Two Finnish fellows did a presentation about defining the roleplaying in local convention last summer. I missed the presentation (had to run a game), but here's some food for thought: the first draft of their paper about the subject:

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/

I seem to notice that their definition of "simulation" is a bit different from the GNS essay - almost the opposite.

Actually, their definition of Simulation is exactly what we use here. Simulationism, and Simulation are not one and the same, and in fact, thier association etymologically is in fact confusing rather than enlightening. Yet necessary as the model is a historical descendent of another. That said, there are many threads here that discuss the idea of changing the term Simulationism so as to avoid that problem.

In fact, the document seems to jibe with most of the theory here. Until page eight, that is, where the political bent of the publishers bias rears it's ugly head in a nasty form. Note how these individuals only quote sources that are from their school. This seems very problematic to me. What starts as a reasoned attempt to create a definition for role-playing activities ends up diminished by it's politics.

One point of personal interest, if one were to use their definition, Universalis would be considered Storytelling. That is because only GMs hold power in the game (no players, by their technical description). Since there is more than one GM, however, it would have to be a system for Collaborative Storytelling. Which we'd be satisfied with.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Actually, their definition of Simulation is exactly what we use here. Simulationism, and Simulation are not one and the same, and in fact, thier association etymologically is in fact confusing rather than enlightening. Yet necessary as the model is a historical descendent of another. That said, there are many threads here that discuss the idea of changing the term Simulationism so as to avoid that problem.

Mike Holmes wrote: In fact, the document seems to jibe with most of the theory here. Until page eight, that is, where the political bent of the publishers bias rears it's ugly head in a nasty form. Note how these individuals only quote sources that are from their school. This seems very problematic to me. What starts as a reasoned attempt to create a definition for role-playing activities ends up diminished by it's politics.

Mike Holmes wrote: One point of personal interest, if one were to use their definition, Universalis would be considered Storytelling. That is because only GMs hold power in the game (no players, by their technical description). Since there is more than one GM, however, it would have to be a system for Collaborative Storytelling. Which we'd be satisfied with.

Merten wrote: Well, that's good then, and the mistake was done by yours truly. And yeah, the term "simulationism" feels a bit misleading, at least to me - I've usually assosicated (perhaps because of the term "simulation") it to heavy rules systems that try to simulate reality.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, you lost me for a moment, here. Political bent? You mean the second paragraph?

And what comes to quoting sources that come from their school - well, the school there is a bit misleading term, since that particular school consists of about two individuals - the ones who wrote it.

When it comes to quoting from other sources - well, there aren't too many of them. I don't even know if they're aware of the GNS-model. Have to ask sometime.

Well, yeah - I actually did that (two GM game) with one of the writers not that long ago. Thought that was after they did that paper. So I suppose it sort of fits in their model.

Universalis? Unless you're meaning the computer game with same name (Europa Universalis), drop me a reference?

Thanks for posting this, Merten.

It's interesting to see an academic paper on roleplaying. Makes the mainstream roleplaying world look pretty uniform since this paper written by Finns is so similar to US rpg experience.

On Simulation vs. Simulationism
Simulation in this paper refers to methods/mechanics/words etc. that would substitute for real world action. Simulation is used in this paper to describe table-top gaming vs. Live-action. In live-action rpg the player enacts in person as much of the action their character does as possible. Table-top has much more simulation.

Here's the def. of simulationism from Ron's article (available at: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/gns/gns_chapter2.html)

Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other
words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be
greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

Hi Emily,

Quick side answer to your side question: one GM-full game that's often overlooked is Prince Valiant, in which may people take the GM role in a round-robin sort of way. Not quite as simultaneous as some of the play examples you, Vincent, and Meguey have told us about, but definitely more shared/full than traditional RPGs.

Prince Valiant was published in 1989. I'm not flashing, this minute anyway, on any games previous to that with explicit shared-GM structures, whether simultaneous or sequential. I probably need to turn over the memory banks a bit more though.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: Common error. But there are, for instance lots of "rules-lite" Sim games. No correllation at all.

Mike Holmes wrote: I mean the point at which they go out of their way to point out how they feel that LARP has been marginalized, and their own biases against CRPGS. They actually drop out of the academic mode at that point to talk about how they "feel" about it. I think it's silly of them to say that LARP has been bashed, and should be looked at more closely in the name of gaming equality, and then in the very next paragraph bash CRPGs. And give no reasons why, other than feelings.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yep, pretty incestuous. No theory can stand if it isn't exposed to a larger community of thought.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm sure that aren't aware. Or they don't care. Not that they must. But the paper had an actual academic tone to it that lent it a great bit of crdibility in my opinion. Until such point as it betrayed it's political nature, and belied it's ignorance of theory exterior to the community.

Mike Holmes wrote: It might interest you to know that we've followed the Turku theory here. In fact, we formerly used a term for the sort of Immersion that you described that was a Finnish term so alien to the English mindset that we referred to it almost exclusively as the E-thing (Anyone remember the actual term?).

Mike Holmes wrote: To be precise, in Universalis there are only GMs, and no players. At least by the definition of the essay (and by some phrasology here in describing it as GM-full). In the game text we refer to them as players, but they woudn't qualify as such by the essay.

Emily Care wrote: I sent them some feedback. In their paper they attribute almost all narrative power, what they call diegesis, to the gm. I pointed out that even if a gm-is required as they also state, it is quite possible for multiple participants to act as gm, and also for players to share greater diegetic (ie narrative) power. I referred them to Universalis and Before the Flood for the former, and various games including Sorcerer and DonJon for the latter case.

Merten wrote: Most probably. Though I wouldn't mind having a few pointers for the rules-lite simulation games - I don't doubt that they exists, and I might actually be quite intrested in seeing one.

Mike Holmes wrote: Possible, though I think you're now putting words to someone's mouth.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yep, pretty incestuous. No theory can stand if it isn't exposed to a larger community of thought.

I might take this as a flamebait, but I'll take it as thoughtless comment.

How would you know to how large community or audience the thoughts behind the paper have been exposed? I know that it's been presented and debated in one certain auditorium for several hours with something like hundred people, and discussed for longer time with smaller audiences.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm sure that aren't aware. Or they don't care. Not that they must. But the paper had an actual academic tone to it that lent it a great bit of crdibility in my opinion. Until such point as it betrayed it's political nature, and belied it's ignorance of theory exterior to the community.

Again, how would you know? Both about being aware and caring - I'm quite sure that the first one might be true, since Forge doesen't have a public profile like, for example, the rpg.net, but your second pun is somewhat tastless.

So, a sort of collaborative storytelling, then? Can't tell without knowing the details (thanks for the Universalis tip, have to check it out), but it's not an unknown phenomenon here - there are several games with at least some resemblance around here(one in which I have played and one of the writers has played - and I hate putting words into someone's mouth like this, but bear with me. Jaakko can skin me alive later if he wants to). Can't say for sure if they are similar.

Ron wrote: Prince Valiant was published in 1989. I'm not flashing, this minute anyway, on any games previous to that with explicit shared-GM structures, whether simultaneous or sequential.

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, there's also the problem of perception of what lite is. Try Zenobia. Not extrememly lite, but lighter than most Sim games. (Note when I say Sim with a capital S that denotes Simulationist, not simulation)

Mike Holmes wrote: I get the feeling from the paper, that you guys think that any attempt to simulate anything is "Rules Heavy". By that definition, there are probably few Tabletop Sim games that do qualify. Interestingly, however, the "Immerionist" style of LARP that you guys play would be considered Simulationist. Very Simulationist. So there's a good example of a bunch of lite Sim games. And that should give you an idea of just how different Simulationist and simulation are.

Mike Holmes wrote: Possible, though I think you're now putting words to someone's mouth.

Mike Holmes wrote: You misread me. The incestuous part (and I use that term in a it's broad non-sexual sense; don't get me wrong),

;)

Mike Holmes wrote: is the idea of only referring to each other in their papers. I know that there are only a couple of people in the school because you told me above. They need to look at other theory, IMO, to give their own theory more credibility.

Well, there are five references on the end of the paper, one of them by either one of the authors - whom, as I said and to my knowledge, form the "Meilahti school". The authors of the four other articles aren't - so I sort of don't understand the bit about referencing just to each other. Unless you mean that because several of those people are being thanked in the introduction, makes them somehow part of the "school".

Naturally I agree that they should look for other theories as well. It's just that there aren't too many of them available (but they've been informed about GNS now, if they didn't know about it already, no need to worry about that).

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, as I've said above, Collaborative Storytelling.

Yeah, I knew I heard that term recently...

Mike Holmes wrote: Can you get us any details on the game you mention?

Certainly, though it's a homebrewn game. I'll quote the GM about the system:

"Zone is something you just play. The dice are unnecessary, unless you really want something to be randomized. This makes railroading possible, yes. Besides, there are no rules the players could learn by heart and then start quibbling about them (driving the GM crazy). This is fully intentional and makes the GM the absolute sovereign. This doesn't mean I'm necessarily unfair while running the game, however (you can ask the players - I hope they agree). While playing, the players may define small details about the world around them (like "There's a ladder leaning towards the wall, I'll use it to climb over the fence"), but should be careful with more radical definitions ("In this world it's hip for men to wear skirts" just might do if the world in question isn't traditionally paternal, but saying "the species of man has been found to have originated from the galaxy of Andromeda" would be a bit too heavy). Sorry, but it's my world and you're the ones taking a tour. In Zone, the GM must be trusted, for she is your friend. Honestly..."

Not exactly theoretical text, but hopefully clear enough. No rules system, no randomization (unless someone really want's to use such), and letting players describe small details about the world - or universe, as it's a scifi-setting. I think those are the main points.

The collaborative storytelling also comes into play because the players frequently take roles of NPC's, especially in situtations where one character does something alone (not all alone, but without the other characters). One example of this would be an interrogation, where other players take the roles of interrogators, and as the target character changes, so do roles.

Not exactly collaborative storytelling with multiple GM's (and/or no players), but something similar.

lumpley wrote: Merten, it seems to me that you've got power flowing backward. The article says that the GM is the authority, but releases some power to the players. Really the players lend some of their power to the GM, but are themselves the final authority, as a group.

Hi Merten,

Based on the paragraph you provided, Zone sounds very much like The Window, which is kind of a staple grassroots role-playing game; it's been around for over ten years now, I think. It's linked in the Forge Resource Library, I believe. Your statement about the Zone GM being the sovereign and so forth due to its high use of Drama (I'm paraphrasing into the terms of my essay) exactly parallels my play-experience of The Window.

Best,
Ron

about which game suggested trading off GMing duties first... depending on how you interpret that, I believe The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth suggested having one GM play all the monsters and another play NPCs and act as a a neutral referee. ITL was published in 1980; the combat and magic rules systems were published seperately in 1978 and '79.

I'm pretty sure there may have been a suggestion of shared GMing based on regions mentioned even earlier than this in one of the gaming magazines or other resources.

Hi,

Merten posted the link to the "Meilahti School: Thoughts on Role-Playing" article here a few days ago. As one of the authors of that model I shall try to clear up few misunderstandings.

Mike Holmes wrote:
"In fact, the document seems to jibe with most of
the theory here. Until page eight, that is, where
the political bent of the publishers bias rears
it's ugly head in a nasty form. Note how these
individuals only quote sources that are from their
school. This seems very problematic to me. What
starts as a reasoned attempt to create a
definition for role-playing activities ends up
diminished by it's politics.

"One point of personal interest, if one were to
use their definition, Universalis would be
considered Storytelling. That is because only
GMs hold power in the game (no players, by their
technical description). Since there is more than
one GM, however, it would have to be a system for
Collaborative Storytelling. Which we'd be
satisfied with."

I am not familiar with the discussions you have had on this site or the papers you have published. I was referred to Mr. Edwards' GNS theory by Merten. Though I do not consider it a theory, but a model, I found it interesting. Such a typology is usefull when looking at games from a functionalistic point of view.

However, what that typology failed to address is what roleplaying is. It is a nice map of what is out there, but it doesn't tell us what it is we are looking at. If you have discussed that, then I would love to get all possible references.

This is what we have attempted with our model. We have atempted to create a definition of roleplaying that is:
a) descriptive, not normative
b) historical, not early 00's
c) concise, not too vague

Mr. Holmes points out that when we discuss forms of role-playing,
politics come into play. Perhaps I am blind to my own text, but
where do we get political?

We state that although the term role-pleying is most often used to
describe "the traditional method of playing, 'the tabletop game'",
we consider live-action role-playing to be a valid method of
role-playing as well and that the distiction between larps and
traditional is so vague that the term larp is not valid in any
theoretical sense, but only when communicating the gamemasters
expectations to the players.

Our definition or roleplaying as a process doesn't require dice,
character sheets, computers, props or anything like that. They
can be used, and indeed often are, but they are not what defines
a roleplaying game.

Then our attitude towards computer based roleplaying games...

There are some difficult questions regarding roleplaying, that
often pop up in theoretical discussions - at least here in the
Northern Europe.

