Defining roleplaying; an alternative approach

[contracycle]

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."

It is strictly required for role playing GAMES.  There are other sorts of RP - RP in therapy, in the mentioned S&M, in power relationships, in being a starbnger in a strange land.  In playing cowboys and indians, which is a different sort of game about running around and falling down.

While I DO concede that there can be Role Playing, I don;t think there can be an RPG without a GM.  

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).

The mechanism provides the GM with the credibility to arbitrate.  And in a game the GM can be: a computer, or a random result table, or a book when it is not a human being.  But in both human and non-human cases, the players have given consent to operate on a set of rules and to have judgements according to those rules.  Even in the case where all creation is from a player,  I think that the tacit consent of other players is required: they act as distributed GM.

Its the old tree in the forest thing - without someone to observe and record an act in the game world, it might as well not have happened.

[Le Joueur]

...my thesis; gamemasters are not required for every role-playing game

It is strictly required for role playing GAMES.  There are other sorts of RP - RP in therapy, in the mentioned S&M, in power relationships, in being a stranger in a strange land.  In playing cowboys and indians, which is a different sort of game about running around and falling down.

While I DO concede that there can be Role Playing, I don't think there can be an RPG without a GM.

Then I'm curious how you react to the example of our LARP playtest where there was no gamemaster, and yet all agreed that it was a role-playing game.

The mechanism provides the GM with the credibility to arbitrate.  And in a game the GM can be: a computer, or a random result table, or a book when it is not a human being.  But in both human and non-human cases, the players have given consent to operate on a set of rules and to have judgements according to those rules.  Even in the case where all creation is from a player,  I think that the tacit consent of other players is required: they act as distributed GM.

Does it really add to a discussion about whether human oversight is a necessary part of a descriptive (rather than normative) definition of 'role-playing games' to completely detonate the meaning of the word 'gamemaster?'  I think anthropogenesis is inherent in the term; if not, it becomes meaningless for a shared conversation.

If it is very important to you that the term gamemaster be without this meaning, then can you answer a single question?  Is it a role-playing game in the absence of human oversight?

It's the old 'tree in the forest' thing - without someone to observe and record an act in the game world, it might as well not have happened.

Are you intentionally discounting the presence of the players?  Id est, the players do something and there is no 'gamemaster' around, then it didn't happen?

Really, does any of this add to the discussion of human oversight?

Fang Langford

[lumpley]

Just in case you're following this thread and not the other:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3701&start=22

Is it just me or is this page of this thread formatted all funkily?

-Vincent

[greyorm]

Fang did an excellent job responding to much of this. I take issue with his "agree to disagree" approach, as I feel there is an actual answer to the "chicken & egg" scenario in this case. However, I'm going to respond to those responses directed towards me.

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.

A definition that easily seperates them?
Well, I don't care to put the thought into such a beast, other than to say, having been involved in both, I've noticed a fundamental difference in the way in which interactions occur and in which game events are handled by participants.

You may believe I am arguing something like "LARPs aren't RPGs!" but you would be wrong. I'm noting the difference in play.
Were we discussing two forms of storytelling, frex: a play and a book, you would have to agree that both are qualitatively different from one another, though both fall under the definition of storytelling.

Same thing here: both LARPs and RPGs are role-playing games.
Now, as this is utterly seperate from the main point, and I could honestly care less about discusing LARPs, I'll move on.

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.

Please take some time to reread what I wrote: "The difference between roleplaying and child's play..."

The difference between
I did not say anywhere "the definition of an RPG is," I said the difference between it and child's play is the presence of rules. Nowhere did I say or claim the presence rules by themselves create a role-playing game.

Were I to create such a definition, the presence of codified rules would be only one element, though it would be the element which seperates the activity from similar activities (ie: child's play, acting and storytelling).

To turn the tables:
Your definition, that someone with power over all events in game, is all that is required for something to be an RPG has similar problem: what then seperates an RPG from a play with a director?

Yes, I know that you have discarded t genre as a term.

Please do not inform me what terms I ascribe to or have discarded, or assume such. Ron's essay is Ron's essay, not a philosophy ascribed to by the Forge as a whole, though we utilize it as a base for discussion.

That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge.

