Why we (I?) roleplay - especially in the Simulationist mode.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Ian is correct - it is clear to me, for instance, that you could split games like My Life with Master and Le Mon Mouri from games like The Pool and Sorcerer quite easily. The former focus their mechanics on internal states and self-definition; the latter focus their mechanics on characters' impacts on the game world and vice versa.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

I look forward to posting a reply to both your questions as soon a work allows me a few moments, which will probably be this weekend.

Aure Anteluva,

Simenume.

[Silmenume]

As I am still thrashing through my ideas, I apologize in advance if my thesis has not been thought all the way through.  I especially apologize to Ron if it seems that I am pestering him to death about problems that I perceive (which may not be real problems but an indication of a lack of clear understanding) in the Simulationist essay.  My gut tells me that there are some inconsistencies or contradictions or something of like that need to be sorted out and in writing these posts I find that I understand more and more about the essay and my issues with it.  Please bear with me as I work things out.  I hope these postings lead to something positive and not just the tired reploughing of very worn out turf.

The simplicity of Ian's question is delightfully direct and spot on, and I hope in this posting to shed some light on that very issue.

My basic thesis boils down to two parts.  The first is that the 4 acts of Exploration (Character, Situation, Setting, Color – which for the sake of this argument I shall refer to as the Narrative Elements [Not to be mistaken for the Narrativist Mode of GNS]) and the 5th are distinctly different and should be regarded as two separate processes, goals and spheres of activities.  The second is that, I believe, that Ron has the cart before the horse in his assertion that –

...the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to "go."

It is my understanding, and I will argue for the sake of this essay, I will interpret that by "the engine" he means the game system/mechanics (the 5th element of the Exploration process.)

I believe the points I am arguing are more than mere nit picking, but rather a fundamental shift in the understanding of Simulationism, (Dramaticism in my hubris) what drives it and how the Exploration process functions.  Of course, I recognize that in the end my efforts could be nothing more than sound and fury, but I hope to do more than chew up bandwidth and people's valuable time.

Starting with my first assertion I argue that the Narrative Process as described in the Exploration process of the GNS model (exploring character, situation, setting, color) and System (action resolution specifically, but also touching upon character creation and reward mechanics) are two distinct, but parallel processes that have different goals and functions within the game environment.

The first distinction between the Narrative Process and System is where they take place during the game.  In essence the Narrative Process is what we do when we roleplay, it is the "Dream"; it is content creation.  In borrowing from another post (and I am glowing red-faced for I cannot properly cite the author for I cannot remember who it was – my apologies) I postulate that the Imagined Space is the medium where the Narrative Process takes place (content is created).  As one of the requisite qualities of the Imagined Space is internal causality System, by definition, cannot function within the Imagined Space.

This next distinction is the different roles the Narrative Process and System serve.  The Narrative Process/Exploration of the Imagined Space is the means by which an environment is created to foster "realistic" (plausible) behavior in imaginary circumstances.  It is the place where the person accepts the magic "what...if."  How would I feel if...?  What would I do if...? How would I react if...? What "realistic" means varies from group to group but it is rooted somewhere in the human experience.  A parent who loses a beloved 6-year-old child might reasonably or might "realistically" be expected to weep or rage, but laughing in delight would probably not be considered a "realistic" response; character history and circumstances notwithstanding.

The Narrative Process is an experiential process.  It is the process by which the scenario is Explored by posing and answering the "if" questions.  In the process of responding to the questions, the content is created, character illuminated, setting explored, situation worked through.  How the DM poses those questions and what questions he asks color the events at the time.  The types of questions the DM poses to the players frames the structure.  Thus depending on the types of "if" questions posed by the DM the unfolding series of questions could very easily shape the events to be beginning, middle and resolution/end.  The "if" questions do not, and in practice are rarely stated as "if's", but the question is out there all the time.  By merely describing something physical, like the layout of a town or the countryside the implied question for each player is, What would I do if I were in this locality?  On a more direct level a character walking down a street in a city could be pointed out by a man who screams, "He's the one who killed my son!"  The implied question is, "What would you (I) do if you (I) were walking down a street in a city and a person you (I) never met before starts accusing you (I) of a heinous crime that you (I) did not (or for more spice maybe did) commit?"  And another question that always is asked in such situations is "How would I feel if I were walking down a street in a city and a person you never met before starts accusing you of a heinous crime that you did not (or for more spice maybe did) commit?"  If these questions continue to pop up then the nature of the character and his circumstances is starting to be explored.  If the question that is implicitly asked by the DM continues to be along the lines of "What would you do if you were the only person who could possibly save these people, but to do so would risk a very real possibility of permanent death?", then the nature of heroism is being explored and how the character responds determines whether or not the character is heroic.  The player experiences the event and responds accordingly.  Typically, though not always the case, the more emotion weighs into the decision, and the more emotion that is played out, the more interesting the response.

NOTE the questions are not spoken out loud or overtly phrased as such, but rather arise out of the circumstances laid out by the DM with the influence of the PC's actions (and in some cases intentions) measured in.  These are not questions one stops the game to discuss and lay in as one might in Narrativistic play (If I understand that is how at least one form of Narrativism functions – but I am admittedly short on knowledge about that mode of play), but arise from within the imagined space and meets the standards of internal causality.  The results of all these questions and answers is content/story.  Skillful posing of questions over the course of a game can result in story with beginning, middle, and end.  In the process character is illuminated, situation resolved and created(!), setting explored and color exploited.  

