摘要

什么是在线互动？它是如何与已经建立起的互动理论保持一致？此次调查的对象是在线角色扮演游戏，在这里互动完全通过文字进行。作者充分探寻以游戏为背景的互动结构，文章通过与面对面互动的传统社会学规则相比，分析所调查在线互动的可行性。

关键词：互动；角色扮演游戏；livejournal；虚拟世界；交流

介绍

很显然，互动的规则可以应用于参与者同时现身的背景上。但是，当一方并不想出现时，这种规则也同样适用。据游戏邦观察，文章详细调查了在某款游戏中，互动的社会学规则同样适用于非面对面的在线交流。而且，采用的这些规则进一步延伸，用于构建个人及公共层面上的故事引起的互动也同样适用。首先，作者会大致提及某些微观社会学相关作品和文章，以及对在线角色扮演游戏的研究。随后，作者将描述研究所采用的方法论，具体剖析所调查游戏的内容。最后，作者讨论这些观点的重要性，解释现有的社交互动理论如何在游戏背景中发挥作用。

相关作品回顾

微观社会学描述的是人与人之间互动的条件，一般认为会面是互动的必要因素。这些条件约束着各个层面，包括应答、信息交流、话题轮换以及互动本身的一致性。Harold Garfinkel写道：“事实上，谈话环境的组织形式包括成员使用的各种方式，使环境成为清晰、一致、有计划、可再生人际关联，即理性关联。”因此，为保证互动能够流畅进行，必须保持一致性。参与互动的人员会努力保证一致性得以存续，如果遭到破坏便立即修复。

在Erving Goffman所著《框架分析》中，作者认为社会框架使得运转者能够理解其余参与者的行为。而且，多种不同的社会框架可能同时发挥作用。通过将不同的事件、行为和信息主题应用到合适的框架中，并把这些框架融合起来便能形成参与者能够对所处境况有所理解的结构。“个人组建的行为框架只对其自身有意义，这个观点始终存在争议。”这个理论在游戏中得以充分体现，这里的互动和关注点可能存在各种不同的层面。玩家关注并通过游戏进行互动，同时他们也可以直接和游戏外的其他人互动。据游戏邦了解，Goffman还概述了解决误会和错误的方法，如果他人无法理解某些行为，那么就需要启用规则来使互动参与者能够处理这种错位的情形，他把这种事态称为“受损的框架”。《框架分析》花了整整一章的文字来说明框架破裂的后果，他认为如果有人不足以融入框架之中，那么也会迫使其他人打破这个框架。“如果有成员无法维持所需的注意力，那么其他人可能也会认识到这点，只得开始考虑这种错位的内在原因以及处理方法，这必然使得他人的注意力移开本应关注的互动。”

Goffman在《框架分析》中以剧院为背景来阐述演员与所扮演角色间的差别，直接讨论角色扮演和社交互动问题，他概述了哈姆雷特同时扮演的不同“剧本身份”。很明显，玩家在RPG游戏中也扮演着不同的身份：角色和玩家本身。作者进一步以剧院为背景进行研究，通过对独白和信息渠道（即“潜台词”）的讨论来关注后台和“框架外”的交流。“事实证明，这些潜台词更能够推动剧情的发展。”在互动中，并非所有交流都那么公开直白。Goffman著作《谈话的形式》中的评论文章《应答和回应》(Replies and Responses)中提出与之相关的类似观点，介绍所谓的“非语言暗示”，即面部表情和非口头交流。即使仍处谈话过程中，这也有助于发言者得知自己是否清楚表达观点。“发言者在表达观点尝试说服众人时就可以了解自己是否已成功。”

Goffman在分析游戏行为的文章《游戏的乐趣》(Fun in Games)里关注了某些与《框架分析》相同的主题。他讨论了游戏玩家采用的各种方式使其能够置身非游戏信息之外且不直接产生影响，将这种“游戏器材的美学、感性和货币价值”称为“不相关规则”。他声称，游戏很快就为发生的事情组建起框架，这也决定了如何理解框架中包含的所有事情。最后，Goffman解释了如何可以将存在于框架外的任何“不相关”事务融入到玩家关注的互动中。这些事务会使游戏玩家分心，但是其融入的方式却不会影响游戏参与者的玩乐。Goffman用容易让人理解的表达法来形容这些可使人分心事务的完美融合——“有吸引力且沉着老练”。

这些著作大部分内容是对社交互动规则的定义和解释，但它们主要还是建立在面对面互动的基础上，在网络在线互动上说服力不强。当互动双方不再面对面或互动行为并非实时发生，必须重新构建这些规则以适应新的背景。

在测试角色扮演桌游后，Gary Alan Fine在所著书籍《奇幻角色扮演游戏社群》中指出，虽然规则手册奠定了整个游戏的基础，但事实上游戏却是由玩家构建起来的，游戏每个环节的故事源于所有玩家的合作和努力。而且，这些玩家建立起的游戏世界“比最初设想的更具系统性、逻辑性和现实性”Fine也注意到玩家必须在基本规则和既成事实的准则上达成一致，这样才能拓展出游戏背后的现实性和逻辑性，也就是说玩家“需要基本框架作为参考”。游戏邦觉得，这要求玩家之间互相交流，希望能够在游戏中达成何种目标。对游戏将怎样发展，玩家必须提出合理的观点，这样其他玩家才可能理性地进行配合，为各自角色的行为制定出有意义且条理清晰的发展线路。Fine在著作中写道：“玩家需要这种逻辑系统，既可以将游戏角色融合到奇幻世界中，感受这个世界的魅力，还可以构建角色行为的发展线路并合理预测可能发生的结果。游戏逻辑中主要包含的是因果关系，也就是玩家所察觉到的因果联系。”

