Role-Playing as Interactive Construction of Subjective Diegeses

Markus Montola

What is role-playing? Some five guys sit in a room, rolling dice and chatting about stuff. On the physical level, this is very true, but what is the important thing happening at the same time? Every guy in the room imagines. They imagine their characters from first-person perspective, listening to other participants communicating what they imagine, adding that to their image. Occasionally, they spontaneously imagine their character doing something, and communicate this to the others. As I'm going to explain below, using the academic vocabulary, they construct diegeses in interaction. After discussing the nature of role-playing, I'll explicate what is the small but crucial difference of a larp and a tabletop game.

During the last couple of years, the concept of "diegesis" has become increasingly important in building the theories of role-playing. Speaking in broad terms, a diegesis means a fictional world or the truth about what exists in a fictional world. Something within a diegesis is called diegetic, something outside it is called non-diegetic. What is a diegetic gun in the diegesis of Pulp Fiction is a non-diegetic prop in the hand of the real-world actor. Usually every movie creates one diegesis (though Matrix or Truman Show can be seen creating a layered diegesis or two diegeses), which is then interpreted differently by every watcher.

Many people, such as Pohjola (1999) and Hakkarainen and Stenros (2002), use diegesis to mean an objective truth of the game world. I believe that understanding a diegesis as a subjective truth proves more accurate and fruitful. Every participant constructs his or her diegesis when playing, the crucial process of role-playing being the interaction of these diegeses. The difference of players' diegeses is essentially larger than the difference of different interpretations of a movie diegesis. There are four reasons for this: a) a role-playing diegesis contains very different kind of stuff than a movie diegesis, b) diegeses are shared by communication which is never perfect, c) participants of the game have greatly different viewpoints, and d) in an rpg, there is no audience, but the co-creators do the interpreting.

The contents of a role-playing diegesis and a movie diegesis are different. When it comes to role-playing, it's important to understand that a diegesis is much more than a fictional world with characters running around. There is a lot happening in the heads of the participants constructing the diegeses. A lot of what we imagine into our diegeses never comes up; single character's personal plans or well-hidden emotions for example. They exist only in the diegesis of that player, though the he may communicate them to others' diegeses, either by diegetic or non-diegetic means.

As a diegesis includes everything we know about the world, it's the sum of the background information, the laws of the fictional reality (guided by natural sciences, rules and genre- and style definitions), the explicit symbolic feedback from other participants (both players and gamemasters), and one's original creation (thoughts, emotions, actions). In addition to facts about the diegetic material reality, it includes the perceived history, the expectations of future, hidden knowledge, and secret feelings. When you are scared when playing, the relationship of your fear and your character's fear is quite like the relation of a prop gun and a diegetic gun. In a movie diegesis, emotions and intentions exist and have meaning only as interpreted by the watcher.

Genre, style and rules are often overlooked but very essential elements in a diegesis; they decide whether charging a hundred orcs is sensible choice for the toughest paladin in the kingdom. Player's diegesis almost always includes information his character doesn't know, and almost always it includes information the player doesn't realize he knows. Both gamemasters and players construct their diegeses from the same elements.

Diegeses are shared by communication. Communication is never perfect; no meaning is ever perfectly translated to symbols, and no symbol is ever understood perfectly. There can't be an "objective diegesis shared by all participants", because an "objective diegesis" cannot be shared. When the gamemaster declares "there's a big rock on the field", how big is the rock? Can my character hide behind it? Can he lift it? Throw it? By testing the diegetic object I learn many of its qualities, but even if the GM shows me a picture of the rock, the interpretations of the rock differ. We'd need telepathy to understand what kind of a rock the characters are facing.

While the most of the stuff we create into our mental landscapes is our own creation, the most of the feelings and thoughts experienced by the other participants are never announced. We believe we share a static, objective world, where we all run around killing dragons together, but actually we all have our subjective little worlds, which are subject to change without warning. After the game has started, no-one knows everything going on in the realities of the game. When the diegeses are found to be in conflict, the gamemaster generally arbitrates between them, sometimes using tools (such as rules or dice) to help him.