This is the Engine.  This is the source of cause.  This is the "go".  This process, this Narrative Process, is not modeling.  It is not a schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

System on the other hand surrounds the imagined space, but is not in the imagined space.  System does not ask questions; system, in one role, supports the Narrative Process by providing answers to certain specific questions (or could be thought to mediate between cause and effect) that arise from actions generated within the Imagined Space.  System is the means by which the resolution (the effects) of certain triggering causes is determined.  System can impact the Imagined Space and the Narrative Process, but in itself is not something that is "experienced" as it is outside the experiential process.  The results of System are plugged back into the Narrative Space and are then given meaning and are "experienced."  System is used to mediate events that occur in the imagined space but is not the imagined event itself.  System reacts, it is not the generative "go", but is a tool that aids the smooth functioning of the Narrative Process.

System facilitates.  System quantifies and manages intangibles that might otherwise be difficult or tedious to cope with.

I have played sessions without character sheet or randomizers, but I have never played by having a character sheet (and rule books, dice, etc.) and NOT entering into the Imagined Space and engaging the Narrative Process.  This explains some of the problems in systems that attempt to promote the idea that reading the texts is the beginning of roleplay.  Roleplay (or at least Simulationist roleplay), to me, does not begin until one steps into the imagined space.  This can occur during character creation the moment the player moves past the numbers and starts to explore their meaning and consequences from within or with reference to the imagined space and the attendant internal logic of the setting.  Many problems lie in the transition/handoff from the world mundane to the world imagined.  Plays signal the transition by raising the curtain, movies by the dimming of lights or the fading in of the first image, etc., but most game systems do not bring up this issue.  Part of the reason I believe lies in the fact that most designers haven't really thought past the system and what people use the system for.  Most publishers punt on the notion of Narrative Process and either don't comment on it or let the users believe that some how the employment of the system will create content, but that is impossible.  The DM and the players create content, within the imagined space while posing or dealing with "what if's".  

Which brings me to the point that the notion that system/engine

...the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to "go."

is backward.  While perhaps most, if not all games, scenarios, campaigns begin with players reading rules and generating characters using "systems", it is the desire to exist or to pretend to exist and to act and interact within the imagined space which is the true "go" element of Simulationist play.  Invariably the question that comes up at the beginning of most games is, "what do you want play" (or more accurately – what do you want to do within the imagined space).  Some may argue that what most people ask is, "Do you want to play Marvels (or substitute your game of choice)" as an endorsement of system as a priority over narrative.  However for most game system choices, "generic" systems as the exception, the game system is so tightly bound up/virtually inseparable from the setting and situation that one could easily be referring to setting and situation when stating their choice.  For example one could chose as their game of choice AD&D 2nd edition when they are really interested in playing a medieval high fantasy world with certain personalities contained within but really don't enjoy the system at all.  So to go back to the Marvel's example above one might choose it because they enjoy the genre, setting, the thematic elements usually present in the narrative space not because they love the system enough to make it a priority choice.

Does this mean that system is not important?  Not in the least.  As Ron said in his essay, System Does Matter.  I just believe that the "go" element comes from the Narrative Process as explored within the Imagined Space and aided by System, and not the other way around.  

I am a die hard Simulationist (Dramatist), but I also love the way system functions in the game I play in.  I can't imagine playing in that particular Imagined Space that I play in without the system that is employed to aid that process.  So as a die hard Simulationist (Dramatist) why do I love (that particular) system?  Why does the Narrative Process need supporting (a system)?  It does, and I am not arguing that system does not belong in roleplay, but why is it soooooooo important to play?  In reviewing this article, and having read a few other threads since I started composing this essay I came to discover, duh, that the Narrative Process and System can each be enjoyed separately for what they contribute to the enjoyableness of that evenings activities.  In other words the Narrative Process does not equal system, but both are vital and enjoyable in their own right and in how they function, but cannot function alone.  One could "play" without system, but the difficulties involved would be so enormous as to render the endeavor doomed almost from the start.  System without the Narrative Process and the Imagined Space is words on a page – inert. The Narrative Process should never be beholden to the system, however the system must reflect the Narrative Process.

So here are some questions that I have.

The exercise of system can be enjoyable as well as exploring the Narrative Space – Why, when they are so two vastly different processes?   When engaged in other dramatic/narrative events there is no system – so what is it about RPG's that "demands" system?  While we know that system is not the Narrative Process it does profoundly impact our relationship with the imagined space.  (i.e., AD&D 2nd Edition)  If the asking of the "what if's" by the DM frames the relationship to the Imagined Space why is it necessary to define the relationship to the imagined space?

Unless I am waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base, I believe that most of the time system is invoked at moment of "crisis" (I use the screen play term here – basically an crux in a plot where the action of the protagonist can change the course of events – however great or small) where some sort of determination or resolution is demanded.  In this situation, to use a phrase that my DM uses, "the dice add spice."  It also adds an element of neutrality.  So when rolling for an outcome (assuming one uses a Fortune method) excitement builds because of the very nature of rolling dice creates uncertainty, and it also creates or helps create an atmosphere of neutrality.  This uncertainty can be exploited by the DM to create tension and thus keep the events exciting and interesting.  However the rolling of dice in and of itself is not that interesting unless they reflect back onto the events taking place in the Imagined Space.  So one could have a great time in the Imagined Space, but because the system is so poorly designed that the enjoyment factor for the evening could take a hit.  However if the system is brilliantly designed, but the Narrative Process is as dull as watching paint peel, then that night's recreational value is going to tank as well.  We have two processes operating in tandem/alternation, one that is what we are imagining, and the other that aids in that imagining process, both of which must function well for the game to be considered a success.

