Sort of split from here.

This is a clearer summary of that thread, in terms of the idea I was asking about and trying to get across.

First, lets look at the glossarys index

Lumpley Principle, the

"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

Noon wrote: In the real world the choice is backed up by an actual burnt hand. In the game world it's purely backed up by social feedback. Unlike the matrix, you can't disbelieve a burnt hand into non existance. In the game world, you can disbelieve/ignore it. Nothing stops you the way the real life burnt hand stops you from disbelieving it happened. If so, why believe/accept such a negative consequence? Because of the social feedback. Social feedback is the only (real world) consequence.

If thereafter the referee penalizes all actions you do which require the use of that hand for several in-game months, you can pretend it doesn't hurt, but you still have the consequence of it being less functional in the shared imagined space.

In the other thread this is split from, Ron mentioned "Lumpley Principle all over again.". Not sure if that was just for the other thread or in general.

I imagine the lumpley principle like a black box. Like the idea of a black box where you know what you get when you put some stuff in, but you don't know how the box ends up producing that.

I'd like to examine the inner workings of the box. If people are agreeing (as part of a system), why are they? Out of the goodness of their hearts or because they just have to game? These sound like black boxes themselves to answer the contents of the first box.

The pratical reward of examining its contents? Expected output estimations being more reliable when the boxes contents are better understood. If understanding the box's inner workings isn't needed then I'd like to hear about that too, since if it really isn't then this examination is not needed.

The contents and mechanisms of the black box depend on the individual group.

"Joe is the only person in the group who's creative enough to be the GM. If we want to play, Joe has to be the GM, because we aren't sure that we can find another one. Joe likes things done his way, and since he has a monopoly on the creative juice in this group, he gets his way even if we don't like it."

"We trade off GMing duties, and only play a particular game for a five or ten sessions; if we don't like the game, we'll stop it early and try something else. If one of us doesn't like the current game, he will gradually show it by withdrawing, fidgeting, or other nonverbal clues. If we notice that more than one person is doing this, someone will usually say, 'Hey, this blows, let's do something else.' We're all mature enough to deal with that kind of criticism without getting upset."

Hey Callan.

The reality of the situation is that your real-world interests in the game don't overlap especially closely with your characters' imaginary interests anyway. Giving your character a burned hand serves your interests, so there's no need for any threats of negative social feedback.

Furthermore, it's non-mysterious. You give your character a burned hand for the exact same reasons that any author would. You don't worry about why a novelist would "accept" a negative consequence for her character, do you?

Notice sometime in play that the conflicts in your game aren't conflicts between you and your fellow players at all. Even while your characters are fighting intensely and with no possibility of compromise, you and your fellow players are in a constant state of full and absolute agreement.

-Vincent

Noon wrote:
What's the dif? Well it's not just a case of 'Ah, he has to accept this whether he likes it or not' in terms of how you design the game, because that design philosophy wont really guide a user effectively (to be precise, it wont give strong tools to other users to help guide that user effectively).

Hello,

Callan, I am boggled. For one thing, you seem to be discussing game design and texts, which is not what the Lumpley Principle is about.

More importantly, can it actually be possible that you don't know how real humans come to agreement about stuff they are enjoying? Never mind role-playing - I'm talking about "We went hiking today, it was fun." Or "Hey, wanna see the movie with us tonight?"

Here's an example that was brought up on the Forge a while ago which makes perfect sense. You're at a party where you don't know a lot of people very well, and it turns out that the immediate group you're standing with are veterinarians. You make a joke about your cat getting neutered.

Outcome 1: falls flat. Dud. They really don't want to talk to you any more. The pretty (or cool) one does not so much as glance in your direction for the remainder of the party.

Outcome 2: hilarity. They love you. They enthusiastically include you in the current conversation, explaining a thing or two to get you up to speed. The pretty (or cool) one makes a point of introducing you to more people.