1) Is is possible to play a roleplaying game alone? (This one
hails strongly from the radition of the Turku School)
2) Is it possible to have computer based roleplaying game? Can
a computer be a game master?
3) What separates child's play and makebelief from roleplaying?
What is the difference between improvisational theater and larping? What separates storytelling (in the sense that narratology uses it, not White Wolf) and roleplaying?

According to our definition, it is not possible to roleplay alone,
roleplaying game is created in the intercation between players or
between playes and game master. What one does alone, we call
day dreaming. We do not want to belittle that activity, we just
do not consider it roleplaying.

We also do not consider those computer games that are advertised as roleplaying games to actually be roleplaying games. At the moment I am not aware a computer game that is per se a roleplaying game. There are a number of computer gamaes that can be played as roleplaying games just like Monopoly or Risk can be played as roleplaying games if proper characters are created and a GM is introduced. Those games we call computer assisted RPGs. Some computer games nowadays are created with this object in mind (Redemption, Neverwinter Nights).

The distiction between rolepaying and a child's play is the presence of a game master. The same goes for improvisational
theater and larping as well as storytelling and roleplaying. Also, if everyone can be considered a game master (as in improvisational theater from another point of view), then again, it stops being a roleplaying game by our definition. Thus a roleplaying game can have a number of gamemasters as long as not everyone is a gamemaster all the time.

(As a side note, I am aware of the patriarchical nature of the term gamemaster. We chose to use it instead of a more gender blind term such as game moderator as it nicely underlines the power used by the gamemaster. Feel free to read the term gamemistress if you like.)

I am not familiar with Universalis. If it has multiple gamemasters, then our model has no problem with it. If _everyone_ is a gamemaster _all the time_, then we do not recognice it as
a roleplaying game. Note that the model does allow for the
possibility that players can have a lot of power as well, just
not for the fact that anyone can have the final say on everything.

(Again, we are not trying to define the value of something, only
if it can be considered roleplaying.)

These are consicious choises we have made. In order for the term
"roleplaying game" to have any meaning it has to exclude something. Otherwise we end up in situation where someone says that life is not just a game but a roleplaying game and we all nod our heads in unison. This is how we have decided to draw the line. We have attempted to include as many activities that we recognize as roleplaying and still have a description that creates a clear distiction between roleplaying and similar pursuits.

Then Mr. Holmes points out that we only refer to ourselves or our
own school. Well, actually only one of our five references is
from someone in our school (even though having Stuart Hall, the
most well known reseacher in cultural studies in the world, as part
of Meilahti School is a nice idea). The text is rather short so
we do not refer to Costikyan, The Threefold Model or others just to
point out that we have actually read them.

That said, I am very interested in reading any material that
attempts to define roleplaying.

Emily Care commented:

"In their paper they attribute almost all narrative
power, what they call diegesis, to the gm. I
pointed out that even if a gm-is required as they
also state, it is quite possible for multiple
participants to act as gm, and also for players to
share greater diegetic (ie narrative) power. I
referred them to Universalis and Before the Flood
for the former, and various games including
Sorcerer and DonJon for the latter case.

"Mike, I think Universalis & BtF fall outside of
their structure. They do not define what they mean
by storytelling. Since each participant's diegetic
power is constrained (in turn) by the other "gm"s,
everyone also gets to be a "player" in both
Universalis and BtF. (What examples of gm-full
games am I missing, by the way? :)"

Actually, all the narrative power, determining what is true in the game, rests with the gamemaster, but in order for a roleplaying game to take place the gamemaster must surrender a part of that power to the players, as otherwise there will be no meaningful action. This doesn't mean that the game master is not still omnipotent within the diegetic frame.

And yes, there can be more than one GM. How the powers of gamemastering are divided between the various gamemasters (everyone has the same powers, someone is responsible for the NPCs and diegetic music, someone determines what succeeds and what doesn't etc.) is irrelevant form the point of view of the model. Not that that woudn't be very intereting in an antropological sense.

Many people react strongly to our view of the gamemaster as an absolute sovereign. On this forum Lumpley wrote: "The article says that the GM is the authority, but releases some power to the players. Really the players lend some of their power to the GM, but are themselves the final authority, as a group."

It can be argued, that there is a social agreement, that when a person joins a game, s/he surrenders the authority to the gamemaster. Still, during the game the Gm must have that power. The fact that the gamemaster has the power doesn't mean that s/he uses it that much. It is generally considered bad form to retcon, to change something retroactively. "Last time you were here, there was a mirror on the wall, I just forgot to tell you about it." The fact that this is bad form doesn't mean that the GM can not do it. The gamemaster always has final say on everything. If there is a dispute, can you hide behind a rock, does the door open, what is the blood type, whatever, it is the gamemaster's call in the end.

When Lumpley argues that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I do not really understand what he means.

Even if the gamemaster gives the players the possibility to define stuff in the gameworld and play some NPCs, as Merten mentiones things are done in Zone, even then the GM has final say.

Even whan it comes to the player charecters, the gamemaster can override the player's choises. "Actually, you can not shot him." Possibly this is because the character has gone through hypnosis and a post hypnotic command prevents her from shooting. Possibly the trigger is jammed. The players usually assume, that there is a reason behind the gamemasters rulings and overrulings, but the need not be. Of course, if the gamemaster has no coherence in anything s/he does, then the players can just quit the game.

Hopefully this clarifies the text a bit. I'll try to answer possible
further questions as well.

-Jaakko

PS. Merten, you defined the name of the discussion as "Defining
roleplaying; an alternative approach". An alternative to what?

Jaakko wrote: PS. Merten, you defined the name of the discussion as "Defining
roleplaying; an alternative approach". An alternative to what?

Jaakko wrote: the distiction between larps and traditional is so vague that the term larp is not valid in any theoretical sense

The distiction between rolepaying and a child's play is the presence of a game master.

Actually, all the narrative power, determining what is true in the game, rests with the gamemaster...this doesn't mean that the game master is not still omnipotent within the diegetic frame...during the game the Gm must have that power.

The gamemaster always has final say on everything. If there is a dispute, can you hide behind a rock, does the door open, what is the blood type, whatever, it is the gamemaster's call in the end.

When Lumpley argues that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I do not really understand what he means.

Even if the gamemaster gives the players the possibility to define stuff in the gameworld and play some NPCs, as Merten mentiones things are done in Zone, even then the GM has final say...Even whan it comes to the player charecters, the gamemaster can override the player's choises.

Hey Jaako, welcome to the Forge. You'll find alot of people here who, like you, have spent alot of man hours thinking about these topics also. Its always enjoyable to get some fresh perspective on our "deep thoughts" so I hope you'll hang out here for a while and discuss / debate with us. I'm sure we have a lot of good thoughts to share with each other.

One point that I know we can get started discussing right off the bat is something that we are pretty enthusiastic about here on the Forge, and it goes directly to the following:

Actually, all the narrative power, determining what is true in the game, rests with the gamemaster, but in order for a roleplaying game to take place the gamemaster must surrender a part of that power to the players, as otherwise there will be no meaningful action. This doesn't mean that the game master is not still omnipotent within the diegetic frame.


It can be argued, that there is a social agreement, that when a person joins a game, s/he surrenders the authority to the gamemaster. Still, during the game the Gm must have that power.

The gamemaster always has final say on everything. If there is a dispute, can you hide behind a rock, does the door open, what is the blood type, whatever, it is the gamemaster's call in the end.

If you spend some time on the Forge you will find ALOT of roleplaying going on in which this definition of GMing power has been completely overturned. Inspectres and Donjon for instance (both linked in our Resource Library I believe) are two games where at select times the rules specifically hand GM power over to the players and say "GM butt out, the player has the authority to decide whether the door opens". At these times, not only is it NOT the gamemaster's call in the end, the game master is required to acknowledge and react to the player's narrative.

You'll find ALOT of discussion on this topic if you do a search on "Director Stance" which is the term we give to games which grant players the ability to directly manipulate the game world in a manner traditionally reserved for the GM.

When Lumpley argues that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I do not really understand what he means.

I think you're in for a treat.

Hey, Jaakko. Nice to meet you.

What I mean is, every time anybody says what happens, all the players as a group have to decide if it's true or not. It's not enough for one player (the GM, for instance) to assert it; it's simply not true until everyone assents.

It's really really common to agree upfront to assent to everything the GM says, but it's not necessary. Maybe more importantly, such an agreement is always provisional. Ultimately, every game-significant statement is negotiated.

I oughta write a standard rant.

Welcome!

-Vincent

Hi Jaakko, and welcome. Good to have more theorists aboard.

Jaakko wrote: However, what that typology failed to address is what roleplaying is. It is a nice map of what is out there, but it doesn't tell us what it is we are looking at. If you have discussed that, then I would love to get all possible references.

We state that although the term role-pleying is most often used to
describe "the traditional method of playing, 'the tabletop game'",
we consider live-action role-playing to be a valid method of
role-playing as well and that the distiction between larps and
traditional is so vague that the term larp is not valid in any
theoretical sense, but only when communicating the gamemasters
expectations to the players.

Then our attitude towards computer based roleplaying games...

Thus a roleplaying game can have a number of gamemasters as long as not everyone is a gamemaster all the time.

Then Mr. Holmes points out that we only refer to ourselves or our
own school. Well, actually only one of our five references is
from someone in our school (even though having Stuart Hall, the
most well known reseacher in cultural studies in the world, as part
of Meilahti School is a nice idea). The text is rather short so
we do not refer to Costikyan, The Threefold Model or others just to
point out that we have actually read them.

That said, I am very interested in reading any material that
attempts to define roleplaying.

Hi Jaakko,

Welcome aboard.

I read your article, but I inclined to disagree. I think we're going to have to separate into two camps. Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach. I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion.

One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits. What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts? Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming? Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming? It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation. Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements). The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated. The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive. The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive. And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all. It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming.

I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all). It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming.

I'm looking forward to how you explain these things in terms of your article, because they weren't completely clear there.

Fang Langford

WHOA...hold on here folks!!!

I'm looking at this thread and I see 2 posts at 7:30 by Raven and Me.

Then an hour and a half later by Vincent
an hour and a half after that by Mike
and an hour after that by Fang.

Doncha think we oughta let Jakko respond to a few before bombarding him with stuff? Really. If I were new to these boards and within 4 hours I'd be hit with 5 large treatises on game design theory, I think I'd feel a little overwhelmed.

And Fang...camps? Way to early and way to little discussion to be setting up camps don't you think Give the man some time to absorb and analyse before drawing lines in the sand, ok...

Given your (I admit that this is an assumption), predeliction for LARP, it seems obvious that this is an attempt to somehow mainstream-ize LARP. Which is fine, and a laudable goal. It is just not what the paper purported to be.

Thus a roleplaying game can have a number of gamemasters as long as not everyone is a gamemaster all the time.

Right. So this goes along with our assessments that Universalis is not an RPG and is instead Collaborative Storytelling or somesuch.

Hi Henri, welcome too. Lots of cool new members today.

I'm not sure how to respond. By mainstream-ize I merely mean to try to associate it with other RPG activity. Which the essay goes out of it's way (IMO) unnecessarily to do. Note that Fang's dissention with your theory has nothing to do with LARP per se, but with the basic definition (which, if accepted would just-so-happen to exclude LARP).

Personally, I have no problem with LARP falling under the term RPG. In fact, I would wholeheartedly agree with it. My point says nothing about LARP itself. It says that by going out of your way to discuss LARP that you give a slant to the essay that says to me, "we've got an issue to settle." The essay reads to me in summary as, "This is what RPGs are, and that means that LARPS count, but CRPGs don't." When it would have done better to just say, "This is what RPGs are." And then let people draw their own logical conclusions as to what that includes and what it does not.

Then again, this is just my perception. Perhaps nobody else will see it that way; in which case, no harm done.

As for Universalis, I think it is you who misunderstands (have you played the game?). Participants never become what you would term players. In Universalis, all players are all Gamemasters, all of the time. There are no participants who do not hold all of the power all the time. Yes, the power is split between the participants moment by moment dependant on their level of interest, and how mcu of their metagame authority they have exepended earlier. But in total they, together, all simultaneously hold the power of diegesis.

If you point out that a participant who is not creating at the moment is not holding power, then I would say that at that point he is not a Player by your definition because he then has no power at all during that moment. He only has power by that definition when he excercises it, and when he does so his power can do anything limited only by the consensually agreed to Metagame mechanic. So there are never any players (perhaps spectators at times). Meaning that there are only Gamemasters. Meaning that the activity is Storytelling by your definition. And since it is Storytelling by committee, and not by an individual, I refer to it as Collaborative Storytelling. Which seems accurate if you've ever played.

BTW, I would agree with others here that power does not derive from the GM but from the group as whole, who amongst other things allow the GM to wield whatever power he has. Your description of the GM as absolute denies the underlying social fabric of the game, and only addresses what is usually done in RPGs where power is ceded to the GM after an agreement to play. Players can certainly revoke this power at any time. For example, they can quit, or start their own game.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

"BTW, I would agree with others here that power does not derive from the GM but from the group as whole, who amongst other things allow the GM to wield whatever power he has. Your description of the GM as absolute denies the underlying social fabric of the game, and only addresses what is usually done in RPGs where power is ceded to the GM after an agreement to play. Players can certainly revoke this power at any time. For example, they can quit, or start their own game."

