This was originally going to be a reply to the RPGs and related media thread, but I'm going to talk about all kinds of things that would most likely derail that thread, so I'm starting a new one.

I am dangerously close to attempting to define roleplaying games again. I want to preface all of this with a "this is what Jack thinks and any pretense at it being definitive is purely inside my own little mind." It is my perspective on the matter. If anyone happens to agree then, well, that's just dandy.

The basic principle of roleplaying is the Lumpley Principle. The phrasing I prefer is "The system is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement as-to what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space." I simply love this. It touches on so many things in one neat, little package.

I'd like to focus on the shared imagined space. Many other mediums make use of the shared imagined space. Literature first build this space in the author's mind who then commits it to paper. The reader then rebuilds this space in their own mind. Stephin King refered to this to as telepathy. In a way, it is a form of commicating from mind to mind. This is a one way form of communication from mind to mind. Stage also makes use of the imaginative space, but the medium takes pains to physically build the space on the the stage. There's an odd similarity to this and wargaming. There's more in the world than what's on stage, yet there is nothing but what's on stage. Film and television makes a window that we peek into the shared space.

In these three medium, control over what goes into or goes on in the shared imagined space is finite. Only the author says what is in the book. The playwrite and production company decide what goes on stage. The filmakers decide what appears on the screen. However, in roleplaying the players are both author and audience. This is why consensus or agreement is important. If it doesn't happen, then the participants are simply acting separately. If the shared space splinters off into the separate individual imaginations, is this roleplaying? I don't know, but to my way of thinking it isn't. The Lumpley Principle is the foundational principle of roleplaying. Roleplaying uses a shared imagined space, like many other media. Because all of the participants can have an exercise control over this space, consensus and agreement must be developed. Consensus isn't necessary for an individual, therefore it is a social activity. The rest of what is commonly know as RPGs is built upon this. Much like my old building a house analogy.

Now in the other media thread linked at the top of this post, Mike Holmes said something interesting:

Mike Holmes wrote: In an RPG, the player can have his controlled elements do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, and there are rules to cover that.

John Kim wrote: For example, if the combat rules don't allow throwing dirt in someone's face, well, you can't do that.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The basic principle of roleplaying is the Lumpley Principle. The phrasing I prefer is "The system is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement as-to what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space." I simply love this. It touches on so many things in one neat, little package.

simon_hibbs wrote: As a result, I don't think it can realy tel us much about roleplaying games in particular.

The #3 case (no rule) does not exist at all. Or, rather, my point made in context to the Lumpley principle. The rules comprise the system. There is always an authority on what happens. Quite often the rule about what happens in the case of dirt-throwing, or what have you is "the GM decides".

This is not a very "mechanical" rule, but it's the only sort of rule, for instance, that you have in freeform games. Often the rules simply say that someone gets to choose by fiat, and these are part of what I was refering to in my statement.

So to clarify my statement:
In an RPG, the player can have his controlled elements do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, and the system delineates the method by which the results of the action are determined.

Is that better?

Mike

Perhaps, Mike, but I see a line between the system and the rules, or what I refered to as the contraption. "The GM decides" is more a part of system than rules (although there's a wonderful nitpicky arguement about whether defining a GM is part of the rules or system or social contract and whether that makes the entire statement such)

As a comparison, for the Intellivision game Space Hawk, the programmers had a problem with the game triggering the hyperspace. It turned out be a issue which there was not software solution, so they fell back on the axiom: "If you document it, it's not a bug -- it's a feature" and put a short paragraph in the manual to cover the problem. The Atari 2600 version of Berzerk had a similar issue with occasionally you would shoot a robot but it wouldn't die on the first shot, but would on the second. The manual said it was "super robot" that looked like any other robot but it took two shots to die.

"The GM decides" is a similar patch fix, although not exactly the same because "the GM decides" is a part of the system. System is the foundation and the rules are the structure built on top of it. Writing down the foundation does not suddenly make it part of the structure, any more than writing down "speak in a language the other players can understand" or "use the pointy end of the pencil that makes marks to write on the character sheet" would make that part of the rules.

