The Lumpley Principle Goes Wading

[Valamir]

I think that's a pretty well voiced summary Nathan.

This is not a "style of play" that's being talked about.

It is 100% physically impossible for anyone ever to have engaged in any activity recognizeable as roleplaying with any rule set and any play group in any environment at any age without the Lumply Principle being the driving force behind every instance of actual play that occured.  Period.

Its that fundamental.

Nothing happens in an RPG until every player at the table agreed that it happened.  The Lumpley Principle is not so much a revolutionary idea  (as Vince notes above) as it is simply a verbalization of how things get agreed to in that imaginary space where gaming takes place.

Rules never decide what happens.  If they did then fudging and cheating would be impossible.  People decide what happens.  People decide how much credibility each element at the table is going to have.  Whether this is "throw the rules out and just wing it" or whether this is "we're going to play every single rule as written without deviation" its people deciding and aportioning credibility accordingly.

This is so basic that there is not really any room for arguement.

[Paganini]

Ralph,

Uh... yeah. I think yours was better voiced than mine was. :)

[ejh]

Or to put it another, slightly less vehement, way:

The Lumpley Principle is not a way of playing, it's a way of looking at what's going on in play.

You may or may not find it a useful or helpful or interesting way of looking at what's going on in play.  But "we don't play that way" is not a relevant objection....

To be fair to the objectors, the ways that people often state the principle have tended to encourage some misunderstandings of it, which is why I've been seeking clarification so avidly.

Indeed, I suspect there might be a better term to use than "credibility" here, though I'm not sure what it would be.  It gets used a lot without definition, kind of a magic buzzword -- Vincent, you want to define it for us?

The word "credibility" tends to encourage the notion that the Lumpley Principle only applies when two different players have made different suggestions about what is supposed to happen next, and one has to decide using the rules between these suggestions.

Obviously much of the time players turn to the rules as an oracle to *find out* what happens, and so the scenario immediately conjured up by the word "credibility" seems incongruous with people's gaming experiences.

[John Kim]

I've seen groups that will run anything freeform, no matter what the books say.  Fine.  The Lumpley Principle does indeed describe what they do, as it was articulated upthread (not the ever-shifting Platonic ideal version that seems to be in some posters' heads).  But for groups like I prefer most of the time, like John seems to prefer, and like most of the people I've ever played with in groups or at cons, it does not describe what happens.  

Actually, I would tend more towards the "fast-and-loose" side than towards the "by-the-book" side.  On the other hand, it seems to me that with the added provision that the rules can provide statements, the Lumpley Principle fits at least as naturally to by-the-book types.  

Even in a by-the-book game, it is possible that a rules disagreement can arise.  The process is:  a player/GM makes a statement.  If the rest think that statement is within the rules, then it is accepted.  If not, then someone objects and they consult the rules to determine the correct outcome.  

I guess one of the tricky points is the name for the two labels: "Negotiation" and "System".  You could say that "Negotiation" does not accurately describe appealing to the authority of the rules and a single arbiter for the rules.  It suggests something more freeform.  On the other hand, "System" is an odd term for the fast-and-loose approach -- where System usually refers to the printed rules which do not have final say on how statements are resolved.  The fast-and-loose folks might tend to say that "Social Contract" is the process of how statements are agreed upon.

[kamikaze]

Mark, if you're serious about the conversation and not just looking for a soapbox, please answer my actual question to you:

Yes, I know it's potentially game-breaking for someone to change the rules. Do you see that it's possible for someone to change the rules, in mid-game, even if it's irresponsible, rude, uncouth, antisocial behavior? And that the fallout depends on how the group handles it?

I did answer that question, but it's not a yes/no question, it's a "your premises are based on a very different social contract, and here's an essay on why" question.

But in summary:

Is it possible for someone to try?  Yes.  Is it possible for them to do so without being caught?  Maybe, though it's usually pretty obvious, and of course it's a gross betrayal of everyone's trust.  Is it possible for anyone in a "follow the rules" social contract to let it slide?  NO.

"How the group handles it" implies that there's no social contract for anyone, just voting on behavior from moment to moment, which is incorrect.

[Paganini]

I think it's time to close this thread down. Ed, would you agree that your initial reservations have been satisfactorily resolved? If so, let's call it here. Mark needs to start a thread devoted to his own separate concerns about the Lumpley principle.

