You might remember that one of the things I talked about way back in that huge Medium Matters post was low vs. high permanency. ‘Permanency’ is really just a poor term that roughly means how solid, accurate, and concrete your record of play is.
The vast majority of traditional table-top play (of all sorts of games: board, card, roleplaying, etc.) is very low permanency. Records of play are purely mental, and suffer from selective editing and all the problems associated with having a single, interested viewpoint. We often remember different things because different things strike us as important in play (this move, or that character, or drawing that one card).
On top of that, we often remember things that are contradictory. I remember you winning because you played one thing, and you remember winning because you played something else. You remember allowing something to happen reluctantly, while I remember you enthusiastically supporting it. Memory is a tricky thing, and the fact that we rely on it for so much of our record-keeping in play is a big deal.
Of course with short-play, single-session games (most board and card games) this is no big deal. We don’t really care all that much whether you won that game of chess with a knight’s fork or a bishop’s fork. We remember that you won, and we could just sit down and play another game in an hour, which is way more interesting than arguing over what happened in the last game.
But in roleplaying games, which carry a tradition of linearity, we can’t go back, and we can’t replay things. This can cause friction since what we do now is based on what we did before. Suddenly it matters whether a character was reluctant or enthusiastic, the story may depend on it.
Today’s post is something of a warning. I’m talking about risks. But the rest of the week is going to be devoted to why these risks are worth it, and what amazingly cool things they bring to the table.
Tags: Snippet-post, Theory
Do I understand you correctly if I think you are saying not so much that low permanency mediums are risky, but that low permanency mediums become risky when there are medium- or long-term interests present - such as consistency over several gaming sessions?
(Chess is not a very good example, by the way. It is very, very common to write down all moves as they occur when playing chess. ;) )
Your post seems incomplete. What does the low permanency of RPG play risk? Disagreement?
Victor,
Yeah, what you said. I probably should have been clearer. To be clear now (too late!): Low-permanency mediums introduce risk whenever history is important to the game.
So, say you’re playing mnemonic chess (that is, not on a board, no pieces, just in your head). You’re using a low-permanency medium. If you, or your opponent, get confused about the current state of the board, you’re in trouble. Note the way in which most board games include components that have higher permanency than memory: boards, pawns, cards, state-trackers, etc.
Roleplaying is particularly problematic because what we tend to care about most is fictional content, and that’s tracked almost entirely through memory. Character stats and such are on character sheets, but not who said what when.
Thomas
Fred,
Something like that, yes. Consider my example above to Victor for how that disagreement could break the game. If you’re playing mnemonic chess, and you and your opponent come to a disagreement regarding board position, the game is probably just broken. You can’t continue because board state matters so much to play.
Thomas
I should have read this first. Disregard my other comments on your Permanency posts. Thanks.