The Forge Archives

This is a very narrow, very focused post. I want to hear from Walt before anybody else, if that's possible?

Quote from: Here, Walt FrietagYes, the Lumpley Principle does get in the way here, because it appears to vest all credibility in a solo computer RPG with the player, leaving nothing for the program to do. This could either be an indication that despite superficial similarities, tabletop role playing is not usefully related to any solo computer games; or it could be a shortcoming in the LP as currently stated. I believe the latter, but that's another topic.

The Lumpley Principle doesn't apply to solo computer games at all; it shouldn't appear to vest credibility anywhere. Solo computer RPGs are credibility-free. Is that the shortcoming you see?

-Vincent

Pretty much. No credibility, ergo no system for apportioning credibility, ergo no system.

Or to put it another way:

Quote from: The Provisional Glossary"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

No group, ergo no means required to reach agreement, ergo no system.

So we have computer players using software that incorporates tools and rules that look a whole lot like a lot of the things we consider parts of system in tabletop role playing games, such as creating characters based on resource point allocation and conducting combat using resolution mechanics. But there's no system -- or rather, since computer games obviously do have systems, what constitutes "system" in a computer game must be totally disjoint from what constitutes "system" in a tabletop game. What use, then, in making any comparisons of any sort between the two?

Again, the disjuction appears to be complete. Tabletop RPG: System is ENTIRELY about apportioning credibility/giving the group means to reach agreement. Computer RPG: System is IN NO WAY about apportioning credibility or giving the group means to reach agreement, because there is no credibility and no group.

I simply do not perceive such a total separation between all tabletop systems and all solo CRPG systems in reality. It's a figment of the abstractions arising from these particular Big Model concepts.

In previous discussions of CRPGs, people have tried to address this issue by conjuring up phantom "groups" of various sorts. In particular:

1. The "group" is the game developer and the player; the developer is communicating in a delayed way with the player and the program's rules determine whose statements are accepted. But the game developer is not present during play, and in evaluating tabeltop play we do not consider e.g. a module author to have credibility.

2. The "group" is the program and the player. That is to say, the program is a player. I can hear the howls of outrage at the suggestion already.

3. The "group" is the community of players of the same game, who might at some time post play want to get together and brag about their scores; the system gives their boasts credibility. And what exactly does the CRPG system do for those players who don't anticipate discussing the game with others?

I don't think any of these ideas resolves anything. I think the real problem is that the LP is overstated.

- Walt

Well, in a single player CRPG, there is no need to apportion credibility because we have what is "happening" in the program, and their is no way to "appeal" that.

Oh, I suppose you can try. But it won't listen. Believe me, I speak from experience. The "player" has no power over the play of the game beyond the actions permitted by the program. In LP terms, the player has no credibility, the program has all.

In a TTRPG, the game "happens" in the SIS, or whatever we're calling it these days. In CRPG, it "happens" in the memory of the computer, over which we have only diagetic control.

The LP isn't over stated as regards TTRPG: applying it to any endeavour where the "action" isn't held in a communal shared imaginary space is futile.

Huh.

CRPGs' systems are based on something other than apportioning credibility over what happens to the fictional stuff of the game, that's all. That provides different constraints on the design of a CRPG than an RPG, so tabletop RPG theory may or may not be informative at any given time, for any given problem. That doesn't seem totally alienating to me, but then I'm not trying to learn from tabletop RPG theory to make better CRPGs so what do I care.

Overstated, though. What does that mean? Things happen in tabletop RPGs without the group agreeing that they happen? I don't understand how that would be possible.

I really - I mean, this probably looks like I'm pugnaciously defending the stupid LP from any and all. But no, I don't actually care about the stupid LP. You're like, "Vincent! You have a blind spot!" and I'm like, "I do? Where?" That's all.

-Vincent

Well, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system.  I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

(crossposted with Vincent)

Hi Walt,

Linking with what Pete said, isn't SIS in a videogame effectively the same as a Token in real world play?  I mean, everything in a videogame is recorded (as bits, but still recorded) and therefore something against which we can fairly objectively check against.  If I want to know where my character is, I look on the screen, hit the map button, etc.  In which case, we can look at videogames being equivalent to playing chess, a boardgame, or sports- in which the primary focus of play is on tokens, not imaginary stuff.

