The Forge Archives

I notice also that in this particular formulation of the Lumpley Principle, game rules as written in a book are a subset of System.

And in this formulation, the Lumpley Principle is a definition, not a claim: it's a definition of a term called 'System'.  Definitions have no truth value (though one might acquire one through presuppositions in the definition), and cannot be "right" or "wrong."

An astute observation, Ed. I had alway thought that the Lumpley Principle was more a definition than a principle. However, a quick check on dictionary.com states:

Quote from: dictionary.com

[1]A basic truth, law, or assumption:

the principles of democracy.
[2]

[a]A rule or standard, especially of good behavior:

a man of principle.
The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.[/list:u]
[3]A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
[4]A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
[5]A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.
[6]Chemistry. One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.
[7]A basic source. See Usage Note at principal.[/list:u]

Definitions 4 or 5 seem to fit because contained in this definition is a neat, concise description of how it works.

Thanks for starting this thread, Ian. The other thread was pissing me off with talk of negotiation and credibility. I don't know where that came from, but it complicated something that was nice and simple.

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

That's it.

Ed, good call on definition vs. claim.  "The Lumpley Principle" has been used to mean both, pretty much from the beginning.  We talk a bit about it starting at the bottom of the second page of good old Exploration of System (split).

Notice that my concise statement includes the definition:

Quote from: IThis process -- statement -> negotiation -> consensus -- is the game's System in play.

Quote from: YouI notice also that in this particular formulation of the Lumpley Principle, game rules as written in a book are a subset of System.

Yes, and not exactly.  Game rules as written in a book as implemented in play are a subset of System.  Until you're actually playing, there's no System for the game rules to be a subset of.  This follows from the Lumpley Principle definition of System.

You probably already get that, but it's subtle enough that I want to be explicit.

Ron, would you split these out into their own thread?

-Vincent

Split as requested from The Lumpley Principle in by-the-rules play, Vincent.

Everyone, note that Jack is referring to the parent thread in some of his comments.

Best,
Ron

Thanks.

It's extremely hard to get one's head around Forge terminology sometimes.  (I remember reading through the threads on 'Vanilla' and 'Pervy' and being astonished that anyone had ever thought those terms were in the least helpful...  Glad they were changed).  Thanks for directing me a bit.

Where this all interests me is this --

It involves the conceptual breakpoint where things stop being 'wargames' or boardgames or whatever and become 'role-playing games.'

That point lies at the moment where one stops using *only* an explicit set of tokens and a known set of interactions to represent the gameworld, and starts including *consensus between human beings, expressed through such flexible means as verbal interaction* as a means to represent the gameworld.

The Lumpley Principle comes up here because what it describes as 'System' is tied in to that liminal point, that defining element.  When things start happening in the game world purely because someone said they happen -- and when rulebooks are written in such a way that it is no longer just about moving clearly defined tokens according to clearly defined rules, but starts to become about what people *say happens* in the imagined world that they're *imagining together* -- that's when the line has been crossed, and "I don't think we're in Wargaming anymore, Dorothy."

That's why the Lumpley Principle is interesting to me -- because it's about something which is distinctive to RPGs (as far as I've seen).

Hey Ed,

I'm playing a wargame. The other guy has just pulled a wicked flanking manuever on me and wiped out a substantial portion of my battalion while only taking minimal losses himself. We didn't speak one word to each other while this was going on nor did either one of us lapse into any fantastical imaginings. We simply followed the rules of the game we're playing.

Guess what? Still the Lumpley Principle in action.

Vincent's  "statement -> negotiation -> consensus" is fully covered by the act of choosing the game and agreeing to abide by the rules of that game. We might engage in a localized use of that process should we encounter the use of a rule that seems vague or contradictory or even if one of us suggests changing a rule for any reason.

Hopefully that makes sense to you, Ed. I really don't know what to say that wasn't already said in the parent thread.

-Chris

What Chris said, but I want to add that that does NOT invalidate Ed's point about how the Lumpley Principle (LP)takes on an even greater significance in RPGs, not so much because they are RPGs, but because the range of deemed-reasonable statements and negotiation methods has been expanded.  Expand chess to allow more flamboyant "psych out my opponent" methods (changing none of the strict rules of play), and the LP also emerges as a more significant factor in the game, because the complexity of acheiving consensus has been increased.  

A wider range of considered-valid statements and/or considered-reasonable negotiation methods makes it more complex to acheive consensus, and thus makes the LP more obvious in the game play that results.  A wider range also makes managing the issues that arise from the LP more significant to the "success" of the play that results.

At least, that's how it seems to me,

Gordon

Huh.  At that point, Chris, it seems to have expanded to the point of pure vapidity.  Shall I invoke the Lumpley Principle to explain the fact that when I get together for a sit-down dinner, we have all reached the consensus that we put food in our mouths rather than stuffing it into our ears?  Shall we invoke the Lumpley Principle to say why we agree to drive on the proper side of the road, and stop at red lights?

I don't see any use in it if it just means "people get together and agree on stuff, or else they don't," which is where you seem to be headed with it.

Sorry if this seems a bit snarky, but that was a disappointing message to read.  Gordon saved it a bit, but still.

