After last weeks revival of push and pull discussion, things have become more focused this week. At the same time, other theory is brought up in its wake.
Pull in the Middle?
Bradley "Brand" Robins advances the understanding of push and pull, codified last week by Moyra Turkington, by offering the concept of a "moment of crisis". This is the moment when something significant to the players becomes decided. Based on this idea, he identifies push as forcing a specific moment of crisis, while pull is soliciting a cooperative moment of crisis.
Vincent Baker has taken this idea to imply a strong relationship between push and pull, and the two resolution approaches of resolution at the end and resolution in the middle. Specifically, he parallels push with the idea of validating a players input as a complete whole, and pull with the idea of negotiating the input before it is fully introduced.
Setting Matters
Troy Costisick offers several reasons why setting is an important part of RPGs. Ultimately he suggests that settings which support the purpose of the game are almost as important as the system.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Lesson: Resolution - Conflict
While resolution is a continuous process, one of the most evident types involve resolving conflicts. A conflict occurs when one or more players become aware of a difference of common ground, and decide to resolve this difference overtly. The key point is that the common ground is accepted as broken, and the process of resolution is to overtly repair it.
If this is conflict is of a social type, then resolution is much like how personal conflicts are resolved in much of life. At best, mediation and other techniques are used to disarm the situation. At worst, authority is exercised, and the conflict is not so much resolved as postponed. Examples of these types of conflicts include player to player arguments, often caused by rule interpretations, feelings of unfairness, and all too commonly the stresses of life outside of the game.
If the conflict is based on the imagined material, then the resolution often involves competing visions for the outcome of a situation. In most game texts that discuss conflict resolution, this is precisely the kind being discussed. One player may decide that he wants to rescue the ambassador, while the other wants to rush to the dying ambassador's side, hearing his last words. This discontinuity requires conflict resolution. In this way conflict resolution is distinguished from task resolution, where imagined elements are added iteratively without overt discontinuities.
Now in practice many types of conflict resolution mix these two types. After all, a disagreement on the player level will often be reflected in disagreements on the imagined level. Likewise, conflicts over imagined situations can build to real conflicts. How important is the resolution of social conflicts in RPGs? What does it mean when social and imagined conflicts mix? Can social conflicts be resolved by something similar to task resolution?
If this is conflict is of a social type, then resolution is much like how personal conflicts are resolved in much of life. At best, mediation and other techniques are used to disarm the situation. At worst, authority is exercised, and the conflict is not so much resolved as postponed. Examples of these types of conflicts include player to player arguments, often caused by rule interpretations, feelings of unfairness, and all too commonly the stresses of life outside of the game.
If the conflict is based on the imagined material, then the resolution often involves competing visions for the outcome of a situation. In most game texts that discuss conflict resolution, this is precisely the kind being discussed. One player may decide that he wants to rescue the ambassador, while the other wants to rush to the dying ambassador's side, hearing his last words. This discontinuity requires conflict resolution. In this way conflict resolution is distinguished from task resolution, where imagined elements are added iteratively without overt discontinuities.
Now in practice many types of conflict resolution mix these two types. After all, a disagreement on the player level will often be reflected in disagreements on the imagined level. Likewise, conflicts over imagined situations can build to real conflicts. How important is the resolution of social conflicts in RPGs? What does it mean when social and imagined conflicts mix? Can social conflicts be resolved by something similar to task resolution?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Weekly Review May 7th to May 13th
The major development for this week has been yet another revival of the push and pull discussion. In parallel, has been the organization of some tools for play and design.
Push and Pull
The discussion of push and pull first escalated this week with, Joshua BishopRoby presenting his difficulties with the terms and their use. A little while later, Chris Chinn invited Moyra Turkington, who introduced the terms, to a dialogue on the subject. After this dialogue, Moyra presented a conclusive definition for push and pull at story games. Push was defined as the use of individual authority, while pull was defined as soliciting for collaborative input.
In the midst of these developments other views were presented on push and pull. Thomas Robertson discusses various issues about push, pull, and authority, including other ways to influence the use of authority in play. Also, Jonathan Walton sends out a plea to keep push and pull from becoming technical jargon, a process all too common in RPG theory.
