Defining roleplaying; an alternative approach

Mike Holmes · October 09, 2002, 01:52:40 PM

QuoteCOMPUTER 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?

They make quite clear that games that are merely "coputer aided" and still have the player/GM dichotomy are definitely RPGs (played in a "cyber" space occasionally). What is not an RPG are games that have no human GM. The distinction seems to be made because of the limitations on artificial intelligence.

But you are right, there are borderline cases. As I mentioned Everquest seems to be a very borderline case. I think they'd say it was a CRPG while only the computer system was moderating, and an RPG whenever a human intervened on the other end as a GM (that is the game is a CRPG one moment, and a RPG the next), but I'm just guessing there. One could certainly see the Everquest system as just a huge set of charts to which the GM is referring for everything and using to produce output automatically. At what point of GM disengagement do we draw the line?

QuoteI think player creation of content is key to a description of the role-playing game. We are agreed that a storytelling event is not a roleplaying game. Isn't a computer game like Fallout more of an interactive storytelling, rather than an RPG?

Hmm. I'd say that the choice to go left at that first junction, while not a particularly interesting decision, is player empowerment. And if you die, well, that's certainly different than if you make it to the end alive. Different versions of the story get told when different players play. So I don't think you can disclude CRPGs just based on lack of ability of players to change the outcome in a way you consider substantive. In fact, we've identified some RPG styles here where that player lack of power is at least as prevalent if not more pervasive than in CRPGs. See Illusionism, and Participationism.

I think that the authors would agree that any power donated, no matter how small or insignificant, counts as player empowerment for the terms of this definition. But then, again, we'd have to ask to be sure.

Mike

contracycle · October 09, 2002, 01:54:38 PM

Alan wrote:

Quote
"Distributed" methods are possible, so perhaps we want to seperate the method from the function.

Thats sums up my opinion rather elegantly. I read the argument as: the function is necessary no matter how it is executed or embodied.

Merten · October 10, 2002, 04:55:39 AM

Quote from: Mike Holmes
QuoteCOMPUTER 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?

They make quite clear that games that are merely "coputer aided" and still have the player/GM dichotomy are definitely RPGs (played in a "cyber" space occasionally). What is not an RPG are games that have no human GM. The distinction seems to be made because of the limitations on artificial intelligence.

But you are right, there are borderline cases. As I mentioned Everquest seems to be a very borderline case. I think they'd say it was a CRPG while only the computer system was moderating, and an RPG whenever a human intervened on the other end as a GM (that is the game is a CRPG one moment, and a RPG the next), but I'm just guessing there. One could certainly see the Everquest system as just a huge set of charts to which the GM is referring for everything and using to produce output automatically. At what point of GM disengagement do we draw the line?

My assumption comes close to this as well - in traditional sense, CRPG's are one-player games, where the adventure is scripted beforehand and computer doesen't play the role of GM - it just does something it's programmed to do. It has no creative in itself, though, it's responses might be quite sophisticated - still they've (usually) been defined by the programmer/designer. Computer also plays the roles of NPC's and those roles are also defined beforehand.

Multiplayer games fall into the "computer aided playing"-category, since computer (server, in this case) rarely or never acts as a GM. There are other players playing other characters and most probably there's a GM somewhere. Of course, the level of GM-intervention can be argued.

Neverwinter Nights and other games which allow someone to take the role of GM especially fall into the "computer aided playing"-category, providing tools for modifying the enviroment itself, as well as allowing the GM to take over the NPC's and play them.

And that's just my opinion and an (un)educated guess. It has nothing to do with the paper itself.

- JK.

greyorm · October 10, 2002, 02:12:29 PM

Quote from: contracycleNot 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.

Which of course, Gareth, was not the point at all. Diegetic control, by a particular individual at a given specific time -- that is, when the gamemaster says "This is True," it is -- is being argued as what DEFINES a role-playing game.

If you dilute the definition of a gamemaster to the above, numerous other items fall under this definition -- including all examples already given from me, including a number of items which are not good candidates for the common experience of what an RPG is -- wholly philosophical arguments about RPGs existing in everyday life aside.

"What is a gamemaster?"
"Anyone with a specific instance of diegetic control whose authority cannot be overruled in that instance."
"What is an RPG?"
"A storytelling activity in which a person with this power exists."
"What is the difference between this and improvisational acting under a director?"
"None."
"Is improv theater an RPG?"
"By the definition above: yes."

Basically, this definition means my childrens' school play is an RPG. I obviously disagree that such is included in the commonly-understood frame of an RPG.

(Again, theoretical and philosophical arguments about what may or may not be included aside. Let us create a standard definition before going off into the outer reaches and attempting to expand and test that definition.)

QuoteI 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.

Exactly. And?
My point still stands -- this is not in any way a decent measuring stick for what makes an RPG an RPG.

contracycle · October 11, 2002, 04:41:55 AM

Quote from: greyorm
"A storytelling activity in which a person with this power exists."
"What is the difference between this and improvisational acting under a director?"
"None."
"Is improv theater an RPG?"
"By the definition above: yes."

OK - let us assume the distinction is much more apparent to you than it is to me. I have, after all, almost always discussed RPG as a performance. What are the major distictions you see between RPG and Improv+Director? To me, the only significant difference (and I don't think its that significant) lies in the identity of the audience.

greyorm · October 11, 2002, 12:21:19 PM

Quote from: contracycleOK - let us assume the distinction is much more apparent to you than it is to me. I have, after all, almost always discussed RPG as a performance. What are the major distictions you see between RPG and Improv+Director? To me, the only significant difference (and I don't think its that significant) lies in the identity of the audience.

I'm going by what I believe the majority would mark as the distinction, where improv theater is not an RPG, though it shares certain elements, as does collaborative writing and group storytelling.

While I certainly have no problem with you defining RPG as performance art, I believe the majority of gamers would disagree -- that is, would disagree that an RPG and improv are both RPGs -- some would do so quite strenuously (and I have, in fact, had that very argument).

Thus, for the moment I will stay to common perception in an attempt to define that common perception, and why it exists. Discussion of whether that perception is correct shoud come at a later time.

The argument in this case is the following:
The main difference between improv theater and an RPG is the game aspect of an RPG. Improv theater, group storytelling and collaborative writing are all not games, no matter how you look at them. These activities, while they may and often are done for fun or enjoyment, lack the game element of an RPG.