I think we are probably going to disagree about this, Mike. Especially in freeform, which I say has system yet not real rules beyond what the players may or may not make, and even then, there may not be anything permanent

Um, my clarification doesn't say anything about rules. Precisely to avoid this part of the conversation that you're trying to have. In terms of the topic you raised, it doesn't matter one whit. What I meant was what you're calling system. So I'm now using your term. So let's move on, shall we?

You're not saying that people don't understand the systems that they're using, are you?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: You're not saying that people don't understand the systems that they're using, are you?

Mike Holmes wrote: Quite often the rule about what happens in the case of dirt-throwing, or what have you is "the GM decides".

...and the system delineates the method by which the results of the action are determined.

The rules comprise the system

Uh, that's great. We disagree about that. Whatever.

Now, for purposes of this discussion, let's say that you're right. Not that it makes any difference, but let's assume that for now. Look at the revised version of the statement with the term system inserted instead of rules. Now, do you agree with the statement, or disagree? Why?

Mike

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Looking at John's example of throwing dirt in an opponent's face, there are a couple possibilities. 1) The game may have a rule for it, possibly a bonus or a penalty for the appropriate party, possibly being about to gain this advantage is the result of a "critical" and can only be attempted should the dice go your way. 2) Throwing may not be explictly defined, but there is already a precident so that a judgement can be made. 3) There is no rule and no similar rule to make any form of decision at all. In 2 & 3, if the player attempts to throw dirt, the authority (often GM) could decide to allow this move or to deny it. What is important is that the player can try.

I'd agree that when there is a rule that says that players have to stick to a narrowly defined set of choices, that it's a wargame. But almost no LARP would fall under this convention. Because, they do have a generalized systematic way (see, I'm avoiding that term rule), in which general actions not covered by the more mechanistic rules are handled. And that is merely the notion that, whatever the player does, the character does. So, for instance, there are no constraints on what a character can say. The system says that if the player said it, the character said it. If the player says that they threw dirt in the other PCs face, well then it might not have another mechanical effect, but it can certainly have social effects. Basically, the player can still have the character do "anything" and there's a method for determining the "in-game" effects.

Take monpoly as the usual counter-example. Nowhere in that system of play is it stated or implied that the guy playing the dog can bite the hat (even if their in the same space!). There is simply no way to adjudicate what would happen. In a Monopoly RPG, even one without specific "rules" per Jack's definition, there Lumpley principle is in effect, and people understand that someone has the authority to decide what the event looks like in-game. In a LARP, it's simply, whatever the player does, physically.

Any clearer? The "GM decides" is only one possible system device for determining what happens in all cases not covered by more specific and mechanicstic rules, and was only meant as an example.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Take monpoly as the usual counter-example. Nowhere in that system of play is it stated or implied that the guy playing the dog can bite the hat (even if their in the same space!). There is simply no way to adjudicate what would happen. In a Monopoly RPG, even one without specific "rules" per Jack's definition, there Lumpley principle is in effect, and people understand that someone has the authority to decide what the event looks like in-game. In a LARP, it's simply, whatever the player does, physically.

OK, Mike. You're right. Sorry. I wasn't thinking. Yes I do agree with your clarification. It is actually two statements. You can attempt anything in terms of what things really are. You may wish to work this into another prionciple. The second part is just reconfirming the lumpley principle from yet another angle.

It gets sticky with rules, though, because rules don't always work in terms of what things are, and can disallow prefectly reasonable actions, such as the old D&D magic-users cannot use swords. Hence why I perfer to draw a distinction between rules and system, but I do admit that this line can be blurred.

Um, if you guys replace "system" and/or "rules" in your previous discussion with the much broader term "social contract," it might fix a few of your problems/disagreements. Or are we to take "system" to just mean "social contract" here, including all the stated and unstated rules that make up player interactions? Personally, I think if you modify Jack's version of the Lumpley Principal to talk about the social contract, it becomes more helpful as an arrow towards the definition of roleplaying.