Fine同样也花了整章的笔墨来阐述其观察角色扮演类桌游的方法，而且其中还穿插Goffman的《框架分析》理论。Goffman已在《游戏的乐趣》中剖析了游玩的结构，文章中多次提到《框架分析》的观点。Fine在他的讨论中明确地将游戏和Goffman关于框架的文章联系起来，指出角色扮演游戏玩家必须在生活的现实物质世界框架和游戏世界框架中来回转换，而且大多数游戏逻辑必须建立在现实世界框架的基本规则上。除了这两个框架外，还有许多设计出用于交流的框架，这些框架既不属于现实世界，也不属于游戏框架。与Goffman的著作中关于戏剧的结构相同，在游戏中框架间信息的传递有时可能也受到严格的控制。游戏玩家知道的信息其控制的角色未必知晓，这时玩家就会觉得角色相当愚蠢。但是据Fine所述，这种机制并非时刻都能发挥作用。举个例子来说，玩家得知角色的宝物会在近期被盗，就会控制角色采取措施加强保护，而角色本不会做出这种行为。虽然框架间的信息传递存在规则，但是有时并非严格执行，这与玩家的辨别能力和决策有关。而此举是否会破坏游戏内部的一致性，取决于所传递信息造成的影响以及玩家和游戏角色如何使用这类信息。

Fine也提到有时对框架使用范围的理解存在问题，会引起游戏相关事务的错误和不协调，这种问题可以通过玩家间的沟通和澄清得以解决。他提及一则趣闻，有人询问某位玩家的年龄，他理解错误，给出的是角色的年龄而并非自己的。还有，玩家询问他人所在之处，得到的回应却是那位玩家现实生活的住址，而他想要知道的是其游戏中角色的位置。这些错误很快就能得到解决，因为发言者可以轻易提供出正确的信息，使得对方不再困惑并获得原本想要的信息。事实上，如果没有指出错误，可能根本不会发现已产生误解。

并非只有桌游中存在Fine调查的角色扮演游戏，网络上基于文字的MUD（多用户层面）游戏也属此类，玩家控制各种各样的角色在构建的游戏世界中用文字互动。游戏邦了解到，近些年这种游戏的代表作是像《魔兽世界》这种基于精彩画面的MMORPG（大型多人在线角色扮演游戏）以及风格有所不同的《第二人生》。Sherry Turkle在作品《虚拟化身》中探讨了MUD游戏的网络和身份问题，但是她对游戏结构关注较少，主要讨论的是游戏对玩家心理的影响。Torill Elvira Mortensen分析了像《龙与地下城》之类的RPG桌游与MUD游戏间的联系，并得出结论：虽然游戏玩法和结构有所不同，但是二者却是一脉相承。这个说法得到Matt Barton的赞同，他认为首个MUD游戏就是建立在《龙与地下城》式的角色创建基础上。T.L. Taylor也同意网络奇幻游戏来源于RPG桌游的观点。Barton还在MUD游戏和MMORPG游戏间找到直接的联系，认为后者从前者发展而来。因此，MUD游戏和MMORPG游戏都扎根于RPG桌游，这三种游戏都明显含有社交成分。Barton这样描述MUD游戏：“玩家选择游戏更想要的是与其他玩家互动，而并非在野外游曳捕杀怪物。”他表示，随着时间的流逝，玩游戏的目的之所以会发生改变，是因为玩家在游戏中的投入越来越多。

Barton写道：“20世纪90年代中期，我曾经玩过MUD游戏，许多事情都在不断重复。首先，玩家备受困扰，他们必须不断找最好的装备、打怪、升级并提升自己的排名。然而，他们也渐渐参与其他冒险活动，这些成员不仅汇集所有掌控的资源来挑战更大的怪物，而且玩家还能结交更多的朋友。那么，玩家自然就会投入更多的时间控制角色与朋友互动，而不是继续赚取经验值。”Tony Manninen的著作《多人游戏中的交互模式和交往行为》更深入地剖析多人游戏中的互动结构。在文章中，Manninen利用交往行为理论为框架探讨了多人游戏互动的各个层面。经过分析，他总结道游戏中的互动具有明确的社会性，与现实世界的互动极为相似，有时还更为简单。而且，他强调了某些游戏中语言交流的重要性，“语言交流是那些支持并认为在游玩过程中进行交流颇有价值的游戏和游戏社群的支柱，如RPG游戏。”

正如上文所述，传统互动理论和对许多不同RPG游戏的调查结果保持一致，因为RPG游戏在设计的游玩方式中包含着重要的社交元素。在随后的文章中，作者将继续以一款网络游戏为背景，深度解析这些理论。

方法

本研究关注的是基于文本的RPG游戏《Tabula Rasa》，由网站Livejournal.com运营。对该游戏场景的研究包括其历史，还进行深入和广泛的调查。游戏中大部分事项对非游戏玩家开放，但是某些社群和网站需要游戏注册会员才可以进入。作者申请了游戏会员，因此可以看到所有玩家的页面和信息，包括游戏的计划和主要的交流社群。这些游戏的主要社群最值得调查，其次是个人角色日志以及私人互动的微博。而且，作者还关注了玩家计划社群。最后就是游戏的百科，这个独立的页面上富含游戏中最重要的信息。这个页面由游戏管理员和玩家共同编辑和维护，对获取角色、玩家和游戏世界的基本信息很有帮助。

对所研究游戏和调查的描述

据上文所述，此次研究所关注的游戏是基于文本的RPG游戏。这款游戏有将近80个活跃玩家和344个活跃角色。得出具体统计数据较为困难，因为某些玩家可能并不活跃，但是管理员还未将其清除。大部分玩家控制的角色数量都不止一个。虽然各年龄段的玩家都有，但大部分玩家是女性白人，年龄在25-30岁间。游戏角色纯属虚构，电视、书籍、漫画、电影和视频游戏是游戏文化的主要来源。

如果按传统对游戏的定义来看，这款游戏根本就不能算是“游戏”：没有最终目标、没有得分系统，玩家个人和公会关注的都是故事的不断建设和发展。所有游戏规则的存在只是为了尽量推迟结局的到来，以所有玩家都乐于接受的方式来发展他们的角色和场景。游戏的表现形式是书写传统小说，虽然玩家可以自由选择时态和最适宜的人称，但大部分作品都以第三人称和过去时写成。这样不但可以轻微触动读者，而且不会影响到玩家互相间保持平衡性。游戏机制如下：一名玩家写下几小段文章，描述场景以及他们在这个场景中控制的角色，这称为“EP”。以下便是某个EP，以加拿大电视剧《Slings and Arrows》中的Kate McNab为角色（中括号里的内容是玩家发给其他玩家的信息，与角色无关，这种情况经常出现）：那个医生说道只要她还能跑就会不停地跑下去，但是她现在不得不重新考虑这个想法。直至现在，她每天起床都会跑步，但事态有所改变，变得完全紊乱。她停止跑步时是如此开心，这是从来没发生过的事情，而且她慢下来后感觉自己的双腿开始颤抖。她的脸很热，而且感觉天旋地转。糟糕，毕竟这不是什么好状况。【并不是什么严重的事情，她仅仅是出汗过多有点脱水而已。她已怀孕四个月，腹部明显隆起但是还不大。她会不会吐在你身上完全取决于你接的是什么角色！】