This is an accurate observation. We have, in our model, concentrated on the actual roleplaying. The underlying social structure, the "metagame" and "offgame" elements we have not addressed at all. As we see it, a roleplaying game can not exist if the players do not accept the GM's power. This doesn't mean that in an actual game a player coudn't influence the gamemaster (let's say the gamemaster and one of the players are a couple, the gamemaster doesn't have money for pizza, the gamemaster needs a ride home after the game) but we do not address them as they are not part of the ideal game. If some one has conducted comparative etnographical studies in various roleplaying groups, I would be very interested in looking at their results.

Greyorm wrote:

" I'd say there's a world of difference between table-top playing and LARP playing, based on my experiences with both, enough so that stating "the distinction is not valid" is in error. I agree, both are role-playing games, but of terribly different varieties."

Then please present a definition that can be easily uses to separate traditional roleplaying games from live action games. There is a lot of gray area there. If Minds Eye Theater games are played as the rulerok instructs, then I would call them tabletop games conducted standing.

Also, many traditional games I play in have a lot of larp elements in them. People almost always talk in first person when in character and often also express their characters bodily - something which I consider to be more of a larp method than a 'tabletop' method.

Greyorm continued:

"The difference between roleplaying and child's play is the presence of a set of standardized rules which determine the abilities of the participants and the results of actions undertaken. ie: A gamemaster is not necessary for a role-playing game."

Then what separates roleplaying games from games in general? By that definition Risk and Monopoly would be roleplaying games as well. Besides, the gamemaster can change the rules if s/he so wishes. Often these changes in rules are explicated somehow and might coincide with a twist in the games (often a genre shift, for example soap opera goes Cthulhu or mafia goes Vampire:The Masquerade).

(Yes, I know that you have discarded t genre as a term. After this discussion has run its course, I may attempt to reinstate it. More on that later, consider this a warning.)

Still Greyorm:

"Again, I take serious issue with the logic of this, especially as it relates to the necessity of defining a role-playing game. You have declared that an RPG can only be a game wherein a single individual (ie: GM) has final say as to the state or the truth of the gameworld.

"This simply isn't a necessity for an RPG. It is traditional, but hardly a necessity.

"There are a number of RPGs, many of which you will find here, which break this standard convention of omnipotence, and yet remain, quite easily, within the definite realm of an RPG.

"I suggest, as Emily did, you check out Sorcerer and Donjon, and browse around as (in a number of cases) the GM's say is not all-important, the player can add and state items or events which exist without the GM having the power to veto such or any control of the item or events personally."

I have not yet had time to look at the games you suggested, so I'm shooting in the dark here.

That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge. There can ba of course be a number of gamemasters. Also, we view gamemastreing as a role (as defined in postmodern cultural studies) which can be assumed and discarded at a moments notice. Thus it is possible to have "a musical chairs gamemaster". The only thing that we require is that everyone can not be gamemasters at the same time. That we consider storytelling.

Also note, that we might consider someone a gamemaster by our definition even if that person is refered to as a player by the actual people playing. Most of the time our gamemaster and the intuitive and explicated gamemasters match, but in borderline cases they might not. By this I mean, that when you have games where the players can define something on the spot and the gamemaster has to run with that, then the player is a gamemaster as well as s/he uses that power. Still, that said, if everyone can define anything at any time then we do not consider it a roleplaying game.

Greyorm, once more with feeling:

"Further note that even in a traditional game, the GM's power is constrained by the rules of the system. Yes, he can break those rules, but then so can the players, and thus you are right back to a childhood game of make-believe.

"Let us assume a standard game of D&D, complete with battle-map and miniatures. The situation, a red dragon has come upon the party (or vice versa) and battle has ensued. When the dragon breathes, the party's rogue decides to dive behind a rock for cover.

"Can he?
1) Initiative: did his initiative beat the dragon's? If so, he moves his character's token behind the rock on the battlemap, presuming enough movement left to do so.
2) Saving Throw: the character rolls a saving throw against the dragon's breath, if successful, the presumption is that he rolled out of the way. With the way the map is set up, the location of the rogue and the area of the dragon's breath, the only safe area is behind the rock, thus the only possible ruling on a successful roll is that the character rolled behind the rock.

"In either case, and particularly in the former, the DM does not and can not have final say, because the rules already explicitly declare what the possibilities and probabilities are. "

I think this is the most important point on which we seem to disagree. We see the rulesystem as a tool or a neccessary evil, not the base of the game. Even in the case you outline the gamemaster can decide differently. Maybe the dragon is not in full health or maybe the player is not aware a protective spell that has been cast on him. Maybe the gamemaster simply doesn't want the character to die before getting to the next cool part of the dungeon.

What I am saying is that the gamemaster can rationalize a way out of a situation or just simply decide to ignore the rules.

Is this good gamemastering? That is a whole new discussion. If the gamemaster ignores the rules that the players trust to often the game will seem erratic and the players can decide to not continue gaming. On the other hand if the GM ignores the rules in a coherent fashion, maybe there is a degetic reason. Why is it that the werewolfs that the PC encounters are always slower?

The point is that the gamemaster has to power to do this. The power can be abused, yes, but it is there.


When Lumpley argued that the players, as a group, possess the authority, I did not really understand what he meant.
Later he clarified:

"What I mean is, every time anybody says what happens, all the players as a group have to decide if it's true or not. It's not enough for one player (the GM, for instance) to assert it; it's simply not true until everyone assents."

I do not think that this is true. If the player disagree on somthing (is the "big" rock big enough to hide behind or just big enough not to be something you can put in your pocket) it is the GM (or a group of gamemasters) who decide what in the end is true. Of course, the gamemaster can surrecnder the power to anyone. The fact that s/he can override what others have said doesn't mean that he can not choose not to do that.

Lumpley continues:

"It's really really common to agree upfront to assent to everything the GM says, but it's not necessary. Maybe more importantly, such an agreement is always provisional. Ultimately, every game-significant statement is negotiated."

I just think that it goes the other way around. To some extent, every game-significant statement can be negotiated if so agreed upon, but by default the gamemaster implicitly has the power to decide.

Mr. Holmes comments:

"I assumed you meant a broader group of games as CRPGs than you do. Still, there are some really borderline cases. What about something like Everquest? Is it an RPG or not? It is social, but does not have a GM as such during most play and runs automatedly. Although there are personel available to perform such functions if neccessary."

This is something we a thinking about at the moment. We will write a revised version of the model when we actually have the time. There are some changes we need to do and a lot of clarifications to be added. Everquest is one of the things we need to address.

Some reseachers at the University of Tampere feel that though Everquest can be played as a roleplaying game, mostly the gameing doesn't include a roleplaying element. Then again, they look at everything through ludology; the gamism is always for them the most important aspect.

Le Joueur wrote:

"Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach. I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion."

This systemic approach seems to be rather widely accepted on this forum. Would someone define roleplaying or a roleplaying game from the point of view of the systemic point of view?

Then about the perceived conflict...

Usually roleplaying games work in such a way that each player has a character s/he controls. The player is able to decide freely what the character does as long as the rules of the game and the metaphysical rules of the game world are followed. The gamemaster controls everything else, the NPCs, the weather, the animals and avatars and so worth. Yet the gamemaster can also limit what the characters can or can not do. Maybe the shadow of a wraigh is taking control, maybe the super spy has post hypnotic commands imprinted, maybe the character is a android with a certain kind of programming, maybe someone is using teleplaythy or maybe the character dreams or maybe the character is simply mad. Yes, the examples are over simplified, but bear with me. So if there is a reason the gamemaster can decide what the PC can or can not do, or indeed what the PC does. The gamemaster doesn't need to explain his/her actions to the gamers; usually the think that there must be soime kind of logic behind what the GM does - and indeed I hope there is - but not neccesarily. As anything can be explained with ust a bit of imagination, the gamemaster need not explain a thing. So the gamemaster has control not only over the game world, but also over the PCs.

The gamemaster is omnipotent within the diegetic frame (the what-is-true, usually the game world), but there will be no interaction (and hence no RPG) unless the gamemaster surrenders part of the power, usually over the characters, to the players. Still, the gamemaster can, at any time, override the player as well. The fact that the GM seldom uses this power doesn't mean that it isn't there.

The methaphore of gamemaster as an omnipotent controller is, I think, a bit misleading. I think that we used the term "gatekeeper of the diegesis" in our text, and if we don't we shall in the next version. I think that this communicates better the position, that a gamemaster is not a puppet master just because s/he has the power to control everything.

(Oh, and just to be on the safe side, I'll once again mentione, that the above example is a just that, a crude example. There can be more than one GM. The players do not need to play charcaters, they can play families, households or dandruff - pretty much anything. And yes, one player can control more than one character. The diegetic frame need not be a game "world". And so forth. I hope my point comes across.)

Le Joueur continues:

"One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits. What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts? Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming? Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming? It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation. Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

"The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements). The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated. The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive. The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive. And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all. It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming."

The most common differentiation between child's play and larping that I have run in to is that larping is done by adults as larp is "makebelief for adults". Even if I were to buy into this very non-analytical statement (I do not), it would still have one fundamental problem; it would mean that children can not larp. And that is not true.

Now it is possible, that children in a kindergarten set up, with the assistance of the teacher, a crude roleplaying game. I have never seen this happen, but a friend of mine has run larps for a group of 10-12 year-olds and that was definetely a roleplaying game (though not a very good one). If the kids interact within a shared diegetic frame with the teacher as the conflict solving gamemaster, then I would say that they are playing a roleplaying game. As said, I have never seen this happen and do not think that this happens, but that doesnä mean that it coudn't happen.

Our definition of roleplaying does include some things that might not fit the most narrowminded traditional definitios of roleplaying games. For example advanced SM roleplaying would meet out criteria for a roleplaying game. Notice, that I stress the word 'advanced'. Simply putting on a uniform and handcuffs doesn't cut it.

The same applies to therapy. I am a bit wary of this whole roleplaying-as-therapy, actually I'm a bit vary of the whole psychotherapy school, but I do think that some of those session propably can be considered roleplaying. My understanding of modern psychiatric practises is not sufficient.

It seems that your definition of roleplaying games includes the system and character identification. It is very easy to find a system from almost any human endeavour. Most of the rulesystems are implicit, but as there are roleplaying games where some of the rules are implicit as well, you can't really require the rulesystems to be explicated either. Also, I think that you discount both therapy and teaching in you own model a bit too easily. The fact that they are used in instructing or as intrusive tools is only the usage. If you bring intetions into the equation (that is not an RPG as it is intended to be therapeutic), you find yourself swamped in phenomenology (or at least I have). I think they have a system and they have character identification.

About larping...

Yes, it is possible to set up a larps so that after the game has started the gamemasters do not interfere at all. Actually most of the larps I have attended are like that. Still, in all the games there is the possibility for a GM intervention. The intervention can take the form of a GM sitting in a room the players have access to (but that is not part of the diegetic frame) and the players can go there to ask questions about the world that they do not know or to check how the system works. Another kind of intervention would be if the gm suddenly bursts into the room and states that a meteor just landed nex to the house or something like that.

In practise the gms can't really be present all around a larp and act as "gatekeeper of the diegesis", but theroeticly they have the power. They even have the power to retroactively chnage something that happened in a game. Again, I think that that is a sign of bad gamemastering, but I believe most campaigns (especially dramatist) require a litlle retconning from time to time.

And finally Le Joueur:

"I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all). It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming."

This is something which will be changed in the revised edition. I am no longer satisfied with the "minimize simulation" clause. One big reason is that it refers too clearly to the mostly Northern European larp-tradition which never uses item cards and tries to minimize the representational environment design in order to have "life like" surrounding.

Also, even if we were to stick by that statement, we would need to include a clarification along the lines of: The minimization of the simulation is not synonymous to the elimination of the gamemaster. It means that the gamemaster(s) should excercise their power through only diegetic actions that represent the actual actions and not something else. (Meaning that if the aforementined meteor hits, then there should be a load thud and a big hot rock and not just a gamemaster clapping his/her hands.)

Ah, I think that's all for today. Back to work...

-Jaakko

Hey Jaakko,

Very good post. I'd like to explain a few things about our difference of opinion. First of all however, we are going to have to come to one simple conclusion, I think.

We disagree.

If we can't admit that this is and will likely remain the case, then there won't be much point is continuing this discussion. I don't anticipate either side will change their point of view and short of a friendly truce, I'd hate to see hard feelings arise from this.

Objectively, I think both views stand on their own merits. Provided sufficient pressure, anyone could be forced to take one view or the other. But honestly, I can't imagine why one needs to be the 'right' outlook.

Simply put, you believe that the presence of any kind of oversight of shared material is necessary to define role-playing gaming (if I have that right). I believe that such is clearly denied by our playtests (I'll explain that later...) and that role-playing gaming is defined instead partly by a systemic approach (...these too).

Like I said, I believe these theories can coexist. But I would like to talk about which is possibly better at the stated goal of defining role-playing gaming descriptively rather than normatively.