I hope that I have made some cogent arguments while not boring anyone to death or offending someone.

Aure Enteluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Have you read The whole model - this is it? If I'm not mistaken, it's key to the issues you're raising. Also, I wrote that thread in hopes that it would be a door through which one must pass before we go into details about any of the different Creative Agendas (e.g. Simulationism).

If you haven't checked it out yet, please do - the whole thing including comments and replies to comments - because I'm pretty sure it handles the issues you've raised. The relationship of the five elements in particular is something I've been working out slowly in the three GNS essays, and it's key to understanding anything, at all, about what I've been saying.

I don't want to dismiss your specific concerns here at all, but let's both make sure we're speaking from exactly the same big-picture before working out the details.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

I had not read The Whole Model - this is it thread at the time of the composition or posting of my essay.  I have read 3/4's of the entire thread and I see that I have much navel gazing to do before I come back here.

There is much about the Model essay that I found both exciting and educational.  I can't wait to have finished my meditations and make some hopefully useful comments.  It does answer some questions/points I had and helped frames others.  

I especially was intrigued by the inclusion of the Ephemera level - which to me seems to be the "actual play" (what we set out to do) of the game.  The Ephemera seems to me the playing out, the engaging, the act of satisfying the original desire that started the whole process where one decided in the first place to play a role playing game.  It is the end of the journey when one started with the yen.  The Ephemera is the scratch to the orginal itch.

System is a fairly abstract term that indicates that the imagined Situation and other elements actually change through the activity of role-playing.

To me that is a (partial) description of the Narrative Process.  And it is in the Emphera that the Narrative Process, as I endlessly call it, takes place.  Unlike other Narrative events like movies or books or a fully orchestrated piece of music where the creative efforts have all been fixed, in Roleplay we are something akin to jazz musicians - the story is created as a function of play much as the music is created as a function of the jazz musicians playing their instruments together.

Also I would quickly put in, the smallest Narrative unit of Exploration takes place at this level - conflict and responce.

Just some thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

[M. J. Young]

I'm really tempted to address a whole stack of things--like whether what you describe is simulationist or narrativist (it's awfully close in some spots)--but I think most of them are covered in the other thread. The one thing I am going to discuss is the confusion about system, not just because you're using it to mean something different from what it means in discussions here, but because I think there's an aspect of it that deserves attention.

System is listed as one of the five elements that can be explored. You've said that the system, by which you seem to mean the rules in the book, can't enter the imagined space, and that the time elements of the system only matter in crisis situations. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the concept of system.

The rules in the book are not system. Rather, they are a data point used by system to do what system does. System is the means by which the shared imaginary space is defined for all participants. It references rules as one of the elements that enable it to do so; however, it also references setting, character, color, and to a degree situation. Consider: just as the rules are not part of the shared imaginary space, neither is the descriptive text of the setting, nor the character information on the sheet, nor the module which provides the adventure set up. Those are data elements which are brought into the shared imaginary space via the system: system tells us how we convert numbers on a page to fleshed out characters in the world, dry textual room or terrain descriptions into imagined buildings or landscapes, written character relationships and actions into active events. Thus in a sense nothing can get into that space except system; everything else gets there through system.

As significantly, it is entirely possible for us (by system) to "upload" into the shared imagined space a full background of the world, complete character identities, and a tension-filled situation, and have it sit there as a still picture, doing nothing, going nowhere. This is the sense in which system is "time" within the game world: things change because we imagine that they change; we use system to control the change. In our real world, the medium which enables change is time; in the game world, the medium which enables change is system.

Exploring system may be as simple as seeing whether hitting the door with an axe or shooting the lock with a gun will open the door. It may be as unrealistic as trying to figure out what my character must do to levitate off the ground, or as solidly grounded in reality as to provide sufficiently realistic physics that a properly designed rocket will achieve orbit and an improperly designed one will explode on the launch pad. Exploring system means having the character take actions and observing the results, to see how the world actually works and how it can be manipulated in play.

AD&D2 is not a system; neither is GURPS. These are rules sets which inform systems. Even if we were to agree that every rule in such a rules set would be rigorously applied, that would not mean the entire system was in the books--it would mean that we were using those books as an authority (and usually agreeing on one individual who has the credibility to determine what those rules mean--part of the system) which will inform the system.

I think your objections to system as one of the elements of exploration are based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of what system means.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

System is listed as one of the five elements that can be explored. You've said that the system, by which you seem to mean the rules in the book, can't enter the imagined space, and that the time elements of the system only matter in crisis situations. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the concept of system.

You are correct that by system I was referring to the rules in the book.  Upon reflection I can see a huge panoply of issues that arise from the use of the word system without qualifying it.  Like the word Simulation(ism) which has many different and ultimately non germane meanings except for the one newly defined within this sight, system, too, has many meanings.  The largest source of confusion comes from the blurring of system as process with system as label.  One can have a system that describes to the user how to do something or how something works (methodology/process - verb), i.e., instruct and system as label (noun) i.e., circulatory system, solar system, electrical system, operating system, etc.  What these two general notions of system have is common is that in each case all the elements interrelate to one another creating a complex whole.  A random collection of elements is not a system; they must all interact, interrelate, or be interdependent to be considered a system.