An aside, has anyone every considered how "Who's Line is it Anyway?" is a roleplaying game (according to just about any definition)? Everyone, from Clive/Drew to the improvisors themselves to the people in the audience making suggestions... they're all involved in the social contract of a LARP, with the Moderator holding many of the responsibilities that a GM would. Even the kind of competative-but-the-points-don't-matter philosophy is roleplaying all over (xf. Gamism essay). They compete in a way that's cooperative but still try to show each other up. I think any definition of roleplaying has to include something like "Who's Line." But that may be a thought for another thread...

Jonathan Walton wrote: Um, if you guys replace "system" and/or "rules" in your previous discussion with the much broader term "social contract," it might fix a few of your problems/disagreements. Or are we to take "system" to just mean "social contract" here, including all the stated and unstated rules that make up player interactions? Personally, I think if you modify Jack's version of the Lumpley Principal to talk about the social contract, it becomes more helpful as an arrow towards the definition of roleplaying.

An aside, has anyone every considered how "Who's Line is it Anyway?" is a roleplaying game (according to just about any definition)?

But that may be a thought for another thread...

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: How about this, then. There's the social contract. There's the rules System = social contract + rules.

EDIT: Actually, upon though how about system = where the social contract & rules meet?

What do you think?

Hey Jonathan.

Initially I was thinking these lines, but then I recalled that there's other stuff in the social contract, such as who collects the money for the pizza or who answers the door when the delivery guy comes, which has nothing to do with play. I suppose we could build on this further.

"The roleplaying social contract is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement about what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space."

With this addition we know we're talking about what effects play, and not stuff like who helps clean up afterwards.

John Kim wrote: LARP combat (if allowed) tries to be resolvable solely between the combatants -- without having a neutral arbiter. In general, the two players are not expected to agree on moves outside of the rules. That is, if my character throws dirt, I presumably think it will help me win -- while the other player might disagree. A LARP system usually does not say that we must achieve consensus. Instead they prescribe what happens: i.e. if it's not in the rules, you can't do it.

M. J. Young wrote:

John Kim wrote: LARP combat (if allowed) tries to be resolvable solely between the combatants -- without having a neutral arbiter. In general, the two players are not expected to agree on moves outside of the rules. That is, if my character throws dirt, I presumably think it will help me win -- while the other player might disagree. A LARP system usually does not say that we must achieve consensus. Instead they prescribe what happens: i.e. if it's not in the rules, you can't do it.

I'm not out to defend or refute the Lumpley principle; but as I understand it, this is not relevant to that.
...
I don't know that the Lumpley principle actually does distinguish role playing games from any other sort of games, but this is not the point of such distinction in any event. Agreement that the book rules govern strictly is consensus on what happens as much as agreement that the referee gets to decide what happens is similarly consensus, or that we'll talk about it until we all agree. Consensus exists if we all agree as to what is happening in the shared imaginary space; how it is derived is what Lumpley calls "system".

Hello,

John, you wrote

I'm not saying that the Lumpley principle doesn't exist, just that I don't think that it can be used to distinguish, say, a LARP from Lasertag or paintball.

John Kim wrote: For example, if the players agree that what appears on the computer screen is what is happening in the shared imaginary space, then a multiplayer video game is also subject to the Lumpley Principle.

Hello,

H'm, a quick review of the thread showed me that John wasn't committing the fallacy I thought at first (although I think people ought to pay attention to my point about the Lumpley Principle; that's starting to bug me in several threads).

It also showed me that I cannot, for love nor money, figure out what the topic of this thread is. Jack, can you help? I mean, really concretely, what's being asked?

Best,
Ron

Of course, Ron.

