Isomorphism is the mental process where we take abstract concepts and connect them to things in our sphere of imagination or experience. When we process math, we often use concrete models in our heads to clarify the meaning of the symbols. These concrete models can lead us astray, but with role-playing games, it’s this kind of isomorphism that is explicitly asked for on the part of the player.
In games, the typographical decision rules are the rules of the game itself, the core mechanics of game play. The role of typographical decision rules is to take the axioms (the game materials) and to give players an understanding of what constitutes a valid theorem, i.e. what they can do with the materials. By inference, the rules also tell the players what they cannot do with the materials, putting limits on them. (I may deal with negation and recursion later.)
Isomorphism enters use when a game asks the player to translate the decision rules into real-world or imaginary contexts. The decision rules, for example, may outline how a player rolls to set a mine and how the result impacts the grid on the map. But it is isomorphism that allows a player to translate that into an explosion in their mind. Often, a game will specify the kind of isomorphism they want the player to make by using descriptive language. It’s how one game may treat an area effect as the result of a mine, while another may treat it as the result of a magical fireball being lobbed.
What is immersion, then? Immersion is when a player accepts the isomorphism requested by the game. When a player agrees that the decision rules the game is using are consistent with a way to model the imaginary world they link it to in their mind, they are immersed. Their personal vision and the formal system are in sync.
What causes immersion to be disrupted? When the imaginary world they’ve created diverges from the rules of the game. For example, a person using a firearm wishes to make a trick shot. However, the rules for that trick shot are not in the game. It is not a valid move and therefore not a valid theorem of the formal system. The player balks, “knowing” that the trick shot is possible and that therefore the formal system should allow it. They have rejected a facet of the formal system and lost immersion.
This is not always a bad thing. “This game is not for you” is a valid result, one born of a player who wants rules that allow them to perform a certain set of actions, but not finding it in the current game. In these cases, the rules simply do not allow them to take the actions of their imaginary world they desire. The solution is for them to find a different game. There is nothing wrong with this and anticipating who will fail to be immersed is a part of audience selection.
Look at how Tephra handles firearms: there are four classes, from light to super-heavy. Players are free to flavor their guns however they like, but those four classes and associated statistics are all that’s there. A player who wants a more detailed gun system would then be expected to look elsewhere, because those aren’t the valid theorems admitted here.
As stated before, isomorphisms of formal systems can lead us astray. A common trap is to think that because you interpret a system as having a certain meaning, that this meaning must exert force over the system. This is untrue - the formal system exists independently of the meaning the person assigned to it. In some cases, players simply need to accept that not every detail of the world will be included in a certain game. It’s when a player becomes too attached to their isomorphism that they ignore the original rules that conflicts between players and narrators occurs most often.
Next, we’ll look at ways game developers can influence isomorphism and with it the immersion level of their game.
No comments:
Post a Comment