Thus if one were to use system as process, which is in fact what I am doing for this example, the "rules" in the book are a system in that they present a methodology/system for the mediating between cause and effect; in other words IIEE along with DFK.  And that puts them squarely in the Level of Techniques.  They operate on conflicts for the purpose of mediating cause and its effects arising out of the imagined space, but are not the imagined space itself.  While in the Shared Imagined Space one could explore ecosystems, legal systems, solar systems for all these systems "exist" within the Imagined Space.  The mediation system (process/methodology), arising from the rules set as laid out in the text(s) cannot be Explored from within the Imagined Space because it does not arise from within the Imagined Space, much like a hammer cannot be used to hammer itself.

The fact is that Roleplaying is just lousy with systems such as -

IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time (I consider this more of a label than a method*), narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact, character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), scene framing, currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these terms represents a range of potential play-[methods.] I consider the two most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE.

Emphasis and * mine

Methods = Processes = Systems

These all describe methods/systems for handling events.  They all function outside the Imagined Space though they may or may not have an immediate impact on the Imagined Space.  For simplicity's sake, in the future when making reference these above methods/systems I will use a more specific definition.  When I was discussing "system" in my postings, those methods that mediate between cause and effect, I was referring to the IIEE system and the attendant DKF systems that arise from the rules sets laid out in the texts.  I understand that just because something is in print does not mean that it will be used in play, however I am just making note that the systems/methods do have a genesis.

System is the means by which the shared imaginary space is defined for all participants.

This is an example of the earlier ambiguity that arose from unqualified use of system such as I did.  The question here is – which system (or which Techniques)?  Aside from the which system/Techniques issue, I am afraid I have to disagree with this definition on another level.  While "system" does help define everything that it is involved in, "system" aka Techniques are not involved with the entirety of the Shared Imagined Space.  The Shared Imagined Space is more than systems/methods/techniques.  All these things mediate, but they are not the experience itself.  Much as grammar as a system aids in the transmission of ideas/content, grammar is not ideas/content.

Consider: just as the rules are not part of the shared imaginary space, neither is the descriptive text of the setting, nor the character information on the sheet, nor the module which provides the adventure set up. Those are data elements which are brought into the shared imaginary space via the system: system tells us how we convert numbers on a page to fleshed out characters in the world, dry textual room or terrain descriptions into imagined buildings or landscapes, written character relationships and actions into active events. Thus in a sense nothing can get into that space except system; everything else gets there through system.

System does not tell us how to convert numbers on a page to fleshed out characters in the world.  I'll start by assuming the by "in the world" you mean "the Shared Imagined Space."  At best system can equate one abstract to another, but that does not mean that system has caused these abstractions to enter into the "Shared Imagined Space."  An abstract unit value like a strength of 12 might then be translated by system into another abstract unit value of +4 to damage.  Or a Abstract unit value like strength of 12 might be said to equate, by system, to an ability to heft 100 pounds which does have a determinate unit of measure, the pound.  However the ability to heft 100 pounds as indicated by a Strength of 12 via system in and of itself does not mean that ability is not an abstraction i.e., the 100 pounds is not in our hands, nor is there some intrinsic value to pound.  What we do understand is that the ability to heft 100 pounds equates to a certain abstract value via system and gives meaning to it based upon our own life experiences.  This does not mean that we have to have lifted 100 pounds per say, but we do need to have personally lifted some weight and have to been aware of the value of weight that had been assigned to that object.  From this we can project forward or into the "Shared Imagined Space." We bring our life experiences to the game and system uses/exploits these experiences to create abstractions that can then be manipulated.  Thus system does not tell us how to convert numbers into meaning in the Imagined Space, rather system takes advantage of our real world knowledge and calls upon it to for system to gain meaning.  System does not give meaning to Strength 12, but rather gives it equivalency to something that we do understand and know.  In other words we have to suspend the disbelief that the 100 pound object, which isn't in our physical presence, and imagine that it does exist and that we imagine hefting it and we imagine the amount of exertion required to do so.  Thus system is mediating between an abstraction and our personal experience via the Shared Imagined Space.  System facilitates, system reflects upon, but system does not drive.

System is an abstraction process, a short hand, we all agree upon (we hope) to speed events up because certain processes have been "pre-negotiated" and their methods agreed to be representative and acceptable.  The key here is that not every event or process can ever be accounted for, nor would is it necessary to do as the great variability in the amount of Points of Contact.  A game that has very few Points of Contact (few rules) is no less rich a Shared Imagined Space experience than one with high Points of Contact.

There is the whole level of information communication going on in the Shared Imagined Space that does not rely on system/Techniques.  System is a subset of all communication efforts in the game. For example it does not require any system at all to say, "The young child looks up at with tears rolling her face."  The meaning of this communication is highly dependent upon context, not a mediation system/methodology.  Yet it is just such events that breath life (dramatic color?) into the imagined space because they connect with us directly without need of an abstracting process.  One does not need system to say, "to the west you see a mighty forest," but that does bring into the Shared Imagined Space a forest and one that is extreme in some fashion.  Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space with the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

Exploring system may be as simple as seeing whether hitting the door with an axe or shooting the lock with a gun will open the door.

Here we have another example of ambiguity about which definition of system is being employed or referred to.

1.   The system as label referred to might mean the Setting of the Shared Imagined Space (i.e., ecosystem, solar system, defense system of a castle, etc.).  Like in our waking world where we might take an axe to a door to see how effective the axe is at damaging the door or we might take an axe to door to see how resistant the door is to assaults, we are Exploring the effectives of those items.  The same could be said with the gun example.  We are in this case said to be Exploring Setting.  In a game setting the system/method/Technique mediates between the cause, the axe hitting the door, and the effect, how the door is effected by the axe.  From this level the character is said to have learned something about the world.  At this level we are not Exploring System (as process), but system (as label) of the Shared Imagine Space - Setting/World.

