A while back I posted a speculative note] regarding rule-governed transformation of play space.

I got a number of useful responses.

Recently, I have uncovered a type of game that involves not only continuous transformation of the space wherein players make their moves, but where the rules that govern transformations, indeed, the very rules themselves, undergo constant modification.


Here is the site overview: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm

"Nomic is a game I invented in 1982. It's a game in which changing the rules is a move. The Initial Set of rules does little more than regulate the rule-changing process. While most of its initial rules are procedural in this sense, it does have one substantive rule (on how to earn points toward winning); but this rule is deliberately boring so that players will quickly amend it to please themselves. The Initial Set of rules, some commentary by me, and some reflections by Douglas Hofstadter, were published in Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" column in Scientific American in June of 1982. It was quickly translated into many European and Asian languages. Games were regularly played, and kicked off, the ARPANET, the Defense Department network which sired the Internet. Nomic has been used to stimulate artistic creativity, simulate the circulation of money, structure group therapy sessions, train managers, and to teach public speaking, legal reasoning, and legislative drafting. Nomic games have sent ambassadors to other Nomic games, formed federations, and played Meta-Nomic. Nomic games have experienced revolution, oppressive coups, and the restoration of popular sovereignty. Above all, Nomic has been fun for thousands of players around the world. For me, it was intended to illustrate and embody the thesis of my book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, that a legal "rule of change" such as a constitutional amendment clause may apply to itself and authorize its own amendment. (Nomic is the third appendix of the book.)"

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

Because the rules are always changing, there is no absolute set of rules to Nomic. There is only the starting or initial set of rules. There are 29 numbered rules in the Initial Set. Most are "procedural" and govern the process of changing the rules or the facts of life in a game where the rules are always changing. The chief exception is Initial Rule 202, which should be read first. Rule 202 is practically the only "substantive" rule in the Initial Set. It tells how to earn points to win. The mechanism is as simple as possible: one throws a die or makes a calculation. The substantive portion of the game is deliberately simple so that the players can decide, through rule-changes, what kind of game they want to play. If they make no decision here, they will be fully occupied in what I call a "procedural" game, which many players choose deliberately. In a substantive game, players aim to score points and win. In a procedural game, players try to tie the rules into the most interesting knots imaginable and to win not by points (Rule 208) but by paradox (Rule 213)."

epweissengruber wrote: I have no idea how this might assist the description of what takes place in role-playing games or in the design of such games, but I thought that those interested in the more speculative end of RPG theory might find Nomic games interesting.

Excellent detective work

I played in a Nomic on RPG.Net for a while that sort of turned into a group designed fantasy heartbreaker type role-playing game before it dissolved: we had a sort of map of a fantasy world, each player had a race and class, there were currencies and magic items, levels and experience points, and wandering monsters to fight. An interesting thing about it is that the RPG-like part of the game and the legislative part of the game were completely indistinguishable. You'd fight some Sewer Rats to get experience points, then use those to level up, then take on a dragon and steal its loot, and then use the silver you took from it to buy extra votes on rules changes.

I'm inclined to think Nomic involves two games, rather than one. One is exploring the game world, the other is playing the game of designing rules.

Their seperate in much the same way as, say, declaring that you'll do the washing up soon and actually doing the washing up, are two different things. One is proposing a rule for yourself, the other is forfilling that rule.

I get the impression that if you play the designing part to get what you want, you'll kill off exploration in the other game (because while you play the design game, your not using the SIS to aid that, since this is about designing rules that manage the SIS). But if you don't play cutthroat in the designing part, it's no better than freeform gaming as the rules don't provoke you to any particular heights of creativity in your exploration.

I'm looking at this like a potential user, rather than a current user. I have not read its rules yet, as I have real trouble absorbing rules without some sort of social discussion beforehand about them (hah, what a roleplayer habit to pick up!)

Consider a Nomic spin-off called Pure Nomic with only one rule:

All players must agree to any changes to the game.

Play proceeds from there. Likely early rules would include requiring a majority vote instead of unanimous vote to change the rules, codifying recording of rules, and so on.

It's easy to see how this overlaps with social contract and RPG design. There's a sort of shared information space in the ruleset and in the way the players interpret it. There will likely be rules that are forgotten or ignored. There will be customs that are not codified but are expected of players.

The player is asked to be a game designer as he plays, and in Pure Nomic there is no stated goal or victory condition. You play for the sake of playing and the goal of play is to design.