Tools At Your Disposal
Troy Costisick enumerates four ways in which character death can benefit players. His approaches span from atmospheric to player goal fulfillment. Also this week, Joshua BishopRoby has finished compiling an elaborate list of skills used to play RPGs, broken down by such various categories as creative, reasoning, and game skills.
Push and Pull
The discussion of push and pull first escalated this week with, Joshua BishopRoby presenting his difficulties with the terms and their use. A little while later, Chris Chinn invited Moyra Turkington, who introduced the terms, to a dialogue on the subject. After this dialogue, Moyra presented a conclusive definition for push and pull at story games. Push was defined as the use of individual authority, while pull was defined as soliciting for collaborative input.
In the midst of these developments other views were presented on push and pull. Thomas Robertson discusses various issues about push, pull, and authority, including other ways to influence the use of authority in play. Also, Jonathan Walton sends out a plea to keep push and pull from becoming technical jargon, a process all too common in RPG theory.
Tools At Your Disposal
Troy Costisick enumerates four ways in which character death can benefit players. His approaches span from atmospheric to player goal fulfillment. Also this week, Joshua BishopRoby has finished compiling an elaborate list of skills used to play RPGs, broken down by such various categories as creative, reasoning, and game skills.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Editorial: Building Communities
There has been a fair amount of talk of late about how to build a community for RPG discussion, in many ways a new place to build theory. In particular, this has focused on bringing in people who have previously not felt welcome in such a community. The problems are two-fold. First, no community can welcome everyone. And second, a community is an organic, unpredictable thing.
Building a community is a good goal, but it requires a broader context. Many people will be excluded, despite or perhaps because of best efforts. In some cases those people will join other communities, and so on. What is important is to keep those communities interacting. Mobility, membership overlap, and the general effort of communication are all essential to keep the various safe places from stagnation.
To make matters worse, some people are just not community joiners. No amount of building safe places will help those people. For those people, and the people who cannot find a community of their own, it is important to have less safe places, more open areas of discourse. This process of meta-communities never ends, it is a continual growth, just like each community within. At each level it connects to broader groups, moving further from safety. It is this web in which any community finds itself, unless it chooses to entirely isolate itself.
Constructing a community can be very important, but you cannot neglect the connections around it, those are what sustain it and allow it to have a meaning outside of itself. Constructing resources and places of meta-community is also important, and should not be passed over on the search for each person's safe place.
Building a community is a good goal, but it requires a broader context. Many people will be excluded, despite or perhaps because of best efforts. In some cases those people will join other communities, and so on. What is important is to keep those communities interacting. Mobility, membership overlap, and the general effort of communication are all essential to keep the various safe places from stagnation.
To make matters worse, some people are just not community joiners. No amount of building safe places will help those people. For those people, and the people who cannot find a community of their own, it is important to have less safe places, more open areas of discourse. This process of meta-communities never ends, it is a continual growth, just like each community within. At each level it connects to broader groups, moving further from safety. It is this web in which any community finds itself, unless it chooses to entirely isolate itself.
Constructing a community can be very important, but you cannot neglect the connections around it, those are what sustain it and allow it to have a meaning outside of itself. Constructing resources and places of meta-community is also important, and should not be passed over on the search for each person's safe place.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Weekly Review Apr. 30th to May 6th
This week has seen a variety of different ways to ask similar questions.
A Deeper Look
Joshua BishopRoby brings up the question of what types of character experiences different people find engaging. He separates people who want to feel their character fall apart, from those who want a return to hope after the struggle. He presents this as a way that a two similar styles of play can be quite different.
Elsewhere, Jere Genest presents his procedure for evaluating and refining RPGs as you play, summative evaluation. By continual conscious refinement, he proposes that many problems in play can be identified and designed away.
