The League Returns

As is evident from my lack of posting, I’ve had almost no free time of late. However things are looking up. After two years in the wilderness, I’m finally back roleplaying. Yay! Colin, Glyn, Tony M and I gathered on Wednesday night for the first session of a Runequest (Mongoose edition) game Colin has decided to run.

Our heroes; Cyrus the Brave, a charismatic local hero and storyteller (played by Glyn); Thanos, a mighty gladiator (played by Tony) and Rhadamanthus, a melancholy ex-Town Guard (played by me); were dispatched to determine why the beacon at a local lighthouse had not been lit.

Hopefully I’ll have an opportunity to write up the story over the next couple of weeks.

Overall things went well I think. It was a nice little introductory adventure that brought the three characters together and gave everyone an opportunity to get used to the system. Everyone said they enjoyed themselves. The initial signs are most promising and we’re due to play the second session next week.

RPG Theory Journey - Part VII

I’ve been swamped with work over the last couple of months so haven’t been around much but I’m hoping to get back to my RPG theory journey again now. I’m starting with a diagram of play that brings together ideas from my previous two posts - Adding to the Fiction and RPG Theory Journey - Part VI 

RPG Theory Journey - Part VI

Anchors revisited

I’m going to go over my thoughts on ‘anchors’ a bit more, as I feel their role is somewhat fundamental to my evolving model of play. In particular I’m going to try and explain why I see them as non-diegetic, since this has already raised some debate.

‘Shared’ fantasy isn’t really shared

Right, first thing’s first. The basis for a lot of what I’m saying is that, though the idea of shared fantasy is at the heart of roleplaying, the fantasy itself (even the Shared-Imaginary-Space fantasy) isn’t really shared. In reality the imaginings of the individual participants are distinct diegeses existing entirely in their own minds.

Roleplaying succeeds in creating the illusion of shared fantasy through processes of play that align these individual imaginings so that they resemble one another sufficiently for participants to believe that they are interacting inside one shared fantasy (perhaps that should read ‘make-believe that they are interacting inside one shared fantasy’)

Fantasy alignment through ‘anchors’

Alignment of individual fantasies is achieved by establishing/ communicating what has happened or how things appear so that everyone’s imaginings can be made to resemble one another. Each stipulation about the fantasy is an anchor that draws the imaginings of individual participants together along a similar course. The more anchors there are, the closer together the threads of fiction are brought. Also different anchors have different weights of influence, some being more tightly defined and others more open to individual interpretation. ‘A large rock’ for example is a fairly loose description. Additional information is required to establish whether it can be lifted or used to hide behind.

So why are anchors non-diegetic?  

In a nutshell my assertion is that anchors are non-diegetic because the anchor itself and the effect the anchor has on individual participants’ imaginings are quite different things. The anchor is non-diegetic; in fact even the influence the anchor exerts is non-diegetic. Only the consequences of that influence (the imaginings that are created in the diegeses as a result of the anchor being established) are diegetic.

Note that the effect the anchors have on the paths of the two players’ fiction threads  in the diagram above is similar but not the same.

Minotaur or Minosaur?

A few years ago I participated in a game in which one of the characters was Shaaaarghraio, a large and powerful Minotaur; he lumbered around hitting things with his great-axe a lot. These statements about Shaaaarghraio are anchors (stipulations of what he is like that establish how we should imagine him). As a result we are able to build a similar minds-eye picture of him (typically that shown on the left of the diagram below.)

However, when presented with the exact same anchors, the effect of their influence on the imaginings of someone else I know was entirely different. For some reason known only to them their brain conjured up the image that Shaaaarghraio was kind of like a dinosaur and the idea appealed to them so much that it stuck. In their mind that’s what he was.

Anchors are language

Anchors are language. We speak to one another or write things down and they allow us to communicate our thoughts. If I tell you that I am imagining a ’sword’ you understand what I mean by a ’sword’ and you can imagine one also. The image in your mind isn’t an image of the sword I’m imagining as I’m not sending you the image that’s in my mind. Instead I’m using a kind of association shorthand and sending you a symbol (the word ’sword’), which hopefully represents something similar to us both.

When your brain receives that symbol, you interpret it and select a sword (or at least what you understand a ’sword’ to be) from the set of imaginary swords available in your mind. That’s what you imagine. If I so choose I could then provide additional information so you can adjust your imaginary sword to bring our imaginings closer together.

