The Tyranny of Structurelessness

[C. Edwards]

The following is part of an article written on a topic other than gaming. Reading the article I was struck by the similarity to healthy, functional social contracts that I've experienced in gaming. So read, enjoy, discuss. I'm certainly interested in whether others find the article relevant, and the reasons why or why not.

NOTE: I did not ask the author's permission to post this here, and I even changed a handful of words in the last paragraph to better suit the subject of gaming. Those words are in italics. If you're uncomfortable with this, I suggest not reading any farther.

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

<snip>

Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power, and resources among the members of the group. But a structure will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness; but that is not the nature of human groups.

The idea of structurelessness does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. A "laissez faire" ideal for group structure becomes a smoke screen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. thus, structurelessness becomes a way of masking power. As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few, and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit, not implicit. Decision making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if it is formalized.

This is not to say that formal structure in a group will destroy the informal structure. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and makes available some means of formal negotiation if the informal leaders are not at least responsive to the needs of the group at large.

Once a group has given up clinging to the ideology of structurelessness, it is free to develop those forms of organization best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean blindly imitating traditional forms of organization or blindly rejecting them either. Some traditions will prove useful, and some will give us insight into what we should and should not do to meet the objectives of the members. But mostly we will have to experiment with different kinds of structures, both traditional and contemporary.

While engaging in this evolutionary process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to effective democratic structuring.

(1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. If people are selected to do a task after expressing an interest or willingness, they have made a commitment that cannot easily be ignored.

(2) Responsiveness of those to whom authority has been delegated to those who delegated it. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised. this is how the group exercised control over people in positions of authority.

(3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising their authority. Such decentralization also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.

(4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities that are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's property, and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn the job and acquire satisfaction from doing it well.

(5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria such as ability, interest, and responsibility.

(6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power.

(7) Access to needed resources. Skill and information are resources as much as physical equipment, space, or dollars. Skills can be made available equitably only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

Organization structures developed according to these principles can be controlled by the group as a whole. These principles encourage flexibility, openness, and modest terms of service for those in positions of authority. Since ultimate decisions will be made by all group members, those individual members with positions of authority will not be able to institutionalize their power easily. As groups go through various stages of development and positions of authority are rotated among different members, the group will gain experience in determining which of their members can provide the effective leadership needed to meet different challenges and opportunities. Over time, as more and more group members gain experience in position of authority, the group can realize increasing effectiveness and creativity in group endeavors.

<snip>

-Jo Freeman

[LordSmerf]

Thank you very much for posting this.  This piece of text has greatly facilitated my thoughts regarding the authority of the GM; specifically how and why it is given.

I would like to point out that I'm not entirely sure that Point 4: "Rotation of tasks" is necessary, or even necessarily good for RPGs.  A sense of personal ownership is often acceptable, and sometimes desired.  Universalis allows a "Rotation of tasks" regarding the task of Controlling Character X.  Most RPGs do not do this.  You control Character X, and Bob over there controls Character Y, all the time.  The GM has Authority Z all the time.

There is however one interesting aspect to consider (well, one that stands out to me, I'm sure there are many others here): What, if anything, is indicated by a group who always has the same GM no matter what game they play?  If the same person comes to "own" the Authority of the GM every time the group sits down, what effects does that have on the Social Contract, and on play in general?

Thomas

[TonyLB]

I'm all for #4, actually.  I think without #4 you lose #1 (since people are no longer being assigned to tasks, the tasks are fixed).  And without #1 you most often lose #2.  Once #2 has collapsed, #3 becomes a counter-productive strategy on the individual level (since any power you give away you're unlikely to see again any time soon) and then #5 collapses shortly thereafter.

Interestingly, I see a lot of sharing of GM-tasks in games where the GM-role is fixed in one person forever and ever.  Not sure what that means.

[LordSmerf]

I'm all for #4, actually.  I think without #4 you lose #1 (since people are no longer being assigned to tasks, the tasks are fixed).  And without #1 you most often lose #2.  Once #2 has collapsed, #3 becomes a counter-productive strategy on the individual level (since any power you give away you're unlikely to see again any time soon) and then #5 collapses shortly thereafter.

Hmm...  There may be some profit in discussing this on two levels: 1) An instance of play (i.e. a single session or campaign) and 2) The social positions (the group itself, both inside and outside of the game; i.e. "Who's buying the pizza tonight."  "Who's place are we playing at?"  "Who drives play forward?")

I'll need to think about that a bit more.

Thomas

[Callan S.]

A "laissez faire" ideal for group structure becomes a smoke screen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others.

So, does this apply to the games rules, in terms of how they are used by the group to shape group structure? If so, does this apply to games which profess to cover many topics, but actually leave most of them without structure?

I'm thinking of some popular games which (IMO) make a feature of this rather distasteful situation. So I'm asking; is this problem actually promoted in the market currently? Because it sells?

[Bill Cook]

That was an interesting read. I think the list items are dynamics, adjusted by the character of the group. My primary group is fortunate in having three GM's with varied interests in systems and play styles. Rotation of GM and system has been (at times) an aggravation and also, invigorating. Suffering from being outside the game has fueled my desire to reach the group. And I sense a more thorough and seasoned willingness from the GM's who sit as players in my campaigns.

