Here's the situation: I've promised to give a lecture in a small convention this month. After a little thought I decided to take formalistic game design (I'll explain what that means in a second) as my topic, being that it's been in my mind a lot this year. I thought that I know what I'm talking about, too. However, I got to talking about the topic with Ben Lehman who was staying with me here in Helsinki, and Ben was pretty vehement in claiming that my whole concept doesn't exist as an analytic topic. Thus I thought to come bat my lecture around here for a bit; understandably I'm somewhat interested in whether or not my lecture is actually about anything or not.

I'll explain the core of my planned topic next. I think this is just reiterated Ron/Vincent stuff with some useful terminology and a historical perspective attached. The question of the thread is whether I'm wrong about that, and whether there's anything salvageable in there.

Formalistic and realistic game mechanics

When considering game mechanics (system ephemera to be exact, but also written rules), one way to characterize them is to divide between "in-game" and "meta-game" mechanics, as the old-skool tends to put it. A more exact way to talk about the same thing is to consider the relationship of SIS to the rules mechanic: does SIS affect the application of the rule? Does the rule affect SIS? (I think this is just Vincent's cloud-people-ques diagram in operation here.)

A realistic game mechanic is one that requires objective evaluation of the SIS as a part of using the mechanic. Initiation of falling damage procedure is a good example in most games: you only ever use the falling damage rules if it's determined that a character is dropping a distance. To decide whether or not to use the rule at any given moment the players refer to the SIS.

On the other hand, a formalistic mechanic explicitly does not require an evaluation of the SIS. The most striking quality of these mechanics is that they care about the narration of the game only insofar as a player cares, and uses a mechanical handle to enforce his investment. An obvious example is a turn structure rule, but there's many others as well; for example, the Dust Devils conflict system is formalistic as regards surprise and death, because there is no SIS situation that allows a gunfighter to just kill another character without player compliance. Thus SIS is not consulted in determining character death or surprise attacks, to give a couple of examples.

What's it for

Considering system ephemera in these terms is not necessarily that interesting, but when you notice that a great part of the Forge game design technique is formalistic, while traditional game design is overwhelmingly realistic (are these claims true?), the question of historical logic and principles of design rears its head: how is SIS accessed in roleplaying games? What repercussions have realistic and formalistic mechanics had in terms of actual play? Is there any perceivable structure to how designers enmesh realistic and formalistic rules? Can you derive principles that would help game design?

Also, I've found this terminology useful in my own design, because it allows me to keep a better handle on what my rules are actually supposed to be doing. Specifically, I like to talk about the oracular function (see below) that formalistic game rules allow, and how this function is used in design. I find it interesting that traditional roleplayers seem to take this particular class of game mechanics as the instinctual dividing point between roleplaying games proper and "storytelling games". Is the oracular function of rules a special technical agenda?

The oracular function is something that emerges from extensive usage of formalistic game mechanics. It's defined as a situation where the player derives restrictions and structure for narration from game mechanics, but is otherwise relatively free to narrate whatever he wants. This is identical to the role served by divination aids like tarot or i-ching. MLwM epilogue conditions are a particularly clear example of an oracular rule, but whole games can be constructed to work like this. These mechanics are common, too: Under the Bed and Breaking the Ice, to name two recent titles, make extensive use of the oracular function of rules. Fortune-in-the-Middle is a special case of the phenomenon, as it's specificly defined as a situation where you first find out a result, and then fit your narration to it.

In addition to the above I also find it very interesting that many of the things in the "Forge heritage" can be characterized as a greater and more varied understanding of formalistic game design. Thus we have a consept that is CA-independent and characterizes the stuff we do here pretty well. I think it's a pretty interesting interpretation if we can characterize the historical process of the Forge as a "development of a formalistic range of design tools and a corresponding school of design". It's certainly better than "Forge-twinks hate everything that's not narrativism", which is an interpretation I meet now and then.

What's the problem?

