Hmmm, your "systemless" game principles look dangerously like a system. Yes, a freeform, randomless system, but still a system. Nothing wrong with it, on the contrary. Of course and as you state, it seems unsuited for continuous play. I guess that if you wanted to move from there towards sustained gaming you would need... more structure, less freeformation, maybe even something like... a randomizer, here and there!
It sounds like the perfect action game to me. "This is the story of how a small but vital group of strange heroes, each dangerous to underestimate and too tough to just give in, raced against the clock in battle after battle against the most amazing adversaries and challenges in the world."
It's not a system at all, it's a philosophy. If the GM controls the whole story then it's just story time with some audience input. If the characters spend too much time just talking then it's just a long conversation. The story has to keep moving, no matter if it's part of the GM's plan or something a player has created on the spot.
My first RPG back in elementary school was a game of basic D&D in which I played a cleric, got poisoned by a spider in the first room, and had to sit out the game for a day to get some hit points back. That was boring, and for a 5th grader, boring is worse than useless. I was still interested in roleplaying, though, and so I began running games for my friends without bothering with rulebooks or dice. This went on from 6th grade all the way until my first year of college. My friends still reference those games with fondness to this day, and that's because the better games all followed these rules perfectly. They were always about a small group of heroes who could take a few hits and keep coming (usually thanks to good high-tech armor), had very unique skill sets and special abilities, and were usually the only people in the world who had the knowledge and tools necessary to take on the bad guys.
The only games to fail in that period were badly thought-out concepts which didn't give the heroes enough freedom to make their own plans (i.e. me doing the railroading thing). Oh, and the ones where I tried using systems, which routinely resulted in a bad combat roll killing somebody off in a dramatically inappropriate way.
To sum up, I heartily endorse all of the advice in this article.
__________________
"Bring me that horizon." -- Cap'n Jack Sparrow
It's a good article, but "systemless" is a bad word to use for any game. The Lumpley Principle clarifies that: "System is the means by which any group of players comes to agreement concerning the content of the shared imagined space." (cf. http://ptgptb.org/0026/theory101-01.html Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space.) You have as much "system" as anyone else, because you have methods for coming to agreement concerning what happens within the game world. What you have eliminated are "authorities" (objects external to the minds of the players which lend credibility to statements) including character sheets, dice, charts, and other "mechanics".
The "system" part is still there. It is all deeply embedded in a social matrix of interaction between the participants, but everyone knows who is permitted to say what when (credibility) and have it become part of the story. That is what system is: the means by which we know what statements are "true" within the story.
Sorry to pick nits, but my feathers are always ruffled when I read that someone is playing a game with no "system". It's right up there with singing a song with no music. It is "system" that makes it a game, and also that makes it possible to come to any agreement at all between players.
It's a good article, but "systemless" is a bad word to use for any game. The Lumpley Principle clarifies that: "System is the means by which any group of players comes to agreement concerning the content of the shared imagined space." (cf. http://ptgptb.org/0026/theory101-01.html Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space.) You have as much "system" as anyone else, because you have methods for coming to agreement concerning what happens within the game world. What you have eliminated are "authorities" (objects external to the minds of the players which lend credibility to statements) including character sheets, dice, charts, and other "mechanics".
The "system" part is still there. It is all deeply embedded in a social matrix of interaction between the participants, but everyone knows who is permitted to say what when (credibility) and have it become part of the story. That is what system is: the means by which we know what statements are "true" within the story.
Sorry to pick nits, but my feathers are always ruffled when I read that someone is playing a game with no "system". It's right up there with singing a song with no music. It is "system" that makes it a game, and also that makes it possible to come to any agreement at all between players.
--M. J. Young
I think there's a certain degree of semantics at play here (and with Sergio's reply).
To begin with, I have to say that I'm not a Forgite, and my thoughts about RPG theory are pretty much in line with the old Rec.Games.Frp.Advocacy Threefold model and Play Stances. I was a regular when some of the r.g.f.a. theory was formulated, though I'm not going to claim credit for any of it.
