALOT of roleplaying going on in which this definition of GMing power has been completely overturned.  Inspectres and Donjon for instance (both linked in our Resource Library I believe) are two games where at select times the rules specifically hand GM power over to the players and say "GM butt out, the player has the authority to decide whether the door opens".  At these times, not only is it NOT the gamemaster's call in the end, the game master is required to acknowledge and react to the player's narrative.

You'll find ALOT of discussion on this topic if you do a search on "Director Stance" which is the term we give to games which grant players the ability to directly manipulate the game world in a manner traditionally reserved for the GM.

When Lumpley argues that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I do not really understand what he means.

I think you're in for a treat.

[lumpley]

Hey, Jaakko.  Nice to meet you.

What I mean is, every time anybody says what happens, all the players as a group have to decide if it's true or not.  It's not enough for one player (the GM, for instance) to assert it; it's simply not true until everyone assents.

It's really really common to agree upfront to assent to everything the GM says, but it's not necessary.  Maybe more importantly, such an agreement is always provisional.  Ultimately, every game-significant statement is negotiated.

I oughta write a standard rant.

Welcome!

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Jaakko, and welcome. Good to have more theorists aboard.

However, what that typology failed to address is what roleplaying is. It is a nice map of what is out there, but it doesn't tell us what it is we are looking at. If you have discussed that, then I would love to  get all possible references.

Actually, I think Ron does address the idea in brroad terms. But I agree with you that a functional definition of RPGs does not exist. This is why I was excited by your attempt, and its approach. It does a great job to a point, and meets your criteria well. I'll explain below.

We state that although the term role-pleying is most often used to
describe "the traditional method of playing, 'the tabletop game'",
we consider live-action role-playing to be a valid method of
role-playing as well and that the distiction between larps and
traditional is so vague that the term larp is not valid in any
theoretical sense, but only when communicating the gamemasters
expectations to the players.

This is the problem right here. The paper purports to define RPGs and then starts out well. But at this point you reveal that it is really an argument that LARP should not be called LARP, and should instead be called a form of RPG. Your definition succeeds at making this point without having to state it. But yet you go out of your way to point it out. Going so far as to bold the term LARP, but not to bold the name of any other form.

Given your (I admit that this is an assumption), predeliction for LARP, it seems obvious that this is an attempt to somehow mainstream-ize LARP. Which is fine, and a laudable goal. It is just not what the paper purported to be.

This is further supported by your ancillary statements that LARP has the goal of removing all non-diegetic elements. This is an opinion, and one not universally held. As such, its inclusion as part of the definition of LARP is also political.

If these subjects had not been included, it's my belief that the paper would have been stronger.

Then our attitude towards computer based roleplaying games...

This was a misreading of mine. I assumed you meant a broader group of games as CRPGs than you do. Still, there are some really borderline cases. What about something like Everquest? Is it an RPG or not? It is social, but does not have a GM as such during most play and runs automatedly. Although there are personel available to perform such functions if neccessary.

I'll admit that a lot of Everquest play does look like "Child's Play" or playground play.  :-)

Thus a roleplaying game can have a number of gamemasters as long as not everyone is a gamemaster all the time.

Right. So this goes along with our assessments that Universalis is not an RPG and is instead Collaborative Storytelling or somesuch.

Then Mr. Holmes points out that we only refer to ourselves or our
own school. Well, actually only one of our five references is
from someone in our school (even though having Stuart Hall, the
most well known reseacher in cultural studies in the world, as part
of Meilahti School is a nice idea). The text is rather short so
we do not refer to Costikyan, The Threefold Model or others just to
point out that we have actually read them.

My mistake. I'll have to reread. But I could have sworn that the names were all the same. Apollogies for he mistake.

That said, I am very interested in reading any material that
attempts to define roleplaying.

There was a disorganized thread on RPG.net recently that delved into the subject in some depth. Although I'm afraid it was fairly politcal as well. One poster had a problem with the idea with the idea of including activities under the term "game" that had no competition essentially (our former member Brian Gliechman). It would be interesting to hear your rebuttal on that point. Is there a diference between role-playing play (or activity), and role-playing games?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Hi Jaakko,

Welcome aboard.

I read your article, but I inclined to disagree.  I think we're going to have to separate into two camps.  Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach.  I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion.

One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits.  What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts?  Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming?  Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming?  It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation.  Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements).  The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated.  The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive.  The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive.  And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all.  It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming.

I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all).  It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming.

I'm looking forward to how you explain these things in terms of your article, because they weren't completely clear there.

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

WHOA...hold on here folks!!!

I'm looking at this thread and I see 2 posts at 7:30 by Raven and Me.

Then an hour and a half later by Vincent
an hour and a half after that by Mike
and an hour after that by Fang.

Doncha think we oughta let Jakko respond to a few before bombarding him with stuff?  Really.  If I were new to these boards and within 4 hours I'd be hit with 5 large treatises on game design theory, I think I'd feel a little overwhelmed.

And Fang...camps?  Way to early and way to little discussion to be setting up camps don't you think  Give the man some time to absorb and analyse before drawing lines in the sand, ok...

[hakkis]

Given your (I admit that this is an assumption), predeliction for LARP, it seems obvious that this is an attempt to somehow mainstream-ize LARP. Which is fine, and a laudable goal. It is just not what the paper purported to be.

As the other author of the paper I would like to state that this certainly is not the case. I don't know what the situation over there is, but in Finland there is no need to "mainstream-ize LARP", and even if there was I certainly wouldn't have any interest in doing it.

I spend a signifigant part of my free time playing role-playing games (mostly of the kind that I would call table-top games if a distinction has to be made). A large amount of my time is also spent trying to discuss this hobby, and especially when the discussion involved people from several Scandinavian countries this was often difficult due to a lack of well defined terminology to use. It was this need for an exact language for discussing games that motivated us to write this paper.

The whole issue about LARPs is something of a sidenote, included for purposes of clarity and to make sure that everyone understands we do include them in our definition as well. I think the attention those few paragraphs have received proves that this clarification was indeed necessary.