Most simply, we could boil it down to dice...or any randomizing influence or set of "laws" which exist beyond the control or diegetic realm of the participants, which are there to be utilized to determine "what happens next" instead of simple declaration or group/gamemaster decision as to what occurs. Even Narrativist RPGs share this element, as the dice determine the direction and results of the narrative, which may be at odds with group (or gamemaster) consensus or desire.

Now, the "gamemaster" can choose to ignore those "laws" if they wish, but in that case they can be considered to be no longer playing the game. Just as a player or director could choose to bring a script to a session of improv theater and use it, because they have the ability and control to override the rules of the activity, the gamemaster can ignore the rules of an RPG and simply decide results.

However, in such a case as the former, is it still improv theater?
And thus you can see the comparison with the latter.
The point here is that even though an individual can choose to ignore the rules, the activity itself is still defined by them.

There are two ways in which this then can proceed when the gamemaster ignores the rules of the game: the game becomes "Not An RPG" because of the action, or the game remains an RPG because the rules exist even if they are being ignored (though that instance of play might be argued as "Not An RPG.")

Le Joueur · October 11, 2002, 03:15:40 PM

Quote from: greyormMost simply, we could boil it down to dice...or any randomizing influence or set of "laws" which exist beyond the control or diegetic realm of the participants

In light of the 'randomizerless' movement of the last decade, I concluded that it wasn't so much the dice, but the apparently objective mediation. That would be a overt or explicit 'system' of arbitration. (Even freeforms have the expectation of objective resolution whereas improv has no such expectation.)

Which brings us back to where I started. It's a game because of the system, not the arbitrator. (And the interaction of people and the guaranteed opportunity of you-are-there first-person thinking-in-context way-of-playing.) Doesn't it?

Fang Langford

Jaakko · October 18, 2002, 10:26:37 AM

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have bee a bit busy, but still wanted to at least try to address all the point raised in the discussion. This reply is rather lengthy.

Le Joueur wrote:

"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."

You are, of course, correct. Yet I find the discussion stimulating and interesting. You need not tiptoe around me. If my words at time seem harsh or agitated, please write it off as a cultural difference.

OVERSIGHT vs. GATEKEEPER

Getting to the point:

"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."

Again I would choose the term differently. Again I offer the 'gatekeeper of diegesis' metaphor. I shall backtrack a bit and try to communicate as clearly as I can why I feel that the gamemaster is necessary in a role-playing game.

In "Meilahti School: Thoughts on Role-playing" we (the undersigned and Henri Hakkarainen) write:

"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible. Surrendering part of the creative control is necessary in order to make a distinction between role-playing and storytelling. Once the diegetic frame has been created, the gamemaster need not participate actively in the interaction, even though she has the possibility to jump in at any time."

Someone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters. Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster. Once all the elements are in place the gamemaster can sit back and watch (as is often the case in live-action role-playing games), but s/he can also choose to intervene at any given time. These interventions are more common in traditional role-play, but that doesn't mean, that the GM doesn't have the theoretical possibility to do that in larps as well (although in reality this may not be possible at all times). This is an ideal model of a role-playing game (ideal in the sense Plato used the term, not ideal as in 'best').

Nothing is true in the diegetic frame, unless the GM approves it (implicitly GMs usually approves all that the players have the PCs do). This means that new elements cannot be incorporated into the game without the conceit of the gamemaster. Yes, it is possible to create a game that runs without a GM, but this would have to be a game where no new elements can be incorporated. The characters cannot go from room to room, they have no interaction with the world, everything they refer to in their talks needs to be preplanned and so forth... There should be no non-diegetic obstacles the characters need to face.

Alan wrote:

"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.

" 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."

Of course the RPG process is a group process, but the GM has final say. You can call it what you will, but in the end, if no other way works, the GM can say what is true.

Alan wrote:

"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 separate the method from the function. Finally, what role do rules play in the creation of the diegis?"

Gamemastering is indeed a function, a role adopted by a participant. However, even if separating the function from the method can be interesting, I think that not separating them is a pivotal characteristic of a role-playing game.

DIEGESIS

Alan wrote:

"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!"

Thanks.

Diegesis comes from Greek and I believe Aristotle or someone in that ballpark first wrote down the word. Lately it has also been adopted by modern film theory. For example a scene can have diegetic music (the characters in the film hear it too) or non-diegetic (mood music for the audience). The term entered Nordic theoretical role-playing discussion a few years ago. I am not sure who was the first to use the term, either it was Mike "Manifesto of the Turku School" Pohjola or Johanna Koljonen, editor of panclou 'zine. Mike digged the term from old dramatic theory (along with mimesis), Johanna took it from film studies.

Our definition of diegesis is a bit different form the definitions offered by Johanna and Mike, mainly because they never did offer accurate definitions.

RULES AS BACKBONE vs. RULES AS A TOOL

More from La Joueur:

"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."

For me the answer is obvious: the gamemaster. The games that I run all have rule systems that I have either created or adapted. Even if a GM were to use an off-the-shelf rule system, the decision to use a given rule system lies with the gamemaster. But yes, I do see your point. The answer depends on the point of view.

Le Joueur:

"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."

<snip>

"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."

The rules are just a tool for the GM to best run the game of his/her vision. They can be changes or discarded at a moments notice. I chose my examples and wording with the intent of conveying my idea to people I perceive as viewing the rule system as a somewhat rigid pillar of the game. What I intended to communicate was that the gamemaster can do anything at anytime. Often a rule system is followed, because, as you point out, otherwise there would be nothing but chaos and madness. Again, the fact that the GM can do something doesn't mean that s/he will or should. Many games that I play in may change systems every now and then (the GM is looking for the most suitable one), sometimes the rules are discarded on the spot if they do not work well with the theme or genre of the game. Sometimes some sections of the game will used different systems (dreams, alternate realities, musical episodes etc.).

Hopefully this clarified my position.

On the necessity of rules:

"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."

I must apologize for my lazy communication. I have used the 'system' to mean two things, the explicated rules of the game and any cultural construct of meaning. You are correct, it is not possible to have a role-playing game without a system of some sort just as every situation we engage in has a cultural context and a system of its own.