[John Kim]

It is 100% physically impossible for anyone ever to have engaged in any activity recognizeable as roleplaying with any rule set and any play group in any environment at any age without the Lumply Principle being the driving force behind every instance of actual play that occured.  Period.

Its that fundamental.

Nothing happens in an RPG until every player at the table agreed that it happened.
...
This is so basic that there is not really any room for arguement.

Look, if is no room for argument, then I guess you should just close your ears to what I'm going to say -- or perhaps try to get the moderator to ban me.  (In case you didn't guess, the attitude here is rather grating to me.)  

So I'd like to take two more test cases: LARPs and MUDs.  The distinguishing feature of a LARP is that it is played over a large area.  Players wander about.  No one in the LARP necessarily knows all of what goes on.  So this case throws a wrench at the idea of consensus.  Clearly not everyone in the game needs to agree.  Is it just the people in the room?  How do you define the room?  

I would add that LARPs tend to be large: 30+ people, and even over 100 is possible.  At this point, the game is fairly tolerant of people dropping out, which is bound to happen pretty regularly.  There are also many more possible conflicts among the players.  Plus, players may have varying perceptions of what is going on -- even about the same observed events.  That is, when you ask people afterwards what they imagined happened in-game, there are likely to be a lot of contradictions.  

MUDs have a similar property.  There are generally lots of people playing, and they constantly drop in and out of game.  Moreover, this adds in the case of computer moderation.  i.e. Something weird happens -- perhaps what all people present consider a bug in the program.  They refuse to accept it as legitimate.  What "really" happened?  Is it consensus among those present at the time?  What if the majority of the other, non-present players in the MUD would say that it was valid?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think there is some confusion here.

Yes, I know it's potentially game-breaking for someone to change the rules. Do you see that it's possible for someone to change the rules, in mid-game, even if it's irresponsible, rude, uncouth, antisocial behavior? And that the fallout depends on how the group handles it?

Is it possible for someone to try? Yes. Is it possible for them to do so without being caught? Maybe, though it's usually pretty obvious, and of course it's a gross betrayal of everyone's trust. Is it possible for anyone in a "follow the rules" social contract to let it slide? NO.

What seems to be missed is that in both cases, either altering the rules or ridgidly followly the rules to the letter are both contained in the Lumpley Principle. Several examples up to this point have been about breaking or ignoring the rules because this does bring the lumpley principle into sharper relief but:

I say: I shoot the guy.
Mitch says: Roll for it.
I roll for crap.
Mitch says: Dude, that's ass. Wanna shoot the guy anyway?

In that situation, I would say: "No, didn't ya see my roll? My gun jammed. Shit happens and now zombies are gonna eat my brain. Who's got next init? Kill me afore I rise again, would ya?"

also follows the Lumpley Principle.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

So I'd like to take two more test cases: LARPs and MUDs.

This is precisely like my comments about solo RPGs:

...is there a difference between playing with a group around a table and playing in a LARP or MUD? Is it a significant difference?

It may be just me, but I think that drawing comparasons to other mediums which are similar but significantly different is significant ways isn't going to help the discussion.

[Valamir]

Look, if is no room for argument, then I guess you should just close your ears to what I'm going to say -- or perhaps try to get the moderator to ban me.  (In case you didn't guess, the attitude here is rather grating to me.)  

Don't really see why it would grate on you John.  Disagreeing with the Lumpley Principle is like disagreeing that water is wet.  There just isn't any room for arguement...clarification, refinement, sure...but argueing against it...not really possible.

So I'd like to take two more test cases: LARPs and MUDs.  The distinguishing feature of a LARP is that it is played over a large area.  Players wander about.  No one in the LARP necessarily knows all of what goes on.  So this case throws a wrench at the idea of consensus.  Clearly not everyone in the game needs to agree.  Is it just the people in the room?  How do you define the room?  

Perhaps it would be helpful to review what Vincent originally posted about the principle.  I quote it below for ease of reference.

As you will note, there is no requirement for universal consensus.  

The Lumpley Principle is NOT a set of rules that determine how credibility gets apportioned.  It is a statement that in order for play to happen credibility must be apportioned.  Determining the how is the purpose of the game rules.  