But first, let me try to capture your argument that oversight is the defining principle.

Too Many Gamemasters

I think one false issue is beginning to impede discussion. That would be the issue of 'how many' or 'what is' gamemastering. Some have observed that some games have multiple gamemasters or alternated gamemaster responsibility. While your paper tends to use singular, first-person language to refer to the gamemaster, it should be clear that you aren't speaking intentionally so.

The following quotes lean towards a defensive tone that isn't necessary.

Jaakko wrote: That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge. There can of course be a number of gamemasters. Also, we view gamemastering as a role (as defined in postmodern cultural studies) which can be assumed and discarded at a moments notice. Thus it is possible to have "a musical chairs gamemaster". The only thing that we require is that everyone cannot be gamemasters at the same time.

Also note, that we might consider someone a gamemaster by our definition even if that person is referred to as a player by the actual people playing. Most of the time our gamemaster and the intuitive and explicated gamemasters match, but in borderline cases they might not. By this I mean, that when you have games where the players can define something on the spot and the gamemaster has to run with that, then the player is a gamemaster as well as s/he uses that power.

Jaakko wrote: I think this is the most important point on which we seem to disagree. We see the rule system as a tool or a necessary evil, not the base of the game. Even in the case you outline the gamemaster can decide differently.

What I am saying is that the gamemaster can rationalize a way out of a situation or just simply decide to ignore the rules.

If the gamemaster ignores the rules that the players trust to often the game will seem erratic and the players can decide to not continue gaming.

The point is that the gamemaster has to power to do this. The power can be abused, yes, but it is there.

I just think that it goes the other way around. To some extent, every game-significant statement can be negotiated if so agreed upon, but by default the gamemaster implicitly has the power to decide.

Jaakko wrote: We have, in our model, concentrated on the actual role-playing. The underlying social structure, the "metagame" and "offgame" elements we have not addressed at all. As we see it, a role-playing game cannot exist if the players do not accept the GM's power.

Also, many traditional games I play in have a lot of LARP elements in them. People almost always talk in first person when in character and often also express their characters bodily - something which I consider to be more of a LARP method than a 'tabletop' method.

Jaakko wrote: Le Joueur wrote:

"Yours, where the gamemaster is the most important difference between role-playing gaming and 'make believe,' and (some of) ours where the difference is the systemic approach. I could refute your premise on various levels (such at the inherent contrast between players doing what they want - interacting - and having an omnipotent controller; placing a conflict of interest at the center of your definition is "normative" and not descriptive), but ultimately it will only be a difference of opinion."

This systemic approach seems to be rather widely accepted on this forum. Would someone define role-playing or a role-playing game from the point of view of the systemic point of view?

[I brought this down from earlier because I believe it's more relevant here - ed] Then what separates role-playing games from games in general? By that definition Risk and Monopoly would be role-playing games as well. Besides, the gamemaster can change the rules if s/he so wishes.

Jaakko wrote: Then about the perceived conflict...

Usually role-playing games work in such a way that each player has a character s/he controls. [That's what I was saying; and how is that not the central component of your theory? - ed] The player is able to decide freely what the character does as long as the rules of the game and the metaphysical rules of the game world are followed. The gamemaster controls everything else, the NPCs, the weather, the animals and avatars and so forth. Yet the gamemaster can also limit what the characters can or can not do.

...So if there is a reason the gamemaster can decide what the PC can or cannot do, or indeed what the PC does. The gamemaster doesn't need to explain his/her actions to the gamers; usually the think that there must be some kind of logic behind what the GM does - and indeed I hope there is - but not necessarily. As anything can be explained with just a bit of imagination, the gamemaster need not explain a thing. So the gamemaster has control not only over the game world, but also over the PCs.

Jaakko wrote: The gamemaster is omnipotent within the diegetic frame (the what-is-true, usually the game world), but there will be no interaction (and hence no RPG) unless the gamemaster surrenders part of the power, usually over the characters, to the players. Still, the gamemaster can, at any time, override the player as well. The fact that the GM seldom uses this power doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Jaakko wrote: The metaphor of gamemaster as an omnipotent controller is, I think, a bit misleading. I think that we used the term "gatekeeper of the diegesis" in our text, and if we don't we shall in the next version. I think that this communicates better the position, that a gamemaster is not a puppet master just because s/he has the power to control everything.

Jaakko wrote: Le Joueur continues:

"One thing I'd like to point out is the 'kindergarten teacher' paradox your theory elicits. What if the kids playing have a moderator, like a teacher, prompting the behavior and adjudicating conflicts? Does 'make believe' suddenly resolve into role-playing gaming? Does this mean that all role-playing done for learning or psychotherapy then become role-playing gaming? It has a 'gamemaster' in the trainer or therapist who exercises ultimate control over the situation. Can you clarify how these relate to your position (because they don't seem to be accounted for)?

"The reason the 'camp' I'm in is different is because we hold systemic interation as paramount (and personal identification with character elements). The kids aren't following a system, they're just being moderated. The therapy isn't following a system, it's intrusive. The teaching isn't following a system, it's instructive. And quite frankly, personally we've tested a role-playing game with live-action 'delivery' where there was no functional gamemaster from your description; there were referees to enforce system, a moderator to instill interaction, all the support and functional inputs (like a setting created prior to inception), but there was no gamemaster who 'owned' all. It certainly wasn't 'make believe' or daydreaming."

The most common differentiation between child's play and LARPing that I have run in to is that LARPing is done by adults as LARP is "make believe for adults". Even if I were to buy into this very non-analytical statement (I do not), it would still have one fundamental problem; it would mean that children cannot LARP. And that is not true.

Now it is possible, that children in a kindergarten set up, with the assistance of the teacher, a crude role-playing game. I have never seen this happen, but a friend of mine has run LARPs for a group of 10-12 year-olds and that was definitely a role-playing game (though not a very good one). If the kids interact within a shared diegetic frame with the teacher as the conflict solving gamemaster, then I would say that they are playing a role-playing game. As said, I have never seen this happen and do not think that this happens, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

Jaakko wrote: It seems that your definition of role-playing games includes the system and character identification. It is very easy to find a system from almost any human endeavour. Most of the rule systems are implicit, but as there are role-playing games where some of the rules are implicit as well, you can't really require the rule systems to be explicated either.

Jaakko wrote: About LARPing...

Yes, it is possible to set up LARPs so that after the game has started the gamemasters do not interfere at all. Actually most of the LARPs I have attended are like that. Still, in all the games there is the possibility for a GM intervention. The intervention can take the form of a GM sitting in a room the players have access to (but that is not part of the diegetic frame) and the players can go there to ask questions about the world that they do not know or to check how the system works. Another kind of intervention would be if the GM suddenly bursts into the room and states that a meteor just landed next to the house or something like that.

In practice the GMs can't really be present all around a LARP and act as "gatekeeper of the diegesis", but theoretically they have the power. They even have the power to retroactively change something that happened in a game. Again, I think that that is a sign of bad gamemastering, but I believe most campaigns (especially dramatist) require a little retconning from time to time.

Jaakko wrote: And finally Le Joueur:

"I understand your rigor, but I still think that saying the goal of live-action role-playing games is the elimination of non-diegetic material is in conflict with saying that the most fundamental requirement of a role-playing game is to have a gamemaster (ultimately the most non-diegetic role of them all). It seems contradictory to say the something which is not supposed to be any different from tabletop gaming is trying to shed a fundament component that makes it role-playing gaming."

This is something which will be changed in the revised edition. I am no longer satisfied with the "minimize simulation" clause. One big reason is that it refers too clearly to the mostly Northern European LARP-tradition which never uses item cards and tries to minimize the representational environment design in order to have "life like" surrounding.

Also, even if we were to stick by that statement, we would need to include a clarification along the lines of: The minimization of the simulation is not synonymous to the elimination of the gamemaster. It means that the gamemaster(s) should exercise their power through only diegetic actions that represent the actual actions and not something else. (Meaning that if the aforementioned meteor hits, then there should be a load thud and a big hot rock and not just a gamemaster clapping his/her hands.)

This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

I'm inclined to read the argument slightly differently. I think that the framework requires and acquires an independent credibility as Paganini laid out in the thread on Assent, and that the GM has credibility through and by their post as executor of this credibility. Now, inasmuch that the framework is obliged to be consistent, I would suggest that the player MUST cede some authority to the GM to reflect the coherence of the framework.

contracycle wrote: I feel that in the argument above we might be mistaking the argument about THE gamemaster; let us instead discuss A game master. The argument as it stands is that there must be one, somewhere; not necessarily that this is invested in particular individual.

contracycle wrote: From this perspective the roving GM, especially in a context that is inherently supportive of the imaginary framework of truth, works perfectly well. The GMs cannot be omnipotent; but they can provide legitimized "authoritative" feedback. All they have to do is ride on herd on a self-supporting consensus model; a model which derives its authenticity in the knowledge that there is an authority to appeal to, who is able to "objectively" determine Truth. There is only one World and the GM is its prophet.

contracycle wrote: Herein, I feel, lies the distinction between GM-less and GM-full, as discussed on the Forge. I think that the argument above is that even when a game is GM-full - i.e. that GMing authority is various and multiple - it still has a GM, it still has an authentic and external-to-the-players validity. From this perspective it seems reasonable to me to argue that, indeed, a GM is required for RPG, while a GM may not be strictly required for RP.

contracycle wrote: while a GM may not be strictly required for RP.

contracycle wrote: Kids playing cowboys and indians sometimes do, and sometimes don't, get into arguments about who shot whom, and when. RPG establishes from the outset, an explicit mechanism to arbitrate this dispute and expects compliance with its decision by whatever means - and by whoever - it is made.

Nobody'll be surprised that I agree with Fang.

-Vincent

The Children's Make Believe Issue is a Red Herring.

Make Believe is a role playing game.

I'm guilty of having said that role playing games are "make believe with rules"; but recently I started to say that to a bunch of fantasy writers who were not role players, and realized that it must be wrong.

Make Believe must have rules, or it wouldn't work at all.

The rules are, of course, entirely implicit; no one involved in the game is fully aware of them to the point that they could easily define them. Yet on reflection, I find that such games do include resolution mechanics. In response to an article I wrote for Gaming Outpost, I've identified several sorts of such mechanics that have been used by various groups--all of them social mechanics, but real resolution mechanics nonetheless.

The games break down when there is a disagreement regarding how those mechanics work, or when one of the players doesn't like the outcome dictated by the mechanics and "takes his football and goes home". Over time, the rules become more refined and more recognized by the group, but from the outset there are rules.

Make Believe has rules. It is a role playing game.

--M. J. Young

Le Joueur wrote:
Let me pull this out:

contracycle wrote: while a GM may not be strictly required for RP.

Therefore, you agree with my thesis; gamemaster are not required for every role-playing game therefore a definition of role-playing games cannot say that they are required. As I read Jaakko's definition, it is "strictly required."

It is strictly required for role playing GAMES. There are other sorts of RP - RP in therapy, in the mentioned S&M, in power relationships, in being a starbnger in a strange land. In playing cowboys and indians, which is a different sort of game about running around and falling down.

While I DO concede that there can be Role Playing, I don;t think there can be an RPG without a GM.

contracycle wrote: Kids playing cowboys and indians sometimes do, and sometimes don't, get into arguments about who shot whom, and when. RPG establishes from the outset, an explicit mechanism to arbitrate this dispute and expects compliance with its decision by whatever means - and by whoever - it is made.

Now you're confusing things between the two stances, either it is a mechanism for resolving a dispute or an arbiter (whether he depends on a system or not).

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: ...my thesis; gamemasters are not required for every role-playing game

It is strictly required for role playing GAMES. There are other sorts of RP - RP in therapy, in the mentioned S&M, in power relationships, in being a stranger in a strange land. In playing cowboys and indians, which is a different sort of game about running around and falling down.

While I DO concede that there can be Role Playing, I don't think there can be an RPG without a GM.

contracycle wrote: The mechanism provides the GM with the credibility to arbitrate. And in a game the GM can be: a computer, or a random result table, or a book when it is not a human being. But in both human and non-human cases, the players have given consent to operate on a set of rules and to have judgements according to those rules. Even in the case where all creation is from a player, I think that the tacit consent of other players is required: they act as distributed GM.

contracycle wrote: It's the old 'tree in the forest' thing - without someone to observe and record an act in the game world, it might as well not have happened.

Just in case you're following this thread and not the other:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3701&start=22

Is it just me or is this page of this thread formatted all funkily?

-Vincent

Fang did an excellent job responding to much of this. I take issue with his "agree to disagree" approach, as I feel there is an actual answer to the "chicken & egg" scenario in this case. However, I'm going to respond to those responses directed towards me.

Jaakko wrote: Then please present a definition that can be easily uses to separate traditional roleplaying games from live action games. There is a lot of gray area there.

Then what separates roleplaying games from games in general? By that definition Risk and Monopoly would be roleplaying games as well. Besides, the gamemaster can change the rules if s/he so wishes.

Yes, I know that you have discarded t genre as a term.

That said, I'd like to point out again, that our model doesn't state, that there must be a single individual in charge.