If there is no need to divvy up credibility(since everything is objective Tokens), then there's no need to have a Lumpley Principle in action for that type of activity.  If we look at wargames, which are primarily about manipulating Tokens and have simpler rules to accompany that("If this unit aims at this unit, and succeeds at these rolls, remove target unit from table"), and while it might have room to throw imaginative stuff on top of it("My guy throws a grenade in the tank hatch! Boom!"), it still doesn't make play rely on the hazy, imaginative element as a determiner of what is, and isn't possible in play.

I'm not necessarily following what you mean by Lumpley Principle being overstated- it applies to games where the gameplay is based in imagined elements instead of Tokens, and therefore, control over declaration rights to imagined elements constitutes a vital part of play.  The fact computer games don't fit it seem to fall right into place as expected.

Thoughts?

Chris

Gareth: ceding credibility isn't ... I mean, yes! Exactly. Aha! When I say "the rules apportion credibility" I'm just restating your "the players can cede credibility to a system." I agree with you on every count.

So sure, people may well be overstating the stupid LP. It seems to provoke a certain kind of overstatement - that the rules are powerless. But that's absurd, given what it really says.

-Vincent

Quote from: contracycleWell, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system.  I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

Errrm, doesn't the LP define system as the means by which the players negotiate credibility, i.e. system is a subset of the social contract between the players, that part specifically dedicated to determining the contents of the SIS/SGS?

Any ceding of authority to game mechanics is voluntary on the part of the player in a TTRPG. In agreeing to play a CRPG, you have ceded all that authority to the program.

EDIT: or, apparently, not... Are we going to have a new round of Define The LP?

Yeah, I completely agree with Chris on this.

Table Top RPGs and CRPGs are like apples and kumquats.  Other than sharing initials the only things they have in common are all superficial surface level appearances.  Underneath they aren't even on the same planet.

There is no shared imagination going on in a CRPG.  You can imagine all of the cool dialog you want.  You can imagine that buying an ale for 3 cps repeatedly actually represents flirting with the bar maid.  You can imagine that when the graphic of the bar maid (or Icon in older ultima type games) randomly decides to walk to the right and you walk to the right with her that you're actually walking together having a conversation.

But that's all locked in your own head.  None of those imaginings have any impact what so ever on the Space of the game world...they aren't shared among other players at the table who adjust their world view to fit this new information.  The only adjusting going on in a CRPG is the adjusting of a player to whatever new information the program reveals.

There is no shared imaginary space in a CRPG.  Therefor its no surprise at all that there is no Lumpley Principle at work in a CRPG.  Far from being a short coming I think this is a pretty good limus test for difference between actual roleplaying around a table with real human beings and what would better be described as Electonic Avatar play.


I don't see any disconnect here at all.  I do see some interesting possibilities for exploring games like Neverwinter Nights (which used to be a cool top down old school icon driven D&D MMORPG before becoming its current incarnation).  Since there are other real human beings playing the game, to what extent is there a shared imaginary space.  I suspect that answer will very greatly by group.  Some groups will make allowances and adjucations to permit things that can't be represented graphically and mechanically within the program, like the DM using his manipulation powers to reduce a monsters effectiveness to account for a players chat based narration and such.  Others will be restricted solely by what the game permits.  The big difference will be to what extent there is a shared imaginary space at work and to what extent a system for apportioning credibility exists.

That you can't use the Lumpley Principle to describe what happens in a CRPG means nothing to me other than a reminder that CRPGs aren't really RPGs any more than an RTS is a wargame.

I'm with Ralph on this one.  CRPG's don't have an SIS ergo no Lumpley Principle.

Quote from: PeteAre we going to have a new round of Define The LP?

Oh, screw that. Forget I asked.

Here's a link to the earlier big LP in CRPG thread: CRPGs, SIS, and SOlo Play: Is it Role Playing?

Walt, if you feel like a final statement, please go ahead.