This is actually my biggest problem with the systemic approach. While systems are indeed important to role-playing games and are worth a great deal of thought, I do not think that they are the defining thing about role-playing games as everything we deal with has a rule system. If we go to a bank, there are certain rules. If we have dinner with the family, there are rules.

This is partly what we were thinking when we wrote in our model:

"A role is any subject position within a set discourse, an artificial closure articulating the player within the diegetic frame of the game or in a real-life situation. There is no need to differentiate between the roles the player assumes within the diegetic frame and the roles assumed outside of it, as they are all equally aspects of the player's fluid self; specific tools for interacting in certain situations according to a specific set of rules, and based on assumptions defined either explicitly or implicitly."

No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.

Which brings us to a slightly longer quote form the end of Le Joueur's message (by the way, which should I use, Le Joueur or Mr. Langford?):

"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 play test 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 play test), 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."

You use 'system' in two meanings as well. First you say, that children have a system in place (and I wholeheartedly agree with this), but then you say that you use of a systemic approach somehow differentiates you from the children.

Ok, it could be that my command of the English language fails me here and I do not understand the difference between a system and systemic something. Or maybe your definitions for the terms stem from a tradition I am unfamiliar with.

Yes, the younger the children, the less developed is their internalization of cultural meanings and 'proper' social conduct. This I can agree with, but if you really think that the fact that a role-playing game is somehow special because it has an enunciated system, then I must agree that we need to 'agree to disagree'.

DEFINING RPGS

I enquired about the definition of role-playing games from the systemic point of view:

"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.)"

I do not find this definition a very good one. You seem to say that role-playing games are "games where one has the option to think-in-context". This probably covers all RPGs out there, but it also covers a lot of other stuff, even if we leave the 'option' part away. The term 'game' is not very well defined. "Life is a game." The context the participants are thinking in need to be shared or somehow moderated. Depending on the definition for the word 'game' this definition would label improv theater, child's play, psychotherapy, MUDs, choose your own adventure -books as RPG. Indeed books, movies and theater all have systems and offer the possibility for thinking in context.

I am the first to say that our definition has its problems, but it is the best one that I have seen.

RESPONSIBITIES OF THE GAMEMASTER

Le Joueur:

"Referee
This is the on-the-spot arbiter of player disputes.
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.
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.
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
Recruitment and Customer Service
To get more players and resolve complaints."

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You have a drastically different gaming culture from the one I am accustomed to.

When you say that the referee arbiters the player disputes, do you mean that the gamemaster has power over the actual players? Also, I would never have thought of including customer service as a job for the gamemaster. My version of the list would look something like this:

Gatekeeper
Divines what actually happens in the diegetic frame. Usually passes power to players. If players have different views as to what happened or happens in the game world (what is true) the GM has final say.

Producer
Decides to have a game. Invites the right players to the game. Arranges the place where the game takes place. Takes care that the necessary equipment will be present (books, computers, dice, character sheets, music, props - this is often delegated).

World
Answers any and all questions about the world that the characters might have (provided that the characters have access to that information). Tales care of and represents all moving parts of the world (people, animals, weather, institutions etc). This includes creating the backstory and setting for the game as well as approving the characters.

Auteur
Tells a story, conveys a theme or paints a vision through the game. This can be an artistic goal, a dramatic story or just the framework for having fun.

In Knutpunkt 2002 I gave a presentation on Genre and Style in role-playing games. In that context I defined the responsibilities of the gamemaster a bit differently.
1) Offer a game that stays true to his vision
2) Communicate his vision to the players
-Type of the Game
-Rules of the Game
-Expected preparations regarding the Game
-Level of freedom in creative input to the shared frame of the Game
3) Handle practical arrangements on time
4) Choose suitable players to the Game

The list is obviously constructed from a practical point of vies, not a theoretical.

The agitator role that you create seems the most artificial to me. World simulation (especially Turku style, see for example <http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/>) doesn't require the world to act.

Le Joueur:

"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."

Without a gamemaster nothing new can be incorporated into the diegetic frame. If there is no one to introduce new elements, answer question and so worth the frame will become barren. If the players invent stuff, then either there is a consensus and everyone accepts anything that someone introduces into the frame and we have a storytelling session in our hands and not a RPG. Another possibility is that the players agree as to what is appropriate, then either one (or few) of them need to adopt GM roles and rule over the frame. Third option is to negotiate in a democratic manner over every small thing. This committee exercise would be collective storytelling again in my book.

Yes, the game can run for a while without a gamemaster, but it imposes non-diegetic restrictions to the diegetic world (a character can not look outside a window because there is no one to describe what the world outside looks like). This is also a problem with a lot of computer games – the characters can not just decide to have a picnic in the middle of Max Payne even if there is no diegetic reason why this couldn't be done.

GAMEMASTER

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."

Now you are looking at just one part of our model. In order to have a working definition, we need to define every term we use. Every gamer know intuitively what a role-playing game is, what gamemeastering means and so forth. The problem is that if we want to use these terms in an academic context we need to define them accurately. This is what we have attempted. We have tried to define every term so that they are as close to their intuitive meanings as possible, but still be valid tools for analytical work (meaning that the definitions will not include anything and everything).

In a previous posting I mentioned the biggest problems we have with the model, the borderline cases, so to speak. One more point could be added to that list: gamer resistance. Walt has already commented that we shouldn't use terms that are already in use, that we should invent new words for everything. The problem is, that we are attempting to define role-playing and not outline a completely new thing. (No, we do not expect that gamers in general will adopt our definitions, but we offer these definitions as tools for people who are inclined to look at things from a more analytical or even academic point of view. And yes, we are looking forward to competing definitions and models.)

This means that our definitions are not the same ones people have grown accustomed to. We have done our best to include everything that need including and exclude everything else. To do this we need to define gamemaster as a person who has the power over the diegetic frame. Why? Because on a theoretical level the gamemaster must have this power, because power such as we have described is used by gamemasters all over the planet. Of course, not every GM uses the power, but still if we want to include those subject positions in the same box with the subject positions that include reckless usage of power, we need to have this definition.

Le Joueur:

"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."

This is what we refer to in our model when we talk about artificial realities. A book does not react; it can only describe what is written in it. How many times have you searched through a FAQ on a website only to realize that your question, the most obvious in your mind, is not listed there? I do not think that a book or a search engine, or a computer or anything like that can at this moment in time replace the gamemaster.

As you suspected in a later posting, we do assume an anthropomorphic gamemaster.

