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.
Now this is something I didn't fully "take in" the first time I read your post.
Am I using "regulatory" language? Well, "have to" "avoid" "should/should not" etc. are all telling in that respect...
I had intended the post to read more like a recipe than a rulebook. When baking bread, you must have the yeast, unless you want pitas, tortilla, or Matzo... but I digress. I mean, I meant to include the ingredients that are necessary, rather than laying down rules for people to follow.
This could be a mistake on my part (I was running late writing the column and didn't have the chance to go back and really scrutinize my wording). But could it be one and the same? I mean, the cooking metaphor sort of breaks down when your flour, oil, and eggs are people with free will, rather than inanimate objects...
If I had a chance to redo the article, I think I would shift my language from the "you must" stance I took to more of a "I did this and it worked for me" tone. To be honest, I'm working with qualitative data, with a very low "N," so making my recommendations sound like universals may not have been the best choice.
PS - If at any point my posts sound a little strident, I don't mean them that way. I like this discussion, and it's making me think.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
So, I have a (serious, non-sarcastic, non-defensive) question.
I didn't take it as such (and I'm glad you understood that when I presented my background I wasn't trying to be pretentious, I was just trying to put things into perspective.)
Quote:
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?
I would call it a freefrom, informal, implicit or loosely structured system - just as I would say it is randomless instead of diceless.
Quote:
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.
That's an important concern and you are right in keeping it mind. I wasn't thinking about it from that perspective. Still, I twould call it by one of the terms above and have a note explaining that some people would call it systemless but I don't think it's correct since there's a system after all.
This has the advantage that it shows that there's no "systemless vs. system-based" contradiction. Instead, both approaches are based on systems and there's a continuum from informal to highly formal, from loosely structured to highly structured. I think it's important to call the attention to this. A game can be highly freeform in some of its components while being very structured in some others. Just consider HeroQuest that can be as informal as it can be possibly done in character creation (just write down the description of the character as it comes to your mind), and still be highly structured in the action resolution mechanics.
I always think in this context about sports. There's a continuum between football played in the street by primary school children and football played in the stadium by professional players. Both have rules, both have "mechanics". Almost all the rules that dictated how children play are present in professional football. Yet, there's a huge difference in terms of formalization and complexity of the detailed rules. Interestingly enough, that somehow reinforces the ideas you present in your column: most of the things you write about apply nicely to the way children play sports in the street.
Quote:
Getting off-topic, from my studies, illiterate societies often have extremely formal social systems.
You're right, writting is not the only way to implement form and structure into society.
Quote:
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 (skip)
Which reminds me, isn't it because you and you friends participate in a well established social system - in other words, have well established standards of social interaction - that you can play freefrom so easily? In particular, ins't it because you have experience and know how to play formal rpgs that you can cut it down to freeform so easily? Do you think that if you hadn't been exposed to formal rpgs (at least part of you) you could play freefrom as easily?
I have an interesting example myself. One day my children (girl 10, boy 6, girl 5) and two of their cousins (boy 9, boy 7) were playing make-believe. It turned out to a huge discussion of the style, "I say this happens", "I say no, that doesn't happen". Now, I go back to my drawer, pick some dice, call them, and say: "one of you - the older boy - will be in charge of directing what happens. If there's an action on the part of any of you, you roll dice this way or that to get at a conclusion".
It worked very well! They got the idea and instead of jumping arond shouting at each other they let the dice solve it out.
For a while. After some time a discussion started between boy 7 and boy 6, boy 7 accusing boy 6 of cheating by changing dice rolls...
It seems human nature always wins in the end, no matter how we try to avoid it!
Back to the structured/informal to structured/formal continuum. If you look at it from this perspective then you can find a way to move from occasional, one-shot playing to continuus, campaign gaming! You start very freeform; if you and the players enjoy the game, you play it again, but you add some structure (for instance, record sheets for the characters). As new game situations happen and you reach a consensus on how to deal with them, you take note of those decisions, so that you can refer back to it in future occasions.
At the end of a lenghthy succession of game sessions you will end with an organic game system, and I'm sure it will be a fairly detailed one!
I would call it a freefrom, informal, implicit or loosely structured system - just as I would say it is randomless instead of diceless.
Freeform! That's the perfect word. And I think everyone would understand it, too. Thanks!
If all goes according to plan, next month's article will address this same issue from the players' perspective, and I think I may replace the world "Systemless" with "Freeform" when writing that article.
Quote:
That's an important concern and you are right in keeping it mind. I wasn't thinking about it from that perspective. Still, I twould call it by one of the terms above and have a note explaining that some people would call it systemless but I don't think it's correct since there's a system after all.
Which reminds me, isn't it because you and you friends participate in a well established social system - in other words, have well established standards of social interaction - that you can play freefrom so easily?
Well, I guess you're right there. The "close knit group" and "trust" elements are pretty vital, at least in my experience.
I wonder if, when playing with strangers, you could establish an up-front, for the purposes of the game, social rapport/system to get everybody on the same page enough to have a good game, despite not having a pre-existing social system.
Quote:
In particular, ins't it because you have experience and know how to play formal rpgs that you can cut it down to freeform so easily? Do you think that if you hadn't been exposed to formal rpgs (at least part of you) you could play freefrom as easily?
Now that's a good question, and one that I can't really answer, because I don't have a "control group." Certainly everybody there knew the basics of roleplaying, and was what I'd consider "a good roleplayer" (highly subjective, of course, but essentially, they had enough imagination and wits to keep up and enough empathy to not screw things up for other players).
If those traits were possessed by someone who'd never roleplayed before, I *think* that person could be introduced through Freeform roleplaying. The rest of the group might have to baby them at first, slowing the pace a little and being very understanding, but I think it could be done.