Outcome 3: not bad, a good chuckle. They acknowledge you and permit further input, but a little warily. The pretty (or cool) one throws you a cue later on, to see what happens.

Are you really telling me that (a) you have no idea what processing and cues went into deciding whether to make that joke? Or (b) what kind of interactions and feedback were involved in communicating its reception back to you?

'Cause the Lumpley Principle is ultimately based on such processes. In role-playing, the System (the procedures of play which establish events in the SIS) is utterly subordinate to these and similar processes of group approval. Without that approval, there is no System.

Best,
Ron

If people are agreeing (as part of a system), why are they?

Even while your characters are fighting intensely and with no possibility of compromise, you and your fellow players are in a constant state of full and absolute agreement.

Are you really telling me that (a) you have no idea what processing and cues went into deciding whether to make that joke? Or (b) what kind of interactions and feedback were involved in communicating its reception back to you?

Hiya,

Ah! Full comprehension. Actually, I think you should keep going with this and develop it into an article for the Forge.

I really like your #1-3. Can you think of any others? Anyone?

Best,
Ron

Noon wrote: For example, lets say users are asserting your character has a burnt hand and has whatever effect associated with it. I'll list a few possible factors and assign some numbers which an individual might have (the numbers are just an example). The higher the number, the more they value it.

1. Peers evaluate you as trust worthy: 8
2. Your personal satisfaction in terms of taking on a small penalty: 6
3. Your appreciation of the RPG's design and value this penalty as part of it's design: 4

Okay, to give some more examples and answer Andrews question, let's treat the burnt hand as if it was the disadvantage I mentioned before.

Now, we'll look at some of the factors involved and the strengths they are at. Each factor sort of suggest a line of action. Note: Again, I'm not saying these factors or their numbers are the ones you must pay attention to, but instead the idea of realising there are multiple factors in play and making guestimates on what they might be and their strength is a good idea.

Okay, so someone has asserted Jim's PC has a burnt hand. Now let's look at some of the factors that are likely to be involved.

1. Desire to be seen as honest and not a cheat (in terms of recreational gaming): 8
2. Desire to abide by the GM's descision despite any disagreement with the GM's call: 2
3. Desire to be engaged with the current game activity rather than accept the burnt hand penalty stop that/sideline him: 7
4. Desire for gameplay to make sense: 8

Okay, now lets say the GM has just declared the penalty applies, but the call is iffy. Factor #2 is not going to see you through here, it isn't a case of Jim accepting the GM is always right or something like that. No#1 and No#4 (a burnt hand has some effect) are going to ensure he accepts something, but No#3 conflicts with those and indeed, No#4 can even conflict with this (as well as enforce some sort of result!). So he'll argue the point, because although he'll accept something on this it has to be a compromise that will satisfy the objective of No#3 to some degree ('C'mon, I could atleast try to help defuse the bomb...give me a penalty perhaps...'). This will eat into game time and possibly has other effects.

Again, you don't need to agree with this evaluation...I'm just showing how working out factors/factor strengths then writing up how they interact is really useful to get a big picture view.

Now, let's add another factor. That of a reward obtained when the penalty is applied. The strength here is based on how much the player values that reward.

5. Desire for replacement reward: 5

Now in this case, to make it more interesting I haven't made the strength beat everything else (not that it couldn't). It beats No# 2 pretty easy...you won't see the player grumble about the GM's opinion. But it may not be enough to compensate on missing out on play (No#3). Finally, it may grate with his sense of realism (No# 4). That's basically two against one...not quite enough to clear this up although if worse comes to worse, the player realises he atleast gets some reward out of it all and isn't too upset.

Now, if we increase the reward enough so it's percieved at strength 7? And what if this is a fantasy setting where anything could happen? Factor #4 could drop down a point or even two. Now there's no problem...there are a few factors involved, but the outcome is pretty clear cut. Fiddling with reward strength and the type of setting your using to begin with can really change the factors and thus behavior.

