All this flap about system is really bugging me. So I will commence ranting.

Also, last night on IRC, Vaxalon explained to me that he feels frustrated 'cos the Forge seems to him like a university with a doctorate program, but no undergrad. You've got all this deep game theory there, but no introductory course. I told him that the Forge regulars are dedicated to helping new people figure this stuff out, but that there's no easy way. It doesn't matter how smart you are, just reading the glossary and hanging out for a couple of weeks doesn't cut it. The average time to really grok the stuff that goes on here is aoubt 6 months to 2 years, depending on how much effort you put into it. There is no easy way.

Still, it seems like anything we can do to ease the process and promote clear understanding would be a good thing. So, hopefully this thread can be a reference point, sorta like Mike's rants, that we can point new people at. Vince, Ron, et. al., chime in. Here we go...

The so-called "Forge definition" of System is not significantly different from what your basic street-gamer means when he says system. The idea of a basic street-gamer definition is a bit problematic, though. Here's why:

I've been around on the net gaming scene for a long time now. I've been in lots of discussions on lots of mailing lists, lurked some gaming groups on usenet, and so on. Everyone out there I've encountered uses the word "system" in the broad sense to mean "how you get stuff done during play." It's true, a lot of the time Joe Street-gamer assumes that "getting stuff done during play" means using the mechanics and rules that are contained in the printed book, sometimes including house-rule mods and stuff in there. But there are also whole bunch of non-Forge people who use the terms "freeform system" and "'systemless' system." These systems are basically ways to get things done that don't involve the constructs that people usually think of as "rpg mechanics." What we at the Forge recognize as system at the Social Contract level.

Of course, there's a lot of wiggle room in there. So you get flame wars about, for example, whether or not the Window really is a system. The reason is that no one has any common ground to determine what system is - Joe Street-gamer's internal perception of system is based on what systems look like. Obviously, this perception is generated from and limited by the games that Joe Street-gamer is familiar with. Joe Street-gamer plays a lot of D&D, Storyteller, Traveller, Rifts, Champions, Shadowrun, etc. In other words, games that are more or less mainstream in the hobby.

So when Joe Street-gamer encounters Jack Freeformer on a net board, there's some friction that often results. Jack Freeformer knows that he gets the same "role-playing stuff" done with his freeform game that Joe Street-gamer does with D&D and Traveller, even though Joe Street-gamer refuses to acknowledge Jack Freeformer's game as an RPG system. I'm not making this up. I've been present, even participated, in these exact discussions.

So far so good. We don't really have a problem with system yet, except that there's a certain degree of disconnection regarding what it actually comprises. Is freeform really system? Does bribing the GM with pizza to let your character live count? (And yes, I saw the pizza one WAY way before coming to the Forge. The idea of a Social Contract layer is not a new one. It just wasn't previously articulated in an organized way. Everyone knows that when the GM's girlfriend is playing, or when two siblings are playing, things are different. Etc.)

So, in the specific context of Forge-type academic RPG discussion, we've got a problem in that "system" as a term is pretty vague. When you're talking about the nitty-gritty details of the act of play, you need specific terms and clasifications. Then along comes Vince with his Lumpley Principle (which he actually stated in proto-form in his very first post here! :) The Big Deal about the LP is not that it's a re-definition of the word "system." The Big Deal is that it's a different way of looking at system. Joe Street-gamer and Joe Freeformer are arguing their perceptions at each other, perceptions that are developed from what system looks like. Vince comes along and says, "hey, it's a lot more practical if you think about system in terms of what it's actually doing when you play."

That's what the LP is all about. It's not about what system looks like. It's not about what the designer says it does, or what the players think it does. It's about checking out what system really really really does when its in action (i.e., during game-play).

Role-playing's most basic level - the Exploration level - is a group of people imagining "stuff" into SiS (Shared imagination Space). Since there's a bunch of people, and only one-person's input can be "officialized" into the SiS at a time, the act of Exploration is basically a negotiation process to determine the final state of the SiS, one point at a time. The LP terms are Credibility (your statements have credibility when they're incorporated into the SiS) and Authority (What constitutes Authority is agreed on at the Social Contract level; Authority gives or deprives a particular statement of credible weight.).