Then, IMO, your definition lacks clarity and focus, and thus usefulness.

Defining "gamemaster" as "anyone who has the power to declare something true at a given moment" lacks any utility for creating a definition for the attempt to define what an RPG is. So I find the proposed definition rather useless as it fails to really define or explain anything in relation to the question.

What seperates round-robin storytelling (one individual at a time has control of the diegetic) from an RPG? It is obviously not the presence of a gamemaster or individual diegetic controller, or such a thing would have to be considered an RPG.

This raises the question: Can you have a rules-less RPG?

Without rules, you are back at a childhood game of Cops n' Robbers; and if you add a gamemaster who arbitrarily decides upon results, you have a play with a director -- you have a bunch of storytellers or actors hanging about cooperatively creating/following a story under direction.

That is, you have storytelling, but you don't have a game.

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

Games have rules. To qualify as a game, a game must have codified rules. If those rules are secondary or unimportant to the activity, and can be abandoned at a moment's notice, they can not come into play in the definition.

Thus, what you have described is nothing more than a childhood game of make-believe with petty dictator deciding the course of action (beneficient or malignly...and choosing whether to obey loose "rules" -- as they may change at a moment's notice or the GM's whim and thus do not actually exist as a seperate entity), or rather, role-playing with a director (ie: making a play).

Two children playing under the direction of an adult thus qualifies as an RPG, as it is pretend play with the presence of an all-powerful overseer.
This is something I believe we both disagree with (yes, MJ, this means I disagree with your assessment that children's play is an RPG).

But as this is your definition of an RPG, I strenuously disagree with it.

Thus, for the sake of all further discussion, please define "game."
As it stands, I see no qualitative difference between your definition of an RPG and an unscripted but directed play, because there is nothing in the definition which allows for any measurable difference between the two.

[contracycle]

Then I'm curious how you react to the example of our LARP playtest where there was no gamemaster, and yet all agreed that it was a role-playing game.

As I pointed out: by providing tacit consent.  Any of the players coul, if they felt another made unreasonable demands, walk out.  The group retained the consent of its membership; an authoritative statement as to what is True was accepted by the group at large.

Are you intentionally discounting the presence of the players?  Id est, the players do something and there is no 'gamemaster' around, then it didn't happen?

The players are acting as distriubuted GM; I am arguing that this game is NOT GM-less, it is GM-full.

Really, does any of this add to the discussion of human oversight?

I am suggesting that your reading of the argument being offered, that a GM-person is required, is a misinterpretation of the point being proffered.  I think the claim is that there is always a GM, even if its not one person, and even if it is, potentially, an inanimate object (book or computer).  I agree with that claim.

Furthermore, seeing as the conventional conception of RPG does include a GM from the get go, I think that if you claim you play totally GM-less, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is indeed an RPG and not improv theatre or something similar.

[contracycle]

Defining "gamemaster" as "anyone who has the power to declare something true at a given moment" lacks any utility for creating a definition for the attempt to define what an RPG is. So I find the proposed definition rather useless as it fails to really define or explain anything in relation to the question.

Not at all; I thought that was admirably explicit in the disucssion of diegetic frame.  What distinguishes and RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent.  I think it is indeed useful.

Thus, what you have described is nothing more than a childhood game of make-believe with petty dictator deciding the course of action (beneficient or malignly...and choosing whether to obey loose "rules" -- as they may change at a moment's notice or the GM's whim and thus do not actually exist as a seperate entity), or rather, role-playing with a director (ie: making a play).

I read it differently; to me it said that the creativity of the GM is such, and the limited definition sof the game space such, that in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY.    The GM, with almost total freedom to create on the spot, can do whatever they like with relative impunity.  I am well aware of this issue and gave argued it on the Forge several times: the "fair" RPG is IMO meaningless because of the incredible latitude with which the GM can call detail into being.  In practical terms, a GM can rationalise a solution to any problem with only two restrictions: their capacity for improv, and the maintenance of internal consistency (should that be a concern).

[Alan]

Hi,

The theory under discussion seems to allot to the GM all power to confirm the reality of a proposition.  I would suggest that, in practice, in a table top rpg, the power to confirm reality is actually a group process, where the GM has the role of arbitrator or facilitator.  