-Vincent

Quote from: contracycleWell, I think its somewhat overstated, because I think the players can cede credibility to a system.  I agree that the origin of all credibility is the social contract, between real people, but I also think it can be transposed onto a sufficiently complex system.

This makes no sense to me in terms of the Lumpley Principle.  If system is defined as the means of apportioning credibility, then how can you apportion credibility to the system?  

I think the argument about solo RPGs was rather narrow-minded.  The problem as I see it is that you can have a solo computer RPG, a computer-moderated multi-player RPG, and a tabletop RPG -- all of which have nearly identical rules (like D&D3, for example).  i.e. So you play with other players and jointly attack a monster in a MUD or MMORPG, and it is resolved by the same rules which you use in a tabletop RPG.  This isn't even new to computers, because you had things like Tunnels & Trolls solo dungeon modules prior to computers.  To take a specific example: "roll 1d20 and add 8, and if it is greater than AC, then roll 1d10 and subtract that from hit points."  If this operation is done by a human, it is called "system" and considered to be part of allocating credibility.  If it is done by a computer, though, it is considered something totally unrelated.  I would say something is clearly not right.  

One approach would be to say that this operation is not part of the "system" in the Lumpley sense.  This would divide RPG rules up into rules which are for granting credibility (i.e. the Lumpley system) and rules which may be granted credibility (i.e. a system of input).

So, the other day I was playing Myst. Hours and hours of puzzle solving in fantastic and serene environments. And clearly, I'm close to the end of the game. I can tell. I've avoided the deceptions of Sirrus and Achenar. They remain imprisoned, because I don't trust them. And then, without warning, the roof is torn from the hut I'm in. I witness the descent of scores of undead paratroopers. I hear the roar of Godzilla in the distance. A smoking teargas cannister lands on the floor at my feet. It obscures much of the room. And then I'm fighting a female wuxia badass who throws metal stars with her 10 foot long ponytail. I've had no tutorial on using the keyboard for fighting. I die quickly. A message appears on screen saying that my punishment for having died so dishonorably is that my saved games have been deleted.

It's a good thing the game didn't do anything to establish credibility with me, cause I'm thinking that would have blown it.

Paul

Here's how I think about it; how I've always thought about it, from the days of discussing solo modules in T&T (though I'll cast it now in the seems-to-me clearer Principoodley terms): what are the influences on the apportioning of credibility?  Other real human beings.  How do those influences operate?  In the case of solo/computer play, indirectly.  That creates a problem, sometimes - it's harder to communicate when you're not actually there.  But it can, and does, happen.

Otherwise, that Lumpadoodley thing means "System (or at least what a designer puts into System) doesn't matter" - and as Vincent's link demonstrates (hell, as Vincent-the-dude demonstrates), it sure doesn't mean that.

Gordon

(Seems to me this is Walt's case #1, with the clarification that both the absent designer and the module author do have credibility - just weaker credibility than the people actually there.  That's why Drift can happen, isn't it?  I mean, I feel like I'm stating something obvious here, but since some folks seem to be arguing to the contrary . . . )

EDIT to add, in particular to John:  The credibility of the designer will always (unless he or she is playing the game) be indirect, via the subset of the System actually used that is attributable to what was in the text.  At least, that's how I think about it - I can imagine seperating the influence applied by those actually playing from the other influences, but I'm not sure what that gains us over simply recognizing that direct vs. indirect are meaningful factors.

For the most part I agree with Ralph. There's no maleability, no room for interpretation. When playing a CRPG you're operating within a structure that offers a very finite number of options. No act of imagination or creativity on the player's end is going to affect those finite options. They are static.

If I grok Paul's example, I'd say that any credibility established or lost is between the player and the designers of the game. But not just credibility purely in the LP sense. In the example, you play the game and get completely hosed. Are you truly pissed at the game, or the people responsible for designing it? How will this loss of credibility affect your future game purchase decisions?

Basically, I don't see a lack of credibility apportionment so much as a lack of means of negotiating that apportionment. At least not beyond your future game purchase choices.

-Chris