Vince's big lightbulb was that, regardless of what system appears to be, this is the function that it system actually fulfills. It defines the negotiation process by appointing Authority, and distributing Credibility.

So when Joe Street-gamer talks about system, he's talking about the exact same thing that we're talking about; he just thinks about it in a different way than we do. The important realization is then that Joe Street-gamer's systems are only a subset of the entirity of potential system. Joe Street-gamer has system, it's true. But now that we realize what system is actually doing, Joe Street-gamer's systems are just *one* way to do it. We can find other ways, ways that extend to the Social Contract level, for example, so that now Jack Freeformer is a happy camper too.

Now, here's a bit more about Credibility and Authority. Earlier I said that only one-person's input can be "officialized" into the SiS at a time. This is sort of a generalization that worked for my purposes in that part of my post. It's not exactly true though. In terms of Credibility distribution, implicit acceptance still counts as negotiation.

If everyone is in agreement, it doesn't really matter which person has the Credibility. It's probably the person who's narrating, although it doesn't have to be. The point is that, since everyone agrees, "what gets officialized into the SiS" is the same thing as "what everyone wants to imagine." You could say, based on observation, that the creative input of the entire group at once was incorporated into the SiS, since the negotiation process was invisible. It was still *there,* though, underneath. Someone said something, and everyone else agreed to it.

This is important, because a lot of people assume that "negotiation" requires disagreement. That's not the case. The outcome of a negotiation can be implicit agreement. If I make a statement about something in the SiS and no one challenges it, then it's part of the SiS.

If I make a statement that some people disagree with, but others like, I might modify the statement so that everyone is happy, retract the statement, or over-rule the dissidents if authority supports me. Universalis makes this process explicit.

It's important to note that the printed rules may be the first authority that the players agree to, but that the printed rules can appoint other authorities, (a GM, dice, a novel, etc.) to the point that the printed rules may be overruled. When the players agree at the SC level to play a particular game, they're also agreeing to these other authorities. The thing is, a lot of times, game texts are notoriously unclear about this issue. Individual groups will beforced to interperet the text themselves. This is one reason that a guy who has played a game a long time with one group can go to another group using the *same game* and experience massive disfunction. The Impossible Thing Before Breakfest is a prime example of this kind of unclarity.

So, I'll finish up with a couple of examples.

Let's take BD&D, practically everyone is familiar with that. The situation is a combat scene. We'll simplify and make it a single PC against an orc. The specific SiS condition under negotiation has to do with the eventual condition of both characters; basically, survival. There are some sub-conditions as well. The player wants to minimize the damage his character takes. The ideal outcome would be, the PC defeats the orc with no loss of HP. Each step of the combat are little mini negotiations. Does the PC hit the orc? Does the orc hit the PC? How much damage does each do? Etc.

This chain of negotiations will eventually result in the resolution of the scene with some degree of favor to either the PC or the orc. The orc might die, the orc might run away, the PC might die, the PC might run away, etc.

The mechanical components of the game are all methods for distributing credibility. They are meta-game resources in the sense that the participants use them to add weight to their statements. Healing potions, weapons, armor, spells, to-hit rolls, the whole shebang, are all examples of Authority nudging the negotiation process in the favor of one side or the other.

The LP lets us recognize that there are also *other* things that can fill the same role. For example, Social Contract level bribes and threats, meta-game conditions and priorities. "My guy is really important to the story!" or "My guy is supposed to be a great swordsman, it doesn't make sense for him to die, just 'cos one lousy orc got a critical!" or "Dude, if you kill my PC, you're sleeping on the couch for a week!" or "Dude, if he dies, that's the last time I bring the pizza!"

etc.

Now, for a drastically different example, there's Universalis. The negotiation process is explicit and open. If someone says something that someone else doesn't like, that other person has the responsibility to himself to challenge the first person's statement. If they can't come to an agreement through actual, conversational negotiation, there's a mechanical authority in the rules (which were, remember, agreed on ahead of time) in the form of bidding coins. The whole group gets involved in this, anyone can contribute coins to one side or the other.

