ewilen: Lumpley Principle and SIS

Elliot Wilen (

ewilen) wrote,
@ 2005-10-18 12:18:00

Entry tags:

lumpley principle, philosophy, system

Lumpley Principle and SIS
I think the discussion has died down, and that also includes my enthusiasm for writing at length about the LP and the SIS. I was originally going to write something about how the depiction of gaming under the LP is intellectually descended from Enlightenment views on individual autonomy and natural law, but I think I'll just throw out that reference and anyone who wants to can run with it. (I do note that a couple of the comments over in Malcolm's LJ picked up on a similar theme of libertarianism in gamer-geek culture.)

The upshot of the spillover in lordsmerf's and adamdray's LJ's is that some people view the LP expansively in a way that turns System into a combination of the Social Contract and Exploration levels of the Big Model. Social context and implicit influences are part of System. I call this "LP-maximalism." Some people also view SIS as the intersection of all the beliefs held by the players about the game-world, regardless of whether those beliefs have been explicitly communicated. In other words, the term "shared" in SIS is construed as "common".

Against these views, there's the idea that the System only consists of the procedures (Techniques) evidenced in actual game play actions (Ephemera). And the formal definition of SIS is only concerned with elements of the game-world which have been "shared" in the sense of "communicated" or "transmitted" within the context of the game.

Personally, I hold the latter views, and based on the conversation in the Forge thread Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text, as well as the Glossary definitions of System, Ephemera, Techniques, and Shared Imagined Space, I think the weight of Forge authority is on my side (which came as a bit of a surprise).

This isn't to say that social context, psychology of the players, etc., aren't important areas of analysis, nor that the idea of creating a "common" imaginary world among the players is delusional. Just that it's more profitable to separate these social and aesthetic concepts from formal issues of how games are played.

An excellent example can be found in Markus Montola & Mika Loponen's article "A Semiotic View on Diegesis Construction", which can be found in PDF form in Beyond Role and Play. They build on Montola's earlier argument against the objective existence of a single diegesis, or shared ("common") imaginary space among players, in favor of multiple subjective diegeses. In "A Semiotic View on Diegesis Construction", he demonstrates how the subjective diegeses of the various players interact semiotically, often with the goal of making them equifinal, that is, "similar enough to cause indistinguishable consequences". (When I write this, I'm reminded of some of the language in La Ludisto's Interactive Model about "reconcile-and-develop".)

I would also point to works on ritual in RPGs, such as Chris Lehrich's article and posts at the Forge, as well as this thread. These may or may not touch on System, but they're really about the psycho-social and aesthetic elements of roleplaying, including how they interact with System.

(Post a new comment)

thededine
2005-10-19 08:20 pm UTC (link)

Personally, I simply don't like SIS because it's a pretty non-functional term. It's sort of the place where products of roleplaying go, we say "the fact entered into the SIS" but then nothing happens to them afterwards. There's no way to reliably reference the SIS with any procedures of play, so it just ends up as this dumping ground -- a dumping ground of all the important stuff we're roleplaying about.

But I've gone on and on about this so many places, now, I've lost count.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

SIS nonfunctional?

adamdray
2005-10-19 09:38 pm UTC (link)

What do you mean, but then nothing happens to them afterwards? By "them," I assume you mean facts. What happens to them is that the players use them to build additional facts.

"You go to the end of the hallway and see a large oak door." (GM introduces a door)

"Is it locked?" (player builds on the fact, asking for another fact)

"You give it a tug and it doesn't budge." (GM gives the additional fact, the door won't open, but it could be jammed or locked)

SIS is the "board" on which everyone makes his move. I put a piece down, then you put a piece on top of that. Sometimes you pick up my piece and take it off the board. Sometimes you replace it with a different one.

Every part of System is about the procedures of play as they effect the SIS. I don't know how you can say there's no way to reliably reference the SIS with any procedures of play.

When a rule says, "The GM's ruling is final on all matters," that's a procedure of play that reliably references the SIS. Any rulebook is full of other (less draconian) references to the SIS.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: SIS nonfunctional?

thededine
2005-10-19 10:59 pm UTC (link)

Hey, Adam.