The different viewpoints. When a book is interpreted, the different interpretations are made from same symbolic material using the point of view implicated by the material (who narrates a book?). Interpreting a rpg-diegesis every participant intentionally interprets the symbolic material differrently, using a strongly different point of view - usually either using the subjective lenses of a character or the "objective and omniscient" view of a gamemaster. Often the players' diegeses are constructed contradictory on purpose by giving every player different symbolic material. This is what happens when GM takes some players to another room to play secret scenes. In a larp the difference of viewpoints is even more essential, as no-one can hear or see everything going on in the game.

The interpreters are co-creators. This boils down to the very basics of adapting the film'n'literature research on role-playing. When interpreting a movie diegesis, readers' interpretations differ. In role-play, the interpretations of co-creators differ; there can't be "an objective game-master's diegesis" because the game-master is not the sole creator of the fiction. Though the GM often is the judge when the diegeses are found to be in conflict, his subjective view on the game is lacking and partial; he has no access to what happens inside players' heads. The choices the players make when producing their diegeses are dependent of their perceptions of the surroundings. The character moves close to the big rock because the player believes the rock is big enough to hide behind.

Due to the restrictions of media, the diegesis constructed watching a movie contains only stuff that can be watcher can interpret from the audio-visual feedback. As pointed out above, the role-playing diegeses contain uncommunicable ideas and feelings, which can't be translated into symbols. When interpreting a movie, the watcher uses an outsider's viewpoint to interpret the emotional expressions or to analyze a piece of art. In role-play, interpreting the symbolic material is only used to assist in the creation of one's own diegesis. While a book is a piece of art we interpret to enjoy, a role-player creates his own piece of art, interpreting symbolic feedback to augment the creation he makes for himself.

Larp is Where Diegeses Meet Reality

Now that we have come this far, defining the larp is surprisingly easy. In larp there is just one more element to diegesis-construction: physical reality. With the most definitions of role-play, the difference of larp and role-play can be defined like this:

Larp is a role-playing game, where the actual physical reality is used to construct diegeses, in addition to communication, both directly and arbitrarily.

The physical reality is directly used to construct a diegesis when the physical reality equals the diegetic reality - the size of a diegetic rock in larp equals the size of the physical rock. There is always some arbitration in larping, like when the larpwright rules that pointing a guy with a plastic gun and saying "blam" equals shooting the guy within diegeses. Not all these arbitrations are explicated; it's implicitly clear that modern underwear, if used in a medieval larp, represents medieval underwear (even if its faux pas in the game). All larps use both the direct and arbitrary methods of representation - even though Fatland and Wingård declared in Dogme '99 that "No object shall be used to represent another object", they accepted players representing characters.

In a tabletop game, we use physical reality only as a medium of transmitting symbols. If I point another player with a finger, it often symbolizes my character pointing the other character with finger. However, I'm not using my body to represent my character's body; the symbol is well understood even if my character is hanging from a helicopter while I'm sipping tea on a sofa. In practice, many larps still use tabletoppist methods and vice versa.

The fact that reality can affect diegeses leads to an interesting consequence. In every larp, the physical reality contains significant potential for meanings not anticipated by or known to anyone in the game. When playing in a real medieval monastery, there's the slim chance of players actually finding an unknown secret passageway, which then becomes a diegetic element - until potentially overruled by the gamemasters. Just as the subjective diegeses contain many things known only to the players, the physical environment contains things no-one knows, and has a similar potential to interact with the diegeses.

Defining the larp as role-playing plus physical reality also answers the theoretical position of MUDs and all kinds of everquests. As with larp, all the following expects there to be role-players willing to role-play and construct diegeses in the game. Not all playing of Neverwinter Nights qualifies as virtual role-playing, just like not all wandering around the physical reality qualifies as larping.

Virtual role-playing game is a role-playing game, where the virtual reality is used to construct diegeses, in addition to communication, both directly and arbitrarily.

Usually the virtual reality is used to construct diegeses mainly directly. If the gamemaster wants to make some door locked, he might announce that no-one may open the door, but usually uses the virtual reality directly to make it impossible without a key. Still, the element of arbitration always exists, beginning from the moment when GM declares that some bunch of pixels represents a door. It has been said that playing Everquest is not role-playing, because the virtual reality restricts the player in very unrealistic ways; virtual reality does not allow character to change his socks, for instance. This virtual restriction is very similar to the fact that I can't see blood when stabbing someone with a diegetic dagger in a larp. Just like in larp, arbitration can go around these problems if a sentient GM is present (or players arbitrate without a GM). It is also possible to role-play in a diegetic framework where changing socks is impossible, though it is true that this kind of a framework is simple and far from ideal.