If your challenge is against something that contradicts ane stablished Fact (an SiS element that has been paid for with a coin), your coins count double in the challenge. In Universalis, Authority consists of SiS components that have been paid for with coins, the manipulation of coins by means of mechanical constructs accomplishes the distribution of Credibility.

Universalis also has overt ties to the meta-level of actual play. Players can make new rules and alter old ones, if they have enough coins to back up their propositions in a challenge. The vague social contract stuff about who buys the pizza, showing up late, making monte python jokes, and so on, are handled explicitly as a mechanical component of the system.

In fact, I think the mere existence of Universalis is sufficent to prove that the LP *is* true and really *does* work. People might say "all that social contract crap about pizza and favors is so much bull!" And I say, "oh yeah? Go read Universalis and get back to me."

Just as a final note, Universalis isn't the *only* game out there that incorporates SC layer stuff into the mechanical system. I've seen other game texts that do this, although I'm having trouble coming up with examples off the top of my head. Furthermore, there are lots and lots of game groups out there that, for example, give XP bonuses to the guy who buys the pizza, and XP penalties to the guy who always shows up late, etc.

Are XP really part of the SIS?

If so, then I have a flawed perception of what the SIS is.

Vaxalon wrote: Are XP really part of the SIS?

Paganini wrote: So far so good. We don't really have a problem with system yet, except that there's a certain degree of disconnection regarding what it actually comprises. Is freeform really system? Does bribing the GM with pizza to let your character live count? (And yes, I saw the pizza one WAY way before coming to the Forge. The idea of a Social Contract layer is not a new one. It just wasn't previously articulated in an organized way. Everyone knows that when the GM's girlfriend is playing, or when two siblings are playing, things are different. Etc.)

So, in the specific context of Forge-type academic RPG discussion, we've got a problem in that "system" as a term is pretty vague. When you're talking about the nitty-gritty details of the act of play, you need specific terms and clasifications.

Paganini wrote: The LP terms are Credibility (your statements have credibility when they're incorporated into the SiS) and Authority (What constitutes Authority is agreed on at the Social Contract level; Authority gives or deprives a particular statement of credible weight.).

Vince's big lightbulb was that, regardless of what system appears to be, this is the function that it system actually fulfills. It defines the negotiation process by appointing Authority, and distributing Credibility.

Paganini wrote: Let's take BD&D, practically everyone is familiar with that. The situation is a combat scene. We'll simplify and make it a single PC against an orc. The specific SiS condition under negotiation has to do with the eventual condition of both characters; basically, survival. There are some sub-conditions as well. The player wants to minimize the damage his character takes. The ideal outcome would be, the PC defeats the orc with no loss of HP. Each step of the combat are little mini negotiations. Does the PC hit the orc? Does the orc hit the PC? How much damage does each do? Etc.

This chain of negotiations will eventually result in the resolution of the scene with some degree of favor to either the PC or the orc. The orc might die, the orc might run away, the PC might die, the PC might run away, etc.

The mechanical components of the game are all methods for distributing credibility. They are meta-game resources in the sense that the participants use them to add weight to their statements. Healing potions, weapons, armor, spells, to-hit rolls, the whole shebang, are all examples of Authority nudging the negotiation process in the favor of one side or the other.

John, "representational of the SIS" is a red herring.

Pretend you and I are playing a very conventional, very representational RPG. Ars Magica, say, or GURPS, or Millennium's End, or take your pick. It's got strength and dex ratings, skill checks, wound levels, etc. I say to you, "your character falls off the cliff and dies."

Do you take my word for it?

Answer: it depends on the rules. Did you fail your Staying On roll? Did I roll Impact Damage over your character's Impact Damage Survival Rating?

The rules' purpose is to distribute credibility. To aid negotiation. Maybe they do so by representing the imaginary stuff of the game, maybe they don't - either way their function is to help you decide whether my statements are credible.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: John, "representational of the SIS" is a red herring.

Pretend you and I are playing a very conventional, very representational RPG. Ars Magica, say, or GURPS, or Millennium's End, or take your pick. It's got strength and dex ratings, skill checks, wound levels, etc. I say to you, "your character falls off the cliff and dies."

Do you take my word for it?