Quote from: ejhHuh.  At that point, Chris, it seems to have expanded to the point of pure vapidity.  Shall I invoke the Lumpley Principle to explain the fact that when I get together for a sit-down dinner, we have all reached the consensus that we put food in our mouths rather than stuffing it into our ears?  Shall we invoke the Lumpley Principle to say why we agree to drive on the proper side of the road, and stop at red lights?

In my opinion, yes.  In cognitive anthropology it's called the social construction of reality.  I'm not kidding.  The Lumpley Principle is a subset of this, applied to games.  Role-playing games just formalize a fundimental human activity.

Perhaps so, Alan, but what I'm interested in as far as RPG theory goes is things that are uniquely important to RPGs.

Or else I'm going to have to propose the "EJH Principle," which is that what roleplaying games are REALLY for is causing the neurons in your brain to fire.

Sure, neurons in your brain may fire at other times but that's because roleplaying games formalize the fundamental human activity of firing neurons.

Quote from: AlanIn my opinion, yes.  In cognitive anthropology it's called the social construction of reality.  I'm not kidding.  The Lumpley Principle is a subset of this, applied to games.  Role-playing games just formalize a fundimental human activity.

Yes and its one of the principle forms of anarchist organizing in small groups. (Yes, this is one of the ways anarchists organize.) Also utilized by quakers, the peace movement  and the anti-globalization movement.

Hey Ed,

Well, I think the fact that you were "disappointed" by my previous post says a lot. It has been said all along that the Lumpley Principle isn't some deep, special thing. Being disappointed that it applies to the very basic elements of human interaction is like being disappointed by thermodynamics.

What the Lumpley Principle says specifically about rpgs is that the rules, the "system", is one of the major ways we decide how people will "agree on stuff" during play. That's it, that's all. The Lumpley Principle is the man behind the curtain.

-Chris

Hi there,

From my perspective, the value of the Lumpley Principle as a statement is this: both role-playing texts and conventional gamer-culture wisdom put the cart before the horse, in promulgating the notion that the rules text acts as the primary constructor of the imagined "stuff," as well as the constructor of "what we're doing at this table."

Vincent is stating, essentially, that you don't solve GNS mis-matches or social contract violations by referring to the game rules.

Yeah, Ed, it's "obvious" - but it's also a source of open-mouthed surprise and wonder, when I say it, to people who keep suffering because they consider their fellow role-players not to be "playing right." Gamer culture is wearing its ass for a hat, cognitively and socially speaking. Vincent is merely rearranging the posture to a reasonable standing position; it shouldn't be any surprise, gazing at this posture, to find it utterly unremarkable.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: C. Edwards
Well, I think the fact that you were "disappointed" by my previous post says a lot. It has been said all along that the Lumpley Principle isn't some deep, special thing. Being disappointed that it applies to the very basic elements of human interaction is like being disappointed by thermodynamics.

I would be disappointed if I were trying to talk RPG theory and someone suggested that game design could be vastly improved by realizing that all roleplaying games, like everything else, obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Ron's comment is a bit more helpful.  But still, as far as I can tell, the last few posts of this thread have caused "The Lumpley Principle" to dissolve into the general notion of "Social Contract" (in the broadest sense).

My apparent MISunderstanding of the Lumpley Principle was actually more interesting to me than the real thing: to wit, that the distinctive feature of RPGs is that they involve a negotiated group consensus about an imagined reality, where that consensus is achieved at least in part linguistic (or similarly open-ended) means.  (This would also, come to think of it, cover what Ron said.)

That doesn't apply to wargames, or a lot of other kinds of human endeavor, though there are probably things besides RPGs that it could be said to apply to.

Ah well.  It's only terminology.  Sorry to cause such a drawn-out fuss about it, I was just trying to get it clear.  Thanks for everyone's patience in this thread.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsVincent is stating, essentially, that you don't solve GNS mis-matches or social contract violations by referring to the game rules.

(Quoted so that the words I add to twist the meaning here can be clearly identified . . . )

By my understanding: you *can* solve (or attempt to solve) GNS mis-matches or social contract violations by *agreeing* to refer to the game rules.

Two things about that - first, IMO this is what makes the Lumpley Principle "universal" (to refer to a dispute in a nearby thread).  Second, I think it's important to stress the agreement part because the game rules aren't perfect - they can be unclear, contradictory, or at least can be perceived as contradictory.  "Follow the rules," but "the GM is always right"  Is this a one rule trumps another thing?  Or something else?  I know, it's designed to handle the varying interpretations problem, by establishing an authority to turn to when opinions differ about the rules resolution of an unclear situation, but I've never found it to be a particularly GOOD way to resolve that - unless other aspects of the social contract are sufficiently shared and understood by the participants.  So where are the "rules" to help with those other aspects?  I'm not saying most RPGs have NO such things, but they do seem to be underdeveloped . . .

Anyway, my main point here is the "agreement" thing, as it is a bit subtle but is, IME, mostly what happens in RPG play.  There's an agreement to use the rules to handle things, but while that might be the start of a social contract, or the end of it, the realities of human interpersonal interaction (which the Lumpley Principle attempts to encapsulate) mean that it cannot be the whole of it.  By pointing that out, the Lumpley Principle is useful even in what was termed in the aforementioned nearby thread a "follow the rules" social contract.

Gordon