LARP AND DEFINITIONS

Mr. Daegmorgan:

"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."

If you do not attempt to define role-playing games or live-action role-playing games, or offer criticism on the attempt I have participated in, then I fail to see the point of your message.

I believe larps are role-playing games. No, I do not think that traditional role-playing games are larps or that larps are traditional role-playing games. There is an intuitive difference between these two modes of gaming, but it is very, very difficult (at least to me) to verbalize a clear definition that I can stand by. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that larp and traditional are modes of gaming. And most games use both. Now we probably can create a definition of an idealized pure traditional role-playing games and a lice-action game. Maybe in traditional gaming the interaction in the diegetic frame happens purely through description. "My guy says: 'Tadaa!' and opens the door to the next room." Everything is simulated. In a pure larp everything represents itself and character action expressed bodily. The player/character says "Tadaa" and opens the door to the next room. All games - traditional and larp - I have seen, use both modes. At the very least in a traditional game the tone of voice, possible first person dialogue and so on will part form the descriptive setup.

Mr. Daegmorgan:

"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 separates an RPG from a play with a director?"

Excuse me, but did you actually read the paper? It can be found form <http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/>.

META

Le Joueur:

"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."

The paper was drafted to act as a conversation opener. We have not attempted to make a definition that pleases everyone, but one that actually works. Also, we come from a culture where it is not necessary to remind people that they can – and actually should – think about what they read. There are always alterative points of view.

Or if I try to say the same thing in a less provocative manner, our paper is not an introduction to general role-playing game theory, but a model. Our paper is not a historical description of what people have through, but a paper that states what we think at the moment. I think it is self evident that there are competing views out in the world.

That said, a later version of the paper might come to include more criticism on other models.

Mr. Daegmorgan:

"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."

The statement I made was thoughtless and rude. I apologize.

Valamir/Ralph:

"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?"

Thank you for this kind thought, but you can't drive me away by being enthusiastic about the model I propose. Quite the opposite, actually. I just do not have enough time react to each mail individually. I hope you are not offended by these group replies.

So far the model has enflamed discussion everywhere it has been presented. Most people seem to think that generally its quite good, but everyone finds something in it that they disagree passionately with. Usually it is either our exclusion of solo role-playing (daydreaming), exclusion of computer games, the basis in post-modern fluid identity model or the omnipotence of the game master. Some also have a problem with our diegesis (as, they propose, every player can only have a reading of the diegesis to work with the "shared diegesis" is actually an ideal construct). This is the first time I have run into opposition, which demands the inclusion of a requirement for a system in the definition (yes, this is a rude generalization).

Points for everyone who actually read this far.

-Jaakko

Emily Care · October 18, 2002, 11:58:29 AM

I believe at some point Jaako or someone associated with the text in question stated that there could be multiple gms in a game, including all players being gm.

This is not reflected in the language of the paper and most of the arguments I've seen here.

Quote"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible.

The diegetic frame and related powers you outline is a very useful analysis of role playing gaming. We simply see it in the opposite way:

Your definition says that those who hold power of gm hold all diegetic power.
However, you've said that all participants can be gm.

So: all participants in a game begin with the potential for equal diegetic power.

Since all participants can hold equal diegetic power in order for this to not be the case, an agreement must be made to limit each individual's access and allocate these powers.

The creation of the position of gm unequally distributes that power.

QuoteSomeone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters.
Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster.

Yes, or everyone can specify the setting. And in fact, everyone must agree to the setting that someone/s specify.

The gm is given authority to do so in the name of all participants.

The gm is a coincidence of history. The traditional apportionment of digetic power, giving it mainly to one person (the solo gm), and in a more limited fashion to others (the players), is but one way of doing things that hides the underlying transactions of trust and agreement.

Taking this into account would strengthen your model.

--Emily Care

Le Joueur · October 18, 2002, 02:01:24 PM

Hey Jaakko!

Glad you made it back. Needless to say, I grew worried that the length of the thread had driven you off. I'm glad that's not the case.

Quote from: Jaakko
Quote from: Le JoueurWe 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.
You are, of course, correct. Yet I find the discussion stimulating and interesting. You need not tiptoe around me. If my words at time seem harsh or agitated, please write it off as a cultural difference.

Will do, I hope you read mine the same way. As I said, we disagree; constructively, that should not prevent us learning from each other.

Quote from: JaakkoOVERSIGHT vs. GATEKEEPER

Getting to the point:

Quote from: Le JoueurThe 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.

Again I would choose the term differently. Again I offer the 'gatekeeper of diegesis' metaphor. I shall backtrack a bit and try to communicate as clearly as I can why I feel that the gamemaster is necessary in a role-playing game.

In "Meilahti School: Thoughts on Role-playing" we (the undersigned and Henri Hakkarainen) write:

"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible. Surrendering part of the creative control is necessary in order to make a distinction between role-playing and storytelling. Once the diegetic frame has been created, the gamemaster need not participate actively in the interaction, even though she has the possibility to jump in at any time."

Someone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters. Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster. Once all the elements are in place the gamemaster can sit back and watch (as is often the case in live-action role-playing games), but s/he can also choose to intervene at any given time. These interventions are more common in traditional role-play, but that doesn't mean, that the GM doesn't have the theoretical possibility to do that in larps as well (although in reality this may not be possible at all times). This is an ideal model of a role-playing game (ideal in the sense Plato used the term, not ideal as in 'best').

Nothing is true in the diegetic frame, unless the GM approves it (implicitly GMs usually approves all that the players have the PCs do). This means that new elements cannot be incorporated into the game without the conceit of the gamemaster. Yes, it is possible to create a game that runs without a GM, but this would have to be a game where no new elements can be incorporated. The characters cannot go from room to room, they have no interaction with the world, everything they refer to in their talks needs to be preplanned and so forth... There should be no non-diegetic obstacles the characters need to face.