And I never really liked Edwards' GNS theory, since it felt like a slightly twisted version of the Threefold (and one that got Simulationism completely wrong, IMHO). There are a lot of us who have been gaming for a long, long time that don't follow Edwards, and honestly, that doesn't lessen us in any way.
Secondly, I found the article's authorial voice to be somewhat arrogant, as he deigns to tell us "how RPGs work." Maybe not at the same level as Robin Laws (Over the Edge Player's Guide introduction) or Mark * Rein * Hagen ***** (Werewolf Player's Guide introduction), who could be nearly messianic in their opinions of their opinions on gaming, but arrogant none the less.
Thirdly, "system" is a rather poor word for a social contract between players. That's not the way most people use the word, it's just the way a few people have decided to repurpose the word. I generally hate it when people do this - redefining a word in a counter-intuitive way serves no purpose but to give a small elite an opportunity to look down their noses at people who don't get the reference. And I refuse to participate. This reminds me of Ayn Rand's re-defining of "sacrifice."
Frankly, since I'm not one of their followers, I'll use the word "system" the way pretty much every gamer I've talked to does: to refer to the game mechanics as a whole.
I hope I don't sound too testy in this response. I don't mean to be strident. However, I really don't like being corrected when I use a word in the common usage, simply because I didn't use the word the way some group has re-defined it.
Theories are not realities, and they are constantly in flux. Frequently, people will disagree with them. Frequently, they will be amended or discarded. This is especially true in social sciences, and even more so in fandom areas like gaming.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
Just wanted to chime in -- this article ripped my GM style like a GM-style-ripper.
Problem is, my game of choice is GURPS, which requires a bit of tweaking to make some of the topics work (ever try to do a "It's only a flesh wound" in GURPS?). It's doable and I have fun, but I've been messing around with other systems that are a bit more forgiving / heroic, like Serenity and Hollow Earth.
Just wanted to chime in -- this article ripped my GM style like a GM-style-ripper.
Problem is, my game of choice is GURPS, which requires a bit of tweaking to make some of the topics work (ever try to do a "It's only a flesh wound" in GURPS?). It's doable and I have fun, but I've been messing around with other systems that are a bit more forgiving / heroic, like Serenity and Hollow Earth.
Great article!
Thanks!
I've found that different systems (including no-system-as-system) are good for different styles.
While GURPS is universal in that it can handle any *setting,* it has trouble handling different *genres* well. This is the case of every game system I've encounters (and that's a lot of them).
My Tarafore System (on which most of my columns have been based) has a similar goal in play as GURPS - gritty, "realistic," or at least "realistic-feeling."
But I've also introduced other systems for use with different styles (the Swashbuckling one from a couple of columns back, for example).
Systemless is good for certain things, and can be a really good "palate cleanser," something that can shake a gaming group out of a rut or just provide for an interesting one-off. On the other hand, I've never run a campaign this way, and I don't know that I'd even want to try.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
I think there's a certain degree of semantics at play here (and with Sergio's reply).
To begin with, I have to say that I'm not a Forgite ... And I never really liked Edwards' GNS theory
For a start, I'll not comment on Forge, GNS or Ron Edwards. Sufice it to say that I'm very, very far from being a member of the clan. (You can get a glimpse of the wide chasm by reading my review of Sorcerer & Sword.) That's not from where I come.
Now, for the issue at hand:
Quote:
"system" is a rather poor word for a social contract between players. That's not the way most people use the word, it's just the way a few people have decided to repurpose the word. I generally hate it when people do this - redefining a word in a counter-intuitive way serves no purpose but to give a small elite an opportunity to look down their noses at people who don't get the reference. And I refuse to participate.
Hmmm. Again, hmmmmmmmm. I know that your comment is directed at M.J. Young, but...
Your column is about "systemless" roleplay. That means it should start with a definition of system. You do that (implicitly and indirectly) by mentioning in the second paragraph that "rules and mechanics are great". So far so good, where's the connection with "a social contract between players"? M.J. Young makes that connection, true, but your column opens the ground.