For specific questions as to room size and who's present I refer you to the rules of the specific LARP or MUD you're interested in.  

Somewhere in those rules you'll find something to the effect of "Person X decides what happens".  The other players accept this because they accepted this apportionment of credibility when they agreed to play by this set of rules.  Voila...Lumpley Principle in Action.

It really is this basic.  There's not some secret huge amazing revelation waiting around the corner to be sprung on you.

To put it another way "Rules don't mean squat until the players decide to abide by them.  Its the players who have the power/authority/credibility whatever term floats your boat.  

Rereading this original thread might be helpful for everyone.

1. Fundamentally, we evaluate each assertion that each player makes, giving and withholding Credibility on a case-by-case, moment-by-moment basis. The power rests exclusively with the listener, never the speaker - no one can claim Credibility; Credibility is only given or withheld. A roleplaying game is, thus, based on negotiation. Usually it's streamlined and invisible, but negotiation underlies every game-significant statement.

2. I'm not offering a way to play. I'm saying that this is how all of us play, every single time. I'm also not defining roleplaying, cuz lots of things work the same way and aren't roleplaying. (Saying, "Vince, dude, every conversation works like that" is agreeing with me, not disagreeing. Roleplaying is a kind of conversation.)

3. It's practical to divvy Credibility up in advance. One common arrangement is to have one player be the final authority on all matters. Another is to play by preset rules, usually again with one player as the final arbiter. Let me emphasize that these are social arrangements, subject to change at the will of the group, and that even so, every statement about "what happens" must be negotiated. (It just makes the negotiations easy: "I shoot you." "The gun jams [because you gave final authority to me]." "Dang.")

4. All roleplaying game systems apportion Credibility, and that's all they do. There is nothing else for them to do. The crunchiest, sprawlingest, simmest game is a contract between the players about whose word to take for what.

[kamikaze]

I think that's a pretty well voiced summary Nathan.

This is not a "style of play" that's being talked about.

It is 100% physically impossible for anyone ever to have engaged in any activity recognizeable as roleplaying with any rule set and any play group in any environment at any age without the Lumply Principle being the driving force behind every instance of actual play that occured.  Period.

Its that fundamental.

Nothing happens in an RPG until every player at the table agreed that it happened.

That's the claim, but that is directly contradicted by my experience of gaming.  It's quite possible for a player to disagree with a GM's rules call and sulk for a while, trying to deny that it happened (this is uncommon, because you agreed to abide by the GM's decision when you sit down and join that social contract, and most adults are capable of living by their agreements; I don't play with oathbreakers).  When a player says "I do X", the GM is the only one whose yea or nay is relevant.  The other players may point out facts which would change the situation, or react, but don't get a veto.

A "follow the rules" social contract is a dictatorship, not a democracy.  Hopefully a benevolent and enlightened dictatorship, and people are free to leave the group if they find it oppressive, but still the rule of one.

I think you're going to have to accept that your universal principle *IS NOT UNIVERSAL*.  Sorry, no Grand Unified Theory of roleplaying for you.  It applies only to a specific freeform style of gaming.

It is not productive conversation to insist that everyone is exactly like you, and must therefore play the same way you do.  You need to learn to phrase your comments in a civil manner, with propositions leading to conclusions, rather than merely asserting your conclusions.

Rules never decide what happens.  If they did then fudging and cheating would be impossible.  People decide what happens.  People decide how much credibility each element at the table is going to have.  Whether this is "throw the rules out and just wing it" or whether this is "we're going to play every single rule as written without deviation" its people deciding and aportioning credibility accordingly.
This is so basic that there is not really any room for arguement.

I have never said that the rules themselves rise up from the table and speak or enforce themselves.  You are attacking a straw man.

Carefully read the Kamikaze Principle (slightly amended, now that I've slept on it): "In a follow-the-rules gaming social contract, the players agree to play a specific game by the rules, with one player chosen as the judge of the rules, game world, and characters."

Note the verbs, because I chose those words carefully.  The players agree, and choose.  The one player judges.  At no point are the rules said to do anything.  The law does nothing without someone to apply it, but that does not mean that there are no laws.

"Judge" is the closest word English has to what happens at my table, and thinking about this thread has convinced me to stop using "GM"; I've realized that it doesn't express that player's role clearly enough, so I just search-and-replaced GM with Judge in my new game.  That's better.

