Communal Language (or perhaps Lingua Illudo)

[Le Joueur]

I've brought this over from the "The 4 steps of action (for Ron)" discussion in GNS Model Discussion.

Pardon my Latin (I have never made a study of it) if the title here is wrong.

Ron Edwards wrote:

Quotin' Fang for emphasis:
"I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion."

Exactly. I've been chafing for over two years to get to this level of discussion, yet until now have been tripped up by the continual need to clarify GNS. With any luck, that stage is over.

Frankly, I gave up a long time ago getting to the 'meat' of this discussion.  I formalized my thoughts on the matter almost ten years ago, but who to talk to?

Please let me paraphrase what has gone before; back in the other thread Ron broke down how a declaration is viewed by the participants in a game.  He used four divisions (allow me to suggest alternate terminology).

• Intention: the declaration is what the participant desires the subject to perform; the manner or even possibility must first be addressed.
  
  
• Execution: the declaration represents the actual action of the subject; success and results must follow.
  
  
• Conclusion: the declaration corresponds to the finish of the act leaving only the results to be determined.
  
  
• Resolution: the declaration stands for how the action is fully and finally resolved.[/list:u]In a role-playing game without any hint of interpretation commonality, many statements can be looked upon in all four of these fashions.  Ron has done an excellent job dividing them.
  
  As far as design goes, many games, as written, give some clues to how such declarations are expected to be interpreted.  Yet few actually address this concept directly or explicitly.  (I believe even the designer haven't.)  While I think this is a crucial matter for the communication of the writer's ideal of how play should be addressed, I believe there is something even deeper, more at the heart of the matter.
  
  The above is just an abstraction of what I have referred to in our design sessions as 'communal language.'  A communal language is a way of expressing oneself in a familiar group.  Family language is one common example.  (Think about how strange the euphemisms your family used for bodily functions sounded when you first used them in public.)
  
  After I first conceived the idea of role-playing gaming's communal language, I began to realize that in some ways a game's mechanics themselves function as such.  In fact, the more I separated the idea of role-playing gaming from games in general, I had to conclude that the primary function of mechanics was to formalize gaming's communal language.
  
  Let me see if I can make this idea relative.  When you think of resolution mechanics you conceive of things that can include such as dice throwing.  When you address topics like Fortune in the Middle or Fortune at the End, you begin thinking about how those mechanics work or are applied.  Thinking about the model I described above gets you considering why and how FitM or FatE are utilized.  The consideration of communal language collects all this and addresses the relationship between participants, mechanics, and the play itself (especially the dialogue that creates play).
  
  Whenever I approach design, I look at the mechanics first as a method of abstracting the communal language I intend for play.  I try and make it transparent in this fashion.  (One of the greatest problems I have faced is that in some cases, things that appear counter-intuitive to the uninitiated are more functional once internalized by all participants.)  When mechanics are highly abstract or simplistic, only then do I begin seriously considering the game-theory aspects of them; it is always of secondary concern.
  
  Despite the name 'role-playing games,' I have come to consider our products in the same fashion that the creator of Sim City regards his creations (widely called computer games); its not really a game, he says, its more of a toy.  That is my core design philosophy.  A ball is a toy that you can play many games with, but chess is only a game.  I see the variety of role-playing experiences indicative of the former.
  
  Fang Langford
  
  [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-24 10:31 ]

[Mike Holmes]

I usually think of RPGs simply as a form of entertainment. But others might see it as art primarily or something else. But I'm not sure how that is pertinent here. Just that they aren't the same as other games? OK.

Anyhow, are you simply proposing that the game designer should develop a more precise style in describing his game? Or do you intend for the designer to create jargon for use specifically in that game to increase understanding? Or do you advocate a generalized language for all RPGs such that it is easier to play any one written using that language?

I gather that the purpose is to facilitate communication between the participants such that the game is more functional (hey, there's a "fun" in functional). I don't think anybody would disagree there. I'm just not sure the method that you're proposing, exactly. You point out that such a language is created by every game. Is it merely recognition of this fact and working in that context that you're advocating?

Mike

[Laurel]

In fact, the more I separated the idea of role-playing gaming from games in general, I had to conclude that the primary function of mechanics was to formalize gaming's communal language.

I'm not sure if I would agree with this particular idea, although I'm definately in agreement with your overall post.

After thinking about it, I would personally rephrase that as

"One of the primary functions of mechanics is to formalize a communal language for all of the participants."

I'm not convinced its -the- primary function, and I don't believe that many game designers concern themselves with a "universal" communal language for all gamers.  What they seem to want is a way for everyone who plays -their- game to a well-organized platform or paradigm that allows them to easy interaction and co-participation within the framework of the game itself.