I'm not sure, though, to be honest.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
As long as we're presenting credentials, my doctorate is also in law, and I've taught undergraduate theology and written extensively on time travel models (in addition to my work in role playing games).
I would agree with "freeform" as the best word for what you call "systemless", and also that a great deal of what makes it easier for your group to fall into the model is that aspects of the social contract are drawn from the structured play you've already shared.
As an example, a friend of mine always ran a very loose approximation of OAD&D. After doing this for about twenty years, he picked up a player with no gaming experience at all. During play, this guy would go on wild extrapolations:
"So I ask this guy where we can find a good place to stay, and he tells me that there's a decent inn three blocks over, and that the owner knows the area pretty well and we could do a lot worse. So we go there, and I ask the owner how much to stay, and he says we can all stay for five coppers a night, plus food if we want to eat, and I say that's a good deal, we'll take it. Then I ask him if there's been any trouble around here, and he says that there are some goblins north of the city that have been a bit disruptive of trade recently, and the town would probably be willing to pay some sort of reward to a group that managed to deal with them. I say we'll think about it.
As mentioned in the previously cited article, that's certainly a valid approach to play for some games in some groups; but it's not very like D&D, which maintains rather strict player/referee credibility lines. The new player provided the location for the game, and my friend did not usually interfere with player decisions, but it was very strange for him and for the other players who often told tales of what "Slimmer" did at the latest game, because they found his inability or unwillingness to conform to the social structure as everyone else did to be very funny.
No one in your group does that, because they already have that part of the structure established from other games.
It is on one level a fair criticism of Edwards' theory that it distorts Threefold. Edwards was trying at the time of System Does Matter to present his understanding of that model, but Threefold is in some sense more about techniques while the Edwards "Big Model" (a.k.a. GNS) is more about (a word Edwards hates) motivations, the internal aspects of why people play and how that impacts how they play. Also, simulationism under his model was always least understood and probably would still be debated were the theory section of The Forge still active. (I think the Edwards use of the concepts is well defined in http://ptgptb.org/0028/theory101-03.html Theory 101: Creative Agenda, but the explanation there of simulationism is not universally agreed even among those closest to the model's development.) Edwards has accepted that his presentation was not at all what advocates of Threefold intended, and that his model is something distinct from theirs. Both models describe legitimate aspects of role playing experience.
Thanks for the discussion. It is certainly challenging.
I cross-posted with the previous author, and realized that I forgot something I was going to include, and also that there was something else to suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarafore
I wonder if, when playing with strangers, you could establish an up-front, for the purposes of the game, social rapport/system to get everybody on the same page enough to have a good game, despite not having a pre-existing social system.
I would look at the opening sections of http://alyria.blogspot.com/Legends of Alyria. It makes an attempt to establish a few social rules (including the fundamental concept that everyone playing is there to ensure that everyone else has a good time) before it gets to its mechanics. I think something like that might work for a group of strangers, if you can launch it. Particularly at conventions and game store demos, I find that the gamers are looking to the referee to provide the lead in how everyone is expected to interact; there is enough variety in games now that most gamers in such settings know that the social rules might be different.
On a personal note, you mentioned having had to rush this article to get it ready. My experience includes maintaining a weekly Game Ideas Unlimited series for nearly four years, a monthly Faith and Gaming series for four years, and a current twice-a-week time travel movies series (at http://www.examiner.com/x-15701-Time...Films-Examiner The Examiner) since this summer. In all cases, I found that for a series I was best served by staying ahead of the game--I was never less than three articles ahead in any series, so that I had ample time to re-read and repair before they went to print.
I wonder if, when playing with strangers, you could establish an up-front, for the purposes of the game, social rapport/system to get everybody on the same page enough to have a good game, despite not having a pre-existing social system.
I've never tried myself but I think that when playing with strangers the kind of gaming principles you present in your column make even more sense - specially if the strangers are new to roleplaying. The reason is simple, the focus is on the game and the joy it brings, not on learning rules and mechanics. This takes time and it's best done either alone or with a group of friends - in other words, a group where trust and sharing is already established.
I suppose the bottom line is, your principles are all one needs to play with a small group of friends that know each other well. But it is also something that should be there in games that require a more detailed system as well.
I would agree with "freeform" as the best word for what you call "systemless", and also that a great deal of what makes it easier for your group to fall into the model is that aspects of the social contract are drawn from the structured play you've already shared.
Yeah, I can't believe I forgot that word. I almost wish I'd used it, but then I wouldn't have had this conversation/thread.
I think I'll use "Freeform" in the future.
Quote:
As an example, a friend of mine always ran a very loose approximation of OAD&D. After doing this for about twenty years, he picked up a player with no gaming experience at all. During play, this guy would go on wild extrapolations:
"So I ask this guy where we can find a good place to stay, and he tells me that there's a decent inn three blocks over, and that the owner knows the area pretty well and we could do a lot worse. So we go there, and I ask the owner how much to stay, and he says we can all stay for five coppers a night, plus food if we want to eat, and I say that's a good deal, we'll take it. Then I ask him if there's been any trouble around here, and he says that there are some goblins north of the city that have been a bit disruptive of trade recently, and the town would probably be willing to pay some sort of reward to a group that managed to deal with them. I say we'll think about it.
As mentioned in the previously cited article, that's certainly a valid approach to play for some games in some groups; but it's not very like D&D, which maintains rather strict player/referee credibility lines.
Yeah, that's definitely NOT D&D-ish. That would be out of line in any game that had anything remotely like the traditional GM-player relationship.
Quote:
Thanks for the discussion. It is certainly challenging.
--M. J. Young
Thank you, too. This has been a good discussion.
__________________ Tales from the Rocket House, a new design column featuring gaming communities, common language systems, online gaming, and intentionally silly rules examples.
Linear Mode