I think this is the most important point on which we seem to disagree. We see the rulesystem as a tool or a neccessary evil, not the base of the game...Even in the case you outline the gamemaster can decide differently...What I am saying is that the gamemaster can rationalize a way out of a situation or just simply decide to ignore the rules.

Le Joueur wrote:
Then I'm curious how you react to the example of our LARP playtest where there was no gamemaster, and yet all agreed that it was a role-playing game.

As I pointed out: by providing tacit consent. Any of the players coul, if they felt another made unreasonable demands, walk out. The group retained the consent of its membership; an authoritative statement as to what is True was accepted by the group at large.

Are you intentionally discounting the presence of the players? Id est, the players do something and there is no 'gamemaster' around, then it didn't happen?

The players are acting as distriubuted GM; I am arguing that this game is NOT GM-less, it is GM-full.

Really, does any of this add to the discussion of human oversight?

I am suggesting that your reading of the argument being offered, that a GM-person is required, is a misinterpretation of the point being proffered. I think the claim is that there is always a GM, even if its not one person, and even if it is, potentially, an inanimate object (book or computer). I agree with that claim.

Furthermore, seeing as the conventional conception of RPG does include a GM from the get go, I think that if you claim you play totally GM-less, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is indeed an RPG and not improv theatre or something similar.

Defining "gamemaster" as "anyone who has the power to declare something true at a given moment" lacks any utility for creating a definition for the attempt to define what an RPG is. So I find the proposed definition rather useless as it fails to really define or explain anything in relation to the question.

Thus, what you have described is nothing more than a childhood game of make-believe with petty dictator deciding the course of action (beneficient or malignly...and choosing whether to obey loose "rules" -- as they may change at a moment's notice or the GM's whim and thus do not actually exist as a seperate entity), or rather, role-playing with a director (ie: making a play).

Hi,

The theory under discussion seems to allot to the GM all power to confirm the reality of a proposition. I would suggest that, in practice, in a table top rpg, the power to confirm reality is actually a group process, where the GM has the role of arbitrator or facilitator.

Perhaps we might also make a distinction between computer RPGs and human-arbitrated RPGs. I've always had a suspicion that computer games aren't really RPGs at all. However, I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

I read it differently; to me it said that the creativity of the GM is such, and the limited definition sof the game space such, that in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY. The GM, with almost total freedom to create on the spot, can do whatever they like with relative impunity.

What distinguishes an RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Are you intentionally discounting the presence of the players? Id est, the players do something and there is no 'gamemaster' around, then it didn't happen?

The players are acting as distributed GM; I am arguing that this game is NOT GM-less; it is GM-full.

Le Joueur wrote: Really, does any of this add to the discussion of human oversight?

I am suggesting that your reading of the argument being offered, that a GM-person is required, is a misinterpretation of the point being proffered. I think the claim is that there is always a GM, even if its not one person, and even if it is, potentially, an inanimate object (book or computer). I agree with that claim.

Furthermore, seeing as the conventional conception of RPG does include a GM from the get go, I think that if you claim you play totally GM-less, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is indeed an RPG and not improv theatre or something similar.

contracycle wrote: in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY.

wfreitag wrote: In your effort to be inclusive of computer RPGs, GM-full systems such as Universalis, and certain LARPs, you've now reached a uselessly broad definition. Any successful shared storytelling activity (successful = resulting in a single narrative agreed to by all; shared = combined input from more than one participant) fits the description above, so all such activities now have implicit gamemasters and are role playing games.

I'm losing patience with definitions in which X is defined by the presence of Y, but if we see an instance that fits our overall mental model of what X is, with no apparent Y, we can safely conclude that Y must be there anyway, in some hidden, subtle, transient, shared, or distributed form. (And yet, if we see an instance that doesn't at all fit our overall mental model of X, yet it appears to have Y, suddenly our criteria for what constitutes adequate Y become much more strict.)

As I feared, this topic hits many buttons that people are passionate about.

I would ask people to take a deep breath and step back a moment.

There are 38 posts in this thread which is about a paper written by 2 guys. There are a total of 3 posts from those 2 guys. Is this evidence of a cross borders sharing of knowledge and opinions with fellow theorists, or is it mostly just us argueing with ourselves.

I would point out that there have been 14 increasingly passionate posts since Jaako last posted. With many different people pointing out how much they disagree and replying to their own disagreement before Jaako or hakkis even have time to respond.

I ask you. Has this been a very good example of wecoming our Finnish guests to the Forge?

I'm hoping that when they return...if they deign to read these monster posts that they start a new thread addressing the points they want to make, and that we here on the Forge, keep our responses to a moderate level of replies. They very well may not be as voracious posters as we are. If we are discussing the pros and cons of their paper the post ratio should not be 12:1.

Thanks.

Ralph.

Le Joueur wrote:
First of all, until we hear from Jaakko, we have to assume that his use of pronouns indicates an anthropomorphic gamemaster; that you do not agree with this does not surprise me. We are not discussing your beliefs. Check out the rest of this thread, we're discussing a paper that purports to give a descriptive and not normative definition of what role-playing games are.

wfreitag wrote:

What distinguishes an RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent.

Such as, a head writer and five staff writers collaborating on a sitcom script?

In your effort to be inclusive of computer RPGs, GM-full systems such as Universalis, and certain LARPs, you've now reached a uselessly broad definition.

I'm losing patience with definitions in which X is defined by the presence of Y, but if we see an instance that fits our overall mental model of what X is, with no apparent Y, we can safely conclude that Y must be there anyway, in some hidden, subtle, transient, shared, or distributed form.

Hi,

First, I want to apologize for not reading the paper this thread is supposed to be about, before posting my earlier comment.

Second, I want to redirect those who are discussing the subject back to that paper. It's worth reading.

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/


COMPUTER RPGs?

The introduction says the writers want to include "computer-moderated RPGs". Do you mean games like Fallout and Arcanum, where there is only the computer and a player, or some form of computer-supported GM and player setup?

Maybe we should make a distinction between games where a player directs the actions of a fictional character, and one where the player participates in the creation of imaginary content.
In computer RPG like Fallout, the content is already created, the player only uncovers it. A computer game functions as an interactive storyteller, rather than an RPG.

I think player creation of content is key to a description of the role-playing game and the term "RPG" is sometimes misapplied.


GAMEMASTER POWER & RULES

The paper observes that "the gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power, either explicitly or implicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible."

I think this approaches my assertion that the gamemaster is a role in a group process. But the gamemaster model is only one way to handle the diegic reification process in a group setting. "Distributed" methods are possible, so perhaps we want to seperate the method from the function.


WHERE ARE THE RULES?

Rules are everywhere in the hobby. I think a model of an RPG needs to address their role in the creation of the diegis, as well as the role of unwritten conventions and group understandings.


SUMMARY

I think creation of player content is key to an RPG. What we call computer RPGs aren't really RPGs for this reason. The gamemaster is merely one way for a group to handle the "gatekeeper" function. It might be useful to seperate the method from the function. Finally, what role do rules play in the creation of the diegis?

The paper itself is an impressive bit of work with a scholarly tone. I applaud the work the authors have done. "Diegis" is a great coinage!

- Alan

contracycle wrote: I feel that the a priori assumption that these guys are talking about a singular GM to be highly suspect.

quot;Mike Holmes]I don't see anyone arguing that, Gareth. In fact Fang went out of his way in his posts to point out how a GM could be defined otherwise.

COMPUTER RPGs?

The introduction says the writers want to include "computer-moderated RPGs". Do you mean games like Fallout and Arcanum, where there is only the computer and a player, or some form of computer-supported GM and player setup?

I think player creation of content is key to a description of the role-playing game. We are agreed that a storytelling event is not a roleplaying game. Isn't a computer game like Fallout more of an interactive storytelling, rather than an RPG?

Alan wrote:

"Distributed" methods are possible, so perhaps we want to seperate the method from the function.

Mike Holmes wrote:

COMPUTER RPGs?

The introduction says the writers want to include "computer-moderated RPGs". Do you mean games like Fallout and Arcanum, where there is only the computer and a player, or some form of computer-supported GM and player setup?

They make quite clear that games that are merely "coputer aided" and still have the player/GM dichotomy are definitely RPGs (played in a "cyber" space occasionally). What is not an RPG are games that have no human GM. The distinction seems to be made because of the limitations on artificial intelligence.

But you are right, there are borderline cases. As I mentioned Everquest seems to be a very borderline case. I think they'd say it was a CRPG while only the computer system was moderating, and an RPG whenever a human intervened on the other end as a GM (that is the game is a CRPG one moment, and a RPG the next), but I'm just guessing there. One could certainly see the Everquest system as just a huge set of charts to which the GM is referring for everything and using to produce output automatically. At what point of GM disengagement do we draw the line?

contracycle wrote: Not at all; I thought that was admirably explicit in the disucssion of diegetic frame. What distinguishes and RPG from other behaviours is the combined input to What Is True, mediated by a singular or plural veto, carried out by mutual consent. I think it is indeed useful.

I read it differently; to me it said that the creativity of the GM is such, and the limited definition sof the game space such, that in practical terms the GM CAN ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY.

greyorm wrote:
"A storytelling activity in which a person with this power exists."
"What is the difference between this and improvisational acting under a director?"
"None."
"Is improv theater an RPG?"
"By the definition above: yes."

contracycle wrote: OK - let us assume the distinction is much more apparent to you than it is to me. I have, after all, almost always discussed RPG as a performance. What are the major distictions you see between RPG and Improv+Director? To me, the only significant difference (and I don't think its that significant) lies in the identity of the audience.

greyorm wrote: Most simply, we could boil it down to dice...or any randomizing influence or set of "laws" which exist beyond the control or diegetic realm of the participants

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have bee a bit busy, but still wanted to at least try to address all the point raised in the discussion. This reply is rather lengthy.

Le Joueur wrote:

"We disagree. If we can't admit that this is and will likely remain the case, then there won't be much point is continuing this discussion. I don't anticipate either side will change their point of view and short of a friendly truce, I'd hate to see hard feelings arise from this."

You are, of course, correct. Yet I find the discussion stimulating and interesting. You need not tiptoe around me. If my words at time seem harsh or agitated, please write it off as a cultural difference.

OVERSIGHT vs. GATEKEEPER

Getting to the point:

"The whole idea of changing 'who the gamemaster is' from moment to moment isn't at issue here. Pursuing this specifically impacts little on the discussion. What is at issue is oversight. In your scheme, oversight is a singular requirement for something to be a role-playing game."

Again I would choose the term differently. Again I offer the 'gatekeeper of diegesis' metaphor. I shall backtrack a bit and try to communicate as clearly as I can why I feel that the gamemaster is necessary in a role-playing game.

In "Meilahti School: Thoughts on Role-playing" we (the undersigned and Henri Hakkarainen) write:

"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible. Surrendering part of the creative control is necessary in order to make a distinction between role-playing and storytelling. Once the diegetic frame has been created, the gamemaster need not participate actively in the interaction, even though she has the possibility to jump in at any time."

Someone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters. Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster. Once all the elements are in place the gamemaster can sit back and watch (as is often the case in live-action role-playing games), but s/he can also choose to intervene at any given time. These interventions are more common in traditional role-play, but that doesn't mean, that the GM doesn't have the theoretical possibility to do that in larps as well (although in reality this may not be possible at all times). This is an ideal model of a role-playing game (ideal in the sense Plato used the term, not ideal as in 'best').

Nothing is true in the diegetic frame, unless the GM approves it (implicitly GMs usually approves all that the players have the PCs do). This means that new elements cannot be incorporated into the game without the conceit of the gamemaster. Yes, it is possible to create a game that runs without a GM, but this would have to be a game where no new elements can be incorporated. The characters cannot go from room to room, they have no interaction with the world, everything they refer to in their talks needs to be preplanned and so forth... There should be no non-diegetic obstacles the characters need to face.

Alan wrote:

“The theory under discussion seems to allot to the GM all power to confirm the reality of a proposition. I would suggest that, in practice, in a table top rpg, the power to confirm reality is actually a group process, where the GM has the role of arbitrator or facilitator.

” I don't think this is practical - I think this is theoretical. In practice, a GM takes account of player desires - or he doesn't have players. The role of gamemaster only exists as a role within a group.”

Of course the RPG process is a group process, but the GM has final say. You can call it what you will, but in the end, if no other way works, the GM can say what is true.

Alan wrote:

“I think creation of player content is key to an RPG. What we call computer RPGs aren't really RPGs for this reason. The gamemaster is merely one way for a group to handle the "gatekeeper" function. It might be useful to separate the method from the function. Finally, what role do rules play in the creation of the diegis?”

Gamemastering is indeed a function, a role adopted by a participant. However, even if separating the function from the method can be interesting, I think that not separating them is a pivotal characteristic of a role-playing game.

DIEGESIS

Alan wrote:

”The paper itself is an impressive bit of work with a scholarly tone. I applaud the work the authors have done. "Diegis" is a great coinage!”

Thanks.