Conclusions

The basic difference of a book and a role-play is that the role-players are both co-creators as well as an audience. This text addresses the difference from the angle of interpretation. Interpretations are generally constructed from nearly identical symbolic material, while diegeses are constructed from different symbolic material, adding one's creation to the top of that. Meanings encoded into the building blocks of a role-play are interpreted, but the true meanings rise from the diegeses constructed using the interpretations.

Many gamemasters fancy themselves storytellers, creators of great plots unfolding as the game progresses. In larp, the problems of this approach have been widely recognized as the game is different for everyone, and only few witness the pivotal scenes of the grand narrative. As Fatland and Wingård (1999) put it, "This convention probably comes from organisers seeking to replicate movies, literature and theatre. A story in the non-interactive media necessarily has a limited amount of active characters. In LARP, an interactive form of art, the amount of actors and stories is theoretically unlimited". From the perspective of this article, grand plots are a common symptom of taking one shared and objective über-diegesis for granted. In role-play the amount of diegeses equals the number of participants, and telling a story by larp requires succesfully communicating the story into every diegesis in game.

The problematic elements of diegesis-construction are the ones that are difficult to classify as diegetic or non-diegetic. In larp, music is generally interpreted as diegetic, even if it's produced by an electric bard in a medieval game. In tabletop music sometimes represents diegetic music, but usually is only symbolic feedback assisting the construction of the diegeses. Playing the score of Crow and lighting some candles definitely makes my diegesis more goth and scary, but does my character recognize the gothness and scariness of the game world, if he does not hear the music? If a prop map represents a map in tabletop, does my tearing the map represent my character tearing the map? What if the diegetic map is in some other character's backpack? In larp the relation of a non-diegetic signifier and a diegetic signified is generally less arbitrary. Carsten Andreasen takes a closer look on these issues in his article in this book.

All in all, the view of diegeses is only one perspective for examining the role-playing. Every metaphorical approach opens our eyes for some elements in the examined phenomenon, concealing some other elements in the process; for example, the ways of constructing a narrative with the game can't probably be fruitfully examined from this perspective. This model tries to explain the way role-playing is communication and creativity, but does not say that role-playing wouldn't be immersion, thrillseeking or storytelling as well.

References and Related Links

Andreasen, Carsten (2003): The Diegetic Rooms of Larp. In Gade, M., Thorup, L. & Sander, M. (ed) (2003): As Larp Grows Up. Theory and Methods in Larp 74-79.

Fatland, Eirik & Wingård, Lars (1999): Dogma 99. A Programme for the Liberation of LARP. International version. http://fate.laiv.org/dogme99/en/dogma99_en.htm, ref. 16.12.2002.

Hakkarainen, Henri & Stenros, Jaakko (2002): Thoughts on Role-Playing. Paper for Ropecon 2002. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/, ref. 16.12.2002.

Pohjola, Mikko (1999): The Manifesto of the Turku School. Electronic version. http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/

This article was originally published in Gade, M., Thorup, L. & Sander, M. (ed) (2003): As Larp Grows Up. Theory and Methods in Larp. The book for Knudepunkt 2003.

Feedback is very much appreciated.

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Montola
Sent: 24. heinäkuuta 2002 13:50
To: Ropeanalyytikot
Subject: [Ropeanalyytikot] Diegesisten subjektiivisuudesta

Kymmenen kilon hienosäätöleka kohtaa diegesiksen käsitteen.

Minä:
> > 5. Luulen että näkemys diegesiksestä kaipaa pientä revisiota. Kunhan
> > ehdin, kirjoitan tänne (tai juopuneena 'conissa selostan) miksi pelin
> > osallistujien Yksi Yhteinen Diegesis ei ehkä ole mielekäs käsite
> > roolipelissä, vaikka se toimiikin esimerkiksi elokuvan yleisöstä
> > puhuttaessa. Samoin jos diegeettisenä pidetään kaikkea pelimaailman
> > sisällä olevaa totuutta, diegesikseen tulisi sisällyttää tiedon ohella
> > myös tunnetaso. Mutta, palaan tähän (perustelujen kanssa)
> > kunhan kerkiän.