Answer: it depends on the rules. Did you fail your Staying On roll? Did I roll Impact Damage over your character's Impact Damage Survival Rating?

The rules' purpose is to distribute credibility. To aid negotiation. Maybe they do so by representing the imaginary stuff of the game, maybe they don't - either way their function is to help you decide whether my statements are credible.

Uh, yeah. I know. Of course we made those rolls before I said your guy fell and died. I hoped that my use of present and past tense might convey that; I guess not.

You roll, I roll, we look at the dice, I say a thing I think you'll assent to. The reason I think you'll assent to it is because of the rolls. The rolls contribute to our negotiation about what happens.

What, you think the rolls cause your guy to fall? What if we roll the dice and the phone rings and I have to jump up and leave before we agree what happens? What if I roll the dice behind a screen and ignore what they say? What if we roll in public and decide, fuck that, let's have you not fall? The dice don't have any causal or representative power, except what we actively give them, moment to moment.

They don't have to be explicitly about credibility; there's nothing else for them to be about!

-Vincent

Hold on. There are two steps here.

(1) What statement do I make?
This is an individual process, not a social one. By some procedure, I have to decide on what statement I will make. I can take input from the other players, from the rulebook, or from the weather outside. But ultimately the decision is internal to me.

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?
This is a social process. Once the statement is made, then we enter into a potential negotiation process where the other players either accept or deny the statement.

Do you agree with this? Now, what I am saying is that rules can be used in either step #1 or step #2. The obvious test case is if I am the GM and I am using a GM screen. Now the players don't see the die roll. My process of reading and interpreting the die roll isn't involved in convincing the players. Rather, it is an individual instruction to me. For example, it could be the case that I as a player respect you as a GM and I accept your rulings even though I don't see the dice. So here the process of credibility distribution is the same -- but I could be using a variety of means to come up with the results behind my screen.

John Kim wrote: OK, a bit of a counter-rant here. I find your characterization of the "Street Gamer" painted in contrast to the Forge to be annoying.

Paganini wrote: In terms of your actual objections, you're getting hung up on IEEE issues. This isn't about verbalization. Your two steps that you describe don't really apply. This discussion has nothing to do with whether making distinctions between in-game / meta-game mechanics; it has nothing to do with whether or not the game text references the participants. Think of it this way:

Nothing is so in the SiS unless the players agree that it is so.

Paganini wrote: Thus, any resolution mechanic, or anything that effects the outcome of a resolution mechanic, or even anything that interfaces with the layer of "resolution mechanic stuff" is a part of system. A healing potion in BD&D distributes credibility. So does the damage rating for weapons, the armor class, the saving rolls, the to-hit rolls, monster level dice, etc.

John Kim wrote:
(1) A BD&D GM states "The dragon claws at you", and the players nod. Behind his GM screen, he then rolls to-hit, looks on his PC stat-sheet the defense, determines a hit, and rolls damage. Between the earlier nod and here, no credibility-granting has been invoked, since none of these steps are visible to the players. Thus, none of the roll, look-up, or mechanics consultation is Big-S System.

(1a) As an added case, consider where the GM hasn't prepared for a session, and instead just rolls a die and makes stuff up without even looking at the die roll. Now, the players don't know that this is true. So thus, Big-S System is exactly the same as in case #1. However, the mechanics used -- i.e. small-s system -- are quite different.

(2) An experienced D&D player has her PC cast a spell. Having studied the magic rules for her character, she states what the spell does. The others haven't read those rules. However, rather than looking the rules up, they say "OK, Gen, we trust you." The rules in question have nothing to do with the credibility granting process, since no one else has read them. However, her statement is in fact following the rules. So there is Big-S System involved here -- but the rules are irrelevant to the Big-S System.

(3) I am playing in a Tunnels and Trolls campaign. However, no one can meet for a while. I decide to try one of the T&T solo modules using my character. Using the same mechanics as the face-to-face game, I run through the solo module. In this case, the idea of granting social credibility is nonsensical. I'm the only one there. And yet I'm using the exact same rules to determine what happens.

As someone that's new to these forums (less than a week), can I ask a favour?

