Hey Ron,

High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge = entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge, but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this.

Hi Marco,

Because there's still "winning." The text is contradictory because it says Role-playing is not about winning, and then it says, You win or lose as a team.

I call that a textual contradiction. It's not a contradiction if you, the reader, insert the qualifer "against one another" into the first clause and "against the GM's situation" into the second. Pehaps these insertions are automatic for you, Marco, but they're simply not present in many the texts. Problems based on interpreting them differently are very common in the history of playing D&D in all of its forms, excepting the latest one.

Also, I think a great deal of intra-team competition arises during what looks like, or is officially scored as, inter-team competition. The intra-team competition may involve tangibles (who bats the best) or intangibles (who gets the best color coverage by the announcers). Does this have to happen? No. Does it, very often? Yes. That's why it's a dial in my model.

Best,
Ron

Okay: This is your quote from the Gamism article

... while board games and wargames have winners and losers, role-playing games do not. Rather than being competitive, role-playing games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose as a team.

Marco,

All the text is right in what you're quoting, from Zody.

Zody writes, "... while board games and wargames have winners and losers, role-playing games do not."

Pause. Full stop. Breathe deep.

Zody then writes, "... the players all work together and win or lose as a team."

Can't be both, man. First phrase says, "No winning/losing here." Second one says, "This is how you win or lose here."

You wrote,

nowhere does he say "Role-playing is not about winning" (your quote from above).

Ron Edwards wrote:

"No winning/losing here."

...

This is me, staring at you. You quoted the exact phrase in which he says that very thing. Your mass/singular distinction is inserted by you, as a reader. I think it's a correct insertion, i.e., what Zody probably means, but it's not actually present in the text.

Here's my response, then: "H'm. Interesting point. Thanks for reading the article, and keep on role-playing!"

Best,
Ron

Contridictory may be a little strong a word. Confusing is better. In one sentence, Zody says that RPGs do not have winners or losers. A sentence later, he says that RPGs do have winners and losers. The gist of the intervening sentence is the distinction that in RPGs the players can will or lose as a group rather than individually. Meaning that could be arrived at with some minor rephrasing without the possibility of confusion.

The point is, if you say something does not have X but spend the next two sentences expaining how it does, in fact have X is contridiction. A simple addition would have fixed this:

... while board games and wargames have winners and losers, role-playing games do not in the same sense. Rather than being competitive, role-playing games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose as a team.

I think that the key you guys are missing here is that Ron is saying that it is a TEXTUAL controdiction, not a CONTEXTUAL controdiction. The TEXT has a controdiction, ie: the exact words are logically inconsistant. He is not saying that he thinks that the meaning is controdictory. The problem is that while you and I and Ron may infer that the author is changing the subject in midthought (from individual to group), he (the author) does not state that, and other people may interprit differently than we do. Context and meaning are subjective, and that TEXT-U-AL controdiction can be a big problem. It is a controdiction, by definition, but only in the TEXT, the meaning is up to you as the reader.....and THAT is the problem.

Roleplaying =A
about Winning = B
as a Team =C

Roleplaying is not about winning
A is NOT/NEVER B - period, no qualifier

Roleplaying is about winning as a team
A IS about B, in C

so we have 1) A is NOT/NEVER B and 2) A IS B, as C
these are logically controdictory

Now you as the reader can insert: "between players" = D

A is NOT/ NEVER B, in D
however
A IS B, in C

now that is not controdictory, but YOU had to make that insertion, what if you didn't? There is nothing in the TEXT that says you should. That, my friends, is wherein lies the rub.

I took a long hard look at this.

I think the "rub" is that the paraphrases that are being used to distill the meaning of the text are *way* less ambiguous than the text itself ("There's no winning here." Okay, case closed. Yeah, but that's not what he said.)

After looking it up, I believe that "winners" is a count-noun and therefore it's proper grammar to say "while board games and wargames have winners and losers, role-playing games do not."

That places him as either speaking in the mass-singular or the plural.

I see no way to tell the difference from that one sentence in a vacuum.

So it boils down to grammar. To argue that it's contradictory you've *gotta* argue that the use of the mass-singular is incorrect. It may be--I wasn't able to find any evidence to that effect.

If you can't do that the closest you get is unclear and then you have to explain yourself for the rest of the passage. Which everyone agrees makes it pretty clear.

-Marco

I think that the point that he could be making (and that we could be missing) is where the payoff actually is. If he feels that the payoff, or reward if you prefer, is in group entertainment then we could 'win' as a group; but not 'win' in individual play.

does that make sense?

Marco, I'm not sure I understand exactly what your argument is, perhaps you could clarify. You seem to be disagreeing with the argument that the text is contradictory. Is this your intention? What exactly is your position in regards to this text and your disagreement with Ron's statement?