I'd like a chance to demonstrate an alternative to this bias. Let me take those one at a time (I'll use LARPs as the example herein):

offer you a system or setting, but you don't have to take it. That places the choice on the shoulders of the participants, not the gatekeeper.[/list:u]
Once all the elements are in place the gamemaster can sit back and watch (as is often the case in live-action role-playing games), but s/he can also choose to intervene at any given time.

required to make these choices for them. In most cases this does happen, but for a definition to be descriptive it must also include all the times that it does not. And again, I must point out that if a LARP can run without a gamemaster being compelled to act as a gatekeeper, the function is not definitive. That is to say, just because one can, does not mean one must. It is a weak argument to say that if there can, there must be a gatekeeper. The stronger argument is that if a game can go without, then it is not needed in every case, and therefore cannot be a requirement of a descriptive definition.[/list:u][/list:u]

Quote from: JaakkoOf course the RPG process is a group process, but the GM has final say. You can call it what you will, but in the end, if no other way works, the GM can say what is true.

On the contrary, ultimately the game can end if the gamemaster makes his 'final say' and the group disagrees; that would imply that the group has the ultimate say.

Quote from: JaakkoRULES AS BACKBONE vs. RULES AS A TOOL

Quote from: Le JoueurIn 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.
For me the answer is obvious: the gamemaster. The games that I run all have rule systems that I have either created or adapted. Even if a GM were to use an off-the-shelf rule system, the decision to use a given rule system lies with the gamemaster. But yes, I do see your point. The answer depends on the point of view.

Quote from: Le JoueurNote 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.

<snip>

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.
The rules are just a tool for the GM to best run the game of his/her vision. They can be changes or discarded at a moments notice. I chose my examples and wording with the intent of conveying my idea to people I perceive as viewing the rule system as a somewhat rigid pillar of the game. What I intended to communicate was that the gamemaster can do anything at anytime. Often a rule system is followed, because, as you point out, otherwise there would be nothing but chaos and madness. Again, the fact that the GM can do something doesn't mean that s/he will or should. Many games that I play in may change systems every now and then (the GM is looking for the most suitable one), sometimes the rules are discarded on the spot if they do not work well with the theme or genre of the game. Sometimes some sections of the game will used different systems (dreams, alternate realities, musical episodes etc.).

Hopefully this clarified my position.

It does and I understand it. The problem I see is that you keep cutting two points I'm trying to make. 1) if any role-playing game exists where the gamemaster is never called upon to intervene it proves 2) that gamemasters cannot be a requirement of a "descriptive definition." Yes, I agree, gamemasters are traditional exactly as you describe, but you can't seem to get around the idea that if they don't have to act, they're not needed; to make them a requirement of the definition therefore makes it normative to tradition, not descriptive.

Quote from: JaakkoOn the necessity of rules:

Quote from: Le JoueurUltimately, 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.
I must apologize for my lazy communication. I have used the 'system' to mean two things, the explicated rules of the game and any cultural construct of meaning. You are correct, it is not possible to have a role-playing game without a system of some sort just as every situation we engage in has a cultural context and a system of its own.

This is actually my biggest problem with the systemic approach. While systems are indeed important to role-playing games and are worth a great deal of thought, I do not think that they are the defining thing about role-playing games as everything we deal with has a rule system. If we go to a bank, there are certain rules. If we have dinner with the family, there are rules.

If it is not possible to have a role-playing game without a system, then how is it not a defining element?

Is the problem that you are trying to pin role-playing games to a singular "thing" to define them? If that's the case, it will prove impossible. What about people? Can you have a role-playing game in the complete absence of human beings? What about interaction? Is it a role-playing game if no one ever reacts to anything a player does? (This is being looked at as a reason that computer role-playing games are so in name only.) There are a lot of assumptions going on here if you are saying that the gamemaster is the one and only thing that is required for something to be a role-playing game. That suggests that a computer game could be written that you gamemaster instead play, making it a true role-playing game.

Is that how fine you want a descriptive definition to be?

I'm not saying that 'system is everything.' I'm saying that of the ingredients, system is unavoidable; it is something else, not a role-playing game, if it has no system. There are other ingredients. I'm just saying that some recipes for role-playing games don't call for the 'gamemaster ingredient.' Yeast is an ingredient in bread, right? So is flour. You can make unleavened bread without yeast, but not without flour. Yeast is not a requirement to be bread, flour is. Only flour isn't bread either. Is that clear?

Quote from: JaakkoThis is partly what we were thinking when we wrote in our model:

"A role is any subject position within a set discourse, an artificial closure articulating the player within the diegetic frame of the game or in a real-life situation. There is no need to differentiate between the roles the player assumes within the diegetic frame and the roles assumed outside of it, as they are all equally aspects of the player's fluid self; specific tools for interacting in certain situations according to a specific set of rules, and based on assumptions defined either explicitly or implicitly."

No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.

Sure they can; in fact, I'd go so far as to say these make a better descriptive definition than just saying 'the gamemaster is "the defining thing about role-playing games."' If you have something with a gamemaster but no roles, is it a role-playing game?

Quote from: JaakkoWhich brings us to a slightly longer quote form the end of Le Joueur's message (by the way, which should I use, Le Joueur or Mr. Langford?):

Quote from: Le JoueurYou'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 play test 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 play test), 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.
You use 'system' in two meanings as well. First you say, that children have a system in place (and I wholeheartedly agree with this), but then you say that you use of a systemic approach somehow differentiates you from the children.

Ok, it could be that my command of the English language fails me here and I do not understand the difference between a system and systemic something. Or maybe your definitions for the terms stem from a tradition I am unfamiliar with.

Yes, the younger the children, the less developed is their internalization of cultural meanings and 'proper' social conduct. This I can agree with, but if you really think that the fact that a role-playing game is somehow special because it has an enunciated system, then I must agree that we need to 'agree to disagree'.

Ah, that was an ambiguity on my part. The children are exploring (and breaking) the system of 'social contract' in their play. Role-playing games are depending on a more explicit use of system. Traditional role-playing games use explicit rules that are written down. Some form of (I think it's called) Freeform do not. However, my argument is that even in the absence of written rules, there is some expectation of 'play as though with explicit system.' People playing in a role-playing game know that if there's a problem it will be handled 'fairly.' No such expectation is had by children, the simply move on. In the absence of explicit gaming materials, there is still the expectation of play as though they are there. It is a difficult concept to verbalize. Am I making any sense?

And again, do not mistake my prioritizing of 'system over everything' means that 'everything is nothing.' I see no need for a gamemaster, especially when those gatekeeping functions are handled by group acceptance and system; this does not mean that I think anything with a system is a role-playing game. Conversations have systems. Debates have explicit systems (you could even argue that they have gamemasters). This does not mean that system is unnecessary. Nor does it mean that system is everything.