Diegesis comes from Greek and I believe Aristotle or someone in that ballpark first wrote down the word. Lately it has also been adopted by modern film theory. For example a scene can have diegetic music (the characters in the film hear it too) or non-diegetic (mood music for the audience). The term entered Nordic theoretical role-playing discussion a few years ago. I am not sure who was the first to use the term, either it was Mike “Manifesto of the Turku School” Pohjola or Johanna Koljonen, editor of panclou ‘zine. Mike digged the term from old dramatic theory (along with mimesis), Johanna took it from film studies.

Our definition of diegesis is a bit different form the definitions offered by Johanna and Mike, mainly because they never did offer accurate definitions.

RULES AS BACKBONE vs. RULES AS A TOOL

More from La Joueur:

"In keeping with the 'agree to disagree' premise of this post, I should like to point out we've pretty much reached the 'Chicken or Egg' paradox. Which comes first? The chicken (the gamemaster) or the egg (the rules)? Without some kind of system structure there can be no authority (the concept of authority requires a structure of obedience); without authority, there is nothing to uphold the structure."

For me the answer is obvious: the gamemaster. The games that I run all have rule systems that I have either created or adapted. Even if a GM were to use an off-the-shelf rule system, the decision to use a given rule system lies with the gamemaster. But yes, I do see your point. The answer depends on the point of view.

Le Joueur:

"Note that the argument that specifying that a gamemaster "rationalizes a way out" or "ignores" rules, by itself, implies that the rules carry more significance then he. That he provides exceptions to them implies that they are the primary authority. The 'power to override' clearly indicates that what is being overridden normally carries the power."

<snip>

"This is an argument that has no solution. I suggest therefore (after clarifying our stances) we simply stop trying to prove one side or the other."

The rules are just a tool for the GM to best run the game of his/her vision. They can be changes or discarded at a moments notice. I chose my examples and wording with the intent of conveying my idea to people I perceive as viewing the rule system as a somewhat rigid pillar of the game. What I intended to communicate was that the gamemaster can do anything at anytime. Often a rule system is followed, because, as you point out, otherwise there would be nothing but chaos and madness. Again, the fact that the GM can do something doesn't mean that s/he will or should. Many games that I play in may change systems every now and then (the GM is looking for the most suitable one), sometimes the rules are discarded on the spot if they do not work well with the theme or genre of the game. Sometimes some sections of the game will used different systems (dreams, alternate realities, musical episodes etc.).

Hopefully this clarified my position.

On the necessity of rules:

"Ultimately, I think it is this complicity that forms the basis of the social contract that underlies all gaming. For the sake of argument, let's take your statement "We see the rule system as...a necessary evil" as true. That implies that role-playing gaming can take place without rules; let's take this as true as well. While some may suggest that 'no rules' results in chaos; I don't believe so.

"I believe, no matter how much you try to avoid having a systemic approach, the very concept of authority or oversight, requires structure. A 'ruleless' role-playing game falls back to depending on the social contract of living in less than anarchy. That becomes the system. Thus, even when there are no 'rules' there is a systemic approach. The presence of a gamemaster only illustrates that approach, whatever the form he takes."

I must apologize for my lazy communication. I have used the 'system' to mean two things, the explicated rules of the game and any cultural construct of meaning. You are correct, it is not possible to have a role-playing game without a system of some sort just as every situation we engage in has a cultural context and a system of its own.

This is actually my biggest problem with the systemic approach. While systems are indeed important to role-playing games and are worth a great deal of thought, I do not think that they are the defining thing about role-playing games as everything we deal with has a rule system. If we go to a bank, there are certain rules. If we have dinner with the family, there are rules.

This is partly what we were thinking when we wrote in our model:

"A role is any subject position within a set discourse, an artificial closure articulating the player within the diegetic frame of the game or in a real-life situation. There is no need to differentiate between the roles the player assumes within the diegetic frame and the roles assumed outside of it, as they are all equally aspects of the player’s fluid self; specific tools for interacting in certain situations according to a specific set of rules, and based on assumptions defined either explicitly or implicitly."

No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.

Which brings us to a slightly longer quote form the end of Le Joueur’s message (by the way, which should I use, Le Joueur or Mr. Langford?):

“You're missing my point. As I stated earlier, it would be hard for adults to play 'make believe' without falling into the social convention training they received in becoming adults. That is by far the biggest difference I have witnessed in actual play. Rules (arguably an 'unnecessary evil') are just an explicit extension of this social convention. The requirement of the social convention is, in my mind, the requirement for systemic approach.

”Now the problem I have using our LARP play test as an example of 'going without the gamemaster' is that you can say that it is not role-playing gaming because of your definition. At this point we simply have to 'agree to disagree,' on the grounds of the 'chicken and egg' paradox. Otherwise, I could show that since role-playing games only occur with systems in place (social convention at the least), but without gamemasters (in our play test), the systemic approach is the only valid one.

”As for 'kindergarten role-playing games,' I have seen them happen. I have seen them happen in the absence of an overseer. This is because I rate the difference between role-playing games and 'make believe' as the systemic approach; in fact, more often then not I see 'kindergarten role-playing games' break down due to inexperience with social contract. At that point play resorts to the usual anarchy of 'make believe.' So you can clearly see how we are not going to 'prove' anything to each other.”

You use ‘system’ in two meanings as well. First you say, that children have a system in place (and I wholeheartedly agree with this), but then you say that you use of a systemic approach somehow differentiates you from the children.

Ok, it could be that my command of the English language fails me here and I do not understand the difference between a system and systemic something. Or maybe your definitions for the terms stem from a tradition I am unfamiliar with.

Yes, the younger the children, the less developed is their internalization of cultural meanings and ‘proper’ social conduct. This I can agree with, but if you really think that the fact that a role-playing game is somehow special because it has an enunciated system, then I must agree that we need to ‘agree to disagree’.

DEFINING RPGS

I enquired about the definition of role-playing games from the systemic point of view:

"I actually get this question a lot. It's pretty simple, but you've cut away the relevant quote. The difference is that participants take a 'first person' thinking-in-context role in the game. Besides, nothing separates role-playing games from games in general, because they are games. What separates Risk and Monopoly from role-playing games is that you are not offered the option to think-in-context in the play of those. (And while it's true that some people lean heavily away from thinking-in-context play, instead using something called 'token play,' the exception rather proves the rule.)"

I do not find this definition a very good one. You seem to say that role-playing games are "games where one has the option to think-in-context". This probably covers all RPGs out there, but it also covers a lot of other stuff, even if we leave the 'option' part away. The term 'game' is not very well defined. "Life is a game." The context the participants are thinking in need to be shared or somehow moderated. Depending on the definition for the word ‘game’ this definition would label improv theater, child's play, psychotherapy, MUDs, choose your own adventure -books as RPG. Indeed books, movies and theater all have systems and offer the possibility for thinking in context.

I am the first to say that our definition has its problems, but it is the best one that I have seen.

RESPONSIBITIES OF THE GAMEMASTER

Le Joueur:

"Referee
This is the on-the-spot arbiter of player disputes.
Game Originator(s)
This is where the set up comes from, background, mechanics choice, character slots, non-player characters (which are assigned to players and to use as they see fit), and the whole shebang. This ends the instant play begins.
Agitator
Someone who is kept abreast of the major goings on and introduces 'agitation' in areas that are losing the players' interest or becoming overwhelming.
Site maintenance
Basically the 'host' providing location, arrangements, scheduling of the events, 'room' sign-out and logging, prop sign-out (props also include in-game resources that do not necessarily have physical manifestation), check-in & out, and attendance
Recruitment and Customer Service
To get more players and resolve complaints."

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You have a drastically different gaming culture from the one I am accustomed to.

When you say that the referee arbiters the player disputes, do you mean that the gamemaster has power over the actual players? Also, I would never have thought of including customer service as a job for the gamemaster. My version of the list would look something like this:

Gatekeeper
Divines what actually happens in the diegetic frame. Usually passes power to players. If players have different views as to what happened or happens in the game world (what is true) the GM has final say.

Producer
Decides to have a game. Invites the right players to the game. Arranges the place where the game takes place. Takes care that the necessary equipment will be present (books, computers, dice, character sheets, music, props - this is often delegated).

World
Answers any and all questions about the world that the characters might have (provided that the characters have access to that information). Tales care of and represents all moving parts of the world (people, animals, weather, institutions etc). This includes creating the backstory and setting for the game as well as approving the characters.

Auteur
Tells a story, conveys a theme or paints a vision through the game. This can be an artistic goal, a dramatic story or just the framework for having fun.

In Knutpunkt 2002 I gave a presentation on Genre and Style in role-playing games. In that context I defined the responsibilities of the gamemaster a bit differently.
1) Offer a game that stays true to his vision
2) Communicate his vision to the players
-Type of the Game
-Rules of the Game
-Expected preparations regarding the Game
-Level of freedom in creative input to the shared frame of the Game
3) Handle practical arrangements on time
4) Choose suitable players to the Game

The list is obviously constructed from a practical point of vies, not a theoretical.

The agitator role that you create seems the most artificial to me. World simulation (especially Turku style, see for example <http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/>) doesn’t require the world to act.

Le Joueur:

“Are you then saying that in the absence of the gamemaster, the diegetic frame fails? I hardly think that is true given player commitment to it.”

Without a gamemaster nothing new can be incorporated into the diegetic frame. If there is no one to introduce new elements, answer question and so worth the frame will become barren. If the players invent stuff, then either there is a consensus and everyone accepts anything that someone introduces into the frame and we have a storytelling session in our hands and not a RPG. Another possibility is that the players agree as to what is appropriate, then either one (or few) of them need to adopt GM roles and rule over the frame. Third option is to negotiate in a democratic manner over every small thing. This committee exercise would be collective storytelling again in my book.

Yes, the game can run for a while without a gamemaster, but it imposes non-diegetic restrictions to the diegetic world (a character can not look outside a window because there is no one to describe what the world outside looks like). This is also a problem with a lot of computer games – the characters can not just decide to have a picnic in the middle of Max Payne even if there is no diegetic reason why this couldn’t be done.

GAMEMASTER

Le Joueur:

“This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.”

Now you are looking at just one part of our model. In order to have a working definition, we need to define every term we use. Every gamer know intuitively what a role-playing game is, what gamemeastering means and so forth. The problem is that if we want to use these terms in an academic context we need to define them accurately. This is what we have attempted. We have tried to define every term so that they are as close to their intuitive meanings as possible, but still be valid tools for analytical work (meaning that the definitions will not include anything and everything).

In a previous posting I mentioned the biggest problems we have with the model, the borderline cases, so to speak. One more point could be added to that list: gamer resistance. Walt has already commented that we shouldn’t use terms that are already in use, that we should invent new words for everything. The problem is, that we are attempting to define role-playing and not outline a completely new thing. (No, we do not expect that gamers in general will adopt our definitions, but we offer these definitions as tools for people who are inclined to look at things from a more analytical or even academic point of view. And yes, we are looking forward to competing definitions and models.)

This means that our definitions are not the same ones people have grown accustomed to. We have done our best to include everything that need including and exclude everything else. To do this we need to define gamemaster as a person who has the power over the diegetic frame. Why? Because on a theoretical level the gamemaster must have this power, because power such as we have described is used by gamemasters all over the planet. Of course, not every GM uses the power, but still if we want to include those subject positions in the same box with the subject positions that include reckless usage of power, we need to have this definition.

Le Joueur:

”Having them around so players "can go there to ask questions about the world" is a function handled just as well by a book, making it equally a function of system. That a player can know the information without either implies a system familiar to all and therefore not compulsion of gamemastering. This admission only supports my contention that system, and not gamemasters, are necessary to role-playing games.”

This is what we refer to in our model when we talk about artificial realities. A book does not react; it can only describe what is written in it. How many times have you searched through a FAQ on a website only to realize that your question, the most obvious in your mind, is not listed there? I do not think that a book or a search engine, or a computer or anything like that can at this moment in time replace the gamemaster.

As you suspected in a later posting, we do assume an anthropomorphic gamemaster.

LARP AND DEFINITIONS

Mr. Daegmorgan:

“A definition that easily seperates them? Well, I don't care to put the thought into such a beast, other than to say, having been involved in both, I've noticed a fundamental difference in the way in which interactions occur and in which game events are handled by participants.

”You may believe I am arguing something like "LARPs aren't RPGs!" but you would be wrong. I'm noting the difference in play. Were we discussing two forms of storytelling, frex: a play and a book, you would have to agree that both are qualitatively different from one another, though both fall under the definition of storytelling.

”Same thing here: both LARPs and RPGs are role-playing games. Now, as this is utterly seperate from the main point, and I could honestly care less about discusing LARPs, I'll move on.”

If you do not attempt to define role-playing games or live-action role-playing games, or offer criticism on the attempt I have participated in, then I fail to see the point of your message.

I believe larps are role-playing games. No, I do not think that traditional role-playing games are larps or that larps are traditional role-playing games. There is an intuitive difference between these two modes of gaming, but it is very, very difficult (at least to me) to verbalize a clear definition that I can stand by. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that larp and traditional are modes of gaming. And most games use both. Now we probably can create a definition of an idealized pure traditional role-playing games and a lice-action game. Maybe in traditional gaming the interaction in the diegetic frame happens purely through description. “My guy says: ‘Tadaa!’ and opens the door to the next room.” Everything is simulated. In a pure larp everything represents itself and character action expressed bodily. The player/character says “Tadaa” and opens the door to the next room. All games - traditional and larp - I have seen, use both modes. At the very least in a traditional game the tone of voice, possible first person dialogue and so on will part form the descriptive setup.