或许其他玩家随后会自己选择个与此相配的角色，于是游戏就此展开。某个玩家写一小段散文，称为“标签”，其他玩家对此做出回应。每次互动都像是依次开展的叙事性谈话，这称为“情节”。玩家必须注意到，所有的情节通常都是在两个角色中展开，除非大家同意再加入其他的角色。随后会制定出并实施相应的“标签排序”，如A-B-C-A-B-C或其他排序方法。据游戏邦了解，通常情节中只限有3个角色。道理很简单，因为如果有4个或更多的角色，那么每个角色需要在自己的标签内做出反应的情节信息过于纷繁复杂，反而会破坏整个游戏。

所有的EP都发表在游戏社群中，除了“私人情节”之外。如果出于特别的叙事目的，某个角色希望与另外的角色单独进行互动，就会产生这种私人情节。与普通情节相比，私人情节通常会准备更多的细节问题。绝大多数情况下，发生私人情节并非计划内行为。私人情节的形式与普通EP相同，只是不发表在角色个人的Livejournal页面上。情节完成后，各主要游戏社群会收到报告，里面包含查看整个情节的链接。游戏的准则为玩家所熟知，那就是任何角色外人物不得干扰情节的进展。如果写出了某项玩家并不知晓的事件，游戏的平衡性就会遭到破坏，这也是很不礼貌的事情。然而，所发表的私人情节也可以当成是游戏世界的一部分，对所有玩家来说这些都是真实鲜活的事件，但是参与游戏的角色却并不知晓。

还有一种EP的形式称为“集合发布”。与普通的EP相同，这种EP也是依靠角色来布置场景。但是，各角色标签地位平等，任何其余角色也可以参与进来。这种情况下，通常会有数个情节同时进行。每个角色在首标签下集合完毕后，每个玩家轮流扩展情节，就和上文所述的普通EP相似。集合发布虽并不少见，但也没有像普通EP那样常见。可以说，这种EP就像是一间屋子，每个角色的首标签都表示自己正处在屋子中，随后与屋子中的其他角色开展情节。

所有EP都在游戏世界中的不同地点发生。这个世界的基本框架由游戏开发者构筑，但是细节的描述却大部分依靠玩家，如各种地点和事物等。游戏还需要保持这些细节的一致性，使得相同地点的描述间不存在冲突，百科就此应运而生。据游戏邦了解，百科中包含了某些地点的外观和功能，以供玩家使用。但是，百科中的信息并没有包含很多细节，这样玩家的描述可更具灵活性。这种构建虚拟世界的游戏方式产生的效果非同寻常，现实世界或传统故事中可能不会发生的各时空事件和计划可以在其中照常进行。举个例子，玩家把角色汤姆的EP设置在厨房中，随后有三个角色麦克、吉姆和尼尔做出回应，三个情节同时开展。相同EP下的情节并没有固定的排序，除非玩家希望设立并通过某种潜台词清晰表达自己的观点。在这里，EP底部的小注解就可以看做是潜台词，因为这个注解并没有出现在EP的整体框架中。游戏百科清楚地解释了这种“集合发布”：为确保玩家可尽情体验《Tabula Rasa》，游戏允许多个情节同时发生并互不干扰。在相同的起始EP下，每个情节都有其独立的体制。

这是作者对所调查游戏核心部分的描述，接下来将探讨游戏的细节并解释如何利用传统面对面交流规则来理解游戏中的互动。

探讨游戏中的互动

作者所调查的游戏主要通过玩家以及角色间的互动来叙事，为理解整个游戏，解析互动的结构和形式必可不少。最为重要的是，游戏内的互动也遵从现实世界人与人间面对面互动的规则和惯例。这就可以说明，互动社会学规则并非需要双方同时在场，在虚拟世界的虚拟角色互动中也同样存在。

为真正了解《Tabula Rasa》游戏世界的结构，理解框架至关重要。事实上，正是框架的存在，使得在游戏世界内玩家叙事性的结构和互动能为他人所理解。随着情节发展，角色在游戏框架中互动，玩家间谈论的却是游戏外发生的情节，两个框架内的互动同时进行。在游戏内部，只要不制定特别的规定或整个大框架未遭到破坏，各种同时发生的情节都有着自己独立的框架，自成一体而且与其他情节或框架并不存在冲突或重叠。

因此，理解游戏内外各种形式的交流，研究框架很重要。上文作者说过，玩家可能在EP底部写有自己的注解，为其他玩家的标签提供相应的指示。玩家可能在注解中写道：“我的角色心烦意乱，因此我只希望那些能真正理解角色的玩家跟这个EP”，这个注解表明玩家不想加入某种互动。更确切地说，她不想构建某种叙事的形式。注解属于EP，但是注解的内容通常比其他部分短，这使读者可以很清楚地了解到注解与EP剩余部分属于不同的框架。Goffman也认识到，在某些情况下作者也可能与读者在各种不同的框架内互动。他在著作中写道：“作者可以用标点符号和脚注为读者指明理解的方向，也可以在自己的作品中使用括号内的语言来发表评论，这就是另一种角色和框架。”

因此，在相同的EP中也可能有富含各种信息的不同框架同时运转，但是这几种框架都可以维持游戏中互动的一致性。一个框架所包含的信息为其他玩家继续发展情节奠定基础，另一个框架为其他玩家传达EP作者想要他们如何发展的信息。以前文怀孕的Kate McNab想要继续跑步为例，EP的注解中写道：并不是什么严重的事情，她仅仅是出汗过多有点脱水而已。她已怀孕四个月，腹部明显隆起但是还不大。她会不会吐在你身上完全取决于你接的是什么角色！

注解独立于EP叙事之外，为可能接下来发展情节的玩家提供了某些可用的角色相关信息：首先，有人可能会参与发展Kate的情节；其次，她并没有严重的生理疾病；第三，很明显她怀孕了；第四，塑造Kate的玩家可能会让她呕吐，这取决于她遇见的角色是什么人。所有这些信息都可以推动角色与他人会面情节的发展，使得其他玩家更加游刃有余地拟定情节。Kate腹部隆起的细节更清晰地界定出各方都承认的事实，减少情节发展过程中可能出现的偏差。