Well, Ben seemed to think that I'm all confused, and he was pretty good in confusing me, too. Thus I'd appreciate an outside perspective, if any of you have any comments on the above. Specifically, the following issues:
- Do you see the difference I'm trying to make with the terminology intuitively?
- Does my definition of formalistic/realistic accord with the intuition?
- Am I just restating something, is there already terms for what I'm talking about here?
- Even if my defined terms are valid, am I wrong in imagining that there might be some use for them?

Ben offered a tentative hypothesis: what I'm perceiving is an aesthetic of rules writing, and I'm actually not seeing any real difference in game rules. I call a rule "realistic" if it's offered by a designer who doesn't understand the Lumpley principle, while other rules are formalistic. I think I disagree (there's plenty of realistic rules in all recent games, too) with Ben here, but it's worth considering.

Another suggestion we came up with in regards to my confusion was that I'm actually calling any rule that takes "unstructured" input from the SIS a realistic rule, while I accept "structured" input as a "formalistic" rules phenomenon. My main problem here is that I didn't understand what Ben was getting to with the word 'structured'. I know that the improvised weapons rule in DiV is realistic (you have to know whether there's a suitable tool in the SIS before you can use it), but I have no idea if Ben'd consider it structured.

The theoretical problem Ben seemed to have with my stuff was that according to him there's no such thing as a rule that doesn't query the SIS, and all rules are actually only used by player choice. Thus there's no difference between my "realistic" and "formalistic" rules.

Anyway, I'm not paraphrasing Ben here to get somebody to tell me he's wrong or anything like that. I'm just throwing out some suggestions in case somebody can grab onto something and use it to make me understand why I'm wrong. Who knows, if Ben survives Siberia, he might have something more to say, too.

To me, the distinction is intuitive and real. At the same time, I see problems with it - can you honestly claim that a rule doesn't query the SiS, when a role-playing rule by definition makes no sense without a SiS?

To make sure that I understand what you're talking about: Say I have a rule system that says "Create a character. Narrate his success at a task. Narrate his death." As I understand it, the two last rules (at least) are, by your definition, formalistic: They tell you what to do, but don't ask for input from the SiS, and leave you complete freedom as to how to narrate.

However, they still require evaluation of the SiS. If you haven't narrated success, you can't go on to rule 3. If you never narrate success, your character doesn't die. Also, success is a very vague word in itself - you have to evaluate whether the character has really succeeded, and perhaps that's only doable in hindsight?

So... the more I think about it, the more I'm... not sure. What seemed clear when I first read your post, isn't all that clear anymore. I believe examination of specific rules and their application would help a lot - could you supply some examples?

matthijs wrote:
To me, the distinction is intuitive and real. At the same time, I see problems with it - can you honestly claim that a rule doesn't query the SiS, when a role-playing rule by definition makes no sense without a SiS?

To make sure that I understand what you're talking about: Say I have a rule system that says "Create a character. Narrate his success at a task. Narrate his death." As I understand it, the two last rules (at least) are, by your definition, formalistic: They tell you what to do, but don't ask for input from the SiS, and leave you complete freedom as to how to narrate.

However, they still require evaluation of the SiS. If you haven't narrated success, you can't go on to rule 3. If you never narrate success, your character doesn't die. Also, success is a very vague word in itself - you have to evaluate whether the character has really succeeded, and perhaps that's only doable in hindsight?

So... the more I think about it, the more I'm... not sure. What seemed clear when I first read your post, isn't all that clear anymore. I believe examination of specific rules and their application would help a lot - could you supply some examples?

I think completely agree with what I believe you're saying, but if so, you're saying it in a strange way. ;)

I think this is fundamental for formalistic design, because all formalistic rules have this feature in common: they don't claim an ability to evaluate the SIS, the task is always left to one or more players.

- after all, if the SIS is evaluated, it's always a player who does the evaluation, and if a player makes a decision about a condition, he's using the SIS to evaluate it, at least most of the time.

matthijs wrote:
Now, this is weird. No rule can evaluate the SiS. Only players can. Right? So how is this different from a realistic rule? I find myself agreeing with what you say Ben is saying,

With realistic rules, the initial state of the SiS is processed by the rule to dictate the end state of the SiS. My character is here, your character is there, so our range is X, which affects my die roll like this, and the arrow misses.
With formalistic rules, the initial state of the SiS may trigger the rule, but the rule dictates the end state independently. My character attempts a task. I roll a die, and on a 6 he succeeds, regardless of what he's trying, or what the effects of his success are.