Quote from: JaakkoDEFINING RPGS

I enquired about the definition of role-playing games from the systemic point of view:

Quote from: Le JoueurI 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.)
I do not find this definition a very good one. You seem to say that role-playing games are "games where one has the option to think-in-context". This probably covers all RPGs out there, but it also covers a lot of other stuff, even if we leave the 'option' part away. The term 'game' is not very well defined. "Life is a game." The context the participants are thinking in need to be shared or somehow moderated. Depending on the definition for the word 'game' this definition would label improv theater, child's play, psychotherapy, MUDs, choose your own adventure-books as RPG. Indeed books, movies and theater all have systems and offer the possibility for thinking in context.

I am the first to say that our definition has its problems, but it is the best one that I have seen.

What I was getting at was analogous to your definition of role: "A role is any subject position within a set discourse...." One thing I felt lacking was the perspective of treating things from an 'in character' point of view. A goalie has a role in a soccer game, but since it is a concrete situation they do not 'project' into a role outside of themselves. It's the idea that one considers their role's actions from their role's point of view is something that doesn't happen in chess, that makes it not a role-playing game. The 'thinking in context' material was meant to augment, not replace, your description of 'role.'

And again, it is not the singular defining point of role-playing games, in my opinion. I don't believe there is a singular issue 'at the heart' of gaming.

Quote from: JaakkoRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GAMEMASTER

Quote from: Le JoueurReferee
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]
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You have a drastically different gaming culture from the one I am accustomed to.

When you say that the referee [arbitrates] the player disputes, do you mean that the gamemaster has power over the actual players? Also, I would never have thought of including customer service as a job for the gamemaster. My version of the list would look something like this:
Gatekeeper
Divines what actually happens in the diegetic frame. Usually passes power to players. If players have different views as to what happened or happens in the game world (what is true) the GM has final say.[/list:u]
Producer
Decides to have a game. Invites the right players to the game. Arranges the place where the game takes place. Takes care that the necessary equipment will be present (books, computers, dice, character sheets, music, props - this is often delegated).[/list:u]
World
Answers any and all questions about the world that the characters might have (provided that the characters have access to that information). Takes care of and represents all moving parts of the world (people, animals, weather, institutions etc). This includes creating the backstory and setting for the game as well as approving the characters.[/list:u]
Auteur
Tells a story, conveys a theme or paints a vision through the game. This can be an artistic goal, a dramatic story or just the framework for having fun.[/list:u][/list:u]

A referee does not have power over the players, but simply helps them compromise in using their own power. A referee is not a gamemaster, but a gamemaster can act as a referee.

If a Gatekeeper "usually passes power," then this is the same as when a group of people choose to play a published LARP, it empowers them. Otherwise this sounds like a Referee. Your Producer sounds like to combination of our Site Maintenance and Game Originator; these became separate because of issues of scale, a large group originates a game with poor 'vision' and a small group has difficulty serving a high-population LARP in terms of hosting. Recruitment handles 'world in general' questions and Site Maintenance handles the 'moving parts,' so we're pretty much on the same page with your World.

The real question is how the Auteur works in a LARP. That's not to say that LARP won't work with an Auteur, I see that as a highly functional possibility; I just don't see it in all LARPs.

Reading over your breakdown, makes it sound like the only thing that you are saying a game cannot go without is a Referee (with the provisos listed). Is that true?

Quote from: JaakkoIn Knutpunkt 2002 I gave a presentation on Genre and Style in role-playing games. In that context I defined the responsibilities of the gamemaster a bit differently.
1) Offer a game that stays true to his vision
2) Communicate his vision to the players
-Type of the Game
-Rules of the Game
-Expected preparations regarding the Game
-Level of freedom in creative input to the shared frame of the Game
3) Handle practical arrangements on time
4) Choose suitable players to the Game

The list is obviously constructed from a practical point of view, not a theoretical.

The agitator role that you create seems the most artificial to me. World simulation (especially Turku style, see for example <http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/>) doesn't require the world to act.

Turku style isn't all-inclusive, right? We created the Agitator, because one thing we observed in LARPs is when play slows to a stop because no one has any initiative they wish to pursue; the Agitator is there to prevent that. It's a highly reactive role and a complicated one to describe because it does not require 'power over the players' or gatekeeper function. An Agitator monitors the game (watching, collecting feedback) and when some area becomes 'too quiet' (a highly subject and relative rating) they 'kick something into play.' If the peons don't have anything to do, he might toss in a discovered artifact that the upper echelons would desire; he agitates.

Otherwise this maps almost exactly onto our model; 1) Game Originator, 2) Recruitment, 3) Site Maintenance, and 4) Recruitment again. 'True to vision' is something that no one can enforce, at best you can elicit support for it. I think a good role-playing game product produces the most similar vision in all its readers, but then I am a game developer, so I'm biased that way.

Quote from: Jaakko
Quote from: Le JoueurAre 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.
Without a gamemaster nothing new can be incorporated into the diegetic frame. If there is no one to introduce new elements, answer question and so forth the frame will become barren. If the players invent stuff, then either there is a consensus and everyone accepts anything that someone introduces into the frame and we have a storytelling session in our hands and not a RPG. Another possibility is that the players agree as to what is appropriate, then either one (or few) of them need to adopt GM roles and rule over the frame. Third option is to negotiate in a democratic manner over every small thing. This committee exercise would be collective storytelling again in my book.

Yes, the game can run for a while without a gamemaster, but it imposes non-diegetic restrictions to the diegetic world (a character can not look outside a window because there is no one to describe what the world outside looks like). This is also a problem with a lot of computer games – the characters can not just decide to have a picnic in the middle of Max Payne even if there is no diegetic reason why this couldn't be done.

You know, I just don't see that. A LARP draws virtually all of this by incorporating elements of the physical play-space. With a complete knowledge of the game system and the public part of game origination, what questions need to be asked? If prop issuance is prompted by players and handled centrally using a system (without full knowledge of the other proceedings), it becomes no more a gatekeeper than a turnstile (and that's a turnstile that does not limit attendance, either).