In addition, I'd like to discuss how that reward might be valued. This can have sub factors of its own. For example, if an XP reward is given that's a permanant reward. Consider this possible sub factor 'Desires permanant reward more than the reward of avoiding a temporary penalty' and what rating many gamers would have it at.

Hi,

What a fascinating topic! Definitely worth developing into an article, IMHO.

There seems to be a parallel here with social and psychological game theories. Apologies if that's stating the obvious, but it leads me to suspect that there is more than one 'payoff' to consider here.

For example, desire to conform with the GM reinforces a Child-Parent relationship with the GM.

Whereas desire to be seen as honest by other people is an 'external existential' payoff. There is also an 'internal existential' equivalent, which is to reinforce belief in one's own integrity regardless of whether it is externally recognised.

Other possible payoffs include 'power within the game', 'desire to have an argument' (a classic Transactional Analysis example) and 'desire for an interesting story'.

IMO, the desire for 'gameplay to make sense' is particularly interesting. If the other players in the group value this, it could be seen as an Adult pursuit. But if the other players prefer an 'escapist' (Child) approach, then it could become an authoritarian (Parental) approach - 'you're being silly/unrealistic'.

Apologies for the very loose approach I'm taking to psychological theories here (this wasn't my academic speciality, and I am by no means an expert in this field.)

I just wanted to emphasise that the different rewards/payoffs are not just quantatively different, they are qualitatively different and also engage very different parts of the persona.

Which may explain the potential for conflict. Am I right in thinking that this is substantially different from a simpe clash of Creative Agendas or SiS?

Regards,

Doug

Hello,

Doug, it seems to me that what you're talking about is the essential factors of human Social Contract when engaged in any social leisure activity. Since Exploration (shared imagination) is defined as a type or application of Social Contract, and since Creative Agenda is a "link" or "connective arrow" from Exploration down into the procedures and moments of play, then my answer has to be yes and no.

Yes, these kinds of interactions are "more" or "different from" Creative Agenda. However, I also suggest that Creative Agendas rely on agreement and communication - and the agreement and communication are themselves manifestations of the interactions you're talking about.

So different from, yes, but unrelated, no. Or so it seems to me.

Best,
Ron

You could probably look at these as the basic building blocks of larger structures of agreement.

Personally I prefer a more nihilistic perspective, in that these desires are all there is...the idea of agreement is just a loose, elastic idea to encapsulate hundreds/thousands of these competing desires. The word agreement being applied to a issue doesn't tell you much at all about that issues true resolution.

But after that six page wonder of mine I think it's a matter of glass half full/glass half empty and to make communication easier I've switched to glass half full (which is like the former building blocks example).


Now, is there enough in this for an article? I believe in the idea as being damn useful but if I were to work it into something I'd flesh out the following areas

* Brief intro then some examples, because they seem to demonstrate the idea well.
* Describe how they can be useful: Breaking down stuff into easier to discuss chunks where its also easier to examine the relationships, since the influencing factors have been isolated.
* As an extension to this:
- This can be useful in transcript to rules conversion. Identify the desire factors in progress at a certain point, then look at what desires for rewards you'd need to bring about your transcript.
- Use it in designing session material for when you play. Indeed, it can help you design session material that doesn't reduce choice in relation to what is declared as rewarding (something I'm itching to make a post of it's own, at the moment).
- Use in analysing play, eg actual play or talking about games session in theory, etc.

* Also, I'm tempted to work out some constants. Before I made sure that any factors I were describing were just examples, so as not to get in the way of the idea. But I think there are constants like people wanting to be seen as honest, etc. Perhaps even a rough suggestion as to their average value. This is something I should develop further amongst peers here, since I don't want to be controversial about this.


Now, that looks like a few things but because the idea is kind of simple to begin with I don't think they'll expand hugely. Is that enough for an article?