Communities of Practice
Over at Story Games, Jonathan Walton began an introduction to the community of practice as a model of RPG groups. These communities have a similar type of social interaction as RPGs. Namely, communities of practice consist of a shared enterprise, as well as an engagement in that shared enterprise, and lastly, from working together a collection of skills and understandings are reached which enhances that enterprise. In this there is a sense of growing into a more capable and cooperative group. Jonathan suggests that this growth can be observed to better understand how RPG groups come together.
Design Virus
Guy Shalev suggests that RPG design is something not unlike a viral disease. He describes the process where each design acts to make the next easier and more tempting. The result is a building desire to design more and more.
A Deeper Look
Joshua BishopRoby brings up the question of what types of character experiences different people find engaging. He separates people who want to feel their character fall apart, from those who want a return to hope after the struggle. He presents this as a way that a two similar styles of play can be quite different.
Elsewhere, Jere Genest presents his procedure for evaluating and refining RPGs as you play, summative evaluation. By continual conscious refinement, he proposes that many problems in play can be identified and designed away.
Communities of Practice
Over at Story Games, Jonathan Walton began an introduction to the community of practice as a model of RPG groups. These communities have a similar type of social interaction as RPGs. Namely, communities of practice consist of a shared enterprise, as well as an engagement in that shared enterprise, and lastly, from working together a collection of skills and understandings are reached which enhances that enterprise. In this there is a sense of growing into a more capable and cooperative group. Jonathan suggests that this growth can be observed to better understand how RPG groups come together.
Design Virus
Guy Shalev suggests that RPG design is something not unlike a viral disease. He describes the process where each design acts to make the next easier and more tempting. The result is a building desire to design more and more.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Monthly Review April 2006
One of the themes of RPG theory this month was the discussion of inclusion and exclusion. While much of this evolved from debate about gender which rose to a new pitch last month. The first piece of this was Moyra Turkington discussing her two styles of social influence, push and pull, and how they related to places and behaviors surrounding RPG design and theory. In particular she discusses how many web forum provide an environment centered on push style debate, rather than pull style discussion. In this way, those forums inadvertently exclude people more comfortable with pull than push.
In a related discussion over at Story Games different fictional origins were suggested for RPGs other than the wargame, such as board games or experimental fiction. Of particular note these different origins suggested not only differences in the common types of games, but also the common ways that RPGs are discussed.
Returning to the subject of gender and RPGs, several people began to discuss possible ways to make RPGs and the arena of design and theory more inclusive. John Kim remarks on this as a major goal, but separates it from a feminist approach to RPGs which would involve an attempt at actually changing ways of thinking about gender. At about the same time, Jonathon Walton demonstrated how difficult it is to build an inclusive place of discussion.
In the midst of the subject of inclusion, there was a basic undercurrent reminding that inclusion cannot be so important that it overrides certain necessary types of exclusion. Both Vincent Baker and Chris Chinn bring up concerns of this sort.
In a related discussion over at Story Games different fictional origins were suggested for RPGs other than the wargame, such as board games or experimental fiction. Of particular note these different origins suggested not only differences in the common types of games, but also the common ways that RPGs are discussed.
Returning to the subject of gender and RPGs, several people began to discuss possible ways to make RPGs and the arena of design and theory more inclusive. John Kim remarks on this as a major goal, but separates it from a feminist approach to RPGs which would involve an attempt at actually changing ways of thinking about gender. At about the same time, Jonathon Walton demonstrated how difficult it is to build an inclusive place of discussion.
In the midst of the subject of inclusion, there was a basic undercurrent reminding that inclusion cannot be so important that it overrides certain necessary types of exclusion. Both Vincent Baker and Chris Chinn bring up concerns of this sort.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Weekly Review Apr. 23rd to Apr. 29th
This past week has contained several discussions pertaining to RPG theory, whether bringing up new ideas, clarifying old ones, or seeking insight from related fields.
Playsheets
Mark Woodhouse began a discussion of the history of the playsheet, the various aids and note sheets used in play. He sees the movement from the numerical list character sheet to simpler "index card" characters amidst notes, as the beginning of other avenues of evolution.