As I stated in the original post, this was originally intended as a reply to the RPGs and related media thread, where the purpose was to discuss related and overlapping media and pasttimes in the hope of identifying the differences for more useful discussion. Too often in my mind, a comparason had been brought up hinging on what what was a difference between RPGs and this other medium, effectively derailing the conversation. This has fallen to "no blood, no foul" which effectively ends the discussion. I want to get into this discussion. Other media cannot be just like RPGs in every way or else they would simply be RPGs. This has, unfortunately, led to defining roleplaying games, a topic which has led to a similar brick walls. As the thread title implies, this is merely one perspective on roleplaying, my perspective. I chose this tactic because it may make it easier to swallow for some. Don't argee with it? Well, it's only what Jack thinks. I can disagree and post reasons why, if I like.

Personally, I think it has, thus far been successful. Some nice debate over the lumpley principle has gone on and refined it a little. Time will tell if that sticks. And Mike's statement, which I'm sure had been posted elsewhere, about "do anything" seems to me to be another foundational principle of roleplaying. I prefer to think of it less as defining roleplaying as clarifying it. Understanding some of the basic principles behind it and how it relates to and overlaps other things.

Ok, I think I'm getting the hang of this thread. It seems to me that genericaly you can state the principle in this way:

"The X is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement as-to what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space."

That means may be regarded as social contract, game rules, system, whatever. They are all part of X, whatever word or term you want to use for it. If it's a 'means' towards the goals stated by the principle, it's part of X.

That means X has to be pretty much all-inclusive. Is 'The English Language' part of X? I suppose so. One of the players in our group last week was Dutch, and on the occasions I've run game at the Tentacles convention in Germany, I've always specified English as the language for the game since I don't speak German, and not enough French to game in it, therefore English was 'one of the stated means by which we reached consensus or agreement blah, blah...', because I stated it when I pinned up the sign-up form for the game.

I tend to agree with the possition that X is most usefuly described as the Social Contract, and is usualy up for continual negotiation in most groups.


Simon Hibbs

Hmmmm.... after extensive reading, I am not certain I understand the way "rules" and "system" are being used here. For the most part, it seems as if the latter has been determined to be a larger framework within which the former exists, along with several other factors, such as social interaction and GM judgement calls. I am not certain where some of you would place the world itself, as I feel any world is an intregral part of the system it exists within and without. Let me explain this a little further...

A system exists to quantify, to regulate, what occurs in an RPG. Part of this is the drycut rules that dictate such things as combat, skill usage, so on. Part of this, related and also in some ways separate, I feel is the world itself, which has an underlying effect on the system; the way the world functions directly effects the system, even as the system directly effects the way the world functions. You can build both ways, inward and out, based on this. Call it physics, call it what you will. The system is a framework, a foundation upon which the world is built, the loom upon which the tapestry is woven, with the players and the storyteller(s) as the weavers. The world exists beyond the system, hung upon it, even as it helps beget it at its most basic level.

To be honest... I'm not certain what the controversy is in this thread. Simon Hibbs slipped in X.... and I think I can agree that X is identifable as anything which can fit into that position in this theorum and lead to a true result. That includes rules, the system, the social contract... the role of the gamemaster, whether you fit that into the system, the rules, or the social contract (personally, I feel it fits into all three partially -- things interconnect, really, create a network; very little stands alone).

The last two post made me realize something. At least I think so. Let me bounce this off of you.

We have this version of the lumpley principle:
"The social contract is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement as-to what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space."
I would still put "roleplaying" in front of "social contract" since a social contract is involved in anything social, but since we discuss roleplaying here and not collaborative quilting we can take that as read... I hope.

Originally Mike Holmes wrote:
In an RPG, the player can have his controlled elements do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, and there are rules to cover that.

I'm thinking that Mike is describing the system here. Or at least what I think of as the system. The place where the rules and the social contract meet, or perhaps they overlap in regards to the roleplaying. Perhaps naming this "system" is foolish, but let's see if I can describe the logic.