Marttila:
> Tähän huomautuksena seikka, jota en ole innostuksissani kenties tullut
> maininneeksi. Omalta osaltani puhun myös diegesiksestä ja diegeettisestä
> ympäristöstä yksittäisen pelaajan osalta. Diegeettiseen ympäristöön
> sisältyvät näin ollen kaiken muun lisäksi myös mahdollisten muiden
> pelaajien hahmot (tai oikeammin se, mikä niistä on havaittavissa kyseisen
> pelaajan hahmon kautta).
> Eli jokaisen pelaajan diegeettinen ympäristö on välttämättä
> erilainen. Myös pelaajan oma hahmo ja sen kautta ajatellut ajatukset,
> koetut tunteet yms. ovat myös osa kyseisen pelaajan diegesistä, joskaan
> eivät osa ympäristöä.

_Kyllä_!

Minun nähdäkseni roolipelaamisen tärkeimmät tapahtumat ovat a) osallistuja luo oman subjektiivisen diegesiksensä muiden tuottamien ja kommunikoimien diegesisten avulla ja b) osallistuja vaikuttaa muiden tuottamiin diegesiksiin omallaan. Jatkossa, kun puhun diegesiksestä, tarkoitan yksittäisen pelaajan tuottamaan subjektiivista diegesistä, ja tarkoittaessani perinteistä (vaikka Hakkarainen & Stenros -määritelmää) puhun kokonaisdiegesiksestä. Diegesis on tässä pelin todellisuus, kaikki mitä on totta pelissä.

1. Täydellinen kommunikaatio on mahdotonta. Tästä seuraa, että jokaisen pelin osallistujan käsitys pelin totuudesta ja todellisuudesta on erilainen, eli jokaisen pelaajan diegesis on erilainen. Diegesikset tuotetaan kuvailtujen seikkojen pohjalta, ja loppu täydennetään mielikuvituksenvaraisesti. "Ison" kiven koko eri osallistujien diegesiksissä vaihtelee suuresti; vasta kun tuotettua isoa kiveä testataan pelissä (voiko ison kiven heittää? voiko sen taakse piiloutua?), näkemykset kiven koosta hiljalleen yhtenevät.

2. Diegesis sisältää sekä tiedot että tunteet, oman hahmon (laaja merkitys) ja muut hahmot. Diegesikseen kuuluvat nykyisyyden lisäksi menneisyys, oletukset tulevaisuudesta, pelimaailman luonnonlait ja lainalaisuudet, oletukset pelimaailman toimintamekanismeista yms. Diegesis sisältää tiedon lisäksi myös tunnetason; eläytyvä roolipelaaja saattaa tuntea diegeettistä surua tai pelkoa.

3. Koska jokaisen pelaajan sisäiset prosessit (esimerkiksi tunteet, täydentäminen, kuvitelmat, tiedot, motiivit, suunnitelmat) ovat oleellinen osa hänen diegesistään, kokonaisdiegesistä on täydellisen mahdotonta saavuttaa missään pelissä jossa on useampi pelaaja (ja, kaikissa peleissä IMHO on useampi pelaaja). Kokonaisdiegesis sisältää kaikkien pelaajien kaikki tunteet ja tiedot pelin todellisuudesta, mutta se on vain teoreettinen konstruktio jota ei voi edes yrittää tallentaa mitenkään tai josta ei voi ammentaa mitään. Teoreettinen kokonaisdiegesis saattaa sisältää jopa asioita, joita kukaan pelaaja ei aktiivisesti tiedä, esimerkiksi pelin taustamateriaaleissa olevia tosiksi (implisiittisesti tai eksplisiittisesti) todettuja seikkoja, joita kukaan pelaaja ei esimerkiksi muista. Subjektiiviset diegesikset koostuvat ainoastaan tiedetyistä ja tuotetuista seikoista.