*(Hey! They're anti-lumpley rules! If "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.", then rules that don't have anything to do with player SiS agreement are actually not part of System).

Just a question for now, Eero, sorry (limited by the rooted monster that is St. Petersburg, and other circumstances - such as a wifi-signal that only works near the coatrack):

Eero wrote:
Let's follow that with an analysis of some parts of D&D:
Falling damage - you only get falling damage if your character falls a long enough distance. Your character will only fall if something in the SIS causes it. You will only take falling damage if the fall is defined to be long enough. This is a very realistic rule, because it's not initiated without a SIS condition, and even then it won't necessarily do anything.
Combat rules - In general the D&D combat rules are pretty formalistic. For instance, your initiative is defined regardless of the SIS. At the beginning of the combat you lift great deals of stuff from the SIS in a realistic fashion (Where are the enemies? Who they are? What weapons do the participants have? What's the terrain like?), but you can't really take more out of there later on (for instance, if the terrain isn't defined as steep at the beginning of the battle, a mere narration can't later on change the fact).
Experience system - You get experience if you participated in an encounter. Whether this is realistic or formalistic depends on how the GM interprets this principle - if being part of the encounter requires making at least one point of damage (which is a house rule used now and then), then it's a formalistic rule. If it requires being in the vicinity, but not necessarily even on the battle map, then it's realistic. Furthermore: how much xp you get depends on what you defeat, not necessarily in battle, so it's a very realistic rule. If you make "to defeat" a special condition the GM grants at some point, however, it becomes formalistic.

Man, Ben Lehman is smarter than he looks like. That's something he suspected, too, that I'm just talking about simulationistic vs. other creative agendas. (You'll notice that we talked about this more than about any other single subject when he was in the country for a month. That's kinda sad, when I'm not even a theorist by nature.)

An answer to the question: I could dodge the question by claiming that this division has nothing to do with CAs, because CAs are not about mechanics design. However, instead I'll give some examples to prove that realistic mechanics are not a category or supercategory of simulationism-inducing mechanics (if there are such things):

A formalistic rule for a Star Trek game could be: "When you're playing captain Picard, any other player may interrupt and quote an episode number to prove captain Picard wouldn't do something like that. You'll watch the episode in question before continuing the game. A show of hands determines by way of vote whether the complainer gets to narrate what you do instead." This rule, while cumbersome and perhaps not very interesting, is both clearly simulationistic-leaning (it's whole purpose is to keep character portrayal genre faithful) and formalistic (players may challenge regardless of SIS condition, and their challenge may go through or not regardless of SIS condition).

On the other hand, a realistic rule that is not simulationism-inducing: in a real world game, if your character ever meets an angel, he'll grow wings and can thus fly around. This is a realistic rule (it is activated by a SIS condition), but not perhaps good for a real-life simulationistic agenda (you can't meet an angel in a real-world game, so it's useless).

As you can see, a realistic rules mechanic isn't necessary very "realistic" as regards story expectations. Similarly a formalistic rule may produce perfectly, exactingly simulationistic play, if the players operating the rules produce simulationistic material. Then again, you could argue that any rule at all supports simulationism, but that's just because you can pick a simulationistic aesthetic that is in concordance with the rule in question. Like, you could say that the above rule is perfectly simulationistic for a game of wings-growing, or something. Whatever.

Would it be correct to say that your 'realistic' rule is taking a cue from an accepted SIS event, to affect the events in the SIS; but that your 'formalistic' rule is taking a cue from a non-SIS event, to affect the events in the SIS?

I tend to think of this as a sliding scale of rules between "abstract" and "representational".  I think the term "representational" is better than "realistic" here, since as you note there is nothing necessarily realistic.  The issue between these two is, how much are the rules themselves used to describe what is in the Shared Imaginary Space? 