Oh, the quiet wisdom of (5) .. I've been in groups where its lack allowed (3) to drag us all down into hell.

(1) is cornerstone. Without procedure, the hegemony of structurelessness cannot be breached. And it's just stunning how people you thought you knew, their faces fall to the floor, revealing a cavity of worms. The irrationality of territorialism is a savage enslaver of minds.

-------------------

Noon:

I think neglecting structure of topics relevant to the game is fertile soil for writhing coils of hegemony. That's a creepy thought: that design which supports this character of play is driven by marketability.

[contracycle]

I'm thinking of some popular games which (IMO) make a feature of this rather distasteful situation. So I'm asking; is this problem actually promoted in the market currently? Because it sells?

I would think rather that it accords with a certain ideology, that of moralism.  In a structureless environemnt in which, in essence, personal charisma is the determining factor in a given decision thens its often impossible to have a procedural or technical discussion of the point.  What substitutes for analysis, then, is moral criticism.  Thus IMO we have structureless games which are rationalised by the criticism "if you can't make it work its your fault".  Hence we end up with a pernicious, emotive dialogue about gaming that assiduously defends badly or non-structured games.

[C. Edwards]

I think the list items are dynamics, adjusted by the character of the group.

Certainly so, although I think #1, 2, and 5 are foundational and generally exist in a maximized state in groups with a healthy social contract. #3 seems a little more dynamic across the various functional social contracts I've encountered, with #4, 6, and 7 being widely variable.

-Chris

[C. Edwards]

Gareth's remarks in this thread, as well as the following remarks by Chris (Bankuei) and Gareth in the Pattern Recognition, Metaphor, and Continuity thread got me to thinking about the contrast of the social space and the game space across both the healthy and unhealthy social contracts I've experienced.

In fact I think this is rather similar to the "tyranny of structurelessness" thread as well. Absent a coordinating principle or pattern, all the problems inherent to structurelessness appear in full force, only more so, being extended to the game space and not just the social space.

The key that keeps it from falling into the trap of the structurelessness is that Universalis gives explicit techniques for the group as a whole to enforce a collective will to protect any patterns and themes produced in play. Narration trading games such as Dust Devils or Inspectres though technically could suffer from a player choosing to abuse the narration rights are almost always kept in check by the collective will of the group, though without the formal mechanics(Lumpley Principle, Social Contract, in full effect).

The coordinating principle is set up in Social Contract, and applied through system as a vehicle of expression for the group to create the myth on the spot. The sense of discovery is "How will our collective ideas fit together?", the pattern recognition is the theme developed through play, "Hey, this is turning out to be a love story!" and the personal empowerment is, "We all contributed to making this really good game."

A lack of functional structure in the social space always seems to lead to breakdown of structure in the game space. The willing adherence to and collaborative creation of pattern in the game space depends upon the participants feeling a sense of ownership of the game space and respect in the social space.

When those two things are lacking, the disenfranchised member(s) will either try to force the pattern in another direction (usually through the actions of their character) or attempt to disrupt it altogether.

None of this is really new, but I think it bears continuous repeating. A healthy, functional Social Contract is imperative to the enjoyment of gaming (Or any other collaborative enterprise for that matter). It's certainly a big stick in the "System Matters" arsenal as well. Universalis being a prime example of a game that helps regulate and give structure to the flow of influence between the social space and the game space.

-Chris

[Bill Cook]

Universalis is great. But I think these points are most telling when applied to the SC of a regular group. Design is fundamental, but it's not a cure-all. I think it's especially secondary in this context.

The willing adherence to and collaborative creation of pattern in the game space depends upon the participants feeling a sense of ownership of the game space and respect in the social space.

Preach!

When those two things are lacking, the disenfranchised member(s) will either try to force the pattern in another direction (usually through the actions of their character) or attempt to disrupt it altogether.

[Chime sounds.] Boy, this really reveals something to me. I think by shifting your feedback from in-game to out-of-game, you achieve a crucial step. In my first TROS game, after the group broke into a shipyard warehouse, my character spoke to the the harbor master about accounting for the loss, to which he replied, "What break-in?" The Seneschal asked, "What do you do?" What could I do?!  It was like following bread crumbs to a laughing manequin. So I said, "He returns to his apartment and watches the shadows."

Flash forward to our last campaign (VtM: WoD). When the GM spoiled the setup of a scene (as I perceived it), I called him on it. Me, the player. It was nerve-wracking, because it put our relationship at risk, but it led to more constructively aligned play.

One thing to watch for is a wild left turn, in play. (e.g. "I shoot the old lady and throw her in a dumpster.") It's generally an expression of frustration over being disenfranchised, where that player (a) is not cognizant of their dissatisfaction or (b) is unwilling to give negative feedback, as a player.

[Emily Care]

Great application of this article, Chris! Right on!

