In this thread. John Kim wrote:

So here's the big question. So creating new characters in Timelord is a change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution mechanics. But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The Pool is not a change to system. But that seems to make them unequal. A problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash.

So, to summarize, setting is a part of system. However, setting is a mutable aspect of system. Am I reading you right?

If so, I'd definitely concur. As discussed in that other thread, setting definitely falls under the lumpey Principle.

In fact:
In Gamist terms, setting is the "board". It can be as straightforward as a chessboard or as whimsical as a Candyland board, so long as it affords characters strategic opportunities that they can manipulate.
In Simulationist terms, setting is the foundation. It supports the suspension of disbelief. Without it, there is no Dream to begin with. Even if the setting is simple, set down in a paragraph, it has to be there to support the characters.
In Narrativist terms, setting acts as a spotlight, often providing both the source of a Premise and coloring the reaction of the player and character to it, but at very least highlighting certain nuances of the issue in distinct, definite ways.

At least, that's my thoughts...

Cheers,

Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan, that is in many ways what I am looking for here. Setting I think is treated much like a pretty rock one might find in some foot hills. ITs pretty and its valuable but its one rock and easily defined. I am questioning whether that one shiny rock is it OR is it worth our time to dig a little bit deeper and see if there is more to Setting then one shiny rock.

I am of the mind that Setting as a phenomena might have a lot more to it but and there could be some new dynamics to it that can be understood.
I have some vague ideas but I want to gage other's ideas as well. Just to see.

Thanks


Sean

Not to bring GNS into this overly, but "System" insofar as it relates to Ron's theory must be separate from Setting, Color, Character and Situation. As that's a part of the glossary of the Forge, it seems as though we should at least consider this.

In short, if we define "System" as something that's inclusive of any of those elements (Setting in this case), then what word should we use to replace "System" in Ron's theories, which sets the various components of Exploration on equal footing?

Exactly, Alexander.

The act of changing setting is part of System, surely. But Setting itself is not part of system. It's part of the SIS, which is negotiated by the players using System. Setting is something that System manipulates.

I noticed some time ago (and expressed it here somewhere) that setting was an integral part of system, and had to be understood as such.

I particularly noticed it because the Multiverser: Referee's Rules contain no "hard" setting information. They contain descriptions of how to create settings, guidance for establishing the nuts-and-bolts of imaginary places, references to particularly good settings for play and what makes them good, explanations of the different approaches to adventures within them--but there are no worlds described in the rules.

Originally, we sold the game as a two-book set, Multiverser: The First Book of Worlds packaged with it. With the second printing we had to stop that, because of distribution problems. Thus when you play Multiverser, you use the rules and play in a setting. Further, as play proceeds, you play in more settings, as the game design presses characters into many worlds, all of them different.

What I realized was that the way the game was played was very much a negotiation between the referee, the player, and the setting. Each setting impacted not merely the rules (as bias shifts), but went so deep as to create incentives for different creative agenda. Some worlds introduced premise, some offered opportunities for challenge, and players often rose to the context presented by the world, shifting their play priorities accordingly. Thus when I introduced a setting into the system, the system itself changed to accommodate the setting.

I knew this about the design from the beginning--that Multiverser was a game in which the rules changed in ways the referee could easily apply. I had not realized how fundamentally true it was, though, until more recently.

In regard to the observation that system and setting are discrete elements of exploration, alongside character, situation, and color, that's true; but all five elements are engaged with each other, inseparably intertwined. Character, setting, situation, and color are all integrated into and by system. System, situation, color, and setting are all part of character. Situation, color, character, and system are all parts of setting. Each of these five elements can in some sense be defined by the other four. They are discrete in that we can focus on them individually, but the boundaries of where one ends and another begins are a lot less clear. A character is an element of the system (he is defined by system parameters), the setting (he is part of this world), the situation (it involves him), and the color (he is the sort of person who exists in this type of place).

So to say that setting is a piece of system isn't really new; but it is an important insight to understanding the interrelationships of the parts of the whole.

So as someone who has designed a quite functional "system" without "setting", let me assure you that setting is very much part of system, and impacts it significantly once the two are connected.

--M. J. Young

Lxndr wrote: Not to bring GNS into this overly, but "System" insofar as it relates to Ron's theory must be separate from Setting, Color, Character and Situation. As that's a part of the glossary of the Forge, it seems as though we should at least consider this.

In short, if we define "System" as something that's inclusive of any of those elements (Setting in this case), then what word should we use to replace "System" in Ron's theories, which sets the various components of Exploration on equal footing?

John Harper wrote: Exactly, Alexander.