When an element is "added to the SIS" how long does it stay there? What are its specific details? What attendent and dependent details are included when a foundational detail is added (if I say there's a mop and bucket, is there a puddle)? How do you check if something is in the SIS? What happens if everybody gets together for the second session of a game and can't remember what happened last time? Where did the SIS go?

The ruling "The GM's ruling is final on all matters" is a procedure of play that directly references the powers attributed to the GM. It does not reference the mop, bucket, or puddle. And no procedure for play ever can. Procedures can talk all day long about things that the players say, and actions that players do, but procedures can never interface with imagined content any more than the instructions for building a house can reference what people eat for breakfast in its kitchen.

That said, as I've noted before, I think SIS is a good transitional term, but I think it's a blundering half-step towards the lightswitch. I've made my own blundering half-step with the Interaction Model, where I argue for individualized conceptions of imagined content that are being reconciled and developed together. I find this a far more realistic depiction of what's going on around the table, and what's more, I can write procedures of play that directly hit all the pieces.

In the end, please, take what I say with a grain of salt. I don't buy into the Big Model for a number of reasons, but I do find some worthwhile observations in it, so I am neither preacher nor choir. I am not speaking quite the same language as you might be.

-- Josh BishopRoby

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: SIS nonfunctional?

adamdray
2005-10-20 12:17 am UTC (link)

Procedures can talk all day long about things that the players say, and actions that players do, but procedures can never interface with imagined content any more than the instructions for building a house can reference what people eat for breakfast in its kitchen.

So, when you play My Life With Master, and the rules tell you exactly how to play The Master, that isn't procedure interfacing with imagined content?

You're not making a "ceci n'est pas une pipe" argument, are you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: SIS nonfunctional?

thededine
2005-10-20 02:42 am UTC (link)

I'm afraid I haven't gotten to see a copy of MLwM. I know, I'm a deficient human being. ;)

In any case, when a sourcebook describes a territory, or when it even describes an NPC, that's certainly entering items into the SIS. What it can't do is refer to items already in the SIS (sure, it can refer to items that it put there, but that's of limited use, given the majority is entered by the players, and the book-dictated elements may or may not actually be exercised by the real players around the table).

I can decide if the Master is male or female, I'm assuming. How do the rules reference the gender of the Master? As far as I can tell, they can't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: SIS nonfunctional?

ewilen
2005-10-20 06:04 am UTC (link)

I've read it; unfortunately, I've only played it sketchily, in a few test sessions.

MLwM is actually a tricky case. It is really quite clear about how players' declared actions are linked to game procedures (including inputs for resolution). Not completely, utterly clear-cut--for example, as I recall, the description of what one must do to get the Sincerity bonus is almost completely arbitrary. However, aside from that, the real issue is that while the procedures structure and limit the imagined content, they don't strongly describe or respond to it on all the levels experienced and enjoyed by the players.

If the Master tells you to kill the local constable, the procedures of the game aren't going to respond to whether you build an elaborate, genre-inappropriate (and improbable) Wile E. Coyote-type trap, or simply stalk him and strangle him from behind with piano wire. The procedures also won't tell you if your failure is because the man fought back valiantly or because you slipped on a banana peel. There is a good deal of hortatory text in MLwM, which is more or less effective at setting a mood and even, one might say, developing a ritual to put the players in the right mindset. But if all that fails, the procedures aren't going to do anything.

This is a much greater problem than just the fact that people don't remember every detail of everything that's been said in previous sessions. It's a fundamental problem whenever you're playing on a "board" which is composed entirely of mental constructs. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court--or, having a Supreme Court, we wouldn't be so worried about the qualifications and character of the people nominated to serve on it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: SIS nonfunctional?

ewilen
2005-10-21 03:25 pm UTC (link)

On reflection, I think MLwM is even trickier. As I noted, it does contain some freeform procedures which are depend on interpretation (e.g. Sincerity bonus, exact sequence of scene framing). And I stand by my point that the procedures don't create or respond to the narration detail.