The point being that the sword I’m imagining, the word (symbol) ’sword’ and the sword you’re imagining are all different things. And the relationship between the imaginary swords and the word ’sword’ is the same as the relationship between an anchor and whatever it’s describing in the diegesis. The effect in the diegesis is diegetic but the anchor and the influence it has on the diegesis are external, parts of a non-diegetic mechanism designed to convey information to the diegesis.

Does that make sense? 

So what?

At the moment there isn’t really a ’so what’, I’m merely exploring ways of thinking about what goes on during roleplay. Hopefully at various points along the line this will elicit useful discussion. If not, it will certainly give my simple brain a workout.

As always any comments or observations are most welcome.

Adding to the Fiction

Following on from the end of my previous post, I wanted to record a few of the thoughts I’d had on the process (ritual) of adding to the fiction. I see it as going something like this:

1. Conception

One of the participants thinks of something they wish to have added to the shared fantasy e.g. I think my character is going to go to the tavern. At this point it’s kind of a protean diegetic element; a thought in the mind of an individual that is not yet part of any of the fantasies.

2. Invocation

The individual with the idea calls upon his fellow participants to accept the statement into the shared fantasy.

This stage of the process is often implied rather than explicit e.g. my character is going to the tavern … any objections? (the ‘any objections?’ not actually being spoken). Typically participants are familiar with the rules and understand what authority they have. They know what they are entitled to say without contradiction and don’t have to ask. Though occasionally another participant will still intervene and challenge the statement.

Also, some invocations take the form of a statement of intent and a request for resolution/arbitration e.g. my character is going to pick the lock would be likely to require a skill check.

3. Arbitration

An arbitration occurs to determine the outcome.

This may be a die roll, a contest, a negotiation or merely an imperceptable pause while everyone accepts that the player has the authority to introduce the statement into the shared fantasy. The outcome may be acceptance of the statement as it stands, a change to the statement or outright rejection of it.

4. Inclusion

The outcome is accepted and each of the individual participants (including the instigator) incorporates their interpretation of the outcome into their own fantasies.

RPG Theory Journey - Part V

Definition of roleplaying revisited 

As a result of the ongoing discussion I’ve been having with Tommi Brander I’ve once again amended my definition of roleplaying. It now reads:

Roleplaying: A game in which participants control imaginary characters within a shared fantasy

For those who haven’t been following the discussion, my reason for replacing ‘coherent fantasy’ with ’shared fantasy’ is that ‘coherent’ means ‘having no contradictions’ whereas ’shared’ merely means ‘jointly owned’. This change acknowledges the fact that numerous contradictions exist within the fantasy as a whole (e.g. one player can think that a character’s eyes are brown and another that they are blue)

Arguably, ’shared’ may not be the best term to use either but, given that the overall fantasy is a composite of similar fictions owned by the individual participants, it seems suitable enough for me.

I also like the fact that this definition remains accessible and doesn’t sacrifice clarity for precision, which was the case with my intermediate attempts. Once again thanks to Tommi for his good advice on this.

Hopefully this will be the final version; though if anyone wants to raise any further issues they are more than welcome to do so.

Where next?

Next I shall be turning the focus of my RPG Theory Journey towards the processes of play, in particular the creation and alignment of the participants’ individual fantasies.

For the time being the analogy I find easiest to consider has the imaginings of individual participants represented as coloured threads and shared facts (statements about the fiction that are either agreed or communicated into the group consensus) as anchor points that draw these threads together.

In the diagram below each of the different coloured threads represents the imaginings of an individual participant and the anchors/’shared facts’ serve to keep these individual imaginings moving together from left-to-right across the page.

Obviously if there were no anchors (shared elements such as scene descriptors, character intentions and action outcomes) the individual participants’ imaginings would be free to go off in all directions. It is only as a result of their unifying influence that the participants are able to interact as though they were experiencing a common fantasy.

Consequently governing how shared facts are established and who has authority over them is a large part of play.

For example, in many roleplaying games a participant has authority over the actions of their own character and can freely introduce character actions to establish intent within the shared fantasy. However the participant may not dictate the outcomes of these actions, which must be established through arbitration e.g. a die roll to determine success or failure. 

Anchors - Process or Fantasy? 

One thing that Tommi’s questions have led me to consider at some length is, where do these ‘anchors’ fit in my model of roleplay? The fact that they:

1. are typically communicated as part of narration and;
2. form the backbone of the fantasy

points to them being diegetic. However, after much thought, I would assert that they are elements of the process and thus non-diegetic. In fact all game description and narration is process, since fantasy is entirely in the minds of the participants. Description is a means of communicating information from one person’s fantasy to another or for establishing ’shared facts’ that will enter into all of the participants’ imaginings.   