Also note the bricolage nature of Nomic play instances.

I should say: I have started four different Nomic games.

The first never made it out of the chute, yet lives on as PandeNomic on Peter Suber's Nomic list (despite me asking him to remove it).

The second was NoMUSH, an online adaptation of PureNomic (it is no longer available). It was quite successful and enjoyed furious activity of a half dozen people for many months. I advertised it as a game where people decide what the rules of the game will be. As I advertised it on my LiveJournal, which was read by many people who play on my online FRPG FiranMUSH, they assumed that I intended to build an online RPG and a number of people quit after a few days when they realized that an online RPG would not suddenly materialize out of the ruleset unless they showed real leadership to get it to do that.

The third rotted on the vine due to unresponsiveness. It used Peter Suber's original ruleset, which has no system to handle unresponsive players and is better played in person, but was intended for play on a Wiki.

The fourth is in dead status but enjoyed a month of interest. Ironically, a friend of mine inquired earlier today (before I read this thread) about playing in it, so she may resurrect it. I took the wiki from the third incarnation and changed the initial ruleset to account for unresponsive players to prevent game death, but it died for lack of interest. It's still available at nomic.legendary.org.

AdamDray wrote: Consider a Nomic spin-off called Pure Nomic with only one rule:

All players must agree to any changes to the game.

Thanks to all the contributors.

My posting was inspired by a conversation I had at a social meeting of the Toronto Role Player's Alliance. I made some remark about minimaxing and maximining, and gamers' conflation of the 2 terms into min-maxing. Then somebody pointed out the fallacy of using these terms in role playing games.
The minimaxing was, he said, developed in the context of 2 player/finite space games, and later extended to n-player games, multiplayer games that took place in finite spaces. No RPG takes place in a finite space, he said.

My later thoughts
- many fights over "what is canon?", "what is realistic?", "what are the correct rules?" are all attempts to create a finite space that will allow minimaxing and maximining, in game theory's sense of those terms
- is it possible to construct a game where the limits of the space and the rules of interaction can be changed by players?
- could those changes be integrated into the game instead of being arbitrarily imposed by threats, emotional blackmail, etc.?
- will a game that incorporates rule-goverened change still be "winnable" by the minimax approach?

This discussion has allowed me to think more clearly about these abstruse subjects.

epweissengruber wrote: My later thoughts
- many fights over "what is canon?", "what is realistic?", "what are the correct rules?" are all attempts to create a finite space that will allow minimaxing and maximining, in game theory's sense of those terms.

- is it possible to construct a game where the limits of the space and the rules of interaction can be changed by players?
- could those changes be integrated into the game instead of being arbitrarily imposed by threats, emotional blackmail, etc.?

Yes. But I think gameplay occurs at the point where your creatively restricted. If you can add anything to the universe, your not restricted there. If you have to use points to add anything to the universe, then gameplay revolves around those points.

Once your able to change something to exactly what you'd like, gameplay shifts away from that to something you can't easily change.

- will a game that incorporates rule-goverened change still be "winnable" by the minimax approach?

Noon wrote:

AdamDray wrote: Consider a Nomic spin-off called Pure Nomic with only one rule:

All players must agree to any changes to the game.

Otherwise known as the lumpley principle.

Matrix Games are nomic games - They're on Dr. Suber's list.

I don't know about confusing the Lumpley Principle with Nomic though. Nomic was not really put forward as a "game" per se. The self amending game was more an exploration in philosophy. Making a game open to self amendment was a new concept in the early 80's and the amendment nomic was after was not story telling changes but more basic. It hit on base mechanics of how things are done.

The orginal nomic was intentionally a boring game. This was meant to prod people into changing it. "Please rescue my sucky game." In play it tends to fall apart because it totally lack focus. It is really a discussion tool.

When players make up events in Matrix Games that is really just story telling (it doesn't directly change the way the game is played.) But since I allow players to make arguments about ANYTHING, they can literally change the rules. My miniature battle rules Matrix Game "Politics by other means" is more of a nomic since I expect players to change their chance of hitting and surviving hits as a natural part of the game.

For the Lumpely Principle ["System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."] to really be a nomic then people would have to be open to constant openness to changing how the game is played. They would have to be willing to let go of role playing all together if the rule "players can't talk to one another" came up. I think this tweaks all this GNS stuff farther than it will go.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press