The Question of Incoherence
Chris Chinn offered an explanation of incoherence, as a concept and as he describes it the bane of enjoyable play. As he puts it, incoherence happens "when people come to the table and AREN'T on the same page about the point of play or what is the 'stuff that matters'." Elliot Wilen, in a very different manner, puts forward a contrary perspective on incoherence.
Serious Games
Over on Story Games is a major discussion due to a conference, the Serious Games Summit. In particular, the discussion centers on how then theory of practical games for simulation and training, relates to RPG theory. Also, the question of assessment is broached. Could assessing the quality or utility of play be of some use for RPG theory and design?
Playsheets
Mark Woodhouse began a discussion of the history of the playsheet, the various aids and note sheets used in play. He sees the movement from the numerical list character sheet to simpler "index card" characters amidst notes, as the beginning of other avenues of evolution.
The Question of Incoherence
Chris Chinn offered an explanation of incoherence, as a concept and as he describes it the bane of enjoyable play. As he puts it, incoherence happens "when people come to the table and AREN'T on the same page about the point of play or what is the 'stuff that matters'." Elliot Wilen, in a very different manner, puts forward a contrary perspective on incoherence.
Serious Games
Over on Story Games is a major discussion due to a conference, the Serious Games Summit. In particular, the discussion centers on how then theory of practical games for simulation and training, relates to RPG theory. Also, the question of assessment is broached. Could assessing the quality or utility of play be of some use for RPG theory and design?
Friday, April 28, 2006
Lesson: Resolution - Common Ground
One of the most important aspects of resolution is the creation of common ground which is achieved when players come together to play. Included here are agreed rules of social and game behavior, namely the social contract. Also, part of this common ground is the shared parts of the imagined elements of play.
Resolution is the means by which players take their own perspectives and ideas, and bring them to this common ground. But in a sense, common ground is not something which is achieved, as much as it is something which is always under construction. Mechanics have an especially interesting relationship with common ground. On one hand, they act as means of resolution, but on the other they are themselves common ground, as a means to perform resolution.
Much like social contracts, the way a theory approaches common ground is often very important to determine what sorts of play that theory is well suited, and which present it difficulty. Some theories take the idea of common material as an idealization, and treat it as a place where play happens. Other theories treat these places as processes, a procedure of coming to agreement, of which the actually moment of agreement is merely a flash in the pan.
Often a type of play accents one part of the resolution / common ground relationship. For example, highly mechanical play is often seen in the midst of resolution, with the common ground being merely an after thought. Likewise, free form play is filled with subtle and diffuse resolution, while the common ground is deeply accented.
What types of common ground are created by what types of resolution? Mechanics suggest that resolution can be used recursively, building on itself, where does that recursion end? Can there be resolution without common ground? Can there be common ground without resolution? Can you play an RPG without both?
Resolution is the means by which players take their own perspectives and ideas, and bring them to this common ground. But in a sense, common ground is not something which is achieved, as much as it is something which is always under construction. Mechanics have an especially interesting relationship with common ground. On one hand, they act as means of resolution, but on the other they are themselves common ground, as a means to perform resolution.
Much like social contracts, the way a theory approaches common ground is often very important to determine what sorts of play that theory is well suited, and which present it difficulty. Some theories take the idea of common material as an idealization, and treat it as a place where play happens. Other theories treat these places as processes, a procedure of coming to agreement, of which the actually moment of agreement is merely a flash in the pan.
Often a type of play accents one part of the resolution / common ground relationship. For example, highly mechanical play is often seen in the midst of resolution, with the common ground being merely an after thought. Likewise, free form play is filled with subtle and diffuse resolution, while the common ground is deeply accented.
What types of common ground are created by what types of resolution? Mechanics suggest that resolution can be used recursively, building on itself, where does that recursion end? Can there be resolution without common ground? Can there be common ground without resolution? Can you play an RPG without both?
Monday, April 24, 2006
Weekly Review Apr. 16th to Apr. 22nd
This week seen some intriguing contributions to RPG theory. While some focus on the mechanical, others are built on questions of gender and inclusion in RPGs, both for theory and in general.
