# But What of the von Neumann Machine of Games? tags: #thoughts #thoughts/game-design I will admit that I am a bit of a historian when it comes to the design of tabletop RPGs and the mechanisms by which they can be applied in general senses. That is, I like to think of games both top-down in terms of the experience that one can make come to pass via clever implementation and intent, and bottom-up, the immersive experience that comes from myriad smaller rules, compositing in ways that the designer may not have ever thought of or may have left the space open for the exploration by players. All games to some degree do this and that is one of the reasons that they are so compelling to us even thousands of years after they have been originally produced and considered within the context of their local culture. They reflect floating bits of cognitive experience left for us to enjoy. However long it's been since someone sat down and said, *"You know, I think what I want is the bishop to move at any distance as long as it's diagonally."* I'm also absolutely and without question a technical geek. Particularly when it comes to the field of computing. Old-school theory and analysis about the very basics of computational theory give me a thrill. So when [Jonathan Hicks](https://twitter.com/JonMarkHicks) dropped this sweet baby on Twitter, I knew there was nothing I could do. I had to sit down and think about it. And having thought it, then write about it. [](https://twitter.com/JonMarkHicks/status/1774727706455822763) The **[WEG Star Wars System](http://d6holocron.com/downloads/wegcore.html)** was and continues to be a classic RPG design. It's shocking how little acknowledgment you see in what is now considered classic tabletop design of what was at the time one of the most popular games on Earth. Of course, it inherited some of its design from prior designs, which explicitly separated attributes and skills, had a specific in-game resource which was used for modifying the metagame story space, et cetera. (The **[WEG Ghostbusters](https://ghostbusterscities.com/media/ghostbusters-the-roleplaying-game/)** game is a literal example of prior lineage.) But it was with **Star Wars** that West End Games found the ideal combination of subject matter, licensed material, and system open enough to reflect the play desired by players.[^1] I've gone this far in order to take a few steps more. Essentially, to raise the question of what is required at the very base level to *"create any kind of TTRPG campaign you want—sci-fi, mystery, fantasy, historical… anything?"* What effectively *is* a von Neumann RPG engine? Answering the question would probably take an entire article length response because [trying to define what counts as a TTRPG has consumed the souls and minds of far too many people both in the industry and around it](http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php). With results which are questionable at best and self-destructive at worst. That said, I'm willing to take a quick basic stab at the question. Let's look at the basic definition of a von Neumann machine: [![[von Neumann architecture.png]]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture) When you get down to it, this is an extremely stripped-down definition, as it should be. This is a list of the most elemental portions of a computing system. You have an input device which allows information to flow into the system. You have a CPU which consists of a control unit and a mechanism by which arithmetic and logic can be executed. You have a memory so that the instructions to process and the results of doing that processing are available to the system. And finally, you have an output device so that the user for whom this mechanism exists to solve a problem can get the result of that computation presented to them. Is it possible to consider the equivalent would be for an RPG? I believe it is, but I'm not sure that we can ever come to absolute agreement on that. That was part of the experiment that happened at the *Forge* over many years. And we all know how that turned out..[^2] I might suggest that the core element of an RPG is a mechanism for resolution. Whatever else may be going on in the context of the game, there is no game without a mechanism for resolution of conflict. That conflict may have rise from a difference in desire between players interacting through the fiction (and the GM definitely counts as a player in the context of this discussion). It may come from a difference in narrative desire between two players at the table outside the context of the fiction. This mechanism for conflict resolution may be arbitrary, or it may be mechanical; it certainly is an element of many RPGs that effectively the GM decides arbitrarily informed by their knowledge of the world, the setting, the background material, or the needs of the story, how things should play out. More commonly these days is a mechanical mechanism generally involving dice, which is applied to figure out the probability of a thing happening based on quantized elements of established fictional situation, then resolved by applying interpretation to a die roll (or a chit draw or a token draw) Equally as important would be the "role." The player needs to have a fictional representative within the context of the game space. Whatever that game space may be. The representative may be unique and localized as you find in classic RPGs like **[[Dungeons and Dragons|D&D]]**, where a player has a single character which represents their interests and drive and capabilities within the fictional setting. That's not necessarily the only possibility. A role can larger, broader, wider. Your role can be *"company commander"* with the only elements within the fiction that you can control being members of the company. Your role could be, *"spirit of the age"* with the actions of an entire country and all that live within it as your manifestation. Is there really anything *else* that you need in order to have a functioning role-playing game? We have examples of games that don't have stats per se, and simply resolve things based on a simple abstraction. For example, if you're playing a game with your friend where you are an adventurer in a dark fantasy world, and they are taking the responsibility for playing the world, it's perfectly reasonable for you both to agree that whenever you attempt to do something in some doubt as to how the outcome will fall, you simply flip enough coins to represent the number of details you've described investing effort, with the number of heads determining how much narrative effect your narration has achieved[^3] Beyond these two elements, is there really anything required in order to classify a pastime/hobby/method of spending time as a tabletop RPG? I don't think there is. Even though there are going to be millions and millions of fans both in the stands and watching at home who are on their feet in outrage at how broad this definition is. They may find some of the games which are included within the context to absolutely not be RPGs. Are wargames RPGs? By this definition, they certainly would be. They provide mechanisms for resolving conflicts and all of the players at the table involved in the occupation are playing some kind of role whether it be a referee or the command element for the things represented on the map. By extension, is chess an RPG? By my definition, I feel comfortable saying that it isn't because the role that you are taking in the engagement with the fiction on the table is not clearly defined enough. There is an argument that the players are actually playing the rival kings, which is why the game is over when they are finally killed. But I don't think there's enough of that role being taken on by the player to really qualify. It is a valid argument, however. Certainly a worthy field of discussion and one which is going to lead to strong feelings in the minds of a lot of people if they ever read this. We shall see. [^1]: Many people would suggest that the WEG D6 Star Wars still remains the pinnacle of game design experience intended to be had by tabletop RPGs. And they would no more give it up than they would their left arm. This is an understandable position to take. [^2]: Much like any other nuclear reaction, it had some useful elements of theory and quite a lot of heat and light. [^3]: I didn't say that it was a particularly *good* or *well-designed* mechanic. Obviously, the more details you give, the less likely you are to get any kind of extreme outcome because it's 50/50 as two, whether you get ahead or a tail. But it is a mechanic that can be easily interpreted and used.