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

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

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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

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.

Noon wrote:
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?

bcook1971 wrote: I think the list items are dynamics, adjusted by the character of the group.

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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

Bankuei wrote: 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."

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.

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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

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).

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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

Thomas, I'd propose that, in fact, Universalis is a tad incoherent in some ways, and that may be your group's problem there.

That's not to disagree with your overall point. But it's been a basic tenet of the Big Theory that all play occurs in the context of a Social Contract, and hence can never be good unless the contract is good first. Hence the model:

Social Contract -> GNS -> Techniques

Mike

Mike,

That is precisely my point. I have some friends, we have fun doing plenty of other activities. We want to learn how to get along with Role Playing as well. How do we do that? The only method currently available is trial and error, trying different games and different authority structures until we find something that "hits the spot".

I want something more. I want methods and techniques that allow us to analyze and manipulate our Social Contract on a level outside of any specific game, so that we know which specific game(s) we can play together.

Ron gives the excellent advice that if your Social Contract is broken, you shouldn't really be playing. I want to know how to fix the Social Contract in question so that we can play without an intervening period of dysfunctional play while we experiment.

Thomas

Vincent (lumpley) wrote: The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.

LordSmerf wrote: I want to know how to fix the Social Contract in question so that we can play without an intervening period of dysfunctional play while we experiment.

Thomas, since this is a CA problem, and, as such a subset of the social contract, the only tools for this can be social.

Which is mostly just what Chris said.

You've said that you don't have a problem outside of RPGs. So I'm not sure why you then say that you want to have tools to "fix" the social contract "outside" of a specific game. You seem to be implying that there's some layer in between the social contract, and CA. There is not.

Mike

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

Best,
Ron

Marco, for example, do the players ever say, "I cross the busy street, and enter the building?"

If, indeed, everything outside of the character is the realm of the GM, then isn't it incorrect for the player to establish that the street is busy? Even if, in your contract, the GM has the right to say, "You mean empty street," but doesn't always take away player additions, then aren't they "sharing" the duty?

This is just the example I always use. The principle can be extrapolated a lot into other areas.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Marco, for example, do the players ever say, "I cross the busy street, and enter the building?"

If, indeed, everything outside of the character is the realm of the GM, then isn't it incorrect for the player to establish that the street is busy? Even if, in your contract, the GM has the right to say, "You mean empty street," but doesn't always take away player additions, then aren't they "sharing" the duty?

This is just the example I always use. The principle can be extrapolated a lot into other areas.

Mike

Thomas wrote: 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.

Marco wrote: As a total expression of dynamic the phrase doesn't measure up if our definition of "runs the world" is interperted to mean "all words concerning the extermal physicality of the PC must come out of the GM's mouth."

Thing is, I'm not sure anyone ever really means it that way.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Marco wrote: As a total expression of dynamic the phrase doesn't measure up if our definition of "runs the world" is interperted to mean "all words concerning the extermal physicality of the PC must come out of the GM's mouth."

Thing is, I'm not sure anyone ever really means it that way.

Which was precisely the point being made, I think. That is, people talk about this simple divide of power when it's not at all as simple as it's cast. Yes, I think that what's meant is clear to people, but often it's not the same from group to group. For example, I've seen groups where the GM will correct the player, "You attempt to go across the street, which is, by the way, busy with traffic, but only because I said so." And other groups that are much more free with player control, but who still claim to be using the divide in question.

So, yes, people have an idea of what they mean by this divide, and it works fine in play. But just saying "GM controls world, players control characters" doesn't really tell us what's happening, because, as you say, nobody ever really means it that way.

Mike

Hiya,

Marco, I accept your "kindler & gentler" paraphrase as fully expressing my point better.

That puts me, Mike, and you all on the same page, I think.

Best,
Ron

Rockin' (If that's agreeable all around, then I consider my question fully answered)

-Marco

I'll quibble only techically. That is, people usually don't put this sort of thought into this. So, in fact, they don't consciously percieve these things. They know how things work by a general impression of their own play, and they associate that play style with the phrase. The problem becomes that they don't realize that other people may mean different things by the phrase. So when someone uses it, they think "Aha, just like I play!" When that's not neccessarily the case. The phrase is too simple to capture the sometimes not incosequestial nuances involved.

I mean, my Hero Quest game could be described by this phrase, but it looks a ton different in some ways regarding this than some other people's play.

Mike

"players play characters, GM plays the world" is sort of like how we quickly describe G, N or S around here in a sentence, in order to not over load newer posters.

But typically whoever does that here notes that its a simplification or notes something that says "That's not the whole story".

That last bit is important, because if the phrase is being used to form social contract, it tells you that weve only covered this briefly and in terms of it, the SC still needs work done. And without this, "players play characters, GM plays the world" all too easily falls into this structurelessness issue here. Even if you don't have structure here, by explicitly noting that this structure will latter need to be worked out like the rest of the SC was, it is adding some framework.

Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

I think there is a level of social interaction both in games and in real-life where there is no easily defined structure. I know what "who chooses the movie" amongst my friends would be very hard to articulate and be based on a vast number of factors (he saw mine last time and my choice turned out to be a dud so my 'credibility' is damaged, etc.)

-Marco

Am I the only one who wants to know what the article originally quoted is? That is, I'd like to read the original article in full...

Marco wrote: Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

Noon wrote:

Marco wrote: Well, I think it's 'high level.' That is, in exposition, it gets more refined than more correct. That is not the case for most "one sentence CA's" I have seen (i.e. Nar means Story!)

I'm not sure what you mean by correct. In practical terms were looking to avoid the issues raised in the first post. I'm not sure there is any 'correct' except in what is customised to a group so it's functional. One sentence isn't capable of holding a lot of customisation. At best I'd say it's synecdoche, in that the phrase isn't the whole of the matter, it's simply a code word to bring up to play a lot of complex arrangements you have amongst your group.

Like I described, itt may simply be a placeholder "Here's a quick description of how we handle it, but clearly that isn't enough so we'll have to work out the details latter", and that would be the refinement process you mentioned. Ie, you've stuck in some framework for stuff that this hasn't been fully delt with yet and latter it'll need some more work/refinement.

But is even that 'well work on this latter' explicit in such a statement?

(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.

xiombarg wrote: Am I the only one who wants to know what the article originally quoted is? That is, I'd like to read the original article in full...

The version of the article I posted came from the Communities Directory (1995 edition), a directory and resource for "intentional communities" all across the world. The article has obviously been revised for the various subjects to which it has been applied. If you follow pfisher's link you can see with a minimal of reading that the two versions of the article vary quite a bit. Since it does have such a wide application I don't see that as a problem.

I left out the first and last paragraphs from the version of the article I posted. They didn't have any application to the area of gaming and were mostly just loose verbage for the purpose of introduction and conclusion.

-Chris

Marco,

For me it comes down to how many assumptions that statement of credibility distribution leaves up in the air. It's simply too vague and too broad to be of any practical use in actual play. Why even use it when most potential conflicts can be avoided by being specific about credibility distribution?

If the players don't like the rules, they can alter how they play. At least they'll have a solid base to work from and won't have to deal with ugly assumption clashes.

Unless anyone has something more to add concerning the article, I think it's about time to wrap this thread up and take any related issues to their own threads.

-Chris

I'm not sure I can work up a whole new thread on this, so I'll keep it fairly short.

Marco wrote: Then you or someone else is going to tell me that not everyone interperts it that way and therefore it's prone to causing problems. I'll address that concern when we come to it--but I'm going to say up front that if someone come to me with a set of text and an interpertation of that text I think is unreasonable then the problem exists between me and the person and not with the text.

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.

I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

-Marco

Marco wrote: I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

Again, I think that the phrase is quite accurate, just not very precise.

Think about it this way - I'd say that right now something like 95% of all RPG play (depending on how you define that) falls into "Players play characters, GM plays world." As such, you simply aren't making much of a distinction. In fact, this sort of play is so prevalent that many people think any other power split is no longer a RPG.

Yes, what happens is that everyone refines this for their play. But, again, the refinements do not get mentioned in many cases. Actually in some they do. Some texts do go on to explain what they mean more specifically, and some people do explain what it means to them more specifically. The problem is that many don't, assuming that there's some shared meaning for the implied style.

Yes, if one says "Story Now" and assumes that this will be the same for them as it is for everyone, then they've made the same mistake. And that probably does happen. There's nothing about the phrase Story Now that makes it any less susceptible to misinterpretation as a single clear method (when it's actually a categorization of many methods). I think that Ron's essay shows how to get past using such a phrase without expansion or clarification. But, no, there's nothing superior about the phrase in question in delivering meaning. In fact, I'd buy into the argument that "Story Now" is even potentially more confusing, if one doesn't read more about what it means as a category.

That doesn't make the other catch phrase any less problematic, however.

Mike

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't think you ever need to use blame or fault to achieve a group goal. I'm not even sure under what context those could be considered "tools." We must not be imagining the same kinds of problems.

Well, the key lies in the bit of your text quoted above: if someone comes to you with an intepretation of a gaming text you find REASONABLE. The problem is that there is no gaurantee that two people will find it reasonable in the same way. If all you can do is accuse one another of unreasonableness, you're probably dead in the water.

Mike Holmes wrote: Again, I think that the phrase is quite accurate, just not very precise.

Think about it this way - I'd say that right now something like 95% of all RPG play (depending on how you define that) falls into "Players play characters, GM plays world." As such, you simply aren't making much of a distinction. In fact, this sort of play is so prevalent that many people think any other power split is no longer a RPG.