I have trouble understanding how this is a "political" issue, and honestly believe it is something you are reading into our work - perhaps because of different gaming cultures?

Thus a roleplaying game can have a number of gamemasters as long as not everyone is a gamemaster all the time.

Right. So this goes along with our assessments that Universalis is not an RPG and is instead Collaborative Storytelling or somesuch.

I don't think that you fully grasp our concept of gamemistressing as a role, transferable from entity to entity and mutable during the process of gaming. I don't see our model excluding Universalis, it merely has different people assuming aspects of the role of gamemistress in different situations. Or have I misunderstood something?

Many other points have come up that deserve to be addressed, but as I'm feverish, away from home, and typing this from a laptop running out of batteries I'll let Jaakko carry on the debate for the time being.

Henri Hakkarainen

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Henri, welcome too. Lots of cool new members today.

I'm not sure how to respond. By mainstream-ize I merely mean to try to associate it with other RPG activity. Which the essay goes out of it's way (IMO) unnecessarily to do. Note that Fang's dissention with your theory has nothing to do with LARP per se, but with the basic definition (which, if accepted would just-so-happen to exclude LARP).

Personally, I have no problem with LARP falling under the term RPG. In fact, I would wholeheartedly agree with it. My point says nothing about LARP itself. It says that by going out of your way to discuss LARP that you give a slant to the essay that says to me, "we've got an issue to settle." The essay reads to me in summary as, "This is what RPGs are, and that means that LARPS count, but CRPGs don't." When it would have done better to just say, "This is what RPGs are." And then let people draw their own logical conclusions as to what that includes and what it does not.

Then again, this is just my perception. Perhaps nobody else will see it that way; in which case, no harm done.

As for Universalis, I think it is you who misunderstands (have you played the game?). Participants never become what you would term players. In Universalis, all players are all Gamemasters, all of the time. There are no participants who do not hold all of the power all the time. Yes, the power is split between the participants moment by moment dependant on their level of interest, and how mcu of their metagame authority they have exepended earlier. But in total they, together, all simultaneously hold the power of diegesis.

If you point out that a participant who is not creating at the moment is not holding power, then I would say that at that point he is not a Player by your definition because he then has no power at all during that moment. He only has power by that definition when he excercises it, and when he does so his power can do anything limited only by the consensually agreed to Metagame mechanic. So there are never any players (perhaps spectators at times). Meaning that there are only Gamemasters. Meaning that the activity is Storytelling by your definition. And since it is Storytelling by committee, and not by an individual, I refer to it as Collaborative Storytelling. Which seems accurate if you've ever played.

BTW, I would agree with others here that power does not derive from the GM but from the group as  whole, who amongst other things allow the GM to wield whatever power he has. Your description of the GM as absolute denies the underlying social fabric of the game, and only addresses what is usually done in RPGs where power is ceded to the GM after an agreement to play. Players can certainly revoke this power at any time. For example, they can quit, or start their own game.

Mike

[Jaakko]

Mike Holmes wrote:

"BTW, I would agree with others here that power does not derive from the GM but from the group as whole, who amongst other things allow the GM to wield whatever power he has. Your description of the GM as absolute denies the underlying social fabric of the game, and only addresses what is usually done in RPGs where power is ceded to the GM after an agreement to play. Players can certainly revoke this power at any time. For example, they can quit, or start their own game."

This is an accurate observation. We have, in our model, concentrated on the actual roleplaying. The underlying social structure, the "metagame" and "offgame" elements we have not addressed at all. As we see it, a roleplaying game can not exist if the players do not accept the GM's power. This doesn't mean that in an actual game a player coudn't influence the gamemaster (let's say the gamemaster and one of the players are a couple, the gamemaster doesn't have money for pizza, the gamemaster needs a ride home after the game) but we do not address them as they are not part of the ideal game. If some one has conducted comparative etnographical studies in various roleplaying groups, I would be very interested in looking at their results.

Greyorm wrote:

" I'd say there's a world of difference between table-top playing and LARP playing, based on my experiences with both, enough so that stating "the distinction is not valid" is in error. I agree, both are role-playing games, but of terribly different varieties."

Then please present a definition that can be easily uses to separate traditional roleplaying games from live action games. There is a lot of gray area there. If Minds Eye Theater games are played as the rulerok instructs, then I would call them tabletop games conducted standing.

Also, many traditional games I play in have a lot of larp elements in them. People almost always talk in first person when in character and often also express their characters bodily - something which I consider to be more of a larp method than a 'tabletop' method.

Greyorm continued:

"The difference between roleplaying and child's play is the presence of a set of standardized rules which determine the abilities of the participants and the results of actions undertaken. ie: A gamemaster is not necessary for a role-playing game."

Then what separates roleplaying games from games in general? By that definition Risk and Monopoly would be roleplaying games as well. Besides, the gamemaster can change the rules if s/he so wishes. Often these changes in rules are explicated somehow and might coincide with a twist in the games (often a genre shift, for example soap opera goes Cthulhu or mafia goes Vampire:The Masquerade).

(Yes, I know that you have discarded t genre as a term. After this discussion has run its course, I may attempt to reinstate it. More on that later, consider this a warning.)

Still Greyorm:

"Again, I take serious issue with the logic of this, especially as it relates to the necessity of defining a role-playing game. You have declared that an RPG can only be a game wherein a single individual (ie: GM) has final say as to the state or the truth of the gameworld.

"This simply isn't a necessity for an RPG. It is traditional, but hardly a necessity.

"There are a number of RPGs, many of which you will find here, which break this standard convention of omnipotence, and yet remain, quite easily, within the definite realm of an RPG.

"I suggest, as Emily did, you check out Sorcerer and Donjon, and browse around as (in a number of cases) the GM's say is not all-important, the player can add and state items or events which exist without the GM having the power to veto such or any control of the item or events personally."

I have not yet had time to look at the games you suggested, so I'm shooting in the dark here.