The act of changing setting is part of System, surely. But Setting itself is not part of system. It's part of the SIS, which is negotiated by the players using System. Setting is something that System manipulates.

Hello,

Wait a minute ... I thought I was really clear about this in the Glossary.

SIS = Characters, Setting, Situation, System, Color

System = time in the SIS, which necessarily includes establishing, enacting, and resolving events among other things

Doesn't that, um, sort of clear up all of the issues brought up so far?

In other words, sure there's Setting without System (yet). But System can't occur unless you are already dealing with a Situation (usually implying both Setting and Characters being present). And just to round it out, consider Color to "multiply" the whole shebang.

Best,
Ron

Yeah I think consensus might point to a deeper look at Setting as unnecassary. Maybe everything that needs said has been said. I think in my own mind my questions are answered so unless someone has a radical idea to throw....



Sean

Ummm, what Ron said. Honestly, that clears the whole thing up for me.

Ron Edwards wrote: SIS = Characters, Setting, Situation, System, Color

System = time in the SIS, which necessarily includes establishing, enacting, and resolving events among other things

Doesn't that, um, sort of clear up all of the issues brought up so far?

Well, of course all of the elements are intertwined. They're all under the big umbrella of "roleplaying" after all. We're giving names to parts of that larger whole, which sometimes looks seamless when you squint at it.

System and Setting are intimately connected and interact in a million subtle ways during play, both assumed and explicit. All I'm saying is, they're not the same thing. They're two different aspects of "roleplaying" that we put labels on. Like Ron said, roleplaying can't really happen without Situation, and that means Characters and Setting. You need Setting for your SIS to click, and you need that in order for System to have something to do.

No one is arguing that Setting has nothing to do with System.

I have been thinking about this thread for awhile now, probably far too long for my own good, and I want to add thoughts before we wrap this up. Maybe it should be a new topic...

From the glossary, it may be concluded (IMHO) that:

Setting, Character, and Color are Data. By it's definition color "does not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene." It's interesting and sometimes important purely on an aesthetic level. Setting and Character are more important, as they provide input into a "decision."

Situation is a decision about "dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements", i.e. what happens. It should be pretty obvious that Setting and Character data is needed for this decision. One last element is needed, of course; the process for making the decision.

System processes the Character and Setting Data into a Situation.

So, in my first post, when I said:

If so, I'd definitely concur. As discussed in that other thread, setting definitely falls under the lumpey Principle.

Hello,

Nailed it, Errath.

John, statements like the fire-giants and so forth are just what they are: verbal statements, whether spoken at the table or written in a book. If you then want to see how they're processed in that particular role-playing situation (meaning real people, not imaginary Situation), then you'd break down the five components, which would all be there to look at.

There's no point or purpose in just flashing out the statements naked of any procedural, imaginative, or social context. That's like holding up a dollar bill and demanding someone to answer whether it's paper, an agreement, or a unit of labor.

Best,
Ron

John Harper wrote: Well, of course all of the elements are intertwined. They're all under the big umbrella of "roleplaying" after all. We're giving names to parts of that larger whole, which sometimes looks seamless when you squint at it.

Okay. I agree that they overlap. I don't agree that the terms "setting" and "system" are so intertwined that it is not practical to call them by different names. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you're arguing that Setting and System are part of the same thing and cannot be reduced into separate parts.

The way I understand the definition of "system" (from the glossary and the LP) your position doesn't make sense to me. By definition, system is separate (but related to) setting.

Maybe you're suggesting a new definition of system? I think I'm confused now about what your argument is.

The text examples are confusing, too. "Text which says XX" isn't part of the SIS until it's introduced by the real people at the table. That act of introduction (establishing or changing the SIS) is System. It doesn't really matter what is being established. It's the how that System deals with. Who decides that it's part of the SIS now? When? With what authority?

At least, that's my understanding of the term. I think it's a useful definition, and one that *doesn't* apply to Setting.

"Fire giants are immune to fire" is a rule, that's all. It contributes to our assent to one anothers' suggestions about what should happen in the game. We can call upon it in a variety of circumstances. When we do, it's part of the process by which we decide what becomes true in our SIS, part of our System. It helps us coordinate our interactions, the imaginary stuff in the game world, and our real-world tokens and representations.

When we don't call upon it, it's not anything.

John, you say that it's a fact in the game world, but it's not - there can't really be facts in the game world. The game world is entirely non-factual. Imagine, for instance, that we forgot that fire giants are immune to fire, had our characters kill one with their flamethrowers and burn its corpse on a pyre, and never realized our mistake. So much for fact.

You can treat rules as though they were facts in the game world if you want to, but that conceit won't really help you understand what's happening.

