I've been doing a little research into fractals for a side-project of mine recently, and what's really struck me is how something so mathematically based can produce such organic results. I'm strongly of the opinion that fractals, or the base principles behind them, can be applied to a vast number of different fields to great effect.
So what is a fractal? In the simplest definition I can come up with, it is an algorithm that produces results by first laying down a rough-and-ready basis for its emerging pattern, then proceeds to fill in the small details, getting finer and more sharp each time the algorithm is repeated. A good analogy is if you've ever seen one of those internet JPG images that starts off all blocky then slowly increases in resolution as the image loads. Each pass is usually called an 'Iteration'. This allows the user to zoom in on any part of the resulting image without any loss of quality, because the algorithm can fill in the missing gaps itself.
So how does it connect to RPGs? Well, there are two ways that I can think of. The first is kinda silly really - anyone remember Lacuna by Jared Sorenson? Well, Lacunarity is a term used in fractal design to mean the amount of free space between points that have already been determined. That's by the by though; there is a more appropriate link.
In many RPGs there are multiple levels of complexity (let's call them iterations) that can be 'parsed through' in order to obtain a resolution. The more important an action is, the more iterations it requires to resolve, and each iteration necessarily involves at some point passing through the previous ones, often several times. Why is this good RPG design practice? Because it keeps the system coherent with a single central process while at the same time providing granularity. So here's the basic 'RPG Algorithm' as used in a number of common systems.
First Iteration: Simple Intent
Player: "I walk across the room."
GM: "Ok. You do that."
Second Iteration: Task Resolution
Player: "I pick up the heavy, heavy boulder."
GM: "Ok, make me a Strengthliness roll."
Third Iteration: Conflict
Player: "I kick seven types of stuffing out of the Orc-o-zoid"
GM: "Ok, roll initiative and we'll go to combat rounds."
Fourth Iteration: Side-Quest
Player: "I persuade the chancellor to allow me to see the king."
GM: "The chancellor agrees, but only if you bring him a rare herb that only grows on the mountains of fire and fortune."
Fifth Iteration: Adventure
Player: "I save the world from Evil Warlord Baron Von Lardbucket!"
GM: "Hoo boy, this could take a while..."
Thoughts? Comments?
(Incidentally this has got me wanting to make another RPG, think I'll start a fresh thread elsewhere.)
Ash
Interesting, but in what
Submitted by David Donachie on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 11:06.
Interesting, but in what sense does the more complex type of action go through each of the simpler ones? If I say "I persuade the chancellor to let me see the King" the GM doesn't say
Okay you do it,
but first give me a socialness roll
and then roll initiative and go to combat rounds
and then get him the herb
Also since the types of operations at each level are different in execution they are not really a fractal process, are they?
Solipsist RPG Website
I see the Fractals analogy...
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 11:52.
...in resolution systems that use a consistent mechanic, but alter the scope of the interest. The smaller the scope of interest the finer the detail, but it's the same repeating pattern of resolution used to define the detail at that scale. If one scale led into a finer scale as part of its output then that would be fractal-like behaviour possibly.
[I did some Fractal stuff a long time ago as part of the mathematics course at university but alas I have forgotten it apart from the pretty pictures and the (very) basic ideas. A friend very almost did a PhD in them though, but he went and did General Relativity instead.]
Oops, terminology error
Submitted by Destriarch on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 12:03.
Interesting, but in what sense does the more complex type of action go through each of the simpler ones? If I say "I persuade the chancellor to let me see the King" the GM doesn't say
Okay you do it,
but first give me a socialness roll
and then roll initiative and go to combat rounds
and then get him the herb
To answer this, I'll first better define what I mean by 'conflict' as the example I gave was rather misleading. When I said 'conflict' I meant a sequence of related tasks, usually opposed but sometimes unopposed, that are linked to achieving a single overall goal. A better word, had I been thinking more clearly, might have been 'extended action' or 'complex action' within which combat would be counted. So basically the sequence goes thus:
"Ok, you want to go get the herb. That's a quest, which may consist of a number of conflicts, each of which contains within it a number of different tests, and if these are successful then you get the herb."
Also since the types of operations at each level are different in execution they are not really a fractal process, are they?
Maybe, or maybe not. I'm basically wondering if there is an underlying logic that might lead to a more precise definition that would bring it within the realms of fractals. In any case, any analogy of this nature is highly unlikely to result in a hard-and-fast formula. Pseudo-code is the best we can hope for.
Ash
I see what you mean about
Submitted by David Donachie on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 15:21.
I see what you mean about the quests, as it can be broken down into a recursive set of smaller actions which may use lower levels of resolution.
I have a feeling though that it lacks the key fractal concept of self-similarity. The way in which you approach a scene is not the way you approach a whole campaign, they have a different sort of feel and kinds of goals. The campaign overall may have a clear direction, while at a finer scale there are loops and side quests and all the rest.
Solipsist RPG Website
Needs Work
Submitted by Destriarch on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:08.
As a concept it definately needs work, but I think there's something in there that might be worth expanding or adjusting.
Ash
Emergent behaviour...
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 07/01/2008 - 10:20.
...is one of the cool things about RPG design. Pretty much any game with a coherent currency system (which could mean D&D or Sorcerer or something else) works with an iterative process that feeds back into the game to re-enforce what the game is about.
So yeah, I think you've got a good handle on a way of looking at it that's a bit different. One of the hardest things to deal with online is game design discussions about "Should I use a D6 or a D10 here?" where, frankly, unless we know how that one module plugs into the wider scheme of play, we have no idea.
-Matt
Realms Publishing