That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge. There can ba of course be a number of gamemasters. Also, we view gamemastreing as a role (as defined in postmodern cultural studies) which can be assumed and discarded at a moments notice. Thus it is possible to have "a musical chairs gamemaster". The only thing that we require is that everyone can not be gamemasters at the same time. That we consider storytelling.

Also note, that we might consider someone a gamemaster by our definition even if that person is refered to as a player by the actual people playing. Most of the time our gamemaster and the intuitive and explicated gamemasters match, but in borderline cases they might not. By this I mean, that when you have games where the players can define something on the spot and the gamemaster has to run with that, then the player is a gamemaster as well as s/he uses that power. Still, that said, if everyone can define anything at any time then we do not consider it a roleplaying game.

Greyorm, once more with feeling:

"Further note that even in a traditional game, the GM's power is constrained by the rules of the system. Yes, he can break those rules, but then so can the players, and thus you are right back to a childhood game of make-believe.

"Let us assume a standard game of D&D, complete with battle-map and miniatures. The situation, a red dragon has come upon the party (or vice versa) and battle has ensued. When the dragon breathes, the party's rogue decides to dive behind a rock for cover.

"Can he?
1) Initiative: did his initiative beat the dragon's? If so, he moves his character's token behind the rock on the battlemap, presuming enough movement left to do so.
2) Saving Throw: the character rolls a saving throw against the dragon's breath, if successful, the presumption is that he rolled out of the way. With the way the map is set up, the location of the rogue and the area of the dragon's breath, the only safe area is behind the rock, thus the only possible ruling on a successful roll is that the character rolled behind the rock.

"In either case, and particularly in the former, the DM does not and can not have final say, because the rules already explicitly declare what the possibilities and probabilities are. "

I think this is the most important point on which we seem to disagree. We see the rulesystem as a tool or a neccessary evil, not the base of the game. Even in the case you outline the gamemaster can decide differently. Maybe the dragon is not in full health or maybe the player is not aware a protective spell that has been cast on him. Maybe the gamemaster simply doesn't want the character to die before getting to the next cool part of the dungeon.

What I am saying is that the gamemaster can rationalize a way out of a situation or just simply decide to ignore the rules.

Is this good gamemastering? That is a whole new discussion. If the gamemaster ignores the rules that the players trust to often the game will seem erratic and the players can decide to not continue gaming. On the other hand if the GM ignores the rules in a coherent fashion, maybe there is a degetic reason. Why is it that the werewolfs that the PC encounters are always slower?

The point is that the gamemaster has to power to do this. The power can be abused, yes, but it is there.


When Lumpley argued that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I did not really understand what he meant.
Later he clarified:

"What I mean is, every time anybody says what happens, all the players as a group have to decide if it's true or not. It's not enough for one player (the GM, for instance) to assert it; it's simply not true until everyone assents."

I do not think that this is true. If the player disagree on somthing (is the "big" rock big enough to hide behind or just big enough not to be something you can put in your pocket) it is the GM (or a group of gamemasters) who decide what in the end is true. Of course, the gamemaster can surrecnder the power to anyone. The fact that s/he can override what others have said doesn't mean that he can not choose not to do that.

Lumpley continues:

"It's really really common to agree upfront to assent to everything the GM says, but it's not necessary. Maybe more importantly, such an agreement is always provisional. Ultimately, every game-significant statement is negotiated."

I just think that it goes the other way around. To some extent, every game-significant statement can be negotiated if so agreed upon, but by default the gamemaster implicitly has the power to decide.

Mr. Holmes comments:

"I assumed you meant a broader group of games as CRPGs than you do. Still, there are some really borderline cases. What about something like Everquest? Is it an RPG or not? It is social, but does not have a GM as such during most play and runs automatedly. Although there are personel available to perform such functions if neccessary."

This is something we a thinking about at the moment. We will write a revised version of the model when we actually have the time. There are some changes we need to do and a lot of clarifications to be added. Everquest is one of the things we need to address.

Some reseachers at the University of Tampere  feel that though Everquest can be played as a roleplaying game, mostly the gameing doesn't include a roleplaying element. Then again, they look at everything through ludology; the gamism is always for them the most important aspect.

Le Joueur wrote:

"Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach. I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion."

This systemic approach seems to be rather widely accepted on this forum. Would someone define roleplaying or a roleplaying game from the point of view of the systemic point of view?

Then about the perceived conflict...

Usually roleplaying games work in such a way that each player has a character s/he controls. The player is able to decide freely what the character does as long as the rules of the game and the metaphysical rules of the game world are followed. The gamemaster controls everything else, the NPCs, the weather, the animals and avatars and so worth. Yet the gamemaster can also limit what the characters can or can not do. Maybe the shadow of a wraigh is taking control, maybe the super spy has post hypnotic commands imprinted, maybe the character is a android with a certain kind of programming, maybe someone is using teleplaythy or maybe the character dreams or maybe the character is simply mad. Yes, the examples are over simplified, but bear with me. So if there is a reason the gamemaster can decide what the PC can or can not do, or indeed what the PC does. The gamemaster doesn't need to explain his/her actions to the gamers; usually the think that there must be soime kind of logic behind what the GM does - and indeed I hope there is - but not neccesarily. As anything can be explained with ust a bit of imagination, the gamemaster need not explain a thing. So the gamemaster has control not only over the game world, but also over the PCs.

The gamemaster is omnipotent within the diegetic frame (the what-is-true, usually the game world), but there will be no interaction (and hence no RPG) unless the gamemaster surrenders part of the power, usually over the characters, to the players. Still, the gamemaster can, at any time, override the player as well. The fact that the GM seldom uses this power doesn't mean that it isn't there.

The methaphore of gamemaster as an omnipotent controller is, I think, a bit misleading. I think that we used the term "gatekeeper of the diegesis" in our text, and if we don't we shall in the next version. I think that this communicates better the position, that a gamemaster is not a puppet master just because s/he has the power to control everything.