Mr. Daegmorgan:

“Your definition, that someone with power over all events in game, is all that is required for something to be an RPG has similar problem: what then separates an RPG from a play with a director?”

Excuse me, but did you actually read the paper? It can be found form <http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/>.

META

Le Joueur:

“The only thing I would ask is that you review your statements regarding 'descriptive, rather than normative' definition and how well you feel you can support a global position on your definition in the face of detractors. I do not ask you to change your stance, but merely to acknowledge the validity of other definitions and how yours will relate to them. Perhaps mention of the alternatives might be proper acknowledgement in your paper.”

The paper was drafted to act as a conversation opener. We have not attempted to make a definition that pleases everyone, but one that actually works. Also, we come from a culture where it is not necessary to remind people that they can – and actually should – think about what they read. There are always alterative points of view.

Or if I try to say the same thing in a less provocative manner, our paper is not an introduction to general role-playing game theory, but a model. Our paper is not a historical description of what people have through, but a paper that states what we think at the moment. I think it is self evident that there are competing views out in the world.

That said, a later version of the paper might come to include more criticism on other models.

Mr. Daegmorgan:

“Please do not inform me what terms I ascribe to or have discarded, or assume such. Ron's essay is Ron's essay, not a philosophy ascribed to by the Forge as a whole, though we utilize it as a base for discussion.”

The statement I made was thoughtless and rude. I apologize.

Valamir/Ralph:

“There are 38 posts in this thread which is about a paper written by 2 guys. There are a total of 3 posts from those 2 guys. Is this evidence of a cross borders sharing of knowledge and opinions with fellow theorists, or is it mostly just us argueing with ourselves.

”I would point out that there have been 14 increasingly passionate posts since Jaako last posted. With many different people pointing out how much they disagree and replying to their own disagreement before Jaako or hakkis even have time to respond.

”I ask you. Has this been a very good example of wecoming our Finnish guests to the Forge?”

Thank you for this kind thought, but you can’t drive me away by being enthusiastic about the model I propose. Quite the opposite, actually. I just do not have enough time react to each mail individually. I hope you are not offended by these group replies.

So far the model has enflamed discussion everywhere it has been presented. Most people seem to think that generally its quite good, but everyone finds something in it that they disagree passionately with. Usually it is either our exclusion of solo role-playing (daydreaming), exclusion of computer games, the basis in post-modern fluid identity model or the omnipotence of the game master. Some also have a problem with our diegesis (as, they propose, every player can only have a reading of the diegesis to work with the “shared diegesis” is actually an ideal construct). This is the first time I have run into opposition, which demands the inclusion of a requirement for a system in the definition (yes, this is a rude generalization).


Points for everyone who actually read this far.

-Jaakko

I believe at some point Jaako or someone associated with the text in question stated that there could be multiple gms in a game, including all players being gm.

This is not reflected in the language of the paper and most of the arguments I've seen here.

"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible.

Someone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters.
Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster.

Hey Jaakko!

Glad you made it back. Needless to say, I grew worried that the length of the thread had driven you off. I'm glad that's not the case.

Jaakko wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: We disagree. If we can't admit that this is and will likely remain the case, then there won't be much point is continuing this discussion. I don't anticipate either side will change their point of view and short of a friendly truce, I'd hate to see hard feelings arise from this.

You are, of course, correct. Yet I find the discussion stimulating and interesting. You need not tiptoe around me. If my words at time seem harsh or agitated, please write it off as a cultural difference.

Jaakko wrote: OVERSIGHT vs. GATEKEEPER

Getting to the point:

Le Joueur wrote: The whole idea of changing 'who the gamemaster is' from moment to moment isn't at issue here. Pursuing this specifically impacts little on the discussion. What is at issue is oversight. In your scheme, oversight is a singular requirement for something to be a role-playing game.

Again I would choose the term differently. Again I offer the 'gatekeeper of diegesis' metaphor. I shall backtrack a bit and try to communicate as clearly as I can why I feel that the gamemaster is necessary in a role-playing game.

In "Meilahti School: Thoughts on Role-playing" we (the undersigned and Henri Hakkarainen) write:

"The gamemaster (GM) creates the situation, the diegetic frame, in which the game will take place. The gamemaster also enunciates the diegetic frame in the depth that is necessary and possible. The gamemaster has total power over the situation created, although she must surrender part of that power either implicitly or explicitly to the players in order for meaningful interaction to be possible. Surrendering part of the creative control is necessary in order to make a distinction between role-playing and storytelling. Once the diegetic frame has been created, the gamemaster need not participate actively in the interaction, even though she has the possibility to jump in at any time."

Someone is needed to specify the setting of the game. Someone needs to approve the characters. Someone chooses the system used to resolve conflicts and such. This someone is a gamemaster. Once all the elements are in place the gamemaster can sit back and watch (as is often the case in live-action role-playing games), but s/he can also choose to intervene at any given time. These interventions are more common in traditional role-play, but that doesn't mean, that the GM doesn't have the theoretical possibility to do that in larps as well (although in reality this may not be possible at all times). This is an ideal model of a role-playing game (ideal in the sense Plato used the term, not ideal as in 'best').

Nothing is true in the diegetic frame, unless the GM approves it (implicitly GMs usually approves all that the players have the PCs do). This means that new elements cannot be incorporated into the game without the conceit of the gamemaster. Yes, it is possible to create a game that runs without a GM, but this would have to be a game where no new elements can be incorporated. The characters cannot go from room to room, they have no interaction with the world, everything they refer to in their talks needs to be preplanned and so forth... There should be no non-diegetic obstacles the characters need to face.

Jaakko wrote: Of course the RPG process is a group process, but the GM has final say. You can call it what you will, but in the end, if no other way works, the GM can say what is true.

Jaakko wrote: RULES AS BACKBONE vs. RULES AS A TOOL

Le Joueur wrote: In keeping with the 'agree to disagree' premise of this post, I should like to point out we've pretty much reached the 'Chicken or Egg' paradox. Which comes first? The chicken (the gamemaster) or the egg (the rules)? Without some kind of system structure there can be no authority (the concept of authority requires a structure of obedience); without authority, there is nothing to uphold the structure.

For me the answer is obvious: the gamemaster. The games that I run all have rule systems that I have either created or adapted. Even if a GM were to use an off-the-shelf rule system, the decision to use a given rule system lies with the gamemaster. But yes, I do see your point. The answer depends on the point of view.

Le Joueur wrote: Note that the argument that specifying that a gamemaster "rationalizes a way out" or "ignores" rules, by itself, implies that the rules carry more significance then he. That he provides exceptions to them implies that they are the primary authority. The 'power to override' clearly indicates that what is being overridden normally carries the power.

<snip>

This is an argument that has no solution. I suggest therefore (after clarifying our stances) we simply stop trying to prove one side or the other.

The rules are just a tool for the GM to best run the game of his/her vision. They can be changes or discarded at a moments notice. I chose my examples and wording with the intent of conveying my idea to people I perceive as viewing the rule system as a somewhat rigid pillar of the game. What I intended to communicate was that the gamemaster can do anything at anytime. Often a rule system is followed, because, as you point out, otherwise there would be nothing but chaos and madness. Again, the fact that the GM can do something doesn't mean that s/he will or should. Many games that I play in may change systems every now and then (the GM is looking for the most suitable one), sometimes the rules are discarded on the spot if they do not work well with the theme or genre of the game. Sometimes some sections of the game will used different systems (dreams, alternate realities, musical episodes etc.).

Hopefully this clarified my position.

Jaakko wrote: On the necessity of rules:

Le Joueur wrote: Ultimately, I think it is this complicity that forms the basis of the social contract that underlies all gaming. For the sake of argument, let's take your statement "We see the rule system as...a necessary evil" as true. That implies that role-playing gaming can take place without rules; let's take this as true as well. While some may suggest that 'no rules' results in chaos; I don't believe so.

I believe, no matter how much you try to avoid having a systemic approach, the very concept of authority or oversight, requires structure. A 'ruleless' role-playing game falls back to depending on the social contract of living in less than anarchy. That becomes the system. Thus, even when there are no 'rules' there is a systemic approach. The presence of a gamemaster only illustrates that approach, whatever the form he takes.

I must apologize for my lazy communication. I have used the 'system' to mean two things, the explicated rules of the game and any cultural construct of meaning. You are correct, it is not possible to have a role-playing game without a system of some sort just as every situation we engage in has a cultural context and a system of its own.

This is actually my biggest problem with the systemic approach. While systems are indeed important to role-playing games and are worth a great deal of thought, I do not think that they are the defining thing about role-playing games as everything we deal with has a rule system. If we go to a bank, there are certain rules. If we have dinner with the family, there are rules.

Jaakko wrote: This is partly what we were thinking when we wrote in our model:

"A role is any subject position within a set discourse, an artificial closure articulating the player within the diegetic frame of the game or in a real-life situation. There is no need to differentiate between the roles the player assumes within the diegetic frame and the roles assumed outside of it, as they are all equally aspects of the player's fluid self; specific tools for interacting in certain situations according to a specific set of rules, and based on assumptions defined either explicitly or implicitly."

No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.

Jaakko wrote: Which brings us to a slightly longer quote form the end of Le Joueur's message (by the way, which should I use, Le Joueur or Mr. Langford?):

Le Joueur wrote: You're missing my point. As I stated earlier, it would be hard for adults to play 'make believe' without falling into the social convention training they received in becoming adults. That is by far the biggest difference I have witnessed in actual play. Rules (arguably an 'unnecessary evil') are just an explicit extension of this social convention. The requirement of the social convention is, in my mind, the requirement for systemic approach.

Now the problem I have using our LARP play test as an example of 'going without the gamemaster' is that you can say that it is not role-playing gaming because of your definition. At this point we simply have to 'agree to disagree,' on the grounds of the 'chicken and egg' paradox. Otherwise, I could show that since role-playing games only occur with systems in place (social convention at the least), but without gamemasters (in our play test), the systemic approach is the only valid one.

As for 'kindergarten role-playing games,' I have seen them happen. I have seen them happen in the absence of an overseer. This is because I rate the difference between role-playing games and 'make believe' as the systemic approach; in fact, more often then not I see 'kindergarten role-playing games' break down due to inexperience with social contract. At that point play resorts to the usual anarchy of 'make believe.' So you can clearly see how we are not going to 'prove' anything to each other.

You use 'system' in two meanings as well. First you say, that children have a system in place (and I wholeheartedly agree with this), but then you say that you use of a systemic approach somehow differentiates you from the children.

Ok, it could be that my command of the English language fails me here and I do not understand the difference between a system and systemic something. Or maybe your definitions for the terms stem from a tradition I am unfamiliar with.

Yes, the younger the children, the less developed is their internalization of cultural meanings and 'proper' social conduct. This I can agree with, but if you really think that the fact that a role-playing game is somehow special because it has an enunciated system, then I must agree that we need to 'agree to disagree'.

Jaakko wrote: DEFINING RPGS

I enquired about the definition of role-playing games from the systemic point of view:

Le Joueur wrote: I actually get this question a lot. It's pretty simple, but you've cut away the relevant quote. The difference is that participants take a 'first person' thinking-in-context role in the game. Besides, nothing separates role-playing games from games in general, because they are games. What separates Risk and Monopoly from role-playing games is that you are not offered the option to think-in-context in the play of those. (And while it's true that some people lean heavily away from thinking-in-context play, instead using something called 'token play,' the exception rather proves the rule.)

I do not find this definition a very good one. You seem to say that role-playing games are "games where one has the option to think-in-context". This probably covers all RPGs out there, but it also covers a lot of other stuff, even if we leave the 'option' part away. The term 'game' is not very well defined. "Life is a game." The context the participants are thinking in need to be shared or somehow moderated. Depending on the definition for the word 'game' this definition would label improv theater, child's play, psychotherapy, MUDs, choose your own adventure-books as RPG. Indeed books, movies and theater all have systems and offer the possibility for thinking in context.

I am the first to say that our definition has its problems, but it is the best one that I have seen.

Jaakko wrote: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GAMEMASTER

Le Joueur wrote: Referee

This is the on-the-spot arbiter of player disputes.

Game Originator(s)

This is where the set up comes from, background, mechanics choice, character slots, non-player characters (which are assigned to players and to use as they see fit), and the whole shebang. This ends the instant play begins.

Agitator

Someone who is kept abreast of the major goings on and introduces 'agitation' in areas that are losing the players' interest or becoming overwhelming.

Site maintenance

Basically the 'host' providing location, arrangements, scheduling of the events, 'room' sign-out and logging, prop sign-out (props also include in-game resources that do not necessarily have physical manifestation), check-in & out, and attendance

Recruitment and Customer Service

To get more players and resolve complaints.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You have a drastically different gaming culture from the one I am accustomed to.