For example, if I hand you a character sheet with just the game stats of a character and the mechanical parts of a resolution, how much could you tell about what happened or who the characters are?  For example, say there is a fight in GURPS using Advanced Combat.  I describe it mechanically by showing just the mechanical parts of the character sheets, and cite the game options chosen and the rolls.  This by itself will tell you something about what happened.  The rules are used directly for describing the SIS. 

In contrast, consider say Dogs in the Vineyard and Soap.  Dogs in the Vineyard is medium-to-high abstraction -- i.e. I could tell you about the mechanical steps in a fight without the narration, and that would give you some clues about what happened.  You would know that someone raised and added in a particular trait, say.  You would know when something went from weaponed fighting to gunfighting, and so forth.  In contrast, Soap is very high abstraction.  You can barely tell anything from whether someone collected tokens and how they bid. 

Eero wrote: A rule is realistic if it draws a mechanical currency from narration.

COMBAT
1. Each turn, you narrate freely how your character moves.
2. Depending on where your character is relative to his opponent, he gets a bonus for either melee or missile attacks.
3. Choose whether to use a melee or missile attack.
4. Roll to see if your character hits.

COMBAT
1. Each turn, you narrate freely how your character moves.
2. Choose whether to use a melee or missile attack, and whether you get a bonus for it.
3. Roll to see if your character hits.

Here's what I'm seeing. One dial is for the degree to which a rule or combination of rules is intended to promote particular player behaviors and the other dial is for the degree to which a rule or combination of rules is intended to model a reality. They're overlapping properties and both can generally be found in the same rule.

I also think Ben is right in saying that the style and content of writing in a game will alter our perceptions of what purpose a rule plays, and is intended to play, in a game.

-Chris

Thanks for the interest, guys. It seems that other people can at least see what I'm talking about, here. That would seem to indicate that the concept exists, and it's just a matter of analysis to figure out where the difference objectively is.

Ernie: I thought that I'm saying that, too, but apparently that definition breaks down with mechanics like "this one player narrates until a conflict appears", which should be formalistic by my intuition, but actually has a SIS evaluation in there in the form of "until a conflict appears". I don't however want these rules in the realistic box of the division, because I see them as central oracular tools that very much go together with the mechanics-to-mechanics rules.

My later definition of "mechanical impact" is much better; the above rule is formalistic by that definition, because the narration added to SIS does not have currency significance. The conflict has  to happen, this fact is formalistic. The narration is just there for the human participants of the game to bridge the gap between the previous step and the conflict.

John Kim: I don't think you're talking about the same distinction, even if yours is valid, too. A realistic rule can be abstract ("When characters strive for different things, initiate conflict") or representational ("When a character hits another, roll a to-hit roll"), and a formalistic rule can also be abstract ("After narrating a while, initiate conflict") or representational ("On your turn, choose who to attack and roll an attack roll"). The issue is about whether SIS is used directly to affect the mechanics, not about the level of abstraction.

Matthijs: I agree on your examples, seems we have the same distinction in our heads. As for the term "realistic": I think it's pretty nice, but that's because I think it's useful to co-opt a vaguely defined term in that way. In this case especially, as I think that realism pretty much explains what the distinction is about - whether arguments based on the SIS have any credence when applying the rule. I guess I could call it... "SIS-reactive"? Nobody would understand what it's about then, though.

Chris: That's valid, certainly. I hope that I'm not talking abour "modelling reality" at all, though.

Eero,
Would a possible distinction be that a formalistic rule needs player creativity in order to have an effect on the SIS ("rule says I fail, so I'll say that means...") whereas a realistic rule doesn't need that ("rule says 1d6 per 10' fall, so that'll be 6d6 damage").

SR
--

matthijs wrote: *(Hey! They're anti-lumpley rules! If "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.", then rules that don't have anything to do with player SiS agreement are actually not part of System).