(Oh, and just to be on the safe side, I'll once again mentione, that the above example is a just that, a crude example. There can be more than one GM. The players do not need to play charcaters, they can play families, households or dandruff - pretty much anything. And yes, one player can control more than one character. The diegetic frame need not be a game "world". And so forth. I hope my point comes across.)

Le Joueur continues:

"One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits. What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts? Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming? Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming? It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation. Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

"The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements). The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated. The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive. The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive. And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all. It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming."

The most common differentiation between child's play and larping that I have run in to is that larping is done by adults as larp is "makebelief for adults". Even if I were to buy into this very non-analytical statement (I do not), it would still have one fundamental problem; it would mean that children can not larp. And that is not true.

Now it is possible, that children in a kindergarten set up, with the assistance of the teacher, a crude roleplaying game. I have never seen this happen, but a friend of mine has run larps for a group of 10-12 year-olds and that was definetely a roleplaying game (though not a very good one). If the kids interact within a shared diegetic frame with the teacher as the conflict solving gamemaster, then I would say that they are playing a roleplaying game. As said, I have never seen this happen and do not think that this happens, but that doesnä mean that it coudn't happen.

Our definition of roleplaying does include some things that might not fit the most narrowminded traditional definitios of roleplaying games. For example advanced SM roleplaying would meet out criteria for a roleplaying game. Notice, that I stress the word 'advanced'. Simply putting on a uniform and handcuffs doesn't cut it.

The same applies to therapy. I am a bit wary of this whole roleplaying-as-therapy, actually I'm a bit vary of the whole psychotherapy school, but I do think that some of those session propably can be considered roleplaying. My understanding of modern psychiatric practises is not sufficient.

It seems that your definition of roleplaying games includes the system and character identification. It is very easy to find a system from almost any human endeavour. Most of the rulesystems are implicit, but as there are roleplaying games where some of the rules are implicit as well, you can't really require the rulesystems to be explicated either. Also, I think that you discount both therapy and teaching in you own model a bit too easily. The fact that they are used in instructing or as intrusive tools is only the usage. If you bring intetions into the equation (that is not an RPG as it is intended to be therapeutic), you find yourself swamped in phenomenology (or at least I have). I think they have a system and they have character identification.

About larping...

Yes, it is possible to set up a larps so that after the game has started the gamemasters do not interfere at all. Actually most of the larps I have attended are like that. Still, in all the games there is the possibility for a GM intervention. The intervention can take the form of a GM sitting in a room the players have access to (but that is not part of the diegetic frame) and the players can go there to ask questions about the world that they do not know or to check how the system works. Another kind of intervention would be if the gm suddenly bursts into the room and states that a meteor just landed nex to the house or something like that.

In practise the gms can't really be present all around a larp and act as "gatekeeper of the diegesis", but theroeticly they have the power. They even have the power to retroactively chnage something that happened in a game. Again, I think that that is a sign of bad gamemastering, but I believe most campaigns (especially dramatist) require a litlle retconning from time to time.

And finally Le Joueur:

"I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all). It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming."

This is something which will be changed in the revised edition. I am no longer satisfied with the "minimize simulation" clause. One big reason is that it refers too clearly to the mostly Northern European larp-tradition which never uses item cards and tries to minimize the representational environment design in order to have "life like" surrounding.  

Also, even if we were to stick by that statement, we would need to include a clarification along the lines of: The minimization of the simulation is not synonymous to the elimination of the gamemaster. It means that the gamemaster(s) should excercise their power through only diegetic actions that represent the actual actions and not something else. (Meaning that if the aforementined meteor hits, then there should be a load thud and a big hot rock and not just a gamemaster clapping his/her hands.)

Ah, I think that's all for today. Back to work...

      -Jaakko

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jaakko,

Very good post.  I'd like to explain a few things about our difference of opinion.  First of all however, we are going to have to come to one simple conclusion, I think.

We disagree.

If we can't admit that this is and will likely remain the case, then there won't be much point is continuing this discussion.  I don't anticipate either side will change their point of view and short of a friendly truce, I'd hate to see hard feelings arise from this.

Objectively, I think both views stand on their own merits.  Provided sufficient pressure, anyone could be forced to take one view or the other.  But honestly, I can't imagine why one needs to be the 'right' outlook.

Simply put, you believe that the presence of any kind of oversight of shared material is necessary to define role-playing gaming (if I have that right).  I believe that such is clearly denied by our playtests (I'll explain that later...) and that role-playing gaming is defined instead partly by a systemic approach (...these too).

Like I said, I believe these theories can coexist.  But I would like to talk about which is possibly better at the stated goal of defining role-playing gaming descriptively rather than normatively.

But first, let me try to capture your argument that oversight is the defining principle.

Too Many Gamemasters

I think one false issue is beginning to impede discussion.  That would be the issue of 'how many' or 'what is' gamemastering.  Some have observed that some games have multiple gamemasters or alternated gamemaster responsibility.  While your paper tends to use singular, first-person language to refer to the gamemaster, it should be clear that you aren't speaking intentionally so.

The following quotes lean towards a defensive tone that isn't necessary.

That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge. There can of course be a number of gamemasters. Also, we view gamemastering as a role (as defined in postmodern cultural studies) which can be assumed and discarded at a moments notice. Thus it is possible to have "a musical chairs gamemaster". The only thing that we require is that everyone cannot be gamemasters at the same time.

Also note, that we might consider someone a gamemaster by our definition even if that person is referred to as a player by the actual people playing. Most of the time our gamemaster and the intuitive and explicated gamemasters match, but in borderline cases they might not. By this I mean, that when you have games where the players can define something on the spot and the gamemaster has to run with that, then the player is a gamemaster as well as s/he uses that power.

The whole idea of changing 'who the gamemaster is' from moment to moment isn't at issue here.  Pursuing this specifically impacts little on the discussion.  What is at issue is oversight.  In your scheme, oversight is a singular requirement for something to be a role-playing game.