The social contract is something that forms whenever people get together. This may be explicit or unspoken. This describes things like what language is spoke or whether or not dirty jokes are acceptable. As the social contract applies to the actual roleplaying is in what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space. To do this, the player can create elements an have them do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, as outlined by expectations defined in the social contract. The rules are meant to facilitate this.

Funny thing about rules versus principles. A rule says do this. A principle says this works and has worked since the begining of time. Yes, I did see Adaption. This is why I distinguish between the rules and the system. The principles that Vincent and Mike have written are fairly loose in exactly what you do. Like Alignments & GNS, they cover a wide range of things yet somehow still describe a defined range of activities. Rules, on the other hand are more rigid and this rigidity can be problematic. Anyone who has found a game mechanic to be "unrealistic" knows exactly what I'm talking about. I don't mean to be negative on rules, but I know damned well that I am. I am just trying to identify the place rules has in the scheme of things, which is to help. It's where they do not that concerns me.

So, following this line of reason, I'm thinking:

The players reach consensus or agreement about what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space by creating elements an having them do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, as outlined by expectations defined in the social contract. The rules are meant to facilitate this.

Hi there,

Perhaps one of the points from my essays is relevant.

[Social contract [Exploration [Creative agenda [Techniques [Rules-in-action [Stances]]]]]

(Notice I've put the rules inside techniques this time, unlike the previous time, and specified them to "in action" - in other words, this set of brackets is only about play.)

The reason for the brackets is to create, in the reader's mind, the image of boxes nestled within boxes. The point of this image is this: every "inner" category is a version of its outer categories.

In other words, Exploration is a type of Social Contract. Creative Agenda is an application of Exploration. Techniques are means of realizing Creative Agenda.

A lot of people miss that. We talk about GNS in action, and people say, "Isn't that social contract?" The answer is yes, because everything in the model is social contract; the inner brackets are just specifications of certain parts of it.

Now let's talk about rules. You'll notice I left rules out, but they're actually there in a couple of ways.

1. System is one of the five elements of Exploration, so "what we do to get stuff done" is actually a pretty high-up part of the model.

2. Techniques are often codified and given their parameters by rules, which is why "rules in action" is an element within techniques in the above construction. (I am not making a big deal out of whether Techniques "really" go within Rules or vice versa.)

So what are rules? Anything formalized - written down, agreed upon, whatever - that permits any of the above to stay on track for that particular group. By "on track," I simply mean, "Fun."

The virtue of the Lumpley Principle, which I tried to state earlier in this thread, is that rules' subordinate role - which is recognized and understood in most other social, leisure activities - is usually given a primary role in most discussions of RPGs, or placed into denial (so-called "system-less" play). The principle simply provides a reality check for people who start waving around the "rules" stick, whether as support for their desires ("the rules say ...") or to decry someone else's desires ("never mind the rules, it's just a game ...").

So! If I'm not mistaken, the whole Lumpley Principle is not going to be useful, at all, for your goals in this thread, Jack. If the point is to find whatever distinguishes RPGs from other activities, then the Principle is doing exactly the opposite - it states why role-playing is going to be like other activities in the social/leisure category.

Best,
Ron

I think the trickier line is for other representational games, like Advanced Squad Leader or free kriegspiel. I would say that LARP combat is generally closer to ASL than to free kriegspiel. It is intended to be objective and restrictive, like chess or ASL. You have a set of options and you are restricted to those options. Sure, you can add color -- in the same way that you can describe things about your ASL unit, or talk in-character as your squad leader -- but it has no effect on the game resolution. Compare the LARP case to an online video game. By using my controls I can make my avatar physically do what I want. Add in that in I can say whatever I like by typing in messages.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's like the legal idea of broad or narrow constraint. Wargames are narrowly constrained in that the player only has the powers given specifically by the text. RPGs are broadly interpereted that the player can attempt anything, and the system will relate how to decide what happens.

Now, MMORPGs are borderline. But where it finally comes down for me is that, since the player isn't allowed to work outside the framework of play at all (maybe characters can't dig a hole), despite having large lattitude in a good game due to it covering a lot, he's still constrained narrowly to what the interface allows.