Eero, could it be defined in terms of input?  Any rule is a decision on what happens, and any decision needs information (input) from which to derive an answer (output).  All rules output to imagined content, either directly or indirectly.  Representational rules require input from imagined content, while formalistic rules take their input from other sources (like player preferences, story structure, genre convention, etc).  Can a rule take input from both imagined content and outside source, and in such a way that that 'rule' cannot be split into two separate rules working in conjunction?

Joshua wrote: Representational rules require input from imagined content, while formalistic rules take their input from other sources (like player preferences, story structure, genre convention, etc).  Can a rule take input from both imagined content and outside source, and in such a way that that 'rule' cannot be split into two separate rules working in conjunction?

Crap, I knew I wasn't articulating that well and I'd end up needing charts and graphs. =P  You misunderstood my final question, MJ, which was probably more my error than yours.

Any rule will have input and output.  Output will always be to the imagined content (except maybe in "candy bars for the best RPer" and the like).  Input can be from the imagined content (I fell down, the rule takes the input of how far I fell) or from outside sources (Is there a chandelier to swing from?  This is swashbuckling!  Of course there is!).  I don't know if a rule can take input from both imagined content and outside source, but even if it could, its output would go back into imagined content.

And this is, of course, an iterative process.  Rules invoke other rules, or rules articulate the imagined content in such a way that additional rules are then invoked (I knocked you down, you fell off the cliff, you take falling damage).  So while I may avail myself to the "There's always a chandelier" rule because I need to get from one balcony to the other to get to the princess (all input derived from imagined content), that can be split into two rules: the first being "you can't just walk there" and the second being "I use the chandelier!".

My question is more: can a rule require input from imagined content as well as input from an outside source without any intermediary decision being made in the middle of that process (and can therefore be considered two rules working together).

And one instance of a rule (more accurately, procedure) which uses an outside source for input without the influence of imagined content is the first procedure used: what will the game be about, and what content will we imagine?  When the GM is setting up the adventure, she starts with a blank slate -- she can't use imagined content as input.

Rob and Joshua both give definitions of formalistic that I'm happy with for working purposes, and consider equivalent to what I've fiddled with here.

M. J. - I'm not sure I'm willing to buy the idea of a continuum in this case; I think I'm talking about rules ephemera, which can pretty much be handled as atomistic things. You have this one rules action, what is it that you do when doing it? That's the question. And if the answer ends up to be "I use the credibility of the SIS to initiate a rule in the rule book." then that rule in the book is a realistic rule that is dependent on the SIS to be initiated. Likewise, if the answer proves to be "I have the right to use this rule, so I just narrate a justification and do it.", then it's a formalistic rule. I don't see how even a minority of rules would straddle this divide.

An example of the issue: in Under the Bed the players activate traits that are suitable for the situation to increase their chances in overcoming an obstacle. If this was all there is to it, this would be a classical realistic rule. But the thing is, the player who has the credibility to decide on the activation is the activating player himself. He decides which traits he activates, and he is then expected to narrate how the trait fits the situation. So actually the SIS situation has nothing to do with trait activation directly (SIS only affects the trait activation insofar as you have to be happy with your narration); instead the rule is a narrative pacing device that ensures that the player describes the ensuing conflict in sufficient detail. You're supposed to activate all your traits in the game after all, and are directly punished (in the form of less dice) if you can't be bothered to narrate them all in. The purpose of the rule is not realistic, but formalistic.

Now, the interesting thing is that this is just how I read and play the game. For all I know, there's lots of people who interpret the rule in question realistically, ending up with a completely different distribution of credibility, one that goes through the SIS a lot.

But anyway, that's that. I think I have the concept of realistic/formalistic pretty much nailed down, now. In concrete terms it's a question of the relationship of the SIS to the play activity, whether SIS matters as a point of order for the rules or is just an aesthetic output of the system. This is interesting, because it's very common among traditional roleplayers to deride formalistic rules elements for not being roleplaying at all.

I'll give my lecture on Saturday, and come back to this thread next week to outline the contents of the lecture. That should explain everybody why I think that these concepts are interesting and important.

Looking forward to reading about your lecture!