注解本身也包含许多信号，向玩家表明应在与EP不同的框架中加以理解。首先，正如上文所提到，注解的内容少于EP的其余内容。其次，玩家给注解的内容加上中括号。还有一种这个EP没有采用但较为常见的方式：在中括号和EP本体内容中插入“旁白”。旁白可以更清晰地设置独立于EP内容之外的框架。这些信号必须为玩家所知晓，否则对EP的理解便会出现偏差。如果注解的内容不加中括号或者字体大小与本体相同，那么这个EP本身就让人很难理解。毫无疑问，阅读该EP的玩家会认为EP内容和注解传达着两条主线的信息。

游戏邦觉得，EP底部中括号内的注解也可以理解成某种形式的交流，意在对游戏世界中的行为进行调节并保持其一致性。Goffman认为这种形式的交流是带有方向性的信号：“在参与的互动中，经常会发现某些信号。这些信号本身并非互动行为的内容，但是却可以起到调节作用，规范互动的成分和各个阶段。互动在这种带有方向性信号的情况下展开。”

正如上文所提到的，Goffman认为文学作品中通过标点符号的使用来传达这种信号，他在著作中写道：“读者可以很自然地理解这种代码。在任何情况下，这些标志都恰到好处地指导着读者思考的方向。这些注解并非是读者阅读作品时所关注的焦点，但是却有效地说明了大家关注的事物。”在《Tabula Rasa》中，玩家所写短文的方向性信号远比标点符号复杂。除了EP底部的注解，Slated（游戏社群）会发表公告解释复杂EP的背景，而且玩家还通过邮件和即时信息交流来澄清情节中的事件并拟定计划。

在不同种类的方向性信号中，Goffman将那些控制谈话方向和进展的信号称为“调节信号”，他写道：“这些信号指导谈话者继续、重复、详细说明、加快速度或让其他人表达看法等等。最常用的调节信号是点头和口头上的mm-hmm声，还有眼神接触、稍微向前移动、调整姿态、眉毛上扬和其他非语言性动作。”

话题轮换可自然通过游戏的结构来调整，情节内的调节信号可能存在其他功能。可能有玩家在情节中描述Goffman列出的那些非语言行为，然而对角色想法和感受的描述同样可以作为调节信号，为游戏内互动的发展指明方向。如果玩家发现自己的角色没有融入其他角色的想法中，可能会调整角色的行为来做出回应。

框架的存在也使玩家能够理解故事内发生的事件。可以把标签当做组成情节中交流的小单位，而且标签同样也是所叙述故事的单位。在情节中，角色同样进行思考，有自己的感觉和行为，记得过去发生在他们身上的事情并对发生的事件做出回应。他们与其他角色互动，建立或打破朋友间的友谊，结婚生子，有时还面临死亡的威胁。成千上万个情节中的描述、行为和对话构建起整个游戏世界。

在《Tabula Rasa》中，框架至关重要，它的存在维持着游戏内互动中不同目的的交流和不同信息状态间的一致性。玩家和角色掌握的信息必然存在差异，玩家知道角色所不知道的信息，不同角色知道的信息也各不相同。Goffman在讨论戏剧剧本时对信息状态有所描述，这与游戏有些类似，因为玩家也是在《Tabula Rasa》这个舞台上扮演着各自不同的角色。Goffman在著作中写道：“与各种场景密不可分的是各种信息状态。所谓的‘信息状态’是指个人所掌握的事情发生缘由、目前影响力如何、相关人员的性格和目的以及事情的结果。简而言之，每种情形下各个角色在方向性上保持一致。在戏剧中，演员扮演的角色分别掌握着不同的信息状态。当然，角色所了解的内容不及演员及创作团队人员完整。需要注意的是，如果要让舞台上的喜剧完美呈现，那么这种信息状态差异性就必须存在。”

这种说法不难理解，正如上文所述，如果角色知道玩家知道的所有事情，也就是说角色已深知他们仅仅是玩家控制用于合作完成小说的一个棋子，那么必将导致小说毫无意义可言。如果角色只是想要知道玩家知道的事，那么整个游戏便有了丰富深奥的情节。但是，这种不良情况经常发生。以上文提过的Fine的经历为例，他在调查RPG桌游时描述过这种现象：“玩家希望角色能够在只有玩家知晓的背景中行动，很显然角色的行为纯粹是假装的。因为玩家和角色共用一个大脑，所以这种信息的分离性有时会被人所忽略。角色利用超出自己所掌握的信息展开行动，也就是玩家所掌握的信息，而玩家却并没有意识到这一点。直到角色跳出自己最初所在的框架后，这些问题才真正浮上水面。也就是说，当玩家认同游戏结构或角色行为时，这个问题不会引起人们的注意，因为玩家本来就知道所有角色知道的信息。只有当理论上仅玩家知道的信息被角色所利用并使其享有某些优势时，问题才真正产生。”

Fine提到的“优势”是指那些可直接帮助玩家取得某个目标的信息，如聚敛财宝或击败怪物等。Fine举例道，某个玩家得知其他玩家的角色计划盗取自己角色的宝物，于是控制角色提前预防，而那个角色自己本不会有这种行为。他认为这种行为是对角色扮演的玷污，但是却时常发生。然而，在《Tabula Rasa》叙事性题材背后并没有任何目标，因而玷污角色扮演的行为也不会发生。角色绝不会知道他们本不该知道的事情，如果这种情况发生，游戏故事的一致性就将遭到破坏。游戏邦了解到，事实上玩家Manda曾在《Tabula Rasa》反馈和建议社群“The Clean Slate”上发表了一份公告，指出很严重的问题，公告如下：“近来，我发现某些角色所掌握的信息已超出限度，并将其运用在角色塑造、事件和情节中。我认为这些想法和信息本不该为角色所知晓。但是，越玩越觉得角色对这些信息确有耳闻。我希望这个公告能够改善这个问题，请玩家确保自己的角色别再成为超人。某些信息只能存在于玩家脑中，这些想法可以影响互动、交际和游戏，但是应该在游戏中杜绝角色的全知全觉。”