Perhaps we might also make a distinction between computer RPGs and human-arbitrated RPGs.  I've always had a suspicion that computer games aren't really RPGs at all.  However, I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

I read it differently; to me it said that the creativity of the GM is such, and the limited definition sof the game space such, that in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY.    The GM, with almost total freedom to create on the spot, can do whatever they like with relative impunity.

I don't think this is practical - I think this is theoretical.  In practice, a GM takes account of player desires - or he doesn't have players. The role of gamemaster only exists as a role within a group.

- Alan

[Walt Freitag]

What distinguishes an RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent.

Such as, a head writer and five staff writers collaborating on a sitcom script?

Of course, one could distinguish that activity from most RPGs by specifying the latter's participant identification with specific characters, or by the former's nonchronological creation of the narrative... but those criteria too are dangerous ground.

In your effort to be inclusive of computer RPGs, GM-full systems such as Universalis, and certain LARPs, you've now reached a uselessly broad definition. Any successful shared storytelling activity (successful = resulting in a single narrative agreed to by all; shared = combined input from more than one participant) fits the description above, so all such activities now have implicit gamemasters and are role playing games.

I'm losing patience with definitions in which X is defined by the presence of Y, but if we see an instance that fits our overall mental model of what X is, with no apparent Y, we can safely conclude that Y must be there anyway, in some hidden, subtle, transient, shared, or distributed form. (And yet, if we see an instance that doesn't at all fit our overall mental model of X, yet it appears to have Y, suddenly our criteria for what constitutes adequate Y become much more strict.)

When X = Narrativism and Y = Egri-style Premise, I can live with it because it's a specific person's coinage and he can define it however he wants.

But X = "role playing game" and Y = "gamemaster" concerns two terms in general usage that belong to everyone. This approach to a definition isn't working.

- Walt

[Le Joueur]

Are you intentionally discounting the presence of the players?  Id est, the players do something and there is no 'gamemaster' around, then it didn't happen?

The players are acting as distributed GM; I am arguing that this game is NOT GM-less; it is GM-full.

Really, does any of this add to the discussion of human oversight?

I am suggesting that your reading of the argument being offered, that a GM-person is required, is a misinterpretation of the point being proffered.  I think the claim is that there is always a GM, even if its not one person, and even if it is, potentially, an inanimate object (book or computer).  I agree with that claim.

Furthermore, seeing as the conventional conception of RPG does include a GM from the get go, I think that if you claim you play totally GM-less, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is indeed an RPG and not improv theatre or something similar.

in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY.

First of all, until we hear from Jaakko, we have to assume that his use of pronouns indicates an anthropomorphic gamemaster; that you do not agree with this does not surprise me.  We are not discussing your beliefs.  Check out the rest of this thread, we're discussing a paper that purports to give a descriptive and not normative definition of what role-playing games are.

All of your statements are really funny for how self-contradictory they are.  First you say that a gamemaster is necessary, then you say that it can be so dilute that no single or aggregate body can or needs to be identified as such.  Finally you turn around and define a gamemaster as 'always getting their way.'

How terribly circular.

Anything that you simply 'know' is a role-playing game you fight to show that some kind of authority or consistency exists and demand that that be deemed the 'gamemaster.'  Then you challenge me that anything I might pose as a role-playing game isn't.  For you, the definition of gamemaster is so uselessly broad that no one can pin you down, but for me I have to prove it's a game by some unspoken definition first unless I acquiesce to your requirement of gamemaster?

I'm sorry, but saying 'I know what gaming is' and then finding a body to pin the name 'gamemaster' on to justify your own definition that 'all gaming has gamemasters' is unacceptable.  Demanding that I 'prove' anything in this scheme is bad comedy; I can't bring you here and put you through it, and since you are the only judge of what is or is not a role-playing game, you can simply denounce anything I produce.  Unless I outright agree that you have your way.

But you're not the gamemaster.