Let's not quibble over whether a game has one or more gamemaster or whether said oversight does or does not remain in the hands of who has it at any one moment.  What you are saying is that the concept of oversight is required.  (I admit there may be issues about whether an 'all gamemaster' game is a role-playing game, but I really don't think that is germane to what I'm suggesting.)

The Chicken and the Egg

Before I illustrate the belief I hold to, I think a moment should to taken to dispense with the 'rules are the ultimate authority' argument that seems to be gaining steam.

In keeping with the 'agree to disagree' premise of this post, I should like to point out we've pretty much reached the 'Chicken or Egg' paradox.  Which comes first?  The chicken (the gamemaster) or the egg (the rules)?  Without some kind of system structure there can be no authority (the concept of authority requires a structure of obedience); without authority, there is nothing to uphold the structure.

Some will argue that as rules exist in books in the store even before the game begins, that rules come first.  That can be described as false for those are just books on shelves and not actually games.  Contrariwise, some will argue that by selecting a rules format, one or more persons act as an authority figure.  This too can be said to be false because without the social acceptance of their decision (obedience and thus structure) the choice has no value or impact.

Ultimately, it becomes a simple matter of opinion.

I think this is the most important point on which we seem to disagree. We see the rule system as a tool or a necessary evil, not the base of the game. Even in the case you outline the gamemaster can decide differently.

What I am saying is that the gamemaster can rationalize a way out of a situation or just simply decide to ignore the rules.

If the gamemaster ignores the rules that the players trust to often the game will seem erratic and the players can decide to not continue gaming.

The point is that the gamemaster has to power to do this. The power can be abused, yes, but it is there.

I just think that it goes the other way around. To some extent, every game-significant statement can be negotiated if so agreed upon, but by default the gamemaster implicitly has the power to decide.

Note that the argument that specifying that a gamemaster "rationalizes a way out" or "ignores" rules, by itself, implies that the rules carry more significance then he.  That he provides exceptions to them implies that they are the primary authority.  The 'power to override' clearly indicates that what is being overridden normally carries the power.

The other reason this argument has no solution is because of exactly the "I just think that it goes the other way around" statement.  Again, we have chickens and eggs; which comes first the egg (the social structure that empowers the gamemaster) or the chicken (the gamemaster who relies upon authority to "abuse power")?

This is an argument that has no solution.  I suggest therefore (after clarifying our stances) we simply stop trying to prove one side or the other.

LARPs Contrast the Model

We have, in our model, concentrated on the actual role-playing. The underlying social structure, the "metagame" and "offgame" elements we have not addressed at all. As we see it, a role-playing game cannot exist if the players do not accept the GM's power.

Also, many traditional games I play in have a lot of LARP elements in them. People almost always talk in first person when in character and often also express their characters bodily - something which I consider to be more of a LARP method than a 'tabletop' method.

Not addressing the "underlying social structure" will ultimately prove a problem for reasons I alluded to earlier.  And comes to the heart (I think) of our disagreement.  After all, where does the gamemaster derive their authority in the first place?  The certainly don't go out onto the street and press complete strangers into play.  At some level (and this was indicated by others) there is complicity on the part of the players.  It has been argued that this complicity gives power first to the rules which then bequeath it to the gamemaster; I believe I have demonstrated that this argument cannot conclude (being a chicken and egg argument).

Ultimately, I think it is this complicity that forms the basis of the social contract that underlies all gaming.  For the sake of argument, let's take your statement "We see the rule system as...a necessary evil" as true.  That implies that role-playing gaming can take place without rules; let's take this as true as well.  While some may suggest that 'no rules' results in chaos; I don't believe so.

I believe, no matter how much you try to avoid having a systemic approach, the very concept of authority or oversight, requires structure.  A 'ruleless' role-playing game falls back to depending on the social contract of living in less than anarchy.  That becomes the system.  Thus, even when there are no 'rules' there is a systemic approach.  The presence of a gamemaster only illustrates that approach, whatever the form he takes.

Your Response to me

I need to preface the following by pointing out again the whole 'chicken and egg' situation.  While the following speaks pejoratively, I am not trying to 'disprove' your stance.  What I am doing is illustrating mine based upon your responses in an attempt that you might come to understand my position, even though you might not agree with it.

In other words, take all the following as my opinion.

Le Joueur wrote:

"Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach. I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion."

This systemic approach seems to be rather widely accepted on this forum. Would someone define role-playing or a role-playing game from the point of view of the systemic point of view?

[I brought this down from earlier because I believe it's more relevant here - ed] Then what separates role-playing games from games in general? By that definition Risk and Monopoly would be role-playing games as well. Besides, the gamemaster can change the rules if s/he so wishes.

I actually get this question a lot.  It's pretty simple, but you've cut away the relevant quote.  The difference is that participants take a 'first person' thinking-in-context role in the game.  Besides, nothing separates role-playing games from games in general, because they are games.  What separates Risk and Monopoly from role-playing games is that you are not offered the option to think-in-context in the play of those.  (And while it's true that some people lean heavily away from thinking-in-context play, instead using something called 'token play,' the exception rather proves the rule.)

In a game with the "necessary evil" of rules, those form the explicit system of play.  Those without depend upon the social contract of (at the very least) accepting oversight as their system.  I prefer to call this systemic approach rather than insisting upon referring to 'rules;' there are too many implications to that word.

Put simply, systemic approach occurs because you cannot play in complete anarchy; that is the primary way that role-playing gaming differs from 'make believe.'  To understand how 'make believe' functions at all, you have to understand that it is actually engaged in by people who do not comprehend the social contract completely, children.  Just for an experiment, try and play 'make believe' with a group of adults; make sure that everyone present goes out of their way to disobey social contracts like paying attention, taking turns, and the like.  You may find this very difficult; that's because you are well-schooled in the social contract.  Conversations function systemically; shouting matches don't.  That's the principle reason adults don't play 'make believe;' they don't need to work out their roles in the social contract by trial and error, they bring them to the game already intact.

Then about the perceived conflict...