When you say that the referee [arbitrates] the player disputes, do you mean that the gamemaster has power over the actual players? Also, I would never have thought of including customer service as a job for the gamemaster. My version of the list would look something like this:

Gatekeeper

Divines what actually happens in the diegetic frame. Usually passes power to players. If players have different views as to what happened or happens in the game world (what is true) the GM has final say.


Producer

Decides to have a game. Invites the right players to the game. Arranges the place where the game takes place. Takes care that the necessary equipment will be present (books, computers, dice, character sheets, music, props - this is often delegated).


World

Answers any and all questions about the world that the characters might have (provided that the characters have access to that information). Takes care of and represents all moving parts of the world (people, animals, weather, institutions etc). This includes creating the backstory and setting for the game as well as approving the characters.


Auteur

Tells a story, conveys a theme or paints a vision through the game. This can be an artistic goal, a dramatic story or just the framework for having fun.

Jaakko wrote: In Knutpunkt 2002 I gave a presentation on Genre and Style in role-playing games. In that context I defined the responsibilities of the gamemaster a bit differently.
1) Offer a game that stays true to his vision
2) Communicate his vision to the players
-Type of the Game
-Rules of the Game
-Expected preparations regarding the Game
-Level of freedom in creative input to the shared frame of the Game
3) Handle practical arrangements on time
4) Choose suitable players to the Game

The list is obviously constructed from a practical point of view, not a theoretical.

The agitator role that you create seems the most artificial to me. World simulation (especially Turku style, see for example <http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/>) doesn't require the world to act.

Jaakko wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Are you then saying that in the absence of the gamemaster, the diegetic frame fails? I hardly think that is true given player commitment to it.

Without a gamemaster nothing new can be incorporated into the diegetic frame. If there is no one to introduce new elements, answer question and so forth the frame will become barren. If the players invent stuff, then either there is a consensus and everyone accepts anything that someone introduces into the frame and we have a storytelling session in our hands and not a RPG. Another possibility is that the players agree as to what is appropriate, then either one (or few) of them need to adopt GM roles and rule over the frame. Third option is to negotiate in a democratic manner over every small thing. This committee exercise would be collective storytelling again in my book.

Yes, the game can run for a while without a gamemaster, but it imposes non-diegetic restrictions to the diegetic world (a character can not look outside a window because there is no one to describe what the world outside looks like). This is also a problem with a lot of computer games &#8211; the characters can not just decide to have a picnic in the middle of Max Payne even if there is no diegetic reason why this couldn't be done.

Jaakko wrote: GAMEMASTER

Le Joueur wrote: This is really a poor argument to say that because you use them, even though you don't need to, that gamemasters are required. If anything, the implication that they cannot be everywhere and are not required to intervene, virtually proves that they are not necessary.

Now you are looking at just one part of our model. In order to have a working definition, we need to define every term we use. Every gamer know intuitively what a role-playing game is, what gamemastering means and so forth. The problem is that if we want to use these terms in an academic context we need to define them accurately. This is what we have attempted. We have tried to define every term so that they are as close to their intuitive meanings as possible, but still be valid tools for analytical work (meaning that the definitions will not include anything and everything).

In a previous posting I mentioned the biggest problems we have with the model, the borderline cases, so to speak. One more point could be added to that list: gamer resistance. Walt has already commented that we shouldn't use terms that are already in use, that we should invent new words for everything. The problem is, that we are attempting to define role-playing and not outline a completely new thing. (No, we do not expect that gamers in general will adopt our definitions, but we offer these definitions as tools for people who are inclined to look at things from a more analytical or even academic point of view. And yes, we are looking forward to competing definitions and models.)

This means that our definitions are not the same ones people have grown accustomed to. We have done our best to include everything that need including and exclude everything else.

Jaakko wrote: To do this we need to define gamemaster as a person who has the power over the diegetic frame. Why? Because on a theoretical level the gamemaster must have this power, because power such as we have described is used by gamemasters all over the planet. Of course, not every GM uses the power, but still if we want to include those subject positions in the same box with the subject positions that include reckless usage of power, we need to have this definition.

Jaakko wrote: This is the first time I have run into opposition, which demands the inclusion of a requirement for a system in the definition.

Good to see you made it back, Jakko!

Jakko wrote: There is an intuitive difference between these two modes of gaming, but it is very, very difficult (at least to me) to verbalize a clear definition that I can stand by. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that larp and traditional are modes of gaming.

greyorm wrote: Your definition, that someone with power over all events in game, is all that is required for something to be an RPG has similar problem: what then separates an RPG from a play with a director?

Excuse me, but did you actually read the paper? It can be found here.

Tell me this didn't just happen....

Jaakko: Role-playing games without gamemasters go kerflooie!

Fang: Not always; besides, you don't need to elminate failure, for it doesn't count.

That can't be what the argument was, could it?

Dang Langford

Hi y’all! It’s very refreshing to find new people to discuss RPG theory intelligently with.

To introduce myself, I’ll just say that I come from much the same roleplaying tradition as Jaakko and Hakkis, but don’t agree with all of the things in their model. You can read some of my more provocative thoughts on the same subject at http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/

And now to the comments. If I seem rude, it’s the cultural differences.

One very important difference of opinion seems to be whether the players grant power to the GM, or the GM to the players. In Finland it’s understood that a game is the GM’s work, responsibility and divine right. You write the game, you organize the game, you have the power. The game is not there for the entertainment of the players, the players are there to give their very best in playing the character so as to realize the GM’s vision. (Ideally the vision doesn’t dictate the actions of the PCs.)


Le Joueur:

“If a group of players who come to a club decide to play a LARP and they only have one, the 'gatekeeper function' is too dispersed to say that it exists.”

This is a good example of that difference. In Finland you wouldn’t idly go through your bookshelf and see which LARP you’d like to play today. A GM would spend months writing it, and then graciously inviting a special handful of players to participate.

It’s been said that the players often ruin an otherwise perfect game.

The same goes for table-tops, as well. Although some beer-and-pretzels sort of games are played in Forgotten Realms or the World of Darkness, most ambitious games are set in a campaign world created by the GM. Using mechanics developed by the GM to suit this particular world and style.


“A gamemaster can offer you a system or setting, but you don't have to take it.”

That’s right. If you don’t like it, you can go home. Usually the GMs known for their unique and interesting vision have a problem of having too many players in their hands anyway, so it’s not a great loss.


Btw, your example of the LARP test was very similar in many ways to typical Finnish LARPs. If there had been a GM, she would’ve played all the characters the PCs might’ve contacted via cellphone or whatever. If there had been cellphones. If not, the GM would typically sit back and relax.


“1) if any role-playing game exists where the gamemaster is never called upon to intervene it proves 2) that gamemasters cannot be a requirement of a "descriptive definition."”

In most of our LARPs the GM would never be called upon to intervene. However, she always could if she’d want to. Incidentally, I would also consider a player using diegetic power over another player (“My character levitates two feet in the air.”) using the GM power. This could happen even if the game doesn’t include supernatural elements. Since in every LARP there is the possibility that a PC would do something the player is for some reason not willing to do (kill himself, kill someone else, have sex with someone, drink someone’s pee…) they must reserve the chance to use GM power.


Jaakko:
“No matter where we are there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.”
Le Joueur:
“Sure they can; in fact, I'd go so far as to say these make a better descriptive definition than just saying 'the gamemaster is "the defining thing about role-playing games."' If you have something with a gamemaster but no roles, is it a role-playing game? “

What I believe Jaakko is saying is that roles exist in all social situations, just as systems do. Thus they don’t make a roleplaying game special -- according to their postmodernist definitions.


“We created the Agitator, because one thing we observed in LARPs is when play slows to a stop because no one has any initiative they wish to pursue; the Agitator is there to prevent that.”

Do you consider the action to be the most important part of a LARP? Because I (as the main Turku guy) consider it to be just the topping -- the really interesting things happen beneath the surface. Experiencing through your character the act of watching the clouds, relaxing before the big fight or trying to win your depression can be just as interesting as searching for the hidden treasure or fighting a nasty orc.


“I still have to question whether or not the diegetic frame needs to be controlled by an individual.“

Aren’t they saying just the opposite? That the diegetic frame is controlled by anyone with the GM power? And that it’s possible to have games where lots of different people may adopt this power, even at the same time.

However, I think calling them gamemasters is a bit misleading, since a GM indicates a single person. Perhaps it would be more productive to simply talk about the power to control the diegesis, which is typically used by the GM?


Mike Pohjola

Greetings, Mike, and welcome to the Forge!

Revontuli wrote: One very important difference of opinion seems to be whether the players grant power to the GM, or the GM to the players. In Finland it’s understood that a game is the GM’s work, responsibility and divine right. You write the game, you organize the game, you have the power. The game is not there for the entertainment of the players, the players are there to give their very best in playing the character so as to realize the GM’s vision. (Ideally the vision doesn’t dictate the actions of the PCs.)

greyorm wrote:
Honestly, if the GM wants to write a story, he should write a story, not force a bunch of people through his creation, demanding they make sacrifices for his "art."

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the Forge! Since most of your attributions are aimed at me, I'll try and give a proper response. First of all, however, I'd like to start by suggesting that both of our perceptions of role-playing games are equally valid. Because of "the chicken and the egg" (As in, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?") relationship between them, I doubt that either can be 'proven' over the other.

The one singular reason I posted on Jaakko's thread, and the only problem I have with it, is that the Meilahti School paper distinguishes itself as being an attempt at a descriptive and not normative definition¹. It clearly states, "We see gamemasters as a necessity." As I have demonstrated time and again, this is not universally the case. As their position is not universal, their definition cannot be descriptive, but must be thought of as normative.

The principal "chicken and egg" discussion that has gotten going here is whether the players, as a whole, cede power to a central figure, the gamemaster, or if the gamemaster grants temporary power to the players. Before we get any farther into my point, it must be made clear that neither makes any difference. Whomever the power comes from, simply saying that a gamemaster is necessary is normative and not descriptive.

Revontuli wrote: One very important difference of opinion seems to be whether the players grant power to the GM, or the GM to the players. In Finland it’s understood that a game is the GM’s work, responsibility and divine right. You write the game, you organize the game, [and] you have the power. The game is not there for the entertainment of the players; the players are there to give their very best in playing the character so as to realize the GM’s vision. (Ideally the vision doesn’t dictate the actions of the PCs.)

Revontuli wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: If a group of players who come to a club decide to play a LARP and they only have one, the 'gatekeeper function' is too dispersed to say that it exists.

This is a good example of that difference. In Finland you wouldn’t idly go through your bookshelf and see which LARP you’d like to play today. A GM would spend months writing it, and then graciously inviting a special handful of players to participate.

Revontuli wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 1) if any role-playing game exists where the gamemaster is never called upon to intervene it proves 2) that gamemasters cannot be a requirement of a "descriptive definition.

In most of our LARPs the GM would never be called upon to intervene. However, she always could if she’d want to. Incidentally, I would also consider a player using diegetic power over another player ("My character levitates two feet in the air.") using the GM power. This could happen even if the game doesn’t include supernatural elements. Since in every LARP there is the possibility that a PC would do something the player is for some reason not willing to do (kill himself, kill someone else, have sex with someone, drink someone’s pee…) they must reserve the chance to use GM power.

Revontuli wrote:

Jaakko wrote: No matter where we are, there are always roles and rule systems present. Always. So those things cannot be used as the separating factor when defining role-playing games.

Le Joueur wrote: Sure they can; in fact, I'd go so far as to say these make a better descriptive definition than just saying 'the gamemaster is "the defining thing about role-playing games."' If you have something with a gamemaster but no roles, is it a role-playing game?

What I believe Jaakko is saying is that roles exist in all social situations, just as systems do. Thus they don’t make a role-playing game special -- according to their postmodernist definitions.

Revontuli wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: We created the Agitator, because one thing we observed in LARPs is when play slows to a stop because no one has any initiative they wish to pursue; the Agitator is there to prevent that.

Do you consider the action to be the most important part of a LARP? Because I (as the main Turku guy) consider it to be just the topping -- the really interesting things happen beneath the surface. Experiencing through your character the act of watching the clouds, relaxing before the big fight or trying to win your depression can be just as interesting as searching for the hidden treasure or fighting a nasty orc.

Revontuli wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I still have to question whether or not the diegetic frame needs to be controlled by an individual.

Aren’t they saying just the opposite? That the diegetic frame is controlled by anyone with the GM power? And that it’s possible to have games where lots of different people may adopt this power, even at the same time.

Revontuli wrote: However, I think calling them gamemasters is a bit misleading, since a GM indicates a single person. Perhaps it would be more productive to simply talk about the power to control the diegesis, which is typically used by the GM?

However, I think the game master does have the power to dictate PC actions without immediate explanation.

Much is going on in the world the PCs aren't aware of, after all. (But in an ideal situation this wouldn't be over-used, and PC actions would have consequences.)

I'm simply advocating strict adherence to the diegesis. Put simply, players shouldn't have their characters do something they wouldn't do just because...

But note that in those cases you are the auteur, the creator. And when your work is finished the audience will get to see it. RPGs don’t work that way.