4. Koska jokaisella pelaajalla on diegesis, joita pelinjohtaja ei voi mitenkään tuntea, pelinjohtaja ei voi käyttää absoluuttista valtaa pelin tai diegesisten suhteen. Perinteinen pelinjohtaja voi pyrkiä toimimaan kokonaisdiegesiksen portinvartijana, tai muuttaa epäeksaktilla tavalla pelaajien diegesiksiä. Katso kohta 2. Pelinjohtaja (perinteisessä merkityksessä) ei ole välttämätön roolipelille. Myöskään H&S:n edellyttämää yhtä yksittäistä diegesisten portinvartijaa tai määrittelijää tai luojaa ei tarvita; peruslähtökohdat ja pelimaailmat voivat syntyä esimerkiksi kollektiivisesti ja osallistujat voivat määrittää niitä anarkistisesti pelin aikana.

5. Larpin ja pöytäroolipelin eksakti ero on tämä: Larpissa tosimaailma vaikuttaa kommunikaation lisäksi myös sekä suoraan että sovituilla tavoilla diegesiksiin.

6. Taustamateriaali, genremääritelmät, pelitavat ja pelimekaaniset säännöt vaikuttavat diegesiksiin hieman samalla tavalla kuin konkreettinen todellisuus vaikuttaa larppiin. Ne muodostavat diegeettisiä luonnonlakeja ja esioletuksia, sekä määrittävät diegeettistä historiaa.

7. Fyysisellä tasolla roolipelaaminen on pelaajien välistä kommunikaatiota. Todellisuuden tuottamisen tasolla roolipelaaminen on diegesisten vuorovaikutusta. Pelaajan sisäinen prosessin on diegesiksen tuottaminen vuorovaikutuksessa muiden diegesisten kanssa.

8. Koska kokonaisdiegesis on tavoittamaton ja olemassaolematon teoreettinen konstruktio, sen voi mielestäni unohtaa. Olisi hedelmällisempää siirtyä puhumaan jatkossa subjektiivisesta diegesiksestä, joka kuvaa paremmin sitä mistä olemme puhumassa.

- Markus Montola

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Montola
Sent: 29. heinäkuuta 2002 20:13
To: Ropeltajat
Subject: [Ropeanalyytikot] Elopeli ja Everquest

Tässä pari pohdintaa; ensin taannoinen eloroolipelin määritelmäni vielä uudelleen, ja toisena perustelu sille miksi esimerkiksi Everquestin voi rinnastaa larppiin elopelin määritelmästä johtamalla.

Ajatukset lähtevät sellaisesta määritelmästä, jossa diegesiksen konstruoiminen on keskeinen osa roolipelaamista. Oletan, että jokaisella pelaajalla on oma diegesis (tai oma tulkinta kokonaisdiegesiksestä), ja että kaikki pelaajat rakentavat omaa diegesistään kommunikoimalla muiden entiteettien kanssa. En ole määritellyt aivan eksaktisti roolipeliä, mutta allaoleva toiminee epämääräisemmälläkin ropen määritelmällä.

"Eloroolipeli on roolipeli, jossa fyysistä todellisuutta käytetään diegesisten konstruoimiseen kommunikaation ohella myös sekä suoraan että sopimuksenvaraisesti."

Eli, pöytäpelissä reaalitodellisuus on vain kommunikoimisen edellytys. Kun pelaaja pomppii tuolillaan hahmonsa innostuttua, hänen toimintansa on hahmon toiminnan merkki. Eloroolipelissä pomppiminen konkreettisessa todellisuudessa konstruoi diegesistä suoraan. Kaikissa eloroolipeleissä tätä diegesiksen konstruointia kuitenkin säädellään sopimuksilla enemmän tai vähemmän -- mutta niiltä osin kuin sopimuksia ei ole eksplikoitu, oletetaan että todellisuus vaikuttaa suoraan diegesikseen.

Miksi tämä määritelmä on hyvä? Toisin kuin keholliseen ilmaisuun, simulaation minimointiin tai pelaajien kokemuksen yhdenkaltaisuuteen perustuvat määritelmät, tämä määritelmä vetää selkeän rajan larpin ja pöytäroolipelin välille. Esittämällä kysymys "vaikuttaako tässä pelissä konkreettinen todellisuus muutoin kuin kommunikaation kautta diegesikseen?" saadaan vastaus siihen onko peli elopeli vai ei. "Minimoidaanko tässä pelissä simulaatio?", "Onko tässä pelissä ilmaisu pääasiassa kehollista vai kuvailevaa" tai "Olivatko pelaajien kokemukset pelistä yhteneviä?" eivät mielestäni anna mitenkään aukottomia vastauksia. Toki raja on edelleen häilyvä, ja rajatapauksia löytyy peleistä joissa käytetään molempien pelityylien keinoja.