Usually role-playing games work in such a way that each player has a character s/he controls. [That's what I was saying; and how is that not the central component of your theory? - ed] The player is able to decide freely what the character does as long as the rules of the game and the metaphysical rules of the game world are followed. The gamemaster controls everything else, the NPCs, the weather, the animals and avatars and so forth. Yet the gamemaster can also limit what the characters can or can not do.

...So if there is a reason the gamemaster can decide what the PC can or cannot do, or indeed what the PC does. The gamemaster doesn't need to explain his/her actions to the gamers; usually the think that there must be some kind of logic behind what the GM does - and indeed I hope there is - but not necessarily. As anything can be explained with just a bit of imagination, the gamemaster need not explain a thing. So the gamemaster has control not only over the game world, but also over the PCs.

[Emphasis mine]

You see, that's the failing I see in your paper.  A game can take place without this kind of oversight.  First of all, no one has to take control of the player characters as long as the players adhere to the social conventions of play (systemic approach); it is simply not necessary.  Second, there is no need for "everything else;" you can have a game without non-player characters, weather effects, animals, or avatars.  Our playtest LARP used a 'closed system' approach; there were no effects or props outside of those instituted at the onset (actually there was a mechanism for adding additional material, it didn't function on an oversight principle - nothing was ever denied, nor needed to be - it was simply a formalization technique).  Thus no gamemaster was ever used.

Here are the responsibilities we 'divided' the gamemaster's duties into:

Referee

This is the on-the-spot arbiter of

player disputes.[/list:u]Game Originator(s)

This is where the set up comes from, background, mechanics choice, character slots, non-player characters (which are assigned to players and to use as they see fit), and the whole shebang.  This ends the instant play begins.[/list:u]

Agitator

Someone who is kept abreast of the major goings on and introduces 'agitation' in areas that are losing the players' interest or becoming overwhelming.[/list:u]

Site maintenance

Basically the 'host' providing location, arrangements, scheduling of the events, 'room' sign-out and logging, prop sign-out (props also include in-game resources that do not necessarily have physical manifestation), check-in & out, and attendance[/list:u]

Recruitment and Customer Service

To get more players and resolve complaints.[/list:u][/list:u]The funny thing is, the Agitator was never used.  The Setting Originator did an excellent job embedding enough conflict that, by the time all of the 'original conflicts' were spent; the players had come into plenty enough conflict of their own.

What does this illustrate?  Simply that the gamemaster, as you've defined, is unnecessary in that LARP circumstance.  I argue that this extends into all role-playing games; gamemasters are not necessary, traditional perhaps, but not needed.

The gamemaster is omnipotent within the diegetic frame (the what-is-true, usually the game world), but there will be no interaction (and hence no RPG) unless the gamemaster surrenders part of the power, usually over the characters, to the players. Still, the gamemaster can, at any time, override the player as well. The fact that the GM seldom uses this power doesn't mean that it isn't there.

This is what confuses me so about your assertion that LARPs are indistinguishable from other role-playing games.  Gamemasters are not omnipotent in the diegetic frame; they don't even exist there!  You may assert that they are omnipotent over the diegetic frame, but not "within" it.

Furthermore, since props, settings, and even non-player characters, can exist in the absence of the gamemaster, especially in LARPs, the gamemaster is simply unnecessary.  If a gamemaster is never called to 'use his power,' then it must not be a requirement.  Provided that players never need to be overridden given the social and rule 'contracts' they abide by, the gamemaster has no role in such a game.

Now, I'd argue that it is quite hard to play a tabletop game without a gamemaster, but this in no way makes them a requirement.  (I consider what you have listed, minus the overriding, as a service provided; a hard to go without service, but a service nonetheless.)  Provided a 'closed scenario' and a detailed set up, even in tabletop, I'd argue against the requirement of a gamemaster.

The metaphor of gamemaster as an omnipotent controller is, I think, a bit misleading. I think that we used the term "gatekeeper of the diegesis" in our text, and if we don't we shall in the next version. I think that this communicates better the position, that a gamemaster is not a puppet master just because s/he has the power to control everything.

Are you then saying that in the absence of the gamemaster, the diegetic frame fails?  I hardly think that is true given player commitment to it.  Furthermore, I consider overriding players in defense of diegetic frame even more of a failure of the frame.  I guess I should go so far as pointing out that a gamemaster is powerless to 'enforce diegesis,' no amount of overrides or anything will make a resistant player 'fit in;' only the player can choose to play along.

However, if you are suggesting that the services provided in an 'open scenario' by the gamemaster require full oversight power, then I think you are too rooted in the traditional and may be attempting to normalize the definition.  Consider, what happens if all the gamemaster does is provide internally consistent non-player characters, set descriptions, and mediation of the resolution system, offering no directive to the game.  Think of it as simple emulation of a fictitious situation.  Players (within the diegetic frame strictly as characters and without the diegetic frame obeying the social contract to support diegesis) act as they wish.  The gamemaster simply has no 'power' to override anything, play proceeds as simple emulation.  Here the gamemaster is not called upon to be the "gatekeeper of the diegesis" because players can do that just as well, if not better, by themselves.

Traditionally, there is this view that if there is no gamemaster to 'keep play together' or to 'give it direction,' it will fail.  I think the successes beyond this require a new point of view.  One that holds it is not the gamemaster but the conventions of play (systemic approach) that underpin the whole practice of role-playing games.

Le Joueur continues:

"One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits. What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts? Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming? Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming? It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation. Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

"The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements). The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated. The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive. The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive. And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all. It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming."

The most common differentiation between child's play and LARPing that I have run in to is that LARPing is done by adults as LARP is "make believe for adults". Even if I were to buy into this very non-analytical statement (I do not), it would still have one fundamental problem; it would mean that children cannot LARP. And that is not true.