-Vincent

Y'know, let me semi-retract that. It's a pet peeve and all I've done is refute the specific case. I can refute the general case too, without the peeve.

John, your probs with setting contributing to resolution are all quite fully covered by my post here.

I wrote: It [System] has to coordinate:
A) the wholly imaginary things and events in the "game world";
B) real-world abstractions and representations of those things and events: maps, numbers, dice, "hit points," etc.
C) the interactions of the actual human beings.

For instance, a rule like "whoever rolls higher on the attack roll inflicts damage on the defender" operates only on B and C: it expects the human beings to interact to manipulate some "attack roll" and "hit points" at the representation level. Add to the rule "... and describe the change in the fighters' circumstances" and you bring in A: now it expects the human beings to make changes to the imaginary stuff, not just the abstractions. Or add to the rule "... but first give the fighters bonuses to their attack rolls depending on their circumstances" brings A in too, in a slightly different way. The former: changes to A (the fictional circumstances) depend on what happens with B (the representations). The latter: what happens with B changes depending on details of A. Both together: A informs B, B informs A. In all cases: ...according to the direct and active attention of C, the players.

John Harper wrote: Okay. I agree that they overlap. I don't agree that the terms "setting" and "system" are so intertwined that it is not practical to call them by different names. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you're arguing that Setting and System are part of the same thing and cannot be reduced into separate parts.

The way I understand the definition of "system" (from the glossary and the LP) your position doesn't make sense to me. By definition, system is separate (but related to) setting.

John Harper wrote: The text examples are confusing, too. "Text which says XX" isn't part of the SIS until it's introduced by the real people at the table. That act of introduction (establishing or changing the SIS) is System. It doesn't really matter what is being established. It's the how that System deals with. Who decides that it's part of the SIS now? When? With what authority?

lumpley wrote: Of course things like "fire giants are immune to fire" and "here's a town with 355 people in it, including a blacksmith" and "my character hits him" contribute to resolution. They contribute exactly as our local System calls upon them to do so. They're things that System coordinates. They aren't the Process - they aren't System - they're things that System calls upon and acts upon. A informs B, B informs A, according to the direct and active attention of C.

I'm not sure that the glossary definition of "authority" is clear; Mike Holmes and I distinguished this from "credibility" some time back when the terms were originally introduced, and although the stated definition isn't exactly incorrect, I think it's missing an important element.

We would say that the rules were an authority, or that they have authority, in this sense: the group has agreed to be bound by them, and thus if there is a question someone (possibly anyone, possibly one particular person) may appeal to the authority of the rules to resolve the matter. However, the matter is still resolved by the credibility distribution between the players: do we accept that this text applies, and that it applies in the way this person claims that it does? There are many situations in which appealing to the authority does not win the case. Here are a few:

• Someone says, "That's a dumb rule; we never do it that way," and everyone agrees.• Someone says, "Well, I'm the game master, and that's not how I run things," and everyone accepts that.• Someone says, "Actually, that rule is only supposed to apply in these specific situations, of which the current situation is not one," and everyone concurs.• Someone says, "I didn't know that; I was counting on this other rule controlling," and everyone says, "All right, this time we'll let you do it that way, but not again."

So in being an authority, the rules in the book aren't actually part of "the system"; they're evidence which can be introduced by someone with the credibility to reference them in informing the system.

In exactly the same way that there's a difference between the rules in the book and the system in play, there is a difference between a document that contains the setting material and the setting in play. Those elements in that document are agreed to as authoritative; they have authority in answering questions regarding the setting. They are not, however, the setting. The setting is that which is described and revealed in play within the shared imaginary space. The text which defines the setting is not more the setting than the rules in the book: neither become part of the game until someone uses their credibility to invoke them.

The two are still hopelessly intertwined, because they have to work together constantly and each is defined in terms of the other (as are all five elements). But what's in the book is only reference material which can be cited; it's not the system or the setting, but a guide to help define and create the system and the setting.

--M. J. Young

I'm with Mark on this, and see a pretty clear distinction between setting and system. I'd analyse the Fire Giants example by saying that in this system some characters can be immune to damage from fire, and that the setting includes Fire Giants which have this attribute. As an aside I'd add that some game systems do not easily allow for this. HeroQuest is notoriously bad at representing absolute abilities like this in game mechanical terms.

I see character (monster, NPC, etc) stats as being part of system. The confusion may arrise because there may not actualy be any background text that says that fire giants are immune to flames, and the game stats for them may be the only place that this is made explicit. This would merely a presentational issue though. The fire giants are part of the setting, and their game stats, including their resistance to fire damage, is merely the representation of them in the game system.


Simon Hibbs