When we get to a consensus on what exactly is covered by the Lumpley Principle can we please get it written up and posted to the articles section?

It sounds like a great theoritical model, but unless we have a deffinitive reference that we can refer each other to we are just going round in circles.

At the moment it looks to me like it is still hotly under debate rather than a locked down theory. For christs sake 6 out of 10 top threads seem to be discussions or rants about it, and then you expect someone new to the site to be able to puzzle thier way through it.

Now there may be a deffinitive Lumpley Principle text somewhere, and some of the threads discussing it might even link to it. But I've seen no such link in this thread and as the other threads look similar only emphesising different aspects of the theory I'm not going to waste my time trawling through them.

All I would say is don't expect a newbie to be able to hold a discussion on the Lumley Principle if you don't give him an accurate and concise copy of the principle in the first place.

[Sorry to pick on your thread for this Paganini, I know this is what you are actually trying to do, it's not specific to your thread, I'm just trying to address some unrealistic expectations a lot of people around here seem to have]

Just a few thoughts that have been in my mind for a while now:
The idea of a SiS might be a pretty good model for a few things concerning the LP or System, but I think it breaks down here (seeing John Kim´s problems with it).

Well, let me say this first: The SiS does not exist! Sorry to tell you, but this might be the main issue that makes understanding (and explaining for that matter) difficult. Instead durig play we have a couple of Individual Imaginary Spaces (IiS), one for each player, that are more or less coherent (they have to be coherent for play to continue).

Now what I would propose System does is the following:
1. System does regulate the process of how each INDIVIDUAL PLAYER accepts things into their own IiS.
2. System is designed to keep the individual IiS at least somewhat coherent.
Now the SiS could be seen as an abstraction of all that is coherent in the multiple IiS.

What does that mean? I think it means that this model can account for the issues John (Kim) brought up. Let take a look at his example:
A GM rolls to hit behind a screen. Now System (part 1) kicks in. The System might tell him, that the ork hit the player character (because of the dice, because it seems appropriate, because he feels like it, whatever). Now accepting this the ork has hit the character in the GM´s personal IiS.
Now System (part 2) kicks in: the two IiS have become incoherent and play can probably not continue without resolving this. the System might tell the GM to verbalize what happened in his own IiS and to make the player accept that and change his own IiS accordingly. So he tells the player: "The ork hits you!".
Now System (part 1) kicks in for the player. Part 2 of the System insists that the IiS must align and that the verbalized difference must be resolved. The System might tell the player that the GM has rolled the dice and that he has to adhere to this ruling. So now in the players personal IiS the character got hit by the ork too. the IiS are coherent again and play can continue.

Another example might be wandering monster tables. The System is used by the GM to conduct changes in his own IiS (which is still some kind of negotiation with himself since he does not have to accept the roll). Negotiation with the other players comes later on, when his IiS is changed and therefore incoherent with the other players IiS to resolve this incoherence.

I think that the idea of IiS might settle the differences and account for the fact that System indeed can seem to "spawn things into the SiS". And thats how I understood John´s comments in this thread.

Y'know, John's right. He has been since this:

There are two steps here.

(1) What statement do I make?
This is an individual process, not a social one. By some procedure, I have to decide on what statement I will make. I can take input from the other players, from the rulebook, or from the weather outside. But ultimately the decision is internal to me.

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?
This is a social process. Once the statement is made, then we enter into a potential negotiation process where the other players either accept or deny the statement.

Do you agree with this? Now, what I am saying is that rules can be used in either step #1 or step #2.

Don't have much to add right this minute, but I want to say that I kinda like Nicolas' idea about multiple Individual imagination Spaces. That seems like it might be a usefull addition. The Shared imagination Space would be the common elements of all the Individual imagination Spaces. If there's some point where the Individual imgination Spaces don't match, we've got to somehow decide which one is right, or if something completely different is the case.

Oh yeah, and, mindwanders, just because the LP has been around a while, is well-established, and generally well understood, that doesn't mean that *everyone* groks it or agrees with it. It also doesn't preclude the possibility of further development.

lumpley wrote: Y'know, John's right.
...
The process by which the group decides what happens in the game includes the process by which individual players decide what to suggest. Absolutely! The rules you're playing by constrain and provoke your input, no question about it.