As always, I welcome any thoughts anyone has on this.

RPG Theory Journey - Part IV

Thanks primarily to Tommi Brander’s insightful observations and advice, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking this last week. Consequently my simple model of roleplaying has evolved somewhat (see below).

I’ve changed some of the names, hopefully to improve clarity, and now have working definitions of roleplaying and each of the model components:

Roleplaying: A game in which participants control imaginary characters within a coherent fantasy.

Constituent elements of roleplaying:

Players: the individuals participating in play

Process: the formal or informal rules and processes that constitute game-play, which govern how the fantasy (incl. characters, places, situations and events) is created and how coherence is maintained – non-diegetic elements of play

Fantasy: all imaginary content (characters, places, situations and events), whether part of the group consensus or imagined by individual participants – diegetic elements of play

I’ve also recognised (again thanks to Tommi) that roleplaying doesn’t occur in a vacuum and that there are External Influences such as GM modules, source material and genre canon that, though outside the game, affect the creation of the in-game fantasy.

As always comments on this and where it is going are most welcome, nothing here is sacrosanct.

RPG Theory Journey - Part III

I’m bouncing around with my thoughts rather but my intent with this series of posts is primarily to brainstorm, so I guess that’s OK. I just hope as a result it’s not too disjointed for anyone reading. Please do chip in with any thoughts or questions as I go along.

Anyway continuing on, as shown in the diagram below, it seems fairly intuitive to me to think of the constituent elements of roleplaying as being kind of layered, with I guess complete immersion in the roleplaying experience at the centre and Out-Of-Game chatter on the periphery. Thus the Players and social aspects that surround the game are farthest from the centre, they encase the Game system and processes of play, and the Story itself (the fictitious sequence of events and experiences being created) is in the middle.

The player experience is a combination of interactions with elements on all three levels; other players, the game processes and the story that is being produced collaboratively. Governed by the rules of play (or perhaps ignoring them) the players both contribute to and perceive their own interpretation of the shared story that is being created. Their imagination is stimulated, possibly the game rules (as well as presumably facilitating play) provide an intellectual challenge (e.g. game tactics) and the activity is a social one so they can bond with or compete against other players. All-in-all a fairly wide range of experiential needs are catered for.

Arkanoid

Courtesy of Vincent Baker’s Create an Album Cover post, here are my new band’s first two albums:

Instructions:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The first article title on the page is the name of your band.

2. http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last four words of the very last quote is the title of your album.

3. http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
The third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

You then take the pic and add text to it, then post your pic.

Perception Weirdness

While thinking about avenues along which to continue my RPG theory journey, I was looking into some bits-and-bobs on human perception and stumbled across the following, both of which kind of made me go wow!

Firstly, if I told you that the squares marked A and B on the chequered board below were the same colour, you’d tell me I was crazy right?

But think again, if I join them together with a strip of the same colour you can see that they are!

Here are some further examples under the Wikipedia entry on ’optical illusion’ 

And secondly, did you know that according to research, it deosn’t mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. Tihs is buaesce the huamn mnid deosn’t raed ervey lteter ividlidlanuy but the wrod as a wlohe.

RPG Theory Journey - Part II

Story, the product of play. 

The first thing to note is that my use of the word ’Story’ to describe the product of play is merely a convenient title for something that is actually quite difficult to pin down.

I’m put in mind of a poem by John Godfrey Saxe entitled Blind Men and the Elephant in which a goup of blind men encounter an elephant and each one perceives it quite differently from the other. The first man feels the elephant’s sturdy side and thinks it like a wall, the second feels its tusk and thinks it like a spear, the third feels its trunk and thinks it like a serpent … and so on. Each of the men has his own perception of what the elephant is and each of them is partly right, but none of them see the whole thing. 

Like the elephant in the poem, roleplaying is many things to many people and in its widest sense the product of play is simply a group experience that presumably provides some pay-off (reason to play) for the individual participants. Each member of the group perceives that experience independently and ‘play’ may well represent something quite different to them than their colleagues, although there will be some overlap.

This phenomenon exists both across the game experience as a whole and within the unfolding narrative, where the same description of James Bond say might well be imagined quite differently by each of the members of the group:

There is no intrinsic harm in this but there must be sufficient accord between players so that discrepancies in perception do not produce clashes in understanding as the events unfold.

One of the functions of  the Game system is to manage this by providing means to determine what is ‘fact’, normally through game rules that prevent or settle disputes… but that’s another topic.