2.   The system as process (IIEE and DFK aka Techniques) cannot be explored from within the Shared Imagined Space (the Ephemera Level) because it is an artificial contrivance meant to mediate, not exist, with the Shared Imagined Space.  The character cannot "know" that he is doing 3 points of damage, or that he needs to roll a 15 or better to hit or that the door has 20 structural points.  All the character "knows" is that he is swinging an axe at a door and some effect is happening.  System as process mediates this event, but it happens on a metagame level, outside the Shared Imagined Space.  In other words we jump from the experiencing of the event from a character point of view, to an abstract representation that takes place up in the Techniques level of play that is outside the Shared Imagined Space as the player.  Now a player may have a real interest to roll dice, use Karma or Drama to resolve the event, and the player may enjoy this process to a great extent, but all that happens outside the Shared Imagined Space.  In this process the player may even enjoy "rules stacking" or "techniques manipulation" to see if they can bring about the greatest most profound results, and that is all fine and good, but he is not Exploring the Shared Imagined Space. Therefore it is something that is in essence "irrelevant" or Transcends the Dramatic Process/Exploration of Shared Dramatic Space.  If this happens frequently the player could be said to put a higher priority on metagame and could be drifting to another mode of play – assuming the mode of play was Simulationist in first place.

Exploring system means having the character take actions and observing the results, to see how the world actually works and how it can be manipulated in play.

Again we come to an ambiguous usage of "system".  Yes the character could be Exploring the systems (labels of things that meet the definition of system) that "exist" within the Shared Imagined Space, but the character cannot Explore IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time (I consider this more of a label than a method*), narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact, character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), scene framing, currency among the character components, and much more.  These are all things that the "player" employs, but the character that is supposed to reside in an artificial reality (Shared Imagined Space) and such things do not exist within the consciousness/experiences of said character.  Now if one wanted to do so mind bending I suppose that one could have a game whereby the characters within were debating about roleplaying games, but within their "reality" they would be no more subject to those constructs that they created as were are to our constructs that we created.  We intend, we execute, we assess the results, we build some mental constructs to make sense of what's going on, but we are not subject to those constructs.  Those constructs merely reflect the nature of the world which exists outside our heads and would continue to do so whether we are there or not.  The same holds true for the imagined characters, they are subject to these processes which are a part of the fabric of their existence.  It just so happens, as we look through the looking glass into the Shared Imagined Space we as players get to be involved in some of the mediation processes that happen of their own accord in our living world.

Even if we were to agree that every rule in such a rules set [The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published] would be rigorously applied, that would not mean the entire system [All the various systems of Techniques {process/methodology} employed in play] was in the books--it would mean that we were using those books as an authority (and usually agreeing on one individual who has the credibility to determine what those rules [Techniques{process/methodology}] mean--part of the system [one or more, but not all systems of techniques {process/methodology}]) which will inform the system [All the various systems of Techniques {process/methodology} employed in play].

[the material in square and curly brackets are my additions]

I agree.  When I spoke of system in my posting I meant the systems of IIEE as employed, not necessarily as created or designed. As I understand the essence of all that Ron is proposing here, its not what's in the texts that interests him, and thus the model, so much, as is what actually does happen – i.e., the social interactions and what we as human beings do in this agreed upon activity that is influenced by the texts.  This does not mean the texts are irrelevant, it means that aren't the end all be all; its what we do with them that is important.  They point the way to roleplay, they are not roleplay itself.

Who would have thought that discussions on roleplay would get so dry as to debate the meaning of "system"? If anyone can get through my essay without falling asleep or engaging in some sort of violent behavior arising out of tedium they deserve a medal!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Actually, I think your discussion is brilliant and will be referencing people to this thread habitually. Plus asking your permission to distill its content a bit for the generalized "role-playing essay" to be completed next year.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space with the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

Doh!!!  What should be stated is -

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

I hate the short edit window!  Alas...

Ron, Thank you and permission granted!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[M. J. Young]

To clarify, what I was trying to say is that, in the context of the five elements explored, "system" is defined as "the means by which events in the shared imaginary space are defined and altered". I certainly agree that the word system could refer to many things; but I believe that in Ron's statement regarding "exploration of system" this is the intended meaning. System is, as the Lumpley principle states, the social contract elements by which the group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space. That may include all the elements you mention, but more to the point it includes anything which enables the group to come to that agreement, and therefore your statement,

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of system,

directly contradicts the Lumpley principle. System is the totality of the means by which the events in the Shared Imagined Space are defined.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

OK – I have come out of my navel gazing reverie and am ready to respond.

First of all let me say that after one of my first epiphanies I turned a little red faced.  I fell into the very trap my previous post was trying to bring to light and thus prevent!

Here is the offending quote (and a source of great consternation on my part!) –

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

I used the word "system" with out qualification.  This allowed the sentence to take on, or be interpreted in ways that are confusing and create unintended meanings.