Again, I think you limit your ideas too traditionally. Around the Forge, there are a number of games where 'what is outside the window' is fully and intentionally in the hands of the player, completely without the 'authorization' of the gamemaster. Good gamesmanship and playing fair keep this from 'getting out of control.' Really, are you implying that the definition of role-playing games requires players who intentionally (or even accidentally) ruin it without a gatekeeper? I deem that dysfunctional and in need of no presence in a descriptive definition.

Quote from: JaakkoGAMEMASTER

Quote from: Le JoueurThis 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.
Now you are looking at just one part of our model. In order to have a working definition, we need to define every term we use. Every gamer know intuitively what a role-playing game is, what gamemastering means and so forth. The problem is that if we want to use these terms in an academic context we need to define them accurately. This is what we have attempted. We have tried to define every term so that they are as close to their intuitive meanings as possible, but still be valid tools for analytical work (meaning that the definitions will not include anything and everything).

In a previous posting I mentioned the biggest problems we have with the model, the borderline cases, so to speak. One more point could be added to that list: gamer resistance. Walt has already commented that we shouldn't use terms that are already in use, that we should invent new words for everything. The problem is, that we are attempting to define role-playing and not outline a completely new thing. (No, we do not expect that gamers in general will adopt our definitions, but we offer these definitions as tools for people who are inclined to look at things from a more analytical or even academic point of view. And yes, we are looking forward to competing definitions and models.)

This means that our definitions are not the same ones people have grown accustomed to. We have done our best to include everything that need including and exclude everything else.

I don't have a problem with your definition of gamemaster, or any for that matter. The problem is in the requirement of the presence of one in a descriptive definition that is supposed to "include everything that need including and exclude everything else." You are excluding some things I have provided examples of on no other basis than your definition, yet they are intuitively role-playing games to all involved.

That's neither a descriptive approach, nor a definition. What that is, is a position, a "Here's what we think gaming is" presentation. That you cling to the traditional notion that diegesis must be controlled by a single individual, hewing towards tradition in the face of intuitive exceptions is normative definition. As in 'these things are normally' in a role-playing game. A good descriptive definition should include a fair amount of territory so far unexplored by anything. Just because something does not exist yet does not mean that it should be excluded.

Quote from: JaakkoTo do this we need to define gamemaster as a person who has the power over the diegetic frame. Why? Because on a theoretical level the gamemaster must have this power, because power such as we have described is used by gamemasters all over the planet. Of course, not every GM uses the power, but still if we want to include those subject positions in the same box with the subject positions that include reckless usage of power, we need to have this definition.

Again, I caution you that this is pure speculation on your part in absence of my experiences. You cannot make statements like "all over the planet" until you've been there or accepted the viewpoints of people who are there. Your justification in this paragraph is circular; we define X as doing Y, because Y is always done by X.

I can categorically state that we played a LARP a handful of years ago at the University of Minnesota which had no gamemaster. Therefore, it is not so "all over the planet" and therefore cannot be considered a requirement for the definition.

Theoretically, I still have to question whether or not the diegetic frame needs to be controlled by an individual. Until you support that given, I cannot discuss the logic of the argument. If it is not necessary in all cases, then I argue that a gamemaster remains unnecessary.

Quote from: JaakkoThis is the first time I have run into opposition, which demands the inclusion of a requirement for a system in the definition.

Is this directed at me? I am, in fact, requesting the opposite. If you decrease the requirement of gamemaster or omnipotent gatekeeper of diegesis, to 'common' instead of 'necessary,' I would completely agree with you. That's not a demand for "inclusion of a requirement" but just the opposite, a difference of opinion on the expulsion of a requirement.

All in all, I am quite satisfied that we are coming to an amicable disagreement. I hope you don't take any of the above as a personal attack, I am simply a philosopher and I am questioning your logic. I'm glad that you have a position, but I'd caution you might want to drop the word 'definition' and simply call it a 'description' or a 'position.' For some reason the word 'definition' really gets people up in arms.

Thank you for the interesting discourse.

Fang Langford

p. s. And Fang or Mr. Langford is fine, we're all friends here.

greyorm · October 18, 2002, 02:18:30 PM

Good to see you made it back, Jakko!

Quote from: JakkoThere is an intuitive difference between these two modes of gaming, but it is very, very difficult (at least to me) to verbalize a clear definition that I can stand by. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that larp and traditional are modes of gaming.

I think we may have missed one another somewhere in the discourse, as we appear to agree completely; this was exactly the point of my statement.

As both LARPs and traditional gaming are forms/modes of RPGs, I was not interested in discussing or defining LARPs vs traditional games, specifically.

My original comment about the differences between them was due my believing that you held the view that LARPs and RPGs were in all ways the same -- which I see is obviously not the case, as we agree.

Quote
Quote from: greyormYour 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 separates an RPG from a play with a director?
Excuse me, but did you actually read the paper? It can be found here.

My bad, I have been going by what has been stated in this thread as the apparent definition, and I may have mixed your comments with someone elses, as well as oversimplified to make the point.

Le Joueur · October 18, 2002, 04:21:47 PM

Tell me this didn't just happen....

Revontuli · October 20, 2002, 02:50:46 PM

Hi y'all! It's very refreshing to find new people to discuss RPG theory intelligently with.

To introduce myself, I'll just say that I come from much the same roleplaying tradition as Jaakko and Hakkis, but don't agree with all of the things in their model. You can read some of my more provocative thoughts on the same subject at http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/

And now to the comments. If I seem rude, it's the cultural differences.

One very important difference of opinion seems to be whether the players grant power to the GM, or the GM to the players. In Finland it's understood that a game is the GM's work, responsibility and divine right. You write the game, you organize the game, you have the power. The game is not there for the entertainment of the players, the players are there to give their very best in playing the character so as to realize the GM's vision. (Ideally the vision doesn't dictate the actions of the PCs.)

Le Joueur:

"If a group of players who come to a club decide to play a LARP and they only have one, the 'gatekeeper function' is too dispersed to say that it exists."

This is a good example of that difference. In Finland you wouldn't idly go through your bookshelf and see which LARP you'd like to play today. A GM would spend months writing it, and then graciously inviting a special handful of players to participate.

It's been said that the players often ruin an otherwise perfect game.

The same goes for table-tops, as well. Although some beer-and-pretzels sort of games are played in Forgotten Realms or the World of Darkness, most ambitious games are set in a campaign world created by the GM. Using mechanics developed by the GM to suit this particular world and style.