Tällä logiikalla voidaan todeta, että tietokonevälitteiset roolipelit (Everquest, Ultima Online) ovat virtuaalitodellisuuden eloroolipelejä. Näissä roolipeleissä virtuaalista todellisuutta käytetään diegesisten konstruoimiseen kommunikaation ohella myös suoraan sekä sopimuksenvaraisesti. Koska Everquestin virtuaalitodellisuudessa on mahdotonta suoraan tarkistaa hahmon sukkien väriä, asia voidaan ratkaista joko sopimuksenvaraisesti (diegesiksen määrittelyvaltaa käyttävä henkilö päättää asian) tai todeta, että tässä diegeettisessä kehyksessä sukkien värin tarkistaminen ei ole mahdollista. Diegeettinen kehys jossa sukkien tarkistaminen ei ole mahdollista on alkeellinen ja huono, muttei estä kehyksessä roolipelaamista -- kuten huonot säännöt luovat huonot luonnonlait pöytäroolipelin diegeettiseen kehykseen, huono virtuaalitodellisuus ja huono peliengine tekevät samoin.

En näe pelinjohtajaa vieläkään kaikkivoipana tai pakollisena, mutta jos pelissä on pelinjohtaja, hän tyypillisesti käyttää ylintä valtaa niiden sopimusten suhteen, jotka säätelevät fyysisen tai virtuaalisen todellisuuden suhdetta diegesiksiin -- esimerkiksi ylikirjoittaa todellisuutta toteamalla että nuorisotalo simuloi elysiumia, jossa liikkuvat pelaajat simuloivat vampyyrejä. Tietokoneroolipeleissä tällainen ylikirjoittaminen on käsittääkseni erittäin harvinaista (ja jopa tabu), mutta jos Everquestiin lisäisi pelinjohtajan jolle pelaajat antaisivat vallan ylikirjoittaa virtuaalitodellisuutta, hän voisi pöytäpelimäisellä kuvailulla lisätä vaikeasti toteutettavia asioita diegeettiseen kehykseen.

- Markus

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Montola
Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2002 17:59
To: larpa-gen
Subject: [larpa-gen] The view of diegesis-construction on larp & tabletop

I'm gonna get theoretical now, so you'd better grasp one key concept before getting further.

Some authors who've pondered the nature of role-playing, such as Jaakko Stenros and Mike Pohjola, have already adapted the concept of diegesis from research of literature, theatre, movies and television. Diegesis is the reality within game, the truth within the game world or the game world as created by the writers, actors or in this case the participants of the game. Everything within the diegesis is called diegetic, and everything outside non-diegetic. Diegesises are always fictive.

Example: You have a character-sheet before you when you play a game. Your character-sheet is non-diegetic, because it doesn't exist in the game-world.

Another example: Your table-top character has a kewl magical power. It's a diegetic magical power, because it exists only within the game.

Yet another example: Your table-top GM hands you a prop-map of the castle you're character is invading. The map in your hand is non-diegetic, but it simultaneously represents a diegetic map. If you (player) tear the map in pieces, it is arbitrary whether your character tore the diegetic map apart or not -- at least if you (player) tear the map in pieces when not actually playing game. Or, if some other character possesses the diegetic map, but you (player) tear the prop-map in pieces.

Diegesis is a Greek word. I have no idea of what it means outside the academic discourse, but its a rather useful concept.

Role-playing can be seen as constructing diegesises by interacting with other people and creating fiction yourself. You can see it in other ways, too, but basically what every reader of a novel does is constructing diegesis. Novel-reader can also be seen as a guy moving his eyes and turning pages, just as role-playing can be seen as a group of people talking around the table. These views are not particularly fertile when pondering the essence of gaming -- that's why Juhana probably asked us to forget the table; one does not need to have a table to play a table-top rpg, and having a table does not make some social event a one. Constructing a diegesis (as defined above) in interaction with other people makes a social event practically an rpg, and no rpg can be played without constructing a diegesis in interaction with other people. (You can question this, too, by asking about role-playing alone or playing an interactive game with a computer. I'll not go into these (at least yet), as they are meaningless complications in this phase).