You see, what you attempt to describe as systemless roleplay is sustained only by the said "social contract". What are your requirements for gaming without a system? You start with a "close-knit group", and end with "relying on open communication" and "a sense of trust". Your column is all about how players reach an agreement on how to play. To that extent it is about a "social contract" - in a very loose sense of this term.
Quote:
I'll use the word "system" the way pretty much every gamer I've talked to does: to refer to the game mechanics as a whole.
Here you are restricting the concept you implicitly presented before: System as rules and mechanics, but I suppose you mean rules and mechanics. Nothing against this, it's a workable concept, even if limiting. (By the way, a social contract is about the core rules that tie society, and the core processes - mechanics - that ensure those rules are put to work. A social contract is about the social system, so there's a strong connection between system and social contract, and thus it makes sense to connect both concepts. But I digress.)(1)
So, what's a system? A set of rules and mechanics? Yes, but there's more to it. There are all kinds of systems depending on what they are applied to. If they are about human behavior they are social systems. Wait. Gaming is an human/social activity, so the system that governs gaming is an human/social system. Games are then human/social systems.
Do social systems need to be written down and formalized? No. They can be freeform. (Most social systems are not formalized, just consider social etiquette or the social systems tying together illiterate societies.)
Do social systems need to be expressely agreed upon before they are set to work? No, they can be implict in social behavior. (As they say, "do as I do, don't do as I say..." - I know, I'm misquoting)
Do social systems need to be complex and detailed? No, they can be simple and consist of just some very generic principles. (Just consider the Constitution of the USA for a start.)
What a system needs to be a system are two types of rules: Substantive rules that say what the system is all about, and what is allowed within the system; procedural rules that dictate what happens in concrete situations where the substantial rules are put to the test.
How can one detect a social system? Language is telling. Words such as "must", "have to", "avoid", "should (not)", "do(n't)", "restraint", "trust", are clear signs we are dealing with ruled behavior, in other words, with a social system.
The bottom line? What you describe in your column corresponds to a very simple, very basic social system. It has rules, it has mechanics - and a good deal of them are not even explicit in your column, they have to be figured out from what you wrote.
Don't believe me? Just re-read what you wrote and count the number of times you use regulatory language. I'll give you a hint, all the expressions two paragraphs above were taken from the column.
(1) Let me tell you from where I come: I'm a legal counselor with a Law degree. I have an MBA in information management, and management experience. I mention this because, first, if you study and practice Law, you have to deal with rules and systems of rules all the time; if you practice management, you are submersed in systems' thinking. In both cases you have to apply "mechanics" all the time. So, concepts like "system" and "rule" have to be deeply understood, they are not just a couple of words you pick from the dictionnary. When I apply them to gaming I tap from all that baggage and background. Needless to say, the same applies to concepts such as "social contract". (It's baffling how often people use and discuss these words in connection with rpgs without acknowledgeing that they have a much deeper and wider usage outside of the hobby and without even trying to get a passing knowledge of that usage.
Your column is about "systemless" roleplay. That means it should start with a definition of system. You do that (implicitly and indirectly) by mentioning in the second paragraph that "rules and mechanics are great". So far so good, where's the connection with "a social contract between players"? M.J. Young makes that connection, true, but your column opens the ground.
You see, what you attempt to describe as systemless roleplay is sustained only by the said "social contract". What are your requirements for gaming without a system? You start with a "close-knit group", and end with "relying on open communication" and "a sense of trust". Your column is all about how players reach an agreement on how to play. To that extent it is about a "social contract" - in a very loose sense of this term.
Here you are restricting the concept you implicitly presented before: System as rules and mechanics, but I suppose you mean rules and mechanics. Nothing against this, it's a workable concept, even if limiting. (By the way, a social contract is about the core rules that tie society, and the core processes - mechanics - that ensure those rules are put to work. A social contract is about the social system, so there's a strong connection between system and social contract, and thus it makes sense to connect both concepts. But I digress.)(1)
So, what's a system? A set of rules and mechanics? Yes, but there's more to it. There are all kinds of systems depending on what they are applied to. If they are about human behavior they are social systems. Wait. Gaming is an human/social activity, so the system that governs gaming is an human/social system. Games are then human/social systems.