标签中包含着角色的内在想法，这些想法参与情节的其他角色并不知晓。玩家掌握标签中所包含的全部信息，并善加利用，通过标签展示这些角色的做法。这样就可以维持游戏中的互动，而这种互动与Goffman所述戏剧性互动和传统的面对面互动无异，虽然玩家和角色都未曾谋面。

总结

通过上文的讨论和分析，作者已说明社交互动的传统社会学规则不仅适用于常见的现实交流或现实世界互动等人所共知的场景，在较为罕见的网络角色扮演游戏中同样发挥作用。即使在游戏所提出的这种互动编写故事中，互动规则同样能够妥善使用，让玩家乐在其中。游戏和舞台上的表演存在联系，这一点也已证实。毫无疑问，基于文本的游戏《Tabula Rasa》和许多传统互动有着很深的联系，在许多地方有共通点。这个分析表明，其他形式的游戏也能以类似的模式运营，将来的研究也将确认这一点。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Tags, Threads, and Frames: Toward a Synthesis of Interaction Ritual and Livejournal Roleplaying

Abstract:

What does online interaction look like? How does it fit with established theories of interaction? The examined setting is an online roleplaying game where the action is entirely transacted through text. The structure of observable interactions within the context of the game is explored. The paper concludes with an analysis of how the observed online interactions are understandable through traditional sociological conventions of face to face interaction.

Keywords: interaction, roleplaying games, livejournal, virtual worlds, communication

Introduction

Typically, conventions of interaction are applied to contexts wherein participants are physically co-present. However, those conventions also apply in a context where one might not expect them to do so. This paper examines a game where sociological rules of interaction are adapted to fit an online context free from face to face encounters, and where these adapted rules are further stretched to fit interactions designed to construct a narrative that exists on both the individual and the communal levels.

I will first outline pertinent work done on microsociology and the study of online and roleplay gaming. I will follow with a description of the methodology of my research, and describe in detail what I have observed. I will then move on to a discussion of the significance of my observations and an explanation of how existing theories of social interaction come into play in the context of those observations.

Review of Literature

Microsociology describes, among other things, the constraints under which people interact with each other, traditionally with physical presence being a necessary factor in the interaction. These constraints function on a variety of levels, including tact, information exchange, turn-taking, and the coherence of interaction itself. Harold Garfinkel writes, “In exactly the ways that a setting is organized, it consists of members’ methods for making evident that setting’s ways as clear, coherent, planful, consistent, chosen, knowable, uniform, reproducible connections – i.e. Rational connections”. In order for interactions to function smoothly they must be coherent; participants in interaction will work to make sure that its coherence is maintained, and repaired if broken.

In Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis, the claim is made that social frameworks enable the people operating within them to understand actions of other participants. In addition, multiple social frameworks may be applied at one time, with different events, actions, and items of information fitting into the appropriate frame, and all frames taken together forming a structure within which a participant may make sense of a situation: “[I]t has been argued that the individual’s framing of activity establishes its meaningfulness for him”. This applies extremely well to the concept of a game, where interaction and focus can exist on several different levels, with players focusing on and interacting through the game, as well as directly with each other outside of the world of the game. Goffman also outlines some of the mechanisms for dealing with misunderstandings and mistakes by claiming that when actions cannot be made sense of, rules must be in place to enable participants to deal with “slippage and looseness,” or, as he also terms it, “breaking frame.” He devotes an entire chapter in Frame Analysis to what happens when a frame is broken, suggesting that when one person is unable to remain sufficiently involved in a frame, every other person in that frame is forced to break as well: “Should one participant fail to maintain prescribed attention, other participants are likely to become alive to this fact and perforce involved in considering what the delict means and what should be done about it – and this involvement necessarily removes them from what they themselves should be involved in”.

Goffman’s work on the setting of the theatre in Frame Analysis leads directly to discussions of roleplay and social interaction, in his description of the distinction between player and character, and in his outline of all the different “scripted identities” that Hamlet takes on at once. The obvious connection in this case is with the different roles one will find themselves taking on in an RPG: that of their character and that of their player being two obvious examples. Further work in the theatre allows for backstage and “out of frame” communications through his discussion of soliloquies and information channels (“concealment channels”). “The concealment track, as suggested, is much employed to carry the story line”. Not all communication in an interaction takes place openly or in a straightforward manner. Goffman mentions a similar, related idea in his essay “Replies and Responses” in Forms of Talk with the introduction of what he calls “back-channel cues (facial gestures and non-verbal vocalizations)”. These serve the purpose of informing a speaker of how well he is expressing himself even as the expression is ongoing: “while the speaker was speaking, he could know, among other things, that he was succeeding or failing to get across, being informed of this while attempting to get across”.

Goffman focuses on some of the same themes of Frame Analysis in his essay on gameplay, “Fun in Games.” He discusses the ways in which players in a game disattend information that exists outside the game and does not directly affect it, such as the “esthetic, sentimental, or monetary value of the equipment employed”, under what he calls “rules of irrelevance.” He claims that games order presently occurring events into a frame, which determines how all events within that frame will be understood. Finally, Goffman explains how any “irrelevant” matter existing outside the frame which serves as a distraction to the game participants may be integrated into the focused interaction in such a way that it will not be a source of embarrassment or disruption to any of the participants. Goffman accords these integrations of distracting events the more widely understood terms of “charm, tact, or presence of mind”.

The works discussed here do a great deal to define and explain rules of social interaction, but they are based primarily around the context of face to face interaction and fall short when it comes to interaction taking place online. When interaction is no longer face to face or taking place in real time, the rules must be restructured to fit their new context.

In his examination of tabletop roleplaying games, Shared Fantasy, Gary Alan Fine notes that while the basic building blocks of the game “worlds” are found in rulebooks, the games themselves are player-constructed and the narrative of each game session is a team effort by all players involved. Furthermore, the gameworlds that these players construct are “systematic, logical, and realistic to the assumptions that they make”. With regard to the realism and logic behind the games, Fine notes that players must agree on the basic rules and norms of the created realities through which they move; that “a common frame of reference is necessary”. This requires players to communicate with each other about what is expected in any given game. Players in a game must have a reasonable idea of how the events in a game will proceed and what other players are reasonably likely to do in order to create meaningful and coherent lines of action for their own characters.