Now it is possible, that children in a kindergarten set up, with the assistance of the teacher, a crude role-playing game. I have never seen this happen, but a friend of mine has run LARPs for a group of 10-12 year-olds and that was definitely a role-playing game (though not a very good one). If the kids interact within a shared diegetic frame with the teacher as the conflict solving gamemaster, then I would say that they are playing a role-playing game. As said, I have never seen this happen and do not think that this happens, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

You're missing my point.  As I stated earlier, it would be hard for adults to play 'make believe' without falling into the social convention training they received in becoming adults.  That is by far the biggest difference I have witnessed in actual play.  Rules (arguably an 'unnecessary evil') are just an explicit extension of this social convention.  The requirement of the social convention is, in my mind, the requirement for systemic approach.

Now the problem I have using our LARP playtest as an example of 'going without the gamemaster' is that you can say that it is not role-playing gaming because of your definition.  At this point we simply have to 'agree to disagree,' on the grounds of the 'chicken and egg' paradox.  Otherwise, I could show that since role-playing games only occur with systems in place (social convention at the least), but without gamemasters (in our playtest), the systemic approach is the only valid one.

As for 'kindergarten role-playing games,' I have seen them happen.  I have seen them happen in the absence of an overseer.  This is because I rate the difference between role-playing games and 'make believe' as the systemic approach; in fact, more often then not I see 'kindergarten role-playing games' break down due to inexperience with social contract.  At that point play resorts to the usual anarchy of 'make believe.'  So you can clearly see how we are not going to 'prove' anything to each other.

It seems that your definition of role-playing games includes the system and character identification. It is very easy to find a system from almost any human endeavour. Most of the rule systems are implicit, but as there are role-playing games where some of the rules are implicit as well, you can't really require the rule systems to be explicated either.

By your own admission, rules are a "necessary evil."  In your description of LARPing you state that the goal is to do away with as much non-diegetic material as possible, which must include rules as well.  Yet here you talk about implicit "rule systems" being a part of "almost any human endeavour."  Which character identification, in the thinking-in-context practice of role-playing games, is not.  Therefore you do nothing to defray my description of role-playing games as systemic forms of thinking-in-context character identification (sorry I left this characterization out earlier).

While I have been able to find examples of role-playing gaming that function without your stereotyped oversight (the gamemaster), I don't think anything that is not role-playing gaming is included by mine.  Unless you make gamemasters a requirement of role-playing games.

About LARPing...

Yes, it is possible to set up LARPs so that after the game has started the gamemasters do not interfere at all. Actually most of the LARPs I have attended are like that. Still, in all the games there is the possibility for a GM intervention. The intervention can take the form of a GM sitting in a room the players have access to (but that is not part of the diegetic frame) and the players can go there to ask questions about the world that they do not know or to check how the system works. Another kind of intervention would be if the GM suddenly bursts into the room and states that a meteor just landed next to the house or something like that.

In practice the GMs can't really be present all around a LARP and act as "gatekeeper of the diegesis", but theoretically they have the power. They even have the power to retroactively change something that happened in a game. Again, I think that that is a sign of bad gamemastering, but I believe most campaigns (especially dramatist) require a little retconning from time to time.

This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required.  If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

Having them around so players "can go there to ask questions about the world" is a function handled just as well by a book, making it equally a function of system.  That a player can know the information without either implies a system familiar to all and therefore not compulsion of gamemastering.  This admission only supports my contention that system, and not gamemasters, are necessary to role-playing games.

And finally Le Joueur:

"I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all). It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming."

This is something which will be changed in the revised edition. I am no longer satisfied with the "minimize simulation" clause. One big reason is that it refers too clearly to the mostly Northern European LARP-tradition which never uses item cards and tries to minimize the representational environment design in order to have "life like" surrounding.  

Also, even if we were to stick by that statement, we would need to include a clarification along the lines of: The minimization of the simulation is not synonymous to the elimination of the gamemaster. It means that the gamemaster(s) should exercise their power through only diegetic actions that represent the actual actions and not something else. (Meaning that if the aforementioned meteor hits, then there should be a load thud and a big hot rock and not just a gamemaster clapping his/her hands.)

That still doesn't solve the premise that you have admitted that a gamemaster can be superfluous.  Take it a step farther; imagine a LARP with no gamemaster intervention at all!  All the players know the world, all events are a result of player character action (any and all non-player characters are played by players in their 'off time'), all resources and sets are not a function of a person creating them but set prior to the game regardless of diegetic representation, all player disputes are handled by the players themselves based on the known system or social contract; how then is this not a role-playing game?

The very fact that you continue to adhere to the idea that gamemasters are required because you have used them in the past is the complete opposite of your espoused goal to define role-playing games descriptively rather than normatively.  Relying on personal or historical practices is entirely normative definition.

Ultimately my point is that system appears in all possible instances of role-playing gaming, but gamemasters do not.  I assume we agree on thinking-in-context perspective being implied as constantly available to members of the diegesis.  That makes those two things the concepts I think are required of role-playing games.  (Personally, I still have not concluded whether it is possible to role-playing game alone or not; I'm inclined to think it is, but I haven't support for that argument yet.)




And that's where I stop touting my own beliefs.

Nothing I can do or say will have any impact on your definition or position.  It is strictly a 'chicken and egg' thing with both sides blurring the 'edges' of their positions to support supposed contrary examples to their preferred model.  And that is how it should be.

Before you respond to any of the above, I'd like you to consider the following.

The only thing I would ask is that you review your statements regarding 'descriptive, rather than normative' definition and how well you feel you can support a global position on your definition in the face of detractors.  I do not ask you to change your stance, but merely to acknowledge the validity of other definitions and how yours will relate to them.  Perhaps mention of the alternatives might be proper acknowledgement in your paper.

And finally, despite this post's length, this is all I have to say.

Fang Langford

p. s. I just want to take a moment to thank you very kindly, for giving the opportunity to think out my stance on 'what is role-playing gaming.'  I'm sure I'll get a lot of use out of it in the future.

[contracycle]

This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

i'm inclined to read the argument slightly differently.  I think that the framework requires and acquires an independant credibility as Paganini laid out in the thread on Assent, and that the GM has credibility through anbd by their post as executor of this credibility.  Now, inasmuch that the framework is obliged to be consistent, I would suggest that the player MUST cede some authority to the GM to reflect the coherence of the framework.  