The important thing that "constrain and provoke your input" and "apportion credibility" have in common is that they're about the interactions of the human beings playing the game.

John Kim wrote: Hold on. There are two steps here.

(1) What statement do I make?

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: Hold on. There are two steps here.

(1) What statement do I make?

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?

This seems to be completely compatible with my comparison of system to contract negotiation in another thread. Your step 1 is the offer and step 2 is the acceptance.

As this is an iterative process of offer, acceptance, offer counteroffer, offer rejection I don't see how you can divide them into seperate parts.

Valamir wrote: Offer here would be synonomous with proposal. As in "My character climbs the wall" is an offer which essentially translates to "I propose that the my character climbs the wall"

John Kim wrote: Well, it's potentially iterative, but I would argue that in most functional systems there is no iteration. i.e. Offers are developed such that they are almost always accepted. Thus, you do not generally have a player saying "I kill the dragon" -- and the GM rejects his statement with "Oh, no you don't!". Instead, the player says "I attack the dragon with a (roll) 87 total" and the GM responds "The dragon is badly wounded". In other words, play proceeds smoothly with zero or very few rejected statements.

My step #1 is not an offer. The offer is verbalization to the group, and is thus part of step #2. Now, contract negotiation is a fine analogy for step #2, but it doesn't have anything in particular to say about step #1.

That example is pretty rare in my experience. In games I see, the player generally proposes "My character tries to climb the wall". This is unanimously accepted. He then rolls his skill (possibly prompted by the GM), and the GM informs of the result of his roll -- which again is unanimously accepted.

Also add in:

GM: "Roll a save vs. Petrification"
Player: fleeting worried expression, glance at character sheet, hesitation picking up the dice
GM: "...at +2 for the pillar"

Negotiation doesn't have to be verbal.

With Ralph, I don't see how "my character tries to climb the wall" is anything other than the opening of a negotiation where the actual proposal is "let's imagine that my character climbs the wall."

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: With Ralph, I don't see how "my character tries to climb the wall" is anything other than the opening of a negotiation where the actual proposal is "let's imagine that my character climbs the wall.

I'm quite sure Vincent and I are in full agreement with that.

If you're suggesting that there is room for misinterpretation during non verbal negotiation where players are reacting to each others cues and tells, I'm also in full agreement with that.

If you're suggesting that when there is doubt that players should be more open to actual verbalizing their offers and acceptances more precisely rather than rely on tradition and euphemisms and risk miscommunication, then I completely agree with that too.


Now if I suggest that if the player acts worried that it is quite understandable to interpret that as the player being worried...

and if I suggest that if the player only meant to portray his character as being worried while he himself was not, that he should have made the distinction clearer for the benefit of the others at the table,

how would you feel about that?

I think the clarity in communication should be a priority for nearly every social endeavor, roleplaying including...but my suggestions are treading on some pretty hallowed ground for immersionists.

Full agreement.

-Vincent

Valamir wrote: Now if I suggest that if the player acts worried that it is quite understandable to interpret that as the player being worried...

and if I suggest that if the player only meant to portray his character as being worried while he himself was not, that he should have made the distinction clearer for the benefit of the others at the table,

how would you feel about that?

I think the clarity in communication should be a priority for nearly every social endeavor, roleplaying including...but my suggestions are treading on some pretty hallowed ground for immersionists.

Hi John,

I think your hand gesturing falls exactly into the category of what Ralph is calling clear communication. As I see it, you are agreeing with him in full, without qualification or exception. Your description of having to say "out of character" or otherwise is not what he's talking about.

Best,
Ron

So, all what your saying in your long, long post is:

A System is the way, players play?

Its nothing else, than the system how players choised to do roleplay, or to use some of your termologie, how to determine SIS.

Freaking big news ;)
Isn't this already in the definition of the word System it self?
Way to organize something?


Oh, and Hello from Joe Streetgamer ;)
First post and I already look like an annoying noob *sigh*

Hey "Joe," welcome to the Forge. :)

Apocalypse wrote: So, all what your saying in your long, long post is:

A System is the way, players play?