Mike Holmes wrote: In ASL, no matter what I say as a player in characterizing my piece, it has no effect on the final outcome. You could argue that bluffing that comes from characterization would count, but then you can do that just as effectively OOC. It's not an important feature of the game that you can speak for the characters if you like.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, combat in LARPs is restrictive, but still covered.
...
The point is that what you call "color" in most LARPs is usually, if not the point of play, an important part of it. All Vampire LARPS, amongst the most common, are more about the politics than they are about the killing (at least putatively in design, despite falling apart in practice due to incoherence in play). So one can simply "talk" their way through the scenario. What's important to this discussion is that it's this "flexibility" that RPGs have that make them unique from other games.

Windthin wrote: I am not certain I understand the way "rules" and "system" are being used here. For the most part, it seems as if the latter has been determined to be a larger framework within which the former exists, along with several other factors, such as social interaction and GM judgement calls. I am not certain where some of you would place the world itself, as I feel any world is an intregral part of the system it exists within and without.

Ron Edwards wrote: So! If I'm not mistaken, the whole Lumpley Principle is not going to be useful, at all, for your goals in this thread, Jack. If the point is to find whatever distinguishes RPGs from other activities, then the Principle is doing exactly the opposite - it states why role-playing is going to be like other activities in the social/leisure category.

That's fair. I have faith in you, Jack. Let's see where this goes.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: So what are rules? Anything formalized - written down, agreed upon, whatever - that permits any of the above to stay on track for that particular group. By "on track," I simply mean, "Fun."

John Kim wrote: I think I understand this distinction, but it seems to me that it is muddied by your treatment of LARPs. It seems that for some games, you allow that open-ended talking makes it broad even if specific resolution is narrow. But open-ended talk and diplomacy is a feature of a huge range of multi-player games.

Mike Holmes wrote: In ASL, no matter what I say as a player in characterizing my piece, it has no effect on the final outcome. You could argue that bluffing that comes from characterization would count, but then you can do that just as effectively OOC. It's not an important feature of the game that you can speak for the characters if you like.

I'm not following this. As far as I can see, IC vs OOC bluffing are identical under your definition. Your definition says nothing about being in-character. Indeed, players don't need to have characters at all and it can still be an RPG by your definition (and indeed this was important for the case of Universalis).

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: There's more in the world than what's on stage, yet there is nothing but what's on stage.

Considering the thread goals, here's a question for you. Do you think that roleplaying is on of those basic activities that several other activities grow from?

Let me see if I can explain. Like in GNS how all three come from Exploration, it's just S that prioritizes the Exploration. G & N use the Exploration for another purpose. The other purpose, and how it effect the Exploration, defines G & S

It's sort of like that. With the definitions attempted before and now of roleplaying, I'm starting to thing that other activities are not distinguishable from roleplaying at a basic level but are roleplaying + something else. This something else effect how the roleplaying goes and defines it as an activity removed from roleplaying, yet remains similar in principle.

Thoughts?

simon_hibbs wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The basic principle of roleplaying is the Lumpley Principle. The phrasing I prefer is "The system is the means by which the players reach consensus or agreement as-to what items are present or events occur within the shared imagined space." I simply love this. It touches on so many things in one neat, little package.

I'd just like to point out that this principle, as stated here, applies to all games. It applies to wargames, board games, card games, everything. I suppose you could argue it doesn't apply to abstract games as they do not have an 'imagined space', but that's debatable.

As a result, I don't think it can realy tel us much about roleplaying games in particular.

Heya. Looks like we cross-posted. Fortunately, you addressed the question somewhat anyway.

The idea of white board Monopoly, Monopoly without any reference to real estate trading or anything else, was suggested before in this thread.

You're point is what I have been getting at . Sure the Lumpley Principle is foundational for roleplaying. Sure it is foundational for other stuff, too. It's how roleplaying differs from the other stuff that is the purpose of this thread.