"A gamemaster can offer you a system or setting, but you don't have to take it."

That's right. If you don't like it, you can go home. Usually the GMs known for their unique and interesting vision have a problem of having too many players in their hands anyway, so it's not a great loss.

Btw, your example of the LARP test was very similar in many ways to typical Finnish LARPs. If there had been a GM, she would've played all the characters the PCs might've contacted via cellphone or whatever. If there had been cellphones. If not, the GM would typically sit back and relax.

"1) if any role-playing game exists where the gamemaster is never called upon to intervene it proves 2) that gamemasters cannot be a requirement of a "descriptive definition.""

In most of our LARPs the GM would never be called upon to intervene. However, she always could if she'd want to. Incidentally, I would also consider a player using diegetic power over another player ("My character levitates two feet in the air.") using the GM power. This could happen even if the game doesn't include supernatural elements. Since in every LARP there is the possibility that a PC would do something the player is for some reason not willing to do (kill himself, kill someone else, have sex with someone, drink someone's pee...) they must reserve the chance to use GM power.

Jaakko:
"No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games."
Le Joueur:
"Sure they can; in fact, I'd go so far as to say these make a better descriptive definition than just saying 'the gamemaster is "the defining thing about role-playing games."' If you have something with a gamemaster but no roles, is it a role-playing game? "

What I believe Jaakko is saying is that roles exist in all social situations, just as systems do. Thus they don't make a roleplaying game special -- according to their postmodernist definitions.

"We created the Agitator, because one thing we observed in LARPs is when play slows to a stop because no one has any initiative they wish to pursue; the Agitator is there to prevent that."

Do you consider the action to be the most important part of a LARP? Because I (as the main Turku guy) consider it to be just the topping -- the really interesting things happen beneath the surface. Experiencing through your character the act of watching the clouds, relaxing before the big fight or trying to win your depression can be just as interesting as searching for the hidden treasure or fighting a nasty orc.

"I still have to question whether or not the diegetic frame needs to be controlled by an individual."

Aren't they saying just the opposite? That the diegetic frame is controlled by anyone with the GM power? And that it's possible to have games where lots of different people may adopt this power, even at the same time.

However, I think calling them gamemasters is a bit misleading, since a GM indicates a single person. Perhaps it would be more productive to simply talk about the power to control the diegesis, which is typically used by the GM?

Mike Pohjola

greyorm · October 20, 2002, 03:58:45 PM

Greetings, Mike, and welcome to the Forge!

Quote from: RevontuliOne very important difference of opinion seems to be whether the players grant power to the GM, or the GM to the players. In Finland it's understood that a game is the GM's work, responsibility and divine right. You write the game, you organize the game, you have the power. The game is not there for the entertainment of the players, the players are there to give their very best in playing the character so as to realize the GM's vision. (Ideally the vision doesn't dictate the actions of the PCs.)

I think you'll find reading Ron's GNS Essay will help you understand where we are coming from as a group. What you are describing -- is certainly a valid style of play, but it is only one of many.

In all styles of play, unless the players are willing, the GM is simply hosed, regardless of his "divine right," as it is ultimately still the players who decide to hand over their power to the GM in such an instance, allowing themselves to fulfill his "vision." This is where the debate is coming from.

The same style is also known in slang as "railroading" as well as appearing to be (from what you've said) "metaplotting" -- I believe the local term for such play is "Illusionism," though I may be wrong (if so, someone correct me).

You will find a couple folks on the Forge who enjoy the described style of play, including those who enjoy it on occasion or with the right game (such as "Call of Cthulhu"), but note the majority here prefer games where a GM does not act or behave as though he is on a power trip.

From your statements, I might gather that in Finland, RPing is obviously done for something other than personal recreation (given that your description above forces players to work according to GM desire). But I know that to be wrong, as I'm aware of a school of Finnish thought which states that the only responsibility a player has is to the portrayment of their character and their own personal enjoyment.

As well, you will note the method you describe above would not work for a Narrativist game, particularly when Author and Director stances are utilized, as in such the GM is not the single individual who writes the game, organizes the game, and thus has the power and vision. All of these are explicitly shared among the group.

(Note, please, that Narrativism is not an "American thing" or any such animal based on any particular cultural group's method of play, and in fact might be said to be in the style minority of American gaming)

Again, we're discussing different styles here, and I can see where you are coming from with your statements; that, however, is not the only method of interaction between game, player and GM.

In regards to my personal opinion about the functioning of games where it is the players' responsibility to fulfill the GM's vision, I'll quote the Essay here: "These games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists."

Honestly, if the GM wants to write a story, he should write a story, not force a bunch of people through his creation, demanding they make sacrifices for his "art." But that's a personal issue, and one for a group to work out among its members...I just know that, having been involved in such GM-centric, story-arc games for years, I was never happy with it and couldn't even express why until I realized that wasn't how play had to work.

Again, welcome to the Forge!

Revontuli · October 20, 2002, 05:09:23 PM

Quote from: greyorm
Honestly, if the GM wants to write a story, he should write a story, not force a bunch of people through his creation, demanding they make sacrifices for his "art."

This is almost word for word what I think (*). I'm not talking about railroading, which would render all interaction meaningless. However, I think the game master does have the power to dictate PC actions without immediate explanation. Much is going on in the world the PCs aren't aware of, after all. (But in an ideal situation this wouldn't be over-used, and PC actions would have consequences.)

However, when I'm talking about the players sacrificing themselves for the GM's art, I'm simply advocating strict adherence to the diegesis. Put simply, players shouldn't have their characters do something they wouldn't do just because it'll draw a few laughs from the others players.

Mike Pohjola

*: The Turku Manifesto, Chapter II: "Stories are fun and interesting, they can have a huge impact on mankind. Movies are often entertaining, and a good book can really make you think. And if you want to tell your own stories, nobody's keeping you from writing a short story, or a novel, or a drama, or a movie. Nobody's keeping you from composing a song, or directing a play, or choreographing a dance. But note that in those cases you are the auteur, the creator. And when your work is finished the audience will get to see it. RPGs don't work that way."

The Forge Archives

News:

Defining roleplaying; an alternative approach

Mike Holmes

contracycle

Merten

greyorm

contracycle

greyorm

Le Joueur

Jaakko

Emily Care

Le Joueur

greyorm

Le Joueur

Revontuli

greyorm

Revontuli