Let me make some statements first before I attempt to clear up this mess.  In my previous post I proposed that the word "system" can be broken into two basic categories; "system" as label and "system" as process.  I believe for the sake of these arguments and in regards to RPG's that what I called "system" as label be thought of and referred to say "system" as observed (labeled).  We say "solar system" because we observe the planets in the skies and denote a connection between these objects and label them as such because it is useful and meaningful. This usage of "system" (as observed) does not impart much information about the nature of the system being referred to beyond indicating that there is some connection between the objects that and that recognizing that there is a connection (the nature of which is not particularly examined – in this case it has to do with objects that relate to the Sun in some fashion) is useful.  It is useful for framing ideas for future discourse/exploration, but in and of itself does not increase understanding to a great deal.  

Conversely I believe what I defined as "system" as process could be more fruitfully defined (again in regard to RPG's) as "system" as proscribed (process).  System as proscribed here is an attempt to create a means to regulate/formalize certain actions (human behaviors as it were) so as to facilitate the achieving of a goal, which in this case is the formalizing the determination of the success or failure and possible effects of certain triggering events.  We employ grammar (a system as proscribed) to facilitate in the transmission of ideas.  Grammar, though it is vital in the process of communication, does not provide meaning.

Ok – back to my misphrasing.  It turns out that I must apologize for not following my own strictures and having a vague usage of system within my own posting!  I assumed (and here is where the problem arose) that when I included the phrase "Points of Contact" the usage of the word "system" was implied/defined.  Allow me to clarify -

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of published system (system as proscribed), especially (or as is most strongly demonstrated) in light Points of Contact games.

Or let me phrase it in a different manner –

The content of the Shared Imagined Space is not restricted to only those events that are operated on by the published (by corporation or self) system (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) as employed.

There is much more going on in the SIS than what the system as proscribed (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) details.  The importance of that declaration is that many people are trapped into believing that is not the case.  The importance of this cannot be overstated.  Most, if not all, systems as proscribed (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) deal with Game Space Management (narration apportioning, scene framing, etc.), Avatar Management (currency among the character components, reward system, character creation, etc.) and Shared Imagined Space Management which can be broken into Mediation (cause and effect mediation such as IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, etc.) and SIS Creation (encounter tables, treasure tables, city creation tables, etc.)

System is, as the Lumpley principle states, the social contract elements by which the group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space.

Obviously my assertions run smack into the Lumpley Principle, so I'll start with it.  I took a little initiative and did a little searching to found just what exactly is the Lumpley Principle.  If I am going to be held to task for it, I should at least know what it says!  In posts discussing "resolution mechanics" and "game mechanics", terms which aren't really in favor now, at least to my understanding (am I mistaken?), Lumpley's big question was how is it that we come to agree that we will agree that we will allow "resolution mechanics" and "game mechanics" to have force over our characters.  The answer basically came down to Social Contract.  In essence we agree to submit ourselves to a binding, but fully expressed, resolution and game mechanics system via the Social Contract.  Thus before we sit down to play we hash out the apportionment of who has "final say".

what happens in the game, happens because everybody agrees it does

This position is formalized in the Social Contract and is subsumed under heading of "system".  Remember the above quote was in made in the context of determining why and how we agree to let "resolution" mechanics affect our characters.  The Lumpley Principle is a procedural device, not a content (or SIS) delimiting device.

Ron then summarized Lumpley's arguments as the following –

Resolution systems are methods for group agreement regarding what happens in the imaginary game world.

The problem with this paraphrase lies in the "...regarding what happens..." phrase.  The problem is that people have taken this to mean "what can and cannot be allowed/explored in the SIS."  I propose a more illustratory phrasing or at least what I hope is a clarifying restatement of the Principle's intent to be –

"Resolution systems" are methods for group agreement (previously negotiated) that allows for the systematized mediation of cause and effects (i.e., IIEE and DFK) events that arise from triggering situations in the imaginary game world (SIS), and for those effects to be enforceable (made binding – as per the agreement).

The Lumpley Principle states, basically, we agree to which systems as proscribed/Techniques that we will be using and that we also agree to be subject to them. We agree to and submit our characters to the results of "system" as proscribed/Techniques when "system" as proscribed/Techniques is invoked. The result of system as proscribed/Techniques is then allowed to enter into the SIS.   So if system as proscribed/Technique says we get hit and take damage as a result of an event that arose for the SIS, we agree to abide by those results and thus we agree on what happened (past tense!)  The Lumpley Principle does not proscribe what can and cannot be Explored in the SIS (define the limits of the SIS), rather it is a means of ratification of what has happened.

This is not the same as saying  -

System is ... the social contract elements by which group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space.

The problem with this take is the "...agrees to the content of..."  What the Lumpley Principle states is better described as "...ratifies the results of systems (as proscribed) operating on..."

OK – I have responded to the Lumply Principle complaint.  

Now onto -

...in the context of the five elements explored, "system" is defined as "the means by which events in the shared imaginary space are defined and altered".

As I have already argued above regarding the meaning of the Lumpley Principle, I will simply state that "system" as procedure does not define events in the SIS but system can be involved in the alteration of elements of the SIS via its mediation of cause and effects.  This is not meant to be dismissive to the idea or the poster, but I think that I have already covered that topic earlier in this post.  If I have not done so to satisfaction I will happily revisit it again.

What I do have an issue with, as I have gone on about like a broken record (that does date me a bit!), is the term "Exploration of System."  While M.J. did go the extra mile to define system, as a term used in the Model, Exploration of System is vague.  While it is implied to mean system as proscribed/Techniques, it is best in my opinion to clarify because so many misconceptions arise out of the confusion of the usage of the word system.