I feel that in the argument above we might be mistaking the argument about THE gamemaster; let us instead discuss A game master.  The argument as it stands is that there must be one, somewhere; not necessarily that this is invested in particular individual.  From this perspective the roving GM, especially in a context that is inherently supportive of the imaginary framework of truth, works perfectly well.  The GMs cannot be omnipotent; but they can provide legitimised "authoritative" feedback.  All they have to do is ride on herd on a self-supporting consensus model; a model which derives its authenticity in the knowledge that there is an authority to appeal to, who is able to "objectively" determine Truth.  There is only one World and the GM is its prophet.  

Herein, I feel, lies the distinction between GM-less and GM-full, as discussed on the Forge.  I think that the argument above is that even when a game is GM-full - i.e. that GMing authority is various and multiple - it still has a GM, it still has an authentic and external-to-the-players validity.  From this perspectivbe it seems reasonable to me to argue that, indeed, a GM is required for rpG, while a GM may not be strictly requirted for RP.  Kids playing cowboys and indians sometiomes do, and sometimes don;t, get into arguments about who shot who when.  RPG establishes from the outset an explicit mechnism to arbitrate this dispute and expects compliance with its decision by whatever means - and by whoever - it is made.

[Le Joueur]

This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

I'm inclined to read the argument slightly differently.  I think that the framework requires and acquires an independent credibility as Paganini laid out in the thread on Assent, and that the GM has credibility through and by their post as executor of this credibility.  Now, inasmuch that the framework is obliged to be consistent, I would suggest that the player MUST cede some authority to the GM to reflect the coherence of the framework.

However, this assumes a gamemaster is necessary.  This has no real validity in the 'chicken and egg' discussion until we establish that a gamemaster is inescapable.

I feel that in the argument above we might be mistaking the argument about THE gamemaster; let us instead discuss A game master.  The argument as it stands is that there must be one, somewhere; not necessarily that this is invested in particular individual.

Yes, but can you provide an argument in favor of inescapable gamemastering of any kind?  The heart of what I'm arguing is that it has been done; we have played a role-playing game without a gamemaster (our LARP playtest).  There was no person who had the role ascribed in the Finnish paper; if you take this to be a role-playing game, then 'having a gamemaster' of any kind, cannot be a part of definition that claims to be descriptive and not normative (a normative description would be like saying 'this is how we do it' and anything unlike that isn't role-playing games).

From this perspective the roving GM, especially in a context that is inherently supportive of the imaginary framework of truth, works perfectly well.  The GMs cannot be omnipotent; but they can provide legitimized "authoritative" feedback.  All they have to do is ride on herd on a self-supporting consensus model; a model which derives its authenticity in the knowledge that there is an authority to appeal to, who is able to "objectively" determine Truth.  There is only one World and the GM is its prophet.

I guess that makes me a socialist, because I'm not convinced that a centralized 'authority' is necessary on this scale.  I think true consensus means exactly that a gamemaster can be done away with.

Part of the confusion I'm sure will follow is that, by saying that a gamemaster is unnecessary in this definition, I am somehow saying that a gamemaster is unnecessary in every case.  Far from it.  What I am saying is that, added to all the role-playing games that need gamemasters, there is an identifiable group that do not.  Therefore, in order to create a comprehensive 'descriptive and not normative' definition of role-playing gaming, you cannot use 'a gamemaster is implied or necessary' as part of the definition, unless you can show that the "identifiable group which do not" are not role-playing games for criteria other than you have defined them as not being such.

Simply, you can't use say that all role-playing games have gamemasters simply because you say they do and call it a descriptive, rather than normative, definition.

Herein, I feel, lies the distinction between GM-less and GM-full, as discussed on the Forge.  I think that the argument above is that even when a game is GM-full - i.e. that GMing authority is various and multiple - it still has a GM, it still has an authentic and external-to-the-players validity.  From this perspective it seems reasonable to me to argue that, indeed, a GM is required for RPG, while a GM may not be strictly required for RP.

That's a circular argument.  You're saying that because role-playing games that have lots of gamemasters have gamemasters, they all do.  I'm saying that there really is a difference between gamemaster-less and gamemaster-full role-playing games.  Since these are not identical, your 'reasonable argument' is nothing but a tautology.

Let me pull this out:

while a GM may not be strictly required for RP.

Therefore, you agree with my thesis; gamemaster are not required for every role-playing game therefore a definition of role-playing games cannot say that they are required.  As I read Jaakko's definition, it is "strictly required."

Kids playing cowboys and indians sometimes do, and sometimes don't, get into arguments about who shot whom, and when.  RPG establishes from the outset, an explicit mechanism to arbitrate this dispute and expects compliance with its decision by whatever means - and by whoever - it is made.

Now you're confusing things between the two stances, either it is a mechanism for resolving a dispute or an arbiter (whether he depends on a system or not).

Since I am not interested in changing anyone's mind, but you've chosen to speak on the subject, would you be inclined to choose either stance?

Fang Langford

[lumpley]

Nobody'll be surprised that I agree with Fang.

-Vincent

[M. J. Young]

The Children's Make Believe Issue is a Red Herring.

Make Believe is a role playing game.

I'm guilty of having said that role playing games are "make believe with rules"; but recently I started to say that to a bunch of fantasy writers who were not role players, and realized that it must be wrong.

Make Believe must have rules, or it wouldn't work at all.

The rules are, of course, entirely implicit; no one involved in the game is fully aware of them to the point that they could easily define them. Yet on reflection, I find that such games do include resolution mechanics. In response to an article I wrote for Gaming Outpost, I've identified several sorts of such mechanics that have been used by various groups--all of them social mechanics, but real resolution mechanics nonetheless.

The games break down when there is a disagreement regarding how those mechanics work, or when one of the players doesn't like the outcome dictated by the mechanics and "takes his football and goes home". Over time, the rules become more refined and more recognized by the group, but from the outset there are rules.

Make Believe has rules. It is a role playing game.

--M. J. Young