I would like to point out that I'm not entirely sure that Point 4: "Rotation of tasks" is necessary, or even necessarily good for RPGs. A sense of personal ownership is often acceptable, and sometimes desired. Universalis allows a "Rotation of tasks" regarding the task of Controlling Character X. Most RPGs do not do this. You control Character X, and Bob over there controls Character Y, all the time. The GM has Authority Z all the time.

I think you might want to look at the relative impact of the task. For something like the body of tasks making up GMship, rotating them or spreading them out makes a huge difference in the relative power of the participants. In contrast, playing a character is something that everyone already has access to, so rotating a single character may not be needed or even desirable for the group.  (Note that being GM usually entails playing multiple characters at once--by spreading letting players create and control more characters, you'd be fulfilling #3 (decentralizing authority) and reducing the need to rotate characters through peoples hands). Notably, Ars Magica did both of this things.

More preaching: The contrast of these principles to traditional rpg design is just incredible.

yrs,
Em

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I suggest that many groups who say that the "players play characters, GM plays the world" are engaged in far more sharing of the relevant GM-tasks than anyone perceives or admits.

I also suggest that the points made in this thread are seminal reading, in hopes of increasing our general understanding of System Does Matter and the Lumpley Principle, as well as my long-held points about "unstructured Drama" in resolution techniques.

Great points, everyone.

Best,
Ron

[LordSmerf]

I had something of an epiphany here.  While System Does Matter, and matter quite a bit, it is entirely secondary to Social Contract.  Now, I'm sure that this has been said over and over, but I think we may be missing something (or just assuming that everyone understands it, and not discussing it).

A lack of functional structure in the social space always seems to lead to breakdown of structure in the game space. The willing adherence to and collaborative creation of pattern in the game space depends upon the participants feeling a sense of ownership of the game space and respect in the social space.

So, there it is.  System only matters if the Social Contract is functional.  This is one reason that games like My Life with Master and Primetime Adventures are so good, they include a partial hashing-out of Social Contract within the rules.  The group gets together and talks about Situation, Color, and to some degree Theme in the upcoming game.  Of course this probably isn't effective in groups where the initial Social Contract isn't solid (i.e. not everyone at the table is committed to everyone else having fun).

There's been a progression of development:

[*]System Does Matter - Games were designed to facilitate a certain type of play.[*]Shared Investment - Games were designed to give each player a sense of ownership of the world.  This is important because this sense of ownership is a necessary thing for a group to reach a point where System Does Matter (i.e. if people aren't already invested in playing, then it doesn't matter how easy the System makes it to play).[*]Where do we go from here?  I think we take it one step deeper.  Discuss Social Contract at a more basic level, specifically: what it is, how to analyze it, and how to intentionally alter/modify it.  How do we help people to get to the point where they can play together?[/list:u]
I think that the third point is very important.  Here's a little anecdote that explains why:

We play Universalis every so often.  I think that it's one of the best ways to analyze a group's Social Contract (even though it's far from optimal for this task, that's part of the problem: there aren't any really good analysis tools).  Anyway, when we play, we often devolve into incoherent and disruptive play.

So, I know that something is wrong with your Social Contract.  Somewhere it breaks down.  But I can't determine precisely where, or in what way, and I definately can't fix it.  I can observe the effects of the problem, but I can't get at the causes.  I think that's where we go from here (or at least, that's one of the paths we take from here).

I know that Social Contract is a complex and varied beast, but I think there have to be some things that are consistent that we can analyze and manipulate.  So, where's my Social Contract, Analysis and Development book?

Thomas

[Roger]

I'm going to start my response to this a little earlier on in the essay itself, as I think there's some interesting assertions in there.

As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few, and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules.

It's possible that the rules are not widely known, but it doesn't seem to be a necessary situation, or even a particularly likely one.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit, not implicit.

It must be explicit?  That doesn't match with my experiences.  I've been a part of many implicitly-structured groups (we all have, on a daily basis) and I rarely notice members not even having the opportunity to be involved in its activities.  

Indeed, if someone doesn't have the opportunity to be involved in a group or to participate in its activities, is he really a member of that group in any meaningful sense?

Decision making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if it is formalized.

I don't agree with either assertion of this statement.  I don't think decision making needs to be open or available to everyone; furthermore, I don't think that can happen only if it is formalized.

The author's later points on how to best structure a group may be interesting, but I hesitate to examine them too closely while I have such serious misgivings about the fundamental premise on which they build.

As a counter-example, I think we need look no further than that most fundamental of social groups -- the family unit.  Informal, implictly-structured, occasionally tyrannical -- and yet, by and large, often very functional, healthy, and practical.


Cheers,
Roger

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Roger,

I suggest that implicit vs. explicit is not a matter of being verbalized, but rather of being consistently and readily apparent. Members of "structures" may not ever articulate the structures' features, but they could if they ever tried, and observers are often able to spot them very easily.

So what seems implicit (i.e. never-stated) to a participant might be very explicit after all.

I also suggest that leadership is not tyranny. Leadership can often include dominant vs. subordinate roles, again, without being tyrannical.

Families are a good topic for discussion about these things. My viewpoint is that most families that I consider functional do have explicit structure and specific leadership roles (sometimes distributed ones), even if no one ever stated them out loud.

Best,
Ron