lumpley wrote: At any moment during play any participant can stop using the game mechanics as written. At that moment, whether the game comes to a (likely screeching) halt or continues, changed, is up to the group to negotiate.

If it's still unobjectionable, we're good.

-Vincent

Hello,

The above post was split from The Lumpley Principle goes wading. Plus there's another thread too.

So let's organize things a little and get some discussion going - take it slow, okay? New poster = no gang-bang of frenzied responses.

And hawklord, welcome to the Forge!

Best,
Ron

Hi hawklord,

That quote of Vincent's (lumpley's) doesn't say that a mutually agreeable solution will always be successfully negotiated, it says that either the game continues OR "the game comes to a (likely screeching) halt." And it says that which of those happens is up to the players to negotiate.

That either the game continues or it doesn't is pretty obvious. What other possibility is there?

Is whether or not the game continues entirely up to the group to negotiate? Who else could it possibly be up to? Cases like your Hero player who refuses to follow the Hero rules are what proves that negotiation within the group overrules all other authority. If the player refuses to continue play using the rules agreed to up to that point, how can the problem be resolved, and by whom? The game publisher won't get a court order to force the dissenting player to toe the line. The police won't step in. Most notably, the rules themselves cannot resolve the disagreement. A rule that says "all players must follow all rules at all times" is useless; anyone who wants to break or change the rules will just break or change that one too. A rule that says "players can change the rules if they don't like them" is also useless. Players don't need permission from the rules (or the publisher, or the game designer) to change the rules. What players do need is permission from one another. Which brings us back to negotiation. ("Players" here also includes the GM.)

This doesn't mean that a radical disagreement such as your Hero player case will always get resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Negotiation is necessary but not always sufficient for that. In other words, if the problem is resolved, it will only be through negotiation, but negotiation could also result in a decision to stop playing or a decision to continue playing without the dissenting player. The negotiation might be friendly or it might be acrimonious. There might be screaming and yelling, or tears. But it's still negotiation by the group, and only by the group. If everyone in the group gets pissed off and refuses to speak to one another, that's still a clear, conscious, and consensual group decision to stop play. (Refusal to negotiate is a form of negotiation.) The rules cannot substitute for, let alone override, such group negitation. For instance, a rule forbidding players from stopping play because of disagreemnts would be a waste of ink.

One very typical arrangement within the Social Contract of many role playing groups is that the GM has authority to change the rules but the other players do not. The Hero player (who's presumably not the GM) who refuses to follow the Hero rules seems radical because it violates that typical arrangement. But that arrangement itself only exists because of consensus by the group, and can be changed by negotiating a different arrangement. If a non-GM player wants to start using a different system, the GM and other players can, among other options, go along with the new system, kick the dissenting player out, convince the dissenting player to keep playing using the current rules (that is, put aside his desire for change). If a GM wants to start using a different system, the other players can, among other options, go along with the new system, kick the GM out, or convince the GM to keep playing using the current rules (that is, put aside his desire for change). It's all the same. It's all subject to negotiation, always, even though the negotiation often takes the form of unspoken acceptance of a standard division of authority that makes some types of dissent appear more radical than others.

- Walt

Walt Freitag wrote: That quote of Vincent's (lumpley's) doesn't say that a mutually agreeable solution will always be successfully negotiated, it says that either the game continues OR "the game comes to a (likely screeching) halt." And it says that which of those happens is up to the players to negotiate.

That either the game continues or it doesn't is pretty obvious. What other possibility is there?

Hey John,

Concensus can be reached without everyone liking the result. The issue is "mutual agreement," not "mutual agreeability." If the game continues without that one player, then that's what the group decided to do. The conflict was still negotiated by the players. The result was still concensus.

No, the result was a result. What happened is what happened. The "rules" -- spoken or unspoken -- govering the social aspects of the gamers determined what happened.

Regardless, I'm thoroughly convinced this "consensus" stuff is a vibrantly red herring distracting from what the LP actually says and is.

So, does the LP even apply to social level stuff? (ie: Whether or not Tim is fucking Barbara or Fred and Tony are arguing about whether Fred broke Tony's lawnmower when he borrowed it.)

I'm far more comfortable leaving the LP in the realm of printed/spoken/accepted rules, and leaving psychology to deal with social interactions and group behaviors. Yes, personal interactions and relationships are going to affect decisions made during a game, but they don't affect the nature of the printed rules of a game, which is where I think the LP should be left -- as a definition of their nature: rules are how stuff gets decided.

I wasn't trying to define or describe the Lumpley Principle. I was answering hawklord's objection to the specific statement of lumpley's that he quoted, by addressing the specific hypothetical case (of a player who insists on using a different resolution system) that hawklord raised.

I'll respond to hawklord's further thoughts or questions on that subject. What the Lumpley Principle does or doesn't say is not on topic (despite the thread title), unless hawklord wants to raise that question.

- Walt

Sorry, Walt, are you responding to me or someone else?
(and I was responding to Nathan, BTW)

Raven,

This thread is getting crossed! Just to clarify: John seemed to be objeting to the LP by saying that everyone has to *like* the result in order for everyone to *agree* to it. I was just pointing out that this is not the case.

WRT the second part of your post, Vincent has specifically included social stuff as part of the LP. (frex, M.J.'s recent post - we don't have our characters hit on a character of a particular player, because that player's jelous boyfriend will get mad).

The LP *is* about concensus. By definition, the shared reality exists as agreement among the participants. (If they don't agree, then the reality can't be said to be shared, right?)

Paganini wrote: This thread is getting crossed! Just to clarify: John seemed to be objeting to the LP by saying that everyone has to *like* the result in order for everyone to *agree* to it. I was just pointing out that this is not the case.

'Scuse me,

I do not see how the current discussion is helping the new Forge member at all. In fact, it's about as humpbacked and stumbly as a My Life with Master character. I'm closing it now.

Hawklord, the guy to read in this thread is Walt; he's the one who's tried to answer your question. But the other, parallel thread is more useful overall, I think.

Best,
Ron