[Bankuei]

  I would say that the communal language comes from how the mechanics work, not vice versa.  For example, take the idea of min/maxing.  This term didn't come from a set of rules, but how the rules were applied, likewise such terms as hack'n'slash, munchkinism, etc.  If you watch sports, you'll find certain terms will come into play that aren't officially part of the rules.
 The rules allow a structured means for players(including gm's) to create a "fair" game of make believe.  The communal terminology to a game(THACO, hitpoints, etc.) also form a sublanguage, but are not necessarily designed to codify the terms of all actions(what's the difference between a "hit" "sucessful combat roll" and "successful attack roll"?).  I'd say the language is used to communicate the ideas or trends of the game itself.  After all, how many slang terms exist for handguns?  The language of the handgun didn't define the language as much as the language was created to define the tool of the handgun.  Likewise with game terms.

Bankuei

[Le Joueur]

Laurel wrote:

Fang wrote:

In fact, the more I separated the idea of role-playing gaming from games in general, I had to conclude that the primary function of mechanics was to formalize gaming's communal language.

After thinking about it, I would personally rephrase that as

"One of the primary functions of mechanics is to formalize a communal language for all of the participants."

My hat's off to you for saying it better than I.  This was the conclusion I had reached; I had been trying to say.

I'm not convinced its -the- primary function, and I don't believe that many game designers concern themselves with a "universal" communal language for all gamers.  What they seem to want is a way for everyone who plays -their- game to a well-organized platform or paradigm that allows them to easy interaction and co-participation within the framework of the game itself.

I'm curious what you'd say the primary function of mechanics is then.  (Really curious that is, curse my open mind.)

(More response  to this farther down.)

Mike Holmes wrote:

I usually think of RPGs simply as a form of entertainment. But others might see it as art primarily or something else. But I'm not sure how that is pertinent here. Just that they aren't the same as other games? OK.

I thought so too for a while, then I heard Sim City's designer speak and I felt like my eyes had been opened for the first time.  To me entertainment carries a lot of media that require no input from the receivers; role-playing gaming does not seem to function without said input, thus the analogy to being a toy.

Anyhow, are you simply proposing that the game designer should develop a more precise style in describing his game?

Not exactly.

Or do you intend for the designer to create jargon for use specifically in that game to increase understanding?

I suppose they could, but that is not my suggestion either.

Or do you advocate a generalized language for all RPGs such that it is easier to play any one written using that language?

Heavens, no.

I gather that the purpose is to facilitate communication between the participants such that the game is more functional (hey, there's a "fun" in functional). I don't think anybody would disagree there. I'm just not sure the method that you're proposing, exactly. You point out that such a language is created by every game. Is it merely recognition of this fact and working in that context that you're advocating?

Now you're getting it.

I am not advocating some kind of "universal" jargon for all role-playing games, but Laurel is really close when she mentions designers "want...a way for everyone who plays -their- game to [have] a well-organized platform or paradigm that allows them to easy interaction and co-participation."  What I am trying to say is that few games give a very good sense of what this should be.

Frankly, as many printed publishers as I have spoken and written to, lead me to believe that they do not even realize this omission.  The idea of them 'being too close to the subject' springs to mind.  One of the real eye-opening things about the playtests for Scattershot has been putting it in front of people who have never played role-playing games before.  It really reveals the kinds of things gamers take for granted, like the Intention/Execution/Conclusion/Resolution 'setting' of a game system or simply of 'common' play.

What I am saying, from the experience of trying to rewrite a game so that people who have never and people who have for years can both get something out of it has been a real trial and an education too.  It made me realize that so few designers currently in print actually consider how role-playing games are played at this level.

I am not saying games should be designed more precisely, or that more jargon should be tallied in the text, or even that generalizing a communal language for all role-playing games is needed.  I am a deliberate thinker and designer, I would like this facet of design to be considered more deliberately (I'd settle if some people would at least give it some consideration), that's all.

I know I do, that's why my opinion is that communal language is the primary function of mechanics (but not necessarily the lion's share).  I feel that if mechanics fail to work as a communal language, precious little can redeem them (hence the reason I put this function out front) at least from a 'play it as written' perspective.

But this is all my opinion.  I am hoping for inspiring dialogue to help me change or improve it, and as Ron said, I too "chafe" for this discussion.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I think I see what you want. But what would you suggest as a method? All I can think of is just to ensure that the writer is tinking critically. Could you give an example of a written mechanic that does not employ this thinking vs. one that does? So that we can "know it when we see it". Right now, I'm not getting an intuitive notion of exactly what your talking about. From citing Ron's 4-thing I'd think that you were just talking about being very specific, or not ignoring things that are assumptions of the "common" role-player.

Interestingly, I have given up trying to write RPGs for the "non-gamer". I don't believe that many people get into RPGs without being taught by another gamer, and, thus, you are likely to get that teachers biases anyway. If I actually thought that a game that I was writing was an gateway game that would attract new players then I'd think about it. But I just tend to think of them as products for people who are already gamers. If I were to write to the "new" gamer, I suppose that I'd try to include a chapter to get that reader up to speed with other readers. This would probably include a primer on common jargon.

Mike

[Laurel]

Fang, I slept on this one.  Here's my thoughts in a short coherent form using what we already talked about.

"Within an RPG, the primary function of game mechanics is to
provide a well-organized platform that allows interaction and co-participation for all the players.  This platform is expressed through the creation of a communal language."