Process of Mechanics
In an attempt to distinguish system and mechanics, Jere Genest presents a process view of mechanics. His flow indicates mechanics as the culmination of an objective, either finding an existing mechanic, or designing a new one for addition. In particular he suggests that design during play is viable, and can follow a precise flow, from objective, to individual components which can be combined to produce a new mechanic for that objective.
Plot Twists
Thomas Robertson introduces a feasibility question for the design and play of plot twists. In particular he asks if it is possible in an RPG context to produce a consistent campaign of misdirection to permit a reveal, not unlike at the end of a mystery. He suggests that planning out the misdirection is next to impossible given the volatile nature of RPG play.
Inclusion
A major theme over the past few weeks around RPG theory has been the subject of the RPG communities' interaction with women. This has drifted from advice to discussion, and even debate. Recently several topics have been broached which suggest ramifications in the realm of theory. John Kim discusses the inclusion of women across different subgroups of RPGs, and also points to the distinction of including women better, versus an actually feminist approach to RPGs, which "would encourage non-normative statements about gender and gender roles." Meanwhile, Jonathon Walton shows just how difficult inclusive communities can be. Indeed, while a potentially global community is likely more difficult to build, those same problems reflect those of forming the smallest RPG communities, groups of players.
Process of Mechanics
In an attempt to distinguish system and mechanics, Jere Genest presents a process view of mechanics. His flow indicates mechanics as the culmination of an objective, either finding an existing mechanic, or designing a new one for addition. In particular he suggests that design during play is viable, and can follow a precise flow, from objective, to individual components which can be combined to produce a new mechanic for that objective.
Plot Twists
Thomas Robertson introduces a feasibility question for the design and play of plot twists. In particular he asks if it is possible in an RPG context to produce a consistent campaign of misdirection to permit a reveal, not unlike at the end of a mystery. He suggests that planning out the misdirection is next to impossible given the volatile nature of RPG play.
Inclusion
A major theme over the past few weeks around RPG theory has been the subject of the RPG communities' interaction with women. This has drifted from advice to discussion, and even debate. Recently several topics have been broached which suggest ramifications in the realm of theory. John Kim discusses the inclusion of women across different subgroups of RPGs, and also points to the distinction of including women better, versus an actually feminist approach to RPGs, which "would encourage non-normative statements about gender and gender roles." Meanwhile, Jonathon Walton shows just how difficult inclusive communities can be. Indeed, while a potentially global community is likely more difficult to build, those same problems reflect those of forming the smallest RPG communities, groups of players.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Editorial: Neutral Ground
Of late, I've been pleased to see more comments on this blog. At the same time, I am reminded that I haven't made clear any policy concerning comments and debate on this site. What policy I have been following has been based on my statement of purpose. Namely, this blog is intended as a neutral report of RPG theory, not to take one stance or theory as preferred.
This is not something that can be done easily, it is a constant effort. And part of comments is to keep me honest in my reviews, lessons, and editorials. If you feel I ignored or downplayed something important, by all means post about it. I would ask that comments be kept to RPG theory and related topics. And I intend to use my ability to remove comments on ones which are entirely inappropriate, such as spam adverts and the like. But if it pertains to RPG theory, and you think that it would help better represent the field, then I welcome your comment.
I also welcome debate on this blog. But, I will not participate in any myself. I will answer questions as a neutral party, but I feel it is inappropriate for me to take sides in a debate. I view comments as being letters to the editor, an opportunity to expand, discuss, and even debate ideas of RPG theory. But as the editor it is my responsibility to moderate, not join in. And if you have a particular perspective you would like to have aired, I am always looking for guest articles.
There are many places to argue and debate, but RPG Theory Review is a neutral ground. It is a place were we can all look at the developments of RPG theory, as they are happening and as they have happened. And I want everyone to be able to enjoy it as such.
This is not something that can be done easily, it is a constant effort. And part of comments is to keep me honest in my reviews, lessons, and editorials. If you feel I ignored or downplayed something important, by all means post about it. I would ask that comments be kept to RPG theory and related topics. And I intend to use my ability to remove comments on ones which are entirely inappropriate, such as spam adverts and the like. But if it pertains to RPG theory, and you think that it would help better represent the field, then I welcome your comment.