I also take exception to the use of Exploration in reference to system (as proscribed).  I do not think it is effective to use the term Exploration in conjunction with the 4 narrative elements (Character, Setting, Situation, Color), which imparts one meaning to the word Exploration, and using Exploration in conjunction with the system (as proscribed), which imparts another meaning.  I believe a more constructive phrasing would be "Employment of System," when discussing the use of system (as proscribed – Techniques) as system/Techniques is a tool that one employs.

Simply put – one employs system (as proscribed) to aid in the process of (not define) Exploration of the four narrative elements in the SIS.  I do believe a post on the meaning of Exploration is in the offing.  Hmmmm......

At any rate the effects of Turkey are having their way....

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[lumpley]

Howdy.

The content of the Shared Imagined Space is not restricted to only those events that are operated on by the published (by corporation or self) system (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) as employed.

There is much more going on in the SIS than what the system as proscribed (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) details. The importance of that declaration is that many people are trapped into believing that is not the case. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

I think you've just restated the Lumpley Principle (or, as I prefer to think of it, the Lumpidoodly Principoodly).  When you go on to say that according to the Lumpley Principle we hash out before play who'll have authority, and that our agreement to abide by the input of the rules in the game text is binding, you're misreading me.

I want to make sure that in your research you hit the Lumpley Principle Goes Wading and my concise statement in the middle of page two:

The Lumpley Principle:
When one participant says that something happens in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: all the participants have to assent to it. Mechanics can help create and shape this consensus, as part of negotiations, but they cannot make things happen in the game without it. This process -- statement -> negotiation -> consensus -- is the game's System in play.

Ron has said that when he writes "Exploration of System" he means "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game," which is why I wrote that last sentence there.

-Vincent

[M. J. Young]

As I was reading Jay's (Silumene) latest post, I was thinking that it would be best of Vincent were to come here and clarify the Lumpley Principle; and behold, he has done so.

The problem in this discourse has revolved around something we all acknowledge exists but disagree regarding how to categorize it. Clearly, in every game there are events, occurences, objects, people, things in the shared imaginary space which are agreed by the participants to be there which do not spring from the written text of the game rules/setting materials. The question on the boards is whether or not the way those things get into that shared imaginary space is part of "system", and more specifically whether how Ron intended the word to be understood when he wrote that article.

This is undoubtedly complicated by the fact that the Lumpley principle was expounded after the article was written, which of course means that Ron was not consciously referencing it in the article. We have (somewhere) his assertion that the Lumpley principle was exactly on target for the definition of system as he understands it (it was he who dubbed it "The Lumpley Principle" as I recall), which helps.

Jay has attempted to show that The Lumpley Principle did not mean what I assert it meant. In short, Jay and I both recognize that there are many things in the imaginary space which do not come through the application of that which is in the books. Where we differ is in whether they come from "system" or not.

Jay narrowly defines "system" as meaning the agreed rules which are referenced, generally written, and specifically as resolution mechanics and other techniques. He then asserts, quite credibly, that players cannot explore "system" through roleplaying in the same sense that they can explore setting, character, situation, and color. If indeed "system" is the content of book that does not exist within the game world but rather dictates how the events in the game world are resolved, he is probably correct at least that exploration of the content of the book is at least removed a layer from game play.

I broadly define "system" to include whatever influences what is in the shared imaginary space. For example, let us assume that we all play at Bob's house, and we have an unspoken tacit agreement that ultimately we will do whatever Bob wants, because Bob has a tendency to become piqued if we don't, and we don't want to lose our play space. That's now part of the system. No one has written it down; no one will ever say that they have to do this because otherwise Bob will throw a fit (because saying so will only exacerbate the problem); no one will acknowledge that Bob was wrong. Bob's character will not be killed no matter what else happens unless Bob wants that to happen. That's part of the system. The system controls what happens in the shared imagined space. If everyone inherently agrees that no one is to make a pass at Angela's character because Angela is going out with Jim and they don't want to offend Jim, that's part of the system, as it guarantees that Angela's character is now limited to romantic relationships with Jim's character, no one else being willing to interfere with that. Thus everything that falls outside the books and house rules is, in my view, part of "system" as it is used here. What Jay is calling "system" we distinguish as "rules", which we agree may be part of "system", or may inform "system" (in that someone gets to decide which rules are going to apply when and what to ignore when).

Yes, it is still common to refer to a "game system" and mean something published; but for clarity, we have attempted at least for the last year or so to delineate "system" by the Lumpley principle.

I believe Vincent has clearly said that his understanding of his principle matches mine. That should at least settle what the Lumpley principle means. It means that whatever means, methods, rules, agreements, and interactions of any sort cause a group of people to share an imaginary space is the system.

The questions which remain are whether this is what Ron means by "system" as one of the five areas of exploration, and whether "system" as so defined can be valid area for exploration via role play.

I would say that questions like

[*]What happens when I cast a fireball spell underwater?[*]Can I fire the laser rifle at the target in the mirror and have it hit and damage the target around the corner?[*]Will exposure to this level of radiation kill my character or cause him to mutate in interesting ways?[*]If I travel back in time, can I meet myself?[*]Is it possible to kill Cthulu with enough firepower?[/list:u]are all ways of exploring system--of using characters to test the physics of the game world, if you like. It's those "what happens if we do this" questions, when they implicate the decision process that makes those determinations, that we are exploring.

So I conclude that if system is broadly defined as "everything which controls what happens in the shared imagined space", then it is quite possible for players to explore it through roleplay. It only remains for Ron to say whether this is how he understands "system" in that context.