Exactly: my disagrement is with the statement that "the text is contradictory."

The first sentence is ambiguous: Zody may be saying "no one wins in an RPG" or he may be saying "there is no single winner in the sense of a board game."

When he says 'board games have winners' he may be refering to the plural (a boardgame has many winners) or the mass-singular (a board game has one winner).

It's not clear which he means. To argue that it *is* clear which he means, I think you have to argue against the existence of the mass-singular case in the English language or that "winner" may not be properly used in such a case (which it can be, as a count noun).

The fact that there is no clarifying clause in the first sentece does *not* make it contradictory.

It makes it ambiguous

Until you get to the next two sentences.

At which point it's crystal clear.

-Marco

The discussion has become an arguement over semantic. Pity.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The discussion has become an arguement over semantic. Pity.

Marco wrote:
I think a whole lot of what gets discussed here is based on a semantic interpertation of rule-book text. Did anyone really think that Zody's passage, taken as a whole, wasn't pretty clear?

Hmm ...

Well, blunt you were but I've still got some questions. It's not that I see competion and cooperation as two complete opposites that could never co-exist. It's that to me he makes it clear that all the players are on the same team. I *do* read the first sentence as a contrast between board-games and RPG's--and an important point to make to people familiar with only the former.

Take me through it sentence by sentence:

Do you read the first sentece as "no winning or losing here" and then get confused by the last two?

Does the middle one (competition vs. cooperation) just not parse for you ("They're not exclusive!?")?

Does the last one make no sense ("if we win, the game is over!")?

I'm honestly curious.

How would you, in 3 sentences or less, describe to someone familiar with, say, monopoly and team-sports, the concept of playing as a team and winning in a traditional AD&D (or whatever) game, y'know, without specialized jargon?

-Marco

It's not so much that the particular passage is annoying. It's that it's indicative of the sort of muddled thinking that RPG authors often use in design. In addition to the passage in question, I'd be surprised to find that a text with that sort of claim in it wasn't itself actually confused in other parts of it's design and presentation.

For example, such a text may have conflicting rules regarding experience for beating up mosters, and for playing characters well. Saying that one ought to do what the character would do, but also do what it takes to win. The basic Gam/Sim Incoherence problem.

Since the introductory text doesn't clarify what to do, and the system doesn't clarify, it's just potentially confusing to a group without a unified mode via tradition. Now, does that mean that this particular text overall is unclear? I can't say. But I've read lots of games that have this problem, and worse seen them degenerate to unplayability because of the problems caused because the text didn't do anything to prevent them.

It occurs to me that the thread in Actual Play right now dealing with the Dysfnctional game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7060) may be about the sort of Incoherence we're talking about here. One player has a Gamist slant and others have a Sim slant (they refer to the player as Min/Maxing as though it were a pejorative term), and they all feel justified in how they're playing. In fact they aren't even communicating about it. I'm guessing that the system that they're playing isn't doing anything to help, legitimizing both modes of play in ways that are conflicting horribly.

If you can "interperet" what these authors are trying to say despite their terms being literally contradictory, then why are you having so much trouble with the simple concept that Ron is espousing, attacking every single terms without interperetation? Aren't you holding Ron to a different standard by harping on one word and what you believe he must have meant (despite him being here and telling you otherwise)?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
It occurs to me that the thread in Actual Play right now dealing with the Dysfnctional game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7060) may be about the sort of Incoherence we're talking about here. One player has a Gamist slant and others have a Sim slant (they refer to the player as Min/Maxing as though it were a pejorative term), and they all feel justified in how they're playing. In fact they aren't even communicating about it. I'm guessing that the system that they're playing isn't doing anything to help, legitimizing both modes of play in ways that are conflicting horribly.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
If you can "interperet" what these authors are trying to say despite their terms being literally contradictory, then why are you having so much trouble with the simple concept that Ron is espousing, attacking every single terms without interperetation? Aren't you holding Ron to a different standard by harping on one word and what you believe he must have meant (despite him being here and telling you otherwise)?

Mike

Marco,

First point - well, it's only the last, maybe, five years (a while before joining in the discussions at GO that brought me to the Forge) that I'd even look at text like this with a critical eye.

That said - RIGHT NOW, here's the sentence by sentence rundown of my reaction:

" . . . role-playing games do not." Well, RPGs are different than board/war games, but they *can* be about winning and losing. What's this trying to say?

"Competitive vs cooperative." Well, coopertative is particularly important for RPGs - a particular KIND of cooperative, I'd say. And competitive is an entirely seperate question, but I seem to react to it differently than most people - guess I'll ignore that. Still - "we don't work against each other, we face danger together" - maybe that's what this is trying to say. Some RPG groups will HATE that . . .

" . . win and lose as a team." Is the GM included in this? Is this talking about teamwork to acheive victory vs. an in-game challenge or "winning" as "everyone has fun"?