“[P]layers require this logic, both to incorporate their game selves into the fantasy world – that is, ‘feel’ what the world is like – and also to construct lines of action for their characters with a reasonable presumption of what will happen as a result. Game logic primarily involves a sense of causal consistency – a perceived connection between cause and effect”.

Fine also devotes an entire chapter to the ways in which his observations of tabletop roleplaying games intersect with Goffman’s Frame Analysis. Goffman has already explored the structures of play in “Fun in Games,” and the essay refers to the ideas in Frame Analysis on several points. Fine brings games and Goffman’s work on frames together explicitly in his discussion, pointing out that in a roleplaying game players must move between the frames of the real physical world in which they exist and upon whose essential rules much of the logic of the game is often based, and the frame of the gameworld itself. In addition to those two frames, there are also various frames designed for communication which do not comfortably exist in either the real world or the game frames. In keeping with Goffman’s work on the structure of dramaturgy, how information moves between frames must often be strictly controlled; something that a player learns may often not reasonably be known by the player’s character, since the character must remain “ignorant” of the player. Fine says that this does not always work, using the example of a player who learns that his character’s treasure is soon to be stolen and therefore has his character take precautions to protect it that he would not otherwise have taken. (1983, p.190) While there are rules which govern information exchange between frames, they are not always followed strictly, depending on the discretion of the player. This may or may not damage the internal consistency of the game, depending on the impact of the information and how it is used by the player/character.

Fine also mentions that interpreting how a frame must be used can sometimes be problematic, leading to mistakes and inconsistencies in game narrative that can be resolved through communication and clarification between players. He relates an anecdote wherein a player is asked his age by another, and, confused, the player relates his character’s age rather than his own. In another anecdote, one player asks another where he was; the player responds with his physical location only to be told that the question was referring to character in the game the two players had been discussing. These ambiguities are resolved quickly, because the speaker will typically provide a corrective account which has the effect of protecting the other from embarrassment as well as gaining the information originally desired. Indeed, if such a corrective is not given, it may well be impossible to know that a misframing has occurred.

Roleplaying games of the variety that Fine examines are not confined to the tabletop, however: they can be found on the internet in the form of text based Multiple User Dungeons (MUDs), worlds constructed through textual description in which players interact through a variety of characters. More recently this form of game has been represented in graphically-based Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft, and, though it is different in some important ways, Second Life. Sherry Turkle examines MUDs in her work on the internet and identity, Life on the Screen, though her focus is less on the structure of the games and more on the psychological effect of the games on the players. Torill Elvira Mortensen writes about the connection between tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons and MUDs, claiming that despite the differences in gameplay and structure, one is a direct successor to the other. This is echoed by Matt Barton, who states that the first known MUD was built with a basis in “D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) type character creation”. T.L. Taylor agrees that online fantasy games owe a great deal to tabletop RPGs. Barton also draws a direct line from MUDs to MMORPGs, saying that one evolved into the other. Therefore, both MUDs and MMORPGs have their roots in the world of tabletop RPGs, and all three are games containing an explicitly social component. Barton writes of MUDs: “[I]t seems safe to say that the appeal of the game is more about interacting with other players than roaming about the countryside killing things”. He further claims that the purpose of the game changes for a gamer over time as they become more entrained with the gameworld, putting more of themselves into it:

In my own extensive experience playing MUDs throughout the mid-1990s, I saw the pattern repeated many times. First, players are obsessed…with finding the best equipment, fighting monsters, gaining levels, and rising in rank. Eventually, though, they are drawn into parties of other adventurers, where they not only pool their resources to fight bigger battles but also make friends. Inevitably, the player will spend more time socializing with these friends, or role-playing, than going on quests or earning experience points.

The structure of interaction in multiplayer games has been further explored by Tony Manninen in “Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games.” In the paper, Manninen examines different facets of interaction in multiplayer gaming, using Communicative Action Theory as a framework. In the course of his analysis, he concludes that game interaction is implicitly social and has much in common with real world interaction, though it is not always as complex. Further, he emphasizes the importance of linguistic communication in certain kinds of games: “Language-based communication forms a strategic backbone within games and game communities that support and value the communication aspects of playing (e.g. RPGs)”.

As suggested above, theories of interaction and observations of many different kinds of RPGs can fit together in a coherent way, as RPGs contain a significant and vital element of socialization in how they are played. In the following sections, I aim to explore this in further depth in the context of one particular type of online game.

Methodology

The focus of the study is a text-based “pan fandom” RPG called Tabula Rasa, hosted on the site Livejournal.com. Research of the setting was a combination of close and extensive observation and historical research. Most of the in-game events are open to non-players, but there are other communities and websites that require membership in the game to access. I obtained membership in the game, which gave me access to all player pages and information, as well as the game’s planning and major communication community. The game’s main community was of primary observational importance, followed by individual character “journals” or weblogs where private in-game interactions occur. In addition, I observed events in the player planning community. Finally, the game’s wiki, which is a separate webpage featuring information on the most important locations in the game (which is written and maintained by both game moderators and players) was a useful resource for basic information about characters, players, and the world of the game.

Description of Research Setting and Observations

As said above, the game on which this study is focused is a text-based RPG. The RPG itself contains approximately 80 active players (a precise count is difficult, as some players may be inactive but not yet removed from the game by the moderators) and approximately 344 active characters (again, a precise count is difficult for the reasons listed above). Most players play more than one character. The majority of the players are female, white, and in their mid to late 20′s, though players also represent a range of ages. The characters themselves are drawn from a variety of fictional canon. Television, books, comic books, movies, and video games are the primary cultural sources.

The game is not a “game” by the most traditional definition: there is no ultimate goal and no system of points, and the focus is on the creation and development of an ongoing story, both on the individual and the communal level. All “rules” of the game exist to further that end and to enable players to develop their characters and plots in a way that all players will be likely to find acceptable, and enjoyable. Gameplay itself takes the form of written narrative in the style of traditional fiction. Writing is usually done from third-person point of view and in past tense, although players are free to choose whatever tense and whatever point of view they are most comfortable with. Although this can create a slightly jarring effect on a reader, it does nothing to impede the mutually grasped coherence held and maintained between players. The gameplay structure is as follows: one player will write a few short paragraphs describing a setting and the character they are playing within that setting, called an “EP”, or “Entrance Post”. An example of an EP, featuring Kate McNab from the Canadian television series Slings and Arrows (the text in brackets is a message from the player to other players, not the character; such messages are a common occurrence.): The doctor says as long as she’s been a runner, she should be able to keep running but she currently is having to rethink that idea. She’s still ran every day up till now but something has changed. Shifted. Gone totally out of whack. She’s never been this grateful to have the compound (the end of her run) in sight and she can feel her legs starting to wobble as she slows down. Her face feels tight and hot and the world is spinning a little bit. Crap. Right, maybe not a good idea after all. [open to all! Nothing serious, she's just overheated and a little dehydrated. She's four months along and has a noticeable, but still small belly. She may or may not puke on you. Depends who you send me!!]