Still with me? Good.

Now table-top gaming means constructing diegesises in interaction with other people, using arbitrary symbols to do so -- such as words, gestures, signs and props. One can usually question the meaning of any symbol in tabletop, like the meaning and context of any word can be questioned. Classical example; GM defines that there is a big rock on the field. The PC tries to hide behind the big rock. GM answers that the rock is too small to hide behind. PC tries to pick it up -- when GM answers that it's too big for that. Even after these two 'tests', we still don't know how big the big rock is (or what colour it is); the meaning of 'big' is arbitrary. Usually the GM always has the final word on these disputes.

In larp, the actual physical reality is used to construct diegesises, in addition to communication, both directly and arbitrarily.

This means that the size of a diegetic rock in larp is exactly equal to the real rock representing it. The accent you are using is exactly the same your character is using. If your prop gun's empty, your diegetic gun is empty. However, these definitions *can* be altered by arbitration -- for example the GM may define that the plastic prop guns equal working diegetic guns, and shouting 'BLAM' while holding a gun equals shooting a diegetic bullet. These contracts need not be explicated; many things are taken for granted, for example that medieval larper's modern underwear represents some kind of medieval version of underwear. Larp always includes many of these social contracts; the first of which makes the event larp in stead of real life -- the unspoken contract that everyone acts within their diegetic roles constructing diegesises out of their interactions and environments.

In table-top, all the processes of constructing diegesis are arbitrated. In larp they are not. In table-top, only communication (verbal and physical) is used to construct diegesis. In larp, direct non-symbolic sensory stimulation combined with the arbitrated guidelines substitute a lot of this.

That's my 2 cents.

And yes, there is always the gray area where you really can't define some concept exactly. Semantics-researchers have studied the difference of a vase and a plate by creating dozens of objects from between. Alas, as far as the symbols (words) go, they are always arbitrary. My 'vase' is different from yours, and in some point its impossible to draw the lines. That's why it has been established that larps may use tabletoppist methods as well as table-tops may use larp methods. The example of The Executive Game is an excellent, however, for despite the outward appearances (people playing cards in a table) it was one of the most purist larps I've ever played. The re-definition of the physical reality was kept to very, very minimum, mostly by authentic propping.

- Markus Montola (www.iki.fi/montola)

These dudes have also used "diegesis" in past.
http://live.roolipeli.net/turku/school/
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/henri.hakkarainen/meilahti/thoughts.html

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Montola
Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2003 2:33
To: Hakkis; Jaakko
Cc: Taika; Mike
Subject: Ne diegesikset

Luin Jaakolta lainaamaani Henry Baconin kirjaa. Bacon puhuu audiovisuaalisesta kerronnasta, etenkin elokuvassa, ja määrittelee kyllä systemaattisesti diegesiksen subjektiiviseksi konstruktioksi. Hyvinkin sopusoinnussa allekirjoittaneen käsitteenkäyttötavan kanssa.

s.47
"Elokuva tarjoaa katsojalle vain osia tarinasta ja kuvitteellisesta maailmasta, mutta todellista maailmaa sekä erilaisia kerronnallisia ja elokuvallisia konventiotita koskevien tietojensa avulla katsoja konstuoi mielessään tämän materiaalin pohjalta tarinamaailman eli diegesiksen henkilöineen ja tarinoineen. Lisäksi hän on vaihtelevassa määrin tietoinen kulloinkin käytetyistä ilmaisullisista keinoista samoin kuin tarinan ja sen kertomisen laajemmista esteettisistä ja eettisistä ulottuvuuksista."

s. 120
"[Tarinan ymmärtämisen] Lähtökohtana on ensinnäkin, että ellei kertovan elokuvan katsojaa johdateta toisin tekemään, hän pyrkii kertovaa elokuvaa seuratessaan ensi kädessä konstruoimaan mielessään diegesiksen eli tarinamaailman, jonne henkilöiden toiminta sijoittuu ja jossa se saa tiettyjä merkityksiä."

s. 44
"[Platonin diegesiksestä ja mimesiksestä] ...mutta on tärkeää huomata että modernissa elokuvateoriassa sana diegeettinen tarkoittaa kaikkea kuvitteelliseen tarinamaailmaan kuuluvaa."