Let me put that another way.  If I say something is a game:

And you agree

You find the 'gamemaster' in it
Because you have identified such, you claim victory for your position.[/list:u]You don't find a 'gamemaster' in it
You decide that the 'gamemaster' is a dilute authority indistinguishable, but present; you claim victory for your position.[/list:u][/list:u]

And you don't agree

You are presented with an authority figure
You can deny its identity as a role-playing game for unspoken or extemporaneous grounds; you claim victory for your position.[/list:u]You are presented with the absence of an authority figure
You denounce it as not being a role-playing game with no other grounds whatsoever; you claim victory for your position.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]Since there is no concrete definition what a role-playing game is, other than either 'has a gamemaster' or simply

your authority, you cannot be wrong.  Not only is that circular reasoning, the supposed definitions are moving targets intentionally used to disprove all your detractors.

In your effort to be inclusive of computer RPGs, GM-full systems such as Universalis, and certain LARPs, you've now reached a uselessly broad definition. Any successful shared storytelling activity (successful = resulting in a single narrative agreed to by all; shared = combined input from more than one participant) fits the description above, so all such activities now have implicit gamemasters and are role playing games.

I'm losing patience with definitions in which X is defined by the presence of Y, but if we see an instance that fits our overall mental model of what X is, with no apparent Y, we can safely conclude that Y must be there anyway, in some hidden, subtle, transient, shared, or distributed form. (And yet, if we see an instance that doesn't at all fit our overall mental model of X, yet it appears to have Y, suddenly our criteria for what constitutes adequate Y become much more strict.)

Another well-said version of what I am saying here.

Ultimately Contracycle provides no information beyond saying "I know what a role-playing game is and you don't."  This is useless in a discussion about reaching a rigorous inclusive definition of role-playing gaming that is descriptive and not normative.  And for the sake of clarity, here's what I have been using as definitions of these:

Descriptive

Uses a set of criteria that can be used to separate included concepts from excluded concepts.  A good descriptive definition can be 'tested' by anyone on situations in their experience because of its clarity.[/list:u]

Normative

Uses an 'ideal' example and measures exclusion based on difficult to specific proximities and exceptions.  Requires a single judge of what is 'close enough.'[/list:u][/list:u]Fang Langford

[Valamir]

As I feared, this topic hits many buttons that people are passionate about.

I would ask people to take a deep breath and step back a moment.

There are 38 posts in this thread which is about a paper written by 2 guys.  There are a total of 3 posts from those 2 guys.  Is this evidence of a cross borders sharing of knowledge and opinions with fellow theorists, or is it mostly just us argueing with ourselves.

I would point out that there have been 14 increasingly passionate posts since Jaako last posted.  With many different people pointing out how much they disagree and replying to their own disagreement before Jaako or hakkis even have time to respond.

I ask you.  Has this been a very good example of wecoming our Finnish guests to the Forge?

I'm hoping that when they return...if they deign to read these monster posts that they start a new thread addressing the points they want to make, and that we here on the Forge, keep our responses to a moderate level of replies.  They very well may not be as voracious posters as we are.  If we are discussing the pros and cons of their paper the post ratio should not be 12:1.

Thanks.

Ralph.

[contracycle]

First of all, until we hear from Jaakko, we have to assume that his use of pronouns indicates an anthropomorphic gamemaster; that you do not agree with this does not surprise me.  We are not discussing your beliefs.  Check out the rest of this thread, we're discussing a paper that purports to give a descriptive and not normative definition of what role-playing games are.

Yes exactly; we are not discussing my beliefs.  As I said, I read the article differently.  Therefore, I didn't think much of your criticism of the article; I am suggesting you may have misunderstood the claim being made, and that therefore you are attacking something unnecessarily.  I certainly regard all the drawing of lines in the sand as totally innapropriate.

I have ignored the remainder of your mischaracterisation of my argument.

[contracycle]

What distinguishes an RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent.

Such as, a head writer and five staff writers collaborating on a sitcom script?

Arguably yes.

In your effort to be inclusive of computer RPGs, GM-full systems such as Universalis, and certain LARPs, you've now reached a uselessly broad definition.

I have not presented ANY definition whatsoever.  I have attempted to explain how I read the articles claimed definition; I feel that the a priori assumption that these guys are talking about a singular GM to be highly suspect.

Lastly, I believe that RP is much more integral human behaviour than just gaming or entertainment; I would suggest it is a major motor of all forms of learning.  From this perspective - whether right or wrong - it would not be too suprising for me to produce a very broad definition of RP.  I think RPG is indeed a definable subset; it is precisely for this reason that I think "GM-less RP" falls too heavily into other, non-gaming behaviours to be useful.