I also welcome debate on this blog. But, I will not participate in any myself. I will answer questions as a neutral party, but I feel it is inappropriate for me to take sides in a debate. I view comments as being letters to the editor, an opportunity to expand, discuss, and even debate ideas of RPG theory. But as the editor it is my responsibility to moderate, not join in. And if you have a particular perspective you would like to have aired, I am always looking for guest articles.
There are many places to argue and debate, but RPG Theory Review is a neutral ground. It is a place were we can all look at the developments of RPG theory, as they are happening and as they have happened. And I want everyone to be able to enjoy it as such.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Weekly Review Apr. 9th to Apr. 15th
This week discussion has leaned towards delving into expanding the context of RPGs and their design.
RPGs to Learn From
During a discussion on metaphor in RPGs, Paul Czege elucidates his view of learning and RPGs. He suggests that RPGs are predominantly tools for players to learn skills or just about themselves. He suggests that the core question of design is what and how a game teaches.
A Deeper Look at Storytelling
Jonathan Walton presents a look at more common forms of storytelling as a way to gain some perspective on RPGs. In particular he suggests that understanding day to day storytelling will enable a more "low-impact" approach to RPGs.
Fictional Origins
Over at Story Games was a discussion about fictional origins for RPGs. Many of these suggest not only a direction for design, but also how these disparate sources interface with RPGs. Of particular note are board games and the Oulipo movement.
RPGs to Learn From
During a discussion on metaphor in RPGs, Paul Czege elucidates his view of learning and RPGs. He suggests that RPGs are predominantly tools for players to learn skills or just about themselves. He suggests that the core question of design is what and how a game teaches.
A Deeper Look at Storytelling
Jonathan Walton presents a look at more common forms of storytelling as a way to gain some perspective on RPGs. In particular he suggests that understanding day to day storytelling will enable a more "low-impact" approach to RPGs.
Fictional Origins
Over at Story Games was a discussion about fictional origins for RPGs. Many of these suggest not only a direction for design, but also how these disparate sources interface with RPGs. Of particular note are board games and the Oulipo movement.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Lesson: Resolution - Basics
One way of looking at RPGs focuses on how players work together to produce play. In particular they focus on the way that uncertainties, disagreements, and discontinuities are all resolved into apparently accepted results. Nearly every RPG theory has their own way of classifying or describing this resolution, but ultimately it is a vital part of play.
For example, the much vaulted Lumpley Principle simply defines system as anything used to resolve the imagined parts of the game. This is often contrasted with the mechanical focus, which only considers the more quantized forms of resolution, such as dice rolling and numerical comparison. But in practice resolution of different types and scales occur beyond mechanics or system.
At its base, resolution is the communication and agreement of a specific outcome, imagined or not, among the group of players. This may be done very quickly using mechanics, or may be focused on the imagined parts of play, as with system. Or, for example, how two players work out which of their dice they will share and which they will not. Such a resolution is neither system or mechanic, but affects playing the RPG just as much.
How else can resolution be divided or categorized? What during play would not be part of some resolution or other? Is there any form of resolution which cannot be mechanical? When should resolution be mechanical? How much does system resolution rely on non-system resolution?
For example, the much vaulted Lumpley Principle simply defines system as anything used to resolve the imagined parts of the game. This is often contrasted with the mechanical focus, which only considers the more quantized forms of resolution, such as dice rolling and numerical comparison. But in practice resolution of different types and scales occur beyond mechanics or system.
At its base, resolution is the communication and agreement of a specific outcome, imagined or not, among the group of players. This may be done very quickly using mechanics, or may be focused on the imagined parts of play, as with system. Or, for example, how two players work out which of their dice they will share and which they will not. Such a resolution is neither system or mechanic, but affects playing the RPG just as much.
How else can resolution be divided or categorized? What during play would not be part of some resolution or other? Is there any form of resolution which cannot be mechanical? When should resolution be mechanical? How much does system resolution rely on non-system resolution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)