But some of the procedures are designed in a manner that robustly supports Montola and Loponen's "interactive diegesis construction". The key, I think, is the insulation of diegetic detail from thematic resolution. This literally enforces equifinality. Even though different players may subjectively interpret the outcome of a resolution, their interpretations will all be informed by the same consequences in terms of the system. For example, if a Minion gains a Contact and increases his Love, the overall consequences are well defined even if the details of the narration may not satisfy all the participants. That is, the Minion is going to have a greater chance of resisting the Master and is a step closer to overthrowing him.

This is conflict resolution, but a far more robust approach than other forms. The outputs that are produced by each conflict are (almost) completely sufficient to resolve the next one. The result is a chain of mechanically-linked events, leading to ultimate consequences (Endgame), and providing a scaled structure for subjective diegesis construction.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: SIS nonfunctional? (Anonymous) 2005-10-21 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	Total agreement without ever having read, Elliot. :) The individual players may imagine different expressions of the same commonized game mechanics and accounting. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Added note ewilen 2005-10-20 06:52 pm UTC (link)
	Yet another Forge post that shows that, whatever else I may have to disagree with Ron Edwards about, we're on the same page with regard to defining SIS: SIS: Beyond the Glossary. (Reply to this)

	Another thread on the controversy, at rpg.net ewilen 2005-11-02 08:55 pm UTC (link)
	http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=207366 Bottom of page 3, Tigerbunny goes for LP-maximalism. (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Another thread on the controversy, at rpg.net

ewilen
2005-11-02 10:11 pm UTC (link)

On the other hand, I completely agree with this on page 6:

"My thesis is that the only theory questions that are (a) portable - applicable to many play groups and (b) uniquely applicable to roleplaying games as a distinct activity are those that deal with the communication and reconciliation of information between multiple participants."

Which of course pulls System all the way back into procedures and affirms that system matters, in a meaningful way (e.g., when discussing RPG preferences or suggesting a change of system to address a problem in someone's gaming experience).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Another thread on the controversy, at rpg.net

ewilen
2005-11-03 12:31 am UTC (link)

ut nevertheless, restricting discussion to the Shared Content (transmitted SIS) ignores the important fact that all contributions to the Shared Content start privately, and all appreciation of the Shared Content occurs privately. In other words, RP theory must look at how these private imaginings interact with the social process of roleplaying--as again, Montola & Loponen, et. al.

John Morrow's post on page 6 explains all of this in most excellent fashion:

"I would argue that Shared Content is not a unique domain of role-playing games. Collaborative storytelling, improv theater, LARPS, children playing house or cops and robbers, and a host of other creative activities that create Shared Imaginary Content are not role-playing games. Thus I think that trying to identify the 'unique domain' of role-playing games entirely by the imaginary content isn't possible, since there is no single sort of imaginary content produced by a role-playing game that isn't produced by some other activity that commonly not considered a 'role-playing game'. "

and

"What's important to understand is that immersive players do create imagined content together, which is what differentiates immersion from daydreaming, but the content does not necessarily have to be shared. If the objective is for the participants in a role-playing game to have fun, then the Private Content that's created as a byproduct of the game is most certainly relevant to a discussion about the game, particularly if the purpose of that discussion is to have fun and the discussion isn't going to excluse immersive players.

"What is or isn't fun for individual players depends on what's interesting to them as an individual, be it shared or private. Given that Private Content is produced by the game, affects how a player interacts with the game, and can determine whether some players are having fun or not, it's only irrelevant to understanding good role-playing if you assume that the tastes of immersive role-players is either irrelevant or simply not role-playing. "

(Actually, I disagree with some of his exclusions from the RPG category. But the point is that RPing is the interactive construction of subjective diegeses. Or at minimum, that such an activity must be included as a type of RPing, while "collaborative storytelling" may or may not be another type.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Another thread on the controversy, at rpg.net ewilen 2005-11-03 12:33 am UTC (link)
	(Make that "But nevertheless...") (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Another thread, with marvellous commentary by Pseudoephedrine ewilen 2007-04-04 08:15 pm UTC (link)
	http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=267871 The gist: rules only function in a social context; making more rules is just making more rules, you can't construct an entire social context to determine how all the rules are construed. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	"sacrificing character integrity" ewilen 2005-11-03 12:59 am UTC (link)
	http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=11822 This really hits the issue right in the forehead: because in most roleplaying, character is the interface between the subjective diegesis and the social process of roleplaying. (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…