Other players may then choose to interact with the initial character, using one of their own characters. Gameplay is then turn based, with one player writing a short unit of prose, called a “tag”, which the other player responds to. Each interaction is thus organized like a conversation described in a narrative and constructed in turns, called a “thread.” It is important to note that all threads are between two characters as a rule, unless it is agreed that another will join the thread, in which case a “tagging order” is established and proceeds, for example, A-B-C-A-B-C and so on. Threads are generally limited to three participating characters, simply because with four or more characters the amount of in-thread information that each character must react to within his or her tag becomes prohibitively complex.

All EPs are posted in the game community, with the exception of private threads, which are usually done when one character wishes to engage in an interaction with another character alone, often for a specific narrative purpose. These private threads are therefore often planned out in more detail than normal threads, which are frequently completely unplanned. The format is that of a normal EP, except that it is posted in a character’s personal Livejournal page. Upon completion of the thread, a post is made to the main gameplay community which contains a link to the thread. It is a universally understood norm that no one else other than the intended characters are supposed to take part in these threads; to do so would violate coherence by introducing an event which a player was not prepared to acknowledge; it would also be discourteous. However, the posted private thread is considered to be part of the history of the gameworld, and thus is a real and valid event for everyone, though a character is not expected to know about it if they would not have reason to.

The final form of EP that needs to be considered is a “gathering post”. This variety of EP acts as a normal EP in that one character sets the scene. However, each other character’s tag acts as a sort of second-order EP, and they may be tagged by any other character. They may also have several threads running simultaneously. After each initial character’s tag into the gathering post (referred to as a “top-level” tag), threads proceed as normal via turn-taking as discussed above. Gathering posts are not rare but do not happen nearly as often as normal EPs, and they are usually reserved for parties. It may be helpful to think of the EP as a “room”, with each character’s top-level tag announcing their presence within the room, and thereby opening them to threads with other characters present in the room.

All EPs take place in different locations around the game’s world. The basic framework of the world was constructed by the game’s creator, but the details of the world itself, such as physical descriptions of places and things, are left largely up to the players. There is some effort to make all these details agree and not to have multiple conflicting descriptions of one place, so the game’s wiki contains information on the appearance and function of island locations for the use of players. This information is, however, not so detailed as to preclude further flexibility with descriptions.  One of the interesting effects of this combination of world design and gameplay structure is that spatiotemporal events and arrangements occur that would not be possible in the real world or in a traditionally coherent narrative. To explain: Tom’s player might set his EP in the kitchen. Tom is then tagged by three other characters, Mike, Jim, and Neil. These three conversations or threads are then understood to be occurring simultaneously, in that one that exists physically higher up on the page is not automatically understood to be occurring before a thread lower down on the page. There is no temporal order imposed within the threads under an EP unless the player wishes there to be one and makes this wish explicit through backstage communication of some kind (a small note at the bottom of the EP could be considered backstage, as it does not exist within the frame of the EP itself). This is laid out explicitly in the game’s wiki:

In order to ensure maximum playability, Tabula Rasa has concurrent continuity. What this means is that all threads under an entrance post exist within their own reality and do not necessarily affect each other. They are played as separate entities, each from the same starting point (the EP), but with their own unique series of events. Each is understood to have happened. As such, continuity is more fluid and not strictly maintained.

I have discussed the most important, readily observable aspects of the setting; I will now discuss the ramifications of the setting, and how what occurs in that setting is understandable through traditional rules of face to face interaction.

Discussion

The game that I have described is focused around a narrative that is communally constructed through the interactions of players and characters, and in order to understand the game, the structure and form of those interactions must be grasped as well. Most importantly, in-game interactions follow many of the same rules and conventions that govern interaction in the real world between people who are in each other’s physical presence. Therefore, it can be said that sociological conventions of interaction do not necessarily require physical presence, and may be observed to be in play between fictional characters moving through a fictional world.

Frames are vital to understanding the structure of Tabula Rasa’s gameworld. Indeed, frames allow players to engage with the gameworld in such a way that their narrative construction and interactions become sensible to themselves and to each other. Most obviously, there exist the two frames that establish the separation between character and player. One single encounter can take place with different aspects of it referring to different frames, with characters interacting within a thread in one, and players interacting in another frame, talking about the thread outside of gameplay. Within the game itself, each concurrent thread can be understood as its own frame, self-contained and not necessarily overlapping with any other thread/frame without special provision being made, or the occurrence of a breakage in frame.

Frames are important for making sense of the various types of communication that occur within and without the game. I have described above how occasionally, within an EP, a player will make a note at the bottom, perhaps giving instructions about appropriate tagging to other players. A player might make a note that says “my character is upset, so I only wish to have characters who know my character well tag into the EP,” thus signaling that she does not wish to engage in a particular kind of interaction, and, by extension, that she does not wish to construct a particular type of narrative. This note is within the body of the EP, but the text of the note is usually smaller than the rest of the text, thus signaling to readers that the text is understood to be within a different frame than the rest of the EP. Goffman identifies some instances in which a writer might communicate through multiple frames in his writing: “Given that the writer will employ punctuation marks and footnotes as part of the directional track, one finds that he also uses parentheses and brackets to comment in another voice – another role and another frame – on his own text”.

Therefore, it is possible to have two separate frames operating and carrying information within the same EP. Both serve the coherence of the game, since the information contained in one frame establishes a setting which others may build upon, while the other conveys information to the players about how the EP’s author would like people to tag, or about how they may sensibly expect the encounter to go. An example of this, drawn from the EP quoted above where a pregnant Kate McNab attempts to go for a run: [open to all! Nothing serious, she's just overheated and a little dehydrated. She's four months along and has a noticeable, but still small belly. She may or may not puke on you. Depends who you send me!!]