You had basically rephrased what Mike Holmes had said about being able to "do anything" in terms of what the imagined elements are.

Aside: What is this principle? Common sense, perhaps? This needs a name and I am loathe to call it "realism", although that's the only term that comes to mind.

Mario can't go to those pointy green mountains in the background.
Your Diabalo character can't use the Butcher's clever to chop down a tree and then build a fire.
You can't jump on top of, or hide under the table in Heroquest (board game).

The player agree on the imagined events & items. This agreement is based on the application of common sense to what can and can't be done in terms of what the elements are. The rules are meant to facilitate this.

Personal note: I don't care for the concept of 'the gm decides' kind of rules. In school, I read a short story called "A Game of Catch" in which a boy pretended he had control over the other two who were playing catch.

"I just made you catch that, mark"
"I was going to catch it anyway."

It strikes me like this. Writing down stuff that would have to be done anyway. Perhaps I am splitting hairs.

Hey all,

To put in my take on the LP and distinctions between rpg and other types of games...

Two things: what makes rpg's stand out is the "shared imaginary space", and the breadth of means by which it is populated. As was pointed out with the point about the self-contained nature of Monopoly, non-rpg games require minimal input of elements of the game, but do require manipulation of the given elements.

I've always put the emphasis on group concensus in the Lumpley Principle, rather than on what brings that about. So, to my way of thinking it goes: "All content of shared imaginary space in an rpg depend on group concensus to exist. The means by which content is suggested and approved vary."

In non-rpg, most of the content is pre-approved. The group agrees to almost all of the elements at the start of play. In rpg, much of it needs to be created in the process of start-up and then during play. And as has already been pointed out, formal rules are expected to be complete in most non-rpg games. Exceptions are generally flaws to the game (unless they can be documented as in the computer game hyper-space examples early on in this thread). In rpg, the incomplete nature of it is what makes it.

Or, perhaps, this "incompleteness" is really levels of interactivity. Vincent's Mech game asks you to make your mech out of legos. Another game could just as easily have sold you little miniatures. If Vincent wants to give the profits to Lego, that's his decision. ; ) Having pre-set characters is done, but part of what helps people feel more deeply invested in rpg, is that we get to make our character (which is generally our primary element of interaction with the shared imaginary space) up ourselves.

Hope that adds something. :)

Regards,
Em Care

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Mario can't go to those pointy green mountains in the background.
Your Diabalo character can't use the Butcher's clever to chop down a tree and then build a fire.
You can't jump on top of, or hide under the table in Heroquest (board game).

The player agree on the imagined events & items. This agreement is based on the application of common sense to what can and can't be done in terms of what the elements are. The rules are meant to facilitate this.

Emily Care wrote: In non-rpg, most of the content is pre-approved. The group agrees to almost all of the elements at the start of play. In rpg, much of it needs to be created in the process of start-up and then during play...

Or, perhaps, this "incompleteness" is really levels of interactivity...

RARodger wrote: An example/Socratic question: Ars Magica has a seasonal activity system that actually requires very little GM input. (Well, actually it requires a lot, but it’s not supposed to.) If I took the AM rules, made 80 wizards and then took them each through their seasons, deciding how they interacted with one another, and using the rules to resolve actions but not to play any adventures, would that strike you as a role-playing game?

This thread appears to have played itself out, although it bears noting that my perspective on the nature of roleplaying is changing and growning. The recent threads on freeform and mechanics have given me a reason to add some to my perspective.

Roleplaying takes place in a shared imagined space. Play consists of argeement being reached about what occurs in this space. Primarily, this agreement is reached by the players using the imagined elements in terms of what they are and the events flowing towards logical conclusions. Agreement is also reached by various method which are often abstractions of the above.

The portion about the flow of events comes from the What is Freeform discussion. The bit about abstraction methods comes from the thread noted above as well as past discussions I vague recall, but had recently come to mind.

This, as always, remains a work in progress, but I think this particular thread is done at this point.