I don't know - I can play a wargame with a team of folks, against another team or even just against "the game" - I can play Quake as part of a team against the computer, or another team, or as a free-for-all against the other players - just WHAT (if anything) is this passage trying to say is, like, a defining characteristic of RPG play and only RPG play?

Allowing myself to get creative and make some assumptions about your last question . . . If the point of this passage is ONLY to distinguish between "traditional" RPG "us vs. the game, as moderated by the GM" play and a game of Monopoly, how about something like "instead of playing against each other, you'll be working together against the challenges posed by the GM. Think of it as Monopoly where someone else owns all the properties, and you and your friends have to join forces to get 'em away from him."

Now, that's a very particular kind of RPG play, and I think the passge is intended to cover MORE than just that style of play - but my best analysis of the particular passage leaves it as applying ONLY to that style.

Gordon

One way to do that is to take responsibility for one's own interpertation when text seems paradoxical (rather than assuming the author is 'muddled')

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Marco,

First point - well, it's only the last, maybe, five years (a while before joining in the discussions at GO that brought me to the Forge) that I'd even look at text like this with a critical eye.

That said - RIGHT NOW, here's the sentence by sentence rundown of my reaction:

" . . . role-playing games do not." Well, RPGs are different than board/war games, but they *can* be about winning and losing. What's this trying to say?

"Competitive vs cooperative." Well, coopertative is particularly important for RPGs - a particular KIND of cooperative, I'd say. And competitive is an entirely seperate question, but I seem to react to it differently than most people - guess I'll ignore that. Still - "we don't work against each other, we face danger together" - maybe that's what this is trying to say. Some RPG groups will HATE that . . .

" . . win and lose as a team." Is the GM included in this? Is this talking about teamwork to acheive victory vs. an in-game challenge or "winning" as "everyone has fun"?

I don't know - I can play a wargame with a team of folks, against another team or even just against "the game" - I can play Quake as part of a team against the computer, or another team, or as a free-for-all against the other players - just WHAT (if anything) is this passage trying to say is, like, a defining characteristic of RPG play and only RPG play?

Allowing myself to get creative and make some assumptions about your last question . . . If the point of this passage is ONLY to distinguish between "traditional" RPG "us vs. the game, as moderated by the GM" play and a game of Monopoly, how about something like "instead of playing against each other, you'll be working together against the challenges posed by the GM. Think of it as Monopoly where someone else owns all the properties, and you and your friends have to join forces to get 'em away from him."

Now, that's a very particular kind of RPG play, and I think the passge is intended to cover MORE than just that style of play - but my best analysis of the particular passage leaves it as applying ONLY to that style.

Gordon

Marco wrote:
One point of note: I liked your text--however when you got to the GM part, you might be read as casting him as an adversarial land-lord hoarding the treasure against the players (and still perhaps in possesion of the traditional power split)--that could be read a lot of different ways too, no?

As a long-standing critic of the use of the term competition, I find myself mostly comfortable with the present context. I don't think it is meaningful to claim team games are not competitive; clearly they are at the team level. In most team games done outside of the closed RPG group, there is often a second layer of cpmetition about being selected for the team in the first place.

All that said I do like the team rock climbing scenario, although I fear we have been round this loop before. I agree that the rock is not fighting back, but I also attempt that we often, let us say choose, to see ourselves in "competition" with inanimate objects. Additionally, a good argument can be made that certain kinds of competition (mortal ones) requires objectification of the opposition.

I can accept the use of competition in the context of team activities; I think it is unfortunate that this will however still tend to be interpreted as individual on individual competition, because I think that concept does badly distort the picture of what happens in RPG.

Contracycle's description of challenges that are not strictly competitive reminded me of an idea that might be a big enough box to contain the conepts of "competition," "challenge" and "winners v. losers."

I came across a good description of the pleasure people take in having their wills opposed, be it by another person who engages them in conflict, or by an non-sentient object that presents a challenge (to use two terms that have come up again and again in this discussion of Gamism.)

One can win by overcoming an unpredictable opponent, or one can lose. You don't have to lose to another player or lose to the GM to experience the excitement (and frustration) of interaction.


http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/darkside.html

Interaction can only take place where there is a perceived disrepancy of volition. The child throws the ball, declaring, "You go away!" The ball bounces back; in the child's view, the ball answers, "No, I'll come back!" The various angles, energies, and spins with which the ball bounces back are perceived by the child as manifestations of its volition. After much experimentation, the child induces the laws of physics that determine the ball's behavior. This triggers a fundamental shift in the child's perception of the ball. It is no longer an agent with free will, capable of interacting with the child, but instead an inanimate object reacting according to understandable rules. The ball is left lying on the floor as the child seeks out new agents with which to interact.