Suoraan sanottuna ihmettelinkin viimeisimpien keskustelujen jälkeen sitä, että nykyaikainen diegesisnäkemys voisi pitää tulkitsijasta riippumatonta (tai irrallista tai objektiivista) diegesistä olemassaolevana, tai käsitteellisesti järkevänä. Lopultakaan, ei tarvitse olla kovinkaan voimakas konstruktivisti lähteäkseen siitä, että merkityskokonaisuus ei ole mielekäs ilman merkityksenantajaa, ja että kirjan paperille painetut sanat ovat yhdentekeviä ellei niille anneta merkitystä. Kirjan diegesis syntyy vasta kun kirja luetaan, eikä kirjassa voida eksplikoida mitään siten, että se olisi samanlaisena ilmeinen jokaiselle lukijalle (vaikka lukijat osaisivat täydellisehkösti kirjassa käytettyä kieltä). Ei voida kiistatta sanoa eksplikoiko neuvostoliittolainen taiteilija taulussaan diegeettisen työleirin vai ei, parhaimmillaankin voidaan vain pohtia hänen intentioitaan.

Olen entistä ehdottomampi siitä, että jokainen pelaaja luo pelissä oman diegesiksensä, joka on tulkitsemisella ja originaalilla luomisella konstruoitu teos, jota edelleen tulkitsemalla päästään käsiksi sen "toisen asteen" tulkintoihin.

(Ei, tulkinnasta Bacon ei hirveästi kerro. Hän toteaa kirjansa keskittyvän audiovisuaaliseen kerrontaan, jonka mekanismien ymmärtäminen on edellytys tulkintaprosessien ymmärtämiselle).

Bacon, Henry (2000): Audiovisuaalisen kerronnan teoria. Tampere, Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.

- Markus

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Montola
Sent: 17. August 2003 11:39
To: Ropeanalyytikot
Subject: RE: [RPG analysis] On Markus' model of diegesis

In my view, the basic process of role-playing is the interactive construction of subjective diegeses. To make that the definition of role-playing was indeed a planned provocation, which seems to be working. However, I feel this is the most crucial thing to role-playing anyway. At the time I don't (yet) have a conclusive definition of a diegesis, which is of course essential to the definition.

The role-playing includes much more than the basic process. We roll dice, listen to the music, dress fancily and wave cardboard guns at each other. These methods are a kind of special effects; things that are not role-playing per se, but are used to help or augment the role-playing.

It is true that sometimes GM:s try to affect player diegeses without using their own diegeses in the process -- like in your examples of GM:s trying to create inconsistent diegeses, with players' diegeses contradicting even the GM:s diegesis on purpose. However, I categorize these "extra-diegetic" (?) methods to the category of special effects. They are not role-playing, though they are used in role-playing. They are not included in the diegesis-definition of role-playing, because I don't feel they even should be.

(The Meilahti Model does the same omission of "extra-diegetic" methods, by the way: "A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework". )

On the other hand, just like Simo said, the GM giving incomplete information to player is related to the very commonly used method of GM constructing different diegeses to different players. Which is The Oldest Trick in the book of good gamemastering.

To the commentary on the falsifiability of the model, I pretty much sign what Harviainen said. The model of diegeses is just a construction. That is why I've avoided the whole question of how diegeses are constructed and how they exist. Without a degree in soul-sciences I have to take the concept of "sosial construction" for granted -- no-one knows how brain works, but the socially constructed concept of social construction is very useful. The fun thing in social sciences is that even contradictory models can be correct and useful simultaneously.

> Explanatory area of model stars at the point, where we have a set of
> relatively stable diegesis, and it ends to point, where the set of
> diegesis are no more even relatively stable but they are in a
> cycle of radical re-formation or restructuring.

We need more experimentation on the field of absurd and surreal role-playing. I'm not at all sure that the case of radically reforming and restructuring diegeses even should be considered role-playing.

- Markus