The communal language is not in itself the purpose of the game mechanics.  Its not the house.  Its the hammer and the nails used on the wood to build the house.  

Which is probably what you meant, all along.

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

OK, I think I see what you want. But what would you suggest as a method? All I can think of is just to ensure that the writer is thinking critically. Could you give an example of a written mechanic that does not employ this thinking vs. one that does? So that we can "know it when we see it". Right now, I'm not getting an intuitive notion of exactly what you're talking about. From citing Ron's 4-thing I'd think that you were just talking about being very specific, or not ignoring things that are assumptions of the "common" role-player.

There is no assurance; this is a matter of my tastes.  And I do not have any examples on hand to show.  I imagine that a game that was based on the philosophy that statements were Intentions could have a pretty heft initiative mechanic, whereas Scattershot is written for statements to be Executions and has precious little.

And yes it could be looked at a way of "being very specific" in writing a role-playing game, its just hard to parse out some examples that are either a poor mix of the four ways a statement can be taken or have a clarity in this concern, because I have not had the opportunity to really look for them (I never thought I'd get to discuss such).  I know I have never seen (nor do I think it is such a good idea) explaining this kind of detail to the reader.  I just feel that a lot of confusion could be avoided if a few game designers had this kind of perspective as they wrote.

Interestingly, I have given up trying to write RPGs for the "non-gamer". I don't believe that many people get into RPGs without being taught by another gamer, and, thus, you are likely to get that teacher's biases anyway. If I actually thought that a game that I was writing was a gateway game that would attract new players then I'd think about it. But I just tend to think of them as products for people who are already gamers. If I were to write to the "new" gamer, I suppose that I'd try to include a chapter to get that reader up to speed with other readers. This would probably include a primer on common jargon.

I find that sad.  You and I have a different goal, that's all.  As a potential contributor to the 'market,' I feel I should do everything in my power to expand it.  Since I would have a 'piece of the pie,' I feel anything I can do to make the pie 'bigger' will help me out in the long run.

Don't get me wrong, word-of-mouth and indoctrination have worked pretty well in the past, but every time I hear another complaint about how 'computer role-playing games are stealing the market' or that 'collectible card games have taken away all the business,' I can only react that, instead of complaining, I should do something about it.  I may analyze these apparent phenomena, but you'll not hear me complain.

That is the main reason we are designing Scattershot to reach the first-timer market.  This is why we are making Scattershot as simple and portable a generalist game as we can, because unlike some, we feel that licensing is a great way to reach these markets (as I tried to explain much earlier).  This is also why the Scattershot 'line' contains a stand-alone collectible card game version of the combat mechanic.  These are the ways we feel we can 'get out there' in print, to reach new people and bring them into the hobby.

One thing I have concluded about chapters written "to the 'new' gamer," is that they didn't work for me.  There were too many instances throughout a game system that needed explaining.  To try and concentrate it all into one chapter made us try to write the book twice over.  Likewise creating a chapter or introduction that provides vernacular to 'decode' the rest of the document has been shown to be a 'turn-off' in playtest.  What we decided was that the whole product needed to be written in an engaging fashion that does not bore the experienced nor leave the uninitiated wanting (not an easy task!).

Our thoughts include a number of newcomer-targeted licensed products that can be brought out quickly (because of the simplicity and robustness of the core mechanics) that lead back to a core structure of more elaborate products¹.  We believe that this might also work for garnering players from the collectible card game market (which, trust me, is made up mostly of people who had never touched role-playing games).

And I think my thoughts on the use of jargon with outsiders should be quite clear by now.

Fang Langford

¹ This seems to be the thinking behind the Open Gaming License from TSR.  Except they let other companies do all the work and take all the risks, while they profit from the sales of the core products (that do not require any design or development) – all gravy.

[Le Joueur]

Laurel wrote:

Here are my thoughts in a short coherent form using what we already talked about.

"Within an RPG, the primary function of game mechanics is to
provide a well-organized platform that allows interaction and co-participation for all the players.  This platform is expressed through the creation of a communal language."

The communal language is not in itself the purpose of the game mechanics.  It's not the house.  It's the hammer and the nails used on the wood to build the house.  

Which is probably what you meant, all along.

Nope.  I am kinda crotchety when it comes to interpretations of my words so here's using your metaphor:

The communal language is not in itself the purpose of the game mechanics.  The mechanics, in fact, can be thought to grow out of an abstraction of it.  Communal language is about the rooms in the houses.  The blueprints (or the mechanics) are a formalization of "here's the living room, there's the den, and the bathroom has to go here because of the sewer line."  The hammer, nails, and wood are the game play built with those plans.  It's argued that you can build a house without blueprints, but I don't think you can play hardly at all, without communal language.

Is that any clearer?  I always thought saying that communal language was created by mechanics use put the cart before the horse.  When I say the primary role of mechanics is that of communal language, it's because I see them ultimately as a high abstraction of that language.  (But then these aren't games to me, they're toys.)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-26 19:06 ]