Interesting.
So, I have a (serious, non-sarcastic, non-defensive) question. What would you call this, then? It's not just diceless, but utterly without traditional game mechanics. However, if we're using a social theory understanding, then there are mechanics of personal interaction, even rules of etiquette... so what is a useful term, then?
That's why I chose "systemless," not because it holds up to all social analysis, but because it conveys what I'm getting at clearly in a single word to the vast majority of gamers. It is useful, and even those who object to it from theoretical grounds know what I'm talking about. There isn't confusion, just objection.
Quote:
Do social systems need to be written down and formalized? No. They can be freeform. (Most social systems are not formalized, just consider social etiquette or the social systems tying together illiterate societies.)
Getting off-topic, from my studies, illiterate societies often have extremely formal social systems. They are not written down, but they are held within memory, and have very specific rules, consequences, and procedures. Granted, they may involve magical thinking of the kind that would unnerve or even amuse most citizens of industrialized.
Quote:
Do social systems need to be expressely agreed upon before they are set to work? No, they can be implict in social behavior. (As they say, "do as I do, don't do as I say..." - I know, I'm misquoting)
Do social systems need to be complex and detailed? No, they can be simple and consist of just some very generic principles. (Just consider the Constitution of the USA for a start.)
Although, historically, the Constitution of the United States wasn't a social system in and of itself, but a statement of a nation's highest law. The social system had already been well established through 100+ years of local democratic governance, the principles of the Declaration of Independence and pamphlets like Common Sense, and the American Revolution and Continental Congress. In fact, there was a significant amount of concern among the founders as to how well the Constitution and the Republic itself would hold up to societal changes.
Some of that concern has been borne out, because many other nations (especially in Latin America) have adopted Constitutions that are similar to, and certainly as good as, the US Constitution, but have utterly failed to hold onto human rights and democratic government, in large part because the necessary social systems weren't in place.
Quote:
What a system needs to be a system are two types of rules: Substantive rules that say what the system is all about, and what is allowed within the system; procedural rules that dictate what happens in concrete situations where the substantial rules are put to the test.
How can one detect a social system? Language is telling. Words such as "must", "have to", "avoid", "should (not)", "do(n't)", "restraint", "trust", are clear signs we are dealing with ruled behavior, in other words, with a social system.
The bottom line? What you describe in your column corresponds to a very simple, very basic social system. It has rules, it has mechanics - and a good deal of them are not even explicit in your column, they have to be figured out from what you wrote.
Don't believe me? Just re-read what you wrote and count the number of times you use regulatory language. I'll give you a hint, all the expressions two paragraphs above were taken from the column.
Interesting. Again, I'll ask, what would you call this? I still think "Systemless" communicates the intent to the intended audience pretty well, and I don't want to change the title unless the alternative also does so. Being correct within the field of law is fairly irrelevant when talking about roleplaying games.
Quote:
(1) Let me tell you from where I come: I'm a legal counselor with a Law degree. I have an MBA in information management, and management experience. I mention this because, first, if you study and practice Law, you have to deal with rules and systems of rules all the time; if you practice management, you are submersed in systems' thinking. In both cases you have to apply "mechanics" all the time. So, concepts like "system" and "rule" have to be deeply understood, they are not just a couple of words you pick from the dictionnary. When I apply them to gaming I tap from all that baggage and background. Needless to say, the same applies to concepts such as "social contract". (It's baffling how often people use and discuss these words in connection with rpgs without acknowledgeing that they have a much deeper and wider usage outside of the hobby and without even trying to get a passing knowledge of that usage.
Master's degrees in History and Instructional Technology & Design, working on PhD in Instructional Technology & Design. I'm pretty familiar with social contracts, going all the way back to Rousseau's coining of the phrase (and, indeed, basic social contracts that predate Rousseau). I also work a lot with theory and design models.
Again, though, I still say that for the majority of gamers, those who aren't lawyers, "systemless" communicates the point pretty well.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
Linear Mode