I'll leave by picking one small nit. Every time you wrote proscribe, I think you meant prescribe. I find no definition or usage of proscribe that does not directly mean forbid, condemn, or exclude.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

Greetings.

When you go on to say that according to the Lumpley Principle we hash out before play who'll have authority, and that our agreement to abide by the input of the rules in the game text is binding, you're misreading me.

You are correct.  I have misread you and I apologize.  I appreciate you inserting your Concise Statement™ into the post so that I might have reference to the famed (and feared!) Lumpidoodly Principoodly.  I should note, being a newcomer to the Lumpidoodly Principoodly that just reading the Concise Statement™ didn't really turn on the light bulb in my head.  It was your thoughtful inclusion of a link to the thread (the Lumpley Principle Goes Wading) that really made the difference for me.  At over 50 pages printed out (eeeeek!), and after wading through over 40 of them, a light did finally start to burn.  I mention this because a) understanding the concept, a very simple one once understood, was not easy to come by and b) the multitudinous examples that were wrestled with were invaluable in bringing enlightenment.  In other words the Concise Statement™ in and of itself was not sufficient for eliciting understanding so in the future, if you find yourself in the position where you do need to explain the Lumpidoodly Principoodly please continue to include the link you provided for me!

I'm gonna take a gamble here and make some propositions that are hopefully based in a correct understanding of the Lumpidoodly Principoodly.  I'll start of with that the Shared Imagined Space is a consensus zone.  All events that transpire in the SIS (character point of view - roleplay proper?) take place in a consensus zone – nothing can be said to have happened unless all participants agreed that they happened (consensus).  Therefore all statements made while "roleplaying" in the SIS/consensus zone are subject to the Lumpidoodly Principoodly.  I also want to note that the Lumpidoodly Principoodly does not prescribe a process; it describes one (a system observed).  This process is the nature of consensus building and is not something that is necessarily specific to roleplay.  Nobody invented it, it is a process that arose naturally out of human efforts to communicate and was later identified and given a label.  However in our case this consensus building process, the Lumpidoodly Principoodly, is being employed to a general end, which is roleplay, but with the specific goal/action to apportion credibility.  The means by which this consensus is reached is called Negotiation and it is here that things get interesting.  

All "roleplay/in game/in SIS" statements/communications must pass through a Negotiation process.  The nature or manner of the Negotiations is not specified in the Principle, but they are highly variable.  However, the nature or manner of these Negotiations does reflect the sought end and does color the process.  A certain subset of these Negotiation methods can be "pre-negotiated" and/or formalized.  These pre-negotiated/formalized methods are what I was calling system as prescribed (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) – the "rules set" of the game being played as applied.  The purpose of the pre-negotiated/formalized methods is to facilitate the speed/ease at which credibility is apportioned.  However, the very nature of these formalized methods does pull us out of the SIS.  This subset of Negotiation processes is not, by definition, the entirety of the consensus process.  In other words, "rules sets" (formalized methodologies - {The entirety of all systems of Techniques [process/methodology] published}) are not the only way to consensus in the consensus zone/SIS.  Yet, just because there are no "rule sets" does not mean this "other way" to consensus within the consensus zone/SIS is unregulated; all statements are subject to the Lumpidoodly Principoodly.  Usually, the Negotiation Process is handled/defined by handing off the apportionment of credibility to the DM (which is usually not articulated, but it also can be by any other process that was articulated/decided upon in the Social Contract) who then apportions credibility during play for these "non-rules sets" events.  The nature of these Negotiations is typically passive, the Negotiation and thus the apportionment of credibility is usually handled in a manner I would call "ratification by silent consent".  Players make statements that go unchallenged and become consensus immediately.  This happens so smoothly as to not pull the players out of the SIS.  Because this "silent consent" Negotiation method functions so smoothly as to be not noticed that it trips most people up when it is called to their attention.  

To me, it is in these "non-rules sets" events that Exploration/the Narrative Process takes places.  It is here, I believe, as Simulationists, that we find our reason for gaming.  It is here that we find the ill-defined/misunderstood heartbeat of Simulationism.

I would also like to note is that there is a side effect to the pre-negotiated/formalized methods (rule's set as applied), and that is the shaping and coloring of the Negotiation experience itself.  This coloring of the experience is an end – it is one of elements that makes this consensus process Roleplay instead of some generalized process.

Ron has said that when he writes "Exploration of System" he means "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game," ...

This and M. J. Young's post I will address in another post, as I wanted to get aforementioned into the ether quickly.

I'll leave by picking one small nit. Every time you wrote proscribe, I think you meant prescribe. I find no definition or usage of proscribe that does not directly mean forbid, condemn, or exclude.

Actually it's not a small nit, it's a very important nit.  Here I go on and on about definitions and being clear about what we are saying so that we may have clarity in our conversations, and then I use the wrong word.  I did intend to use the meaning of "prescribe" and thus the word itself. Thank you for bringing it up.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

P.S.  How can you go wrong with an idea called the Lumpidoodly Principoodly?

P.P.S  Its S-I-L-M-E-N-U-M-E as in (sil)-(me)-(nu)-(me) not Silumene!  Lol  All is well for what is in a name?

[lumpley]

Spot.  On.

And nicely said.

But say more about this bit?

To me, it is in these "non-rules sets" events that Exploration/the Narrative Process takes places. It is here, I believe, as Simulationists, that we find our reason for gaming. It is here that we find the ill-defined/misunderstood heartbeat of Simulationism.

-Vincent