The Lumpley Principle claims that the players must agree with every action.  Once play starts in a "follow the rules" social contract, that is just plain wrong; it's up to the Judge.

Until this thread, I too would have thought this was so basic that it didn't even need expression, that it was beyond dispute, but apparently not.  Now I've accepted that freeform social contracts behave in a different manner; I've done it myself when playing freeform, and the Lumpley Principle is right *for that context*.  It is just not correct *for this context*.

Again, it is not a productive conversational strategy to insist that everyone is exactly like you, and has no room to argue with you.  Don't do that again, okay?

[Matt Snyder]

When a player says "I do X", the GM is the only one whose yea or nay is relevant.

Not true in all cases. Are you refering to a specific game, or maybe just using this as one possible answer? Or, do you view this process as applicable to all games? I don't think this happens as you describe in Dust Devils, as an example. "I do X" happens because the player with the high card says it happens. This may or may not be the GM. Further, what "X" is is informed by all players by nature of their intended actions. They may even suggest outcomes, but the narrator (person w/ the high card) says how "X" goes down, ultimately.

Further, even if this applies in 99% of how gaming operates, it is still operating under the Lumpley principal. It is indeed universal.

The lumpley principal is not HOW you play. It is, simply, play. It defines what play IS (all play, not just some), not HOW play happens.

The kamikaze principal presumes a lot about how RPGs operate, by the way. We could, for example, have a bidding system in which players "vote" with resources to say how "X" happens. Such a system could be robust, and it could also be played strictly by the book.

What happens at your table does not define RPGs. My table sometimes operates like that. Other times it does not.

Even when it does operate where one player is The Judge, this player is influenced by, for example, benign suggestions made by other players. Another player could suggest a clever, cool scene the Judge had never considered, then he puts that into motion. They follow the rules to the letter, and the benign suggestion in no way violates the rules. Lumpley principle in action.

[contracycle]

The Lumpley Principle claims that the players must agree with every action.  Once play starts in a "follow the rules" social contract, that is just plain wrong; it's up to the Judge.

I don't hink thats quite the case.  An unhappy player may well acccede to a judgement they dislike in fear of the sanction implied in judgement.  Like any or many multiple participant games, the rules of engagement are agreed upon and adherence to them is an absolute, well, meta-priority.  Lose 20 bucks down a sewer, too bad.  Lose 20 bucks to a poker cheat, someone could go home in a box.

I think in this scenario the player recognises the consensus empowering the judge and accedes to it.  This does not mean they think it is the best solution, but the meta priority holds.  And I think the Lumpley Prinicple holds too because such a player, however disgruntled they may be, is abiding by the rules of engagement and ceases protest for the sake of continued play.  A true stoppage of play for an argument is an imposition on your fellows players too.  With whatever ill grace, consent is usually granted, but if the conflict goes on for any length of time, to the point that consent is in fact withdrawn, the game will be greatly disrupted at least.

[John Kim]

A true stoppage of play for an argument is an imposition on your fellows players too.  With whatever ill grace, consent is usually granted, but if the conflict goes on for any length of time, to the point that consent is in fact withdrawn, the game will be greatly disrupted at least.  

OK, here's where I have the disconnect.  You say "lack of consensus disrupts play".  That seems reasonable.  But lack of consensus may still occur.  If there is no consensus, then the Lumpley Principle breaks down.  

That's what my point was about LARPs and MUDs.  In both of these, a non-consenting player does not stop play or even necessarily greatly disrupt it.  There may be some local disruption, but play continues in other areas without noticing.

[Mike Holmes]

John, I would agree with you that the Lumpley principle should be ammeded to be "system apportions credibility in an attempt to achieve consensus". Sometimes it doesn't work. Either via miscommunication, or by objection, people can disagree on what is happening. This results in one of two things, however, when it is discovered: the cessation of play for one or more participants, or further negotiation to bring things back into line. Thus, when play does continue, it is, in fact the Lumpley Principle in action once again.

I suppose that, occasionally, when it doesn't matter to anyone, people do obtain their own idea of what happened in a game, even when they know that others have a different idea. Still, this doesn't speak to what system is designed to do. Just that all systems are imperfect.

The Principle doesn't speak to success, just what system is intended to do.

Mike