I'm losing patience with definitions in which X is defined by the presence of Y, but if we see an instance that fits our overall mental model of what X is, with no apparent Y, we can safely conclude that Y must be there anyway, in some hidden, subtle, transient, shared, or distributed form.

I am suggesting, rather, that this is apparent in the existing work around GM-full games.  I think that the various and mutable character of the GM, mentioned above, is the same thing as the distributed GM we already know.  That we might be seeing independant invention of the same concept, articulated in a slightly different way.  I may well be wrong; the authors may disagree with my interpretation of their argument - we shall see.

[Alan]

Hi,

First, I want to apologize for not reading the paper this thread is supposed to be about, before posting my earlier comment.

Second, I want to redirect those who are discussing the subject back to that paper. It's worth reading.

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/">http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/


COMPUTER RPGs?

The introduction says the writers want to include "computer-moderated RPGs".  Do you mean games like Fallout and Arcanum, where there is only the computer and a player, or some form of computer-supported GM and player setup?

Maybe we should make a distinction between games where a player directs the actions of a fictional character, and one where the player participates in the creation of imaginary content.
In computer RPG like Fallout, the content is already created, the player only uncovers it.  A computer game functions as an interactive storyteller, rather than an RPG.

I think player creation of content is key to a description of the role-playing game and the term "RPG" is sometimes misapplied.


GAMEMASTER POWER & RULES

The paper observes that "the gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power, either explicitly or implicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible."

I think this approaches my assertion that the gamemaster is a role in a group process.  But the gamemaster model is only one way to handle the diegic reification process in a group setting.  "Distributed" methods are possible, so perhaps we want to seperate the method from the function.


WHERE ARE THE RULES?

Rules are everywhere in the hobby.  I think a model of an RPG needs to address their role in the creation of the diegis, as well as the role of unwritten conventions and group understandings.


SUMMARY

I think creation of player content is key to an RPG.  What we call computer RPGs aren't really RPGs for this reason.  The gamemaster is merely one way for a group to handle the "gatekeeper" function.  It might be useful to seperate the method from the function.  Finally, what role do rules play in the creation of the diegis?

The paper itself is an impressive bit of work with a scholarly tone.  I applaud the work the authors have done.  "Diegis" is a great coinage!

- Alan

[Mike Holmes]

I feel that the a priori assumption that these guys are talking about a singular GM to be highly suspect.

I don't see anyone arguing that, Gareth. In fact Fang went out of his way in his posts to point out how a GM could be defined otherwise.

The authors do state fairly clearly, however, that there must be one or more GM entities with complete power, and one or more player entities to whom limited power is donated on an "approval only" basis. That much is clear from their essay.

Mike

[contracycle]

[quote="Mike Holmes]I don't see anyone arguing that, Gareth. In fact Fang went out of his way in his posts to point out how a GM could be defined otherwise.[/quote]

Perhaps so; but then I don't understand why he has a problem with my argument that the GM can be dilute or distributed.

The authors do state fairly clearly, however, that there must be one or more GM entities with complete power, and one or more player entities to whom limited power is donated on an "approval only" basis. That much is clear from their essay.

And, in response to inital comments on the essay, it was pointed out that they were using GM in a very mutable sense.  From this, I wonder if they mean: there must ba an authority which valideates Truth, but that this authority can be structured in many ways, including ways in which all particpants are equally empowered.  That is some of the implication I drew from their LARP scenarios.  It may well be a minsinterpretation; let us clarify the point rather than charge in assuming "the claim there must be a GM is false".  This article is what, all of two pages long or so - it may simply be that, unfamiliar with the experiments conducted here in multiple authorship, they are using metaphors derived from more conventional tabletop gaming.

I do not see any contradiction in the claim that there must be one-or-more GM entities and one or more player entities.  I would suggest that a game with heavy, even equitable Directorial power can be seen as multiple GM's AND  multiple players incarnated in the same group of people; the players are both GM and player.  They make provisional statements as players that are validated by the group consensus wearing its GM hat.  Purely player statements are provisional until at least tacitly approved.