This establishes, separately from the narrative portion of the EP, some facts about the character for the use of other players who may tag: first, that anyone may engage in a thread with Kate; second, that she is not in serious physical trouble; third, that she is noticeably pregnant; and fourth, that depending on which other character is a participant in the encounter, Kate’s player may decide to have Kate vomit. All of this information is to assist in making an encounter – in the form of a thread – more sensible and easier to navigate for another player; the detail about Kate’s belly is designed to more clearly establish a reality upon which both parties are agreed, reducing the chances for dissonance in the act of storytelling.

There are several signals in the text itself that convey the message that the text is to be understood as existing within a different frame than the EP. First, as mentioned above, the text is a smaller size than the rest of the EP. Second, the text is in brackets. There is another denotation that is not used here but is nevertheless common: the insertion of “OOC”: between the brackets and the body of the text. OOC stands for “Out Of Character” and even more clearly establishes the separate frame within which the text resides. These signals are important to note because without them, the EP would be far less sensible. An EP which contained the bracketed text without brackets and with no smaller font size would at first be a confusing read; the player reading the EP would undoubtedly figure out that the EP text and the note text are meant to convey two separate lines of information, but it would not be as immediately obvious.

Notes like the bracketed text at the bottom of EPs can also be understood as part of a range of forms of communication which serve to regulate activity within the gameworld and to maintain coherence. Goffman speaks of these forms of communication as directional signals: In doings involving joint participation, there is to be found a stream of signs which is itself excluded from the content of the activity but which serves as a means of regulating it, bounding, articulating, and qualifying its various components and phases. One might speak here of directional signals and, by metaphorical extension, the track that contains them.

Goffman explains that examples of these signals may be found in writing, as mentioned above, in the forms of punctuation marks: “it comprises one corpus on conventions, one code, that is learned consciously, often all too consciously. In any case, these marks nicely illustrate the special character of the directional stream – the quality of not being attended focally yet closely organizing what is attended”. In Tabula Rasa, directional signals in writing take on more complex forms than punctuation. In addition to the notes at the bottoms of EPs, there are posts in Slated (the game’s plotting community) which may explain the background of a more complex EP, and emails and instant messages between players which plan for a plotted narrative or simply clarify the events in a thread which is ongoing.

Among the different types of directional signals, Goffman refers to what he calls “regulators,” signals which specifically function to regulate the flow and direction of a conversation: [T]ell[ing] the speaker to continue, repeat, elaborate, hurry up, become more interesting, less salacious, give the other a chance to talk, etc…The most common regulator is the head nod, the equivalent of the verbal mm-hmm; other regulators include eye contacts, slight movements forward, small postural shifts, eyebrow raises, and a whole host of other small nonverbal acts.

While turn-taking is already regulated by the structure of the game, regulators within a thread may perform other functions. There may exist within a tag descriptions of the kinds of nonverbal acts that Goffman lists, but the descriptions of character’s thoughts and feelings within a tag may also be said to act as regulators, guiding the flow and direction of the interaction in-game, because while one’s character must disattend what another character is thinking, the player may see it and subtly plan her own character’s actions and speech accordingly.

Frames also assist in maintaining understandable events within the narrative itself. Tags may be understood as units of the “conversation” that comprises a thread, but they are also units of narrative, because it is within them that the actual story is told. Within threads characters think and feel, perform actions, remember their pasts and react to an emergent reality. They interact with each other, form relationships and break them, make love, raise children and, sometimes, die. It is within the many thousands of threads that make up the gameworld that the gameworld itself is constructed, through description, action, and dialogue.

Frames are crucial within Tabula Rasa in that they help to make in-game interaction coherent by separating different lines of communication that serve different purposes, and also by separating different information states. Different information states must necessarily apply to characters and players. Players know things that characters may not know, and different characters know things that other characters may not know. Goffman explains information states in his discussion of dramatic scripting, which is relevant to the setting, since with players “acting” behind different characters there are obvious parallels between Tabula Rasa and a staged play: Corresponding to these various arrangements will be various information states. By an “information state” I mean the knowledge an individual has of why events have happened as they have, what the current forces are, what the properties and intents of the relevant persons are, and what the outcome is likely to be. In brief, each character at each moment is accorded an orientation, a temporal perspective, a “horizon”… [D]uring a performance the characters projected by the performers act as if they possess different information states, different from one another and, of course, less complete than the one the actors and the production crew possess. Note, the make-believe acceptance of different information states, different from one’s fellow characters and different from the production staff, is an absolute essential if any sense is to be made out of the inner drama on the stage.

This is fairly intuitive, for reasons described above: if characters knew everything that the players know, they would, for example, know that they are merely characters being controlled by players in a work of collaborative fiction, which would necessarily render that work of fiction nonsensical. If characters were to know things that only players know, without some sensible in-game reason for the acquisition of that knowledge, it would be a profound threat to the sensibility of the game. However, such a thing does occasionally occur. Again, as discussed above, Fine encountered this phenomenon in his examination of table-top RPGS: The character is supposed to operate under the constraints of a closed awareness context with regard to his animator, although this of course is a pretense. Because player, person, and character share a brain, this separation of knowledge on occasion is ignored. Characters do draw on their animator’s knowledge of game events outside of their own knowledge. Also players and persons are unaware of the specialized knowledge that their characters have. These problems arise when one upkeys from one’s primary framework. That is, it is not considered as problem when persons admit knowledge of the game structure or actions of the characters, and no dispute arises because players know what their characters know. Only in situations that in theory are closed awareness contexts but in reality are pretense awareness contexts (in which advantages are to be gained in the application of awareness) do difficulties occur.

The “advantages” to which Fine refers are applications of knowledge which directly assist a player in a game that involves a specific goal – gathering treasure or defeating a monster, as two examples. Fine uses the example of a player learning that another player’s character plans to steal his character’s treasure, and therefore having his character take precautions that the character would not otherwise have taken. He notes that this “contaminates the role-playing,” but that it happens anyway (1983, p.190). However, in Tabula Rasa there are no goals beyond the act of storytelling, and so anything that “contaminates the role-playing” takes on a much greater significance. Characters must under no circumstances know things that they could not know; if this occurs, the game narrative’s coherence is wounded. Indeed, at one point a significant enough problem that Manda, one of the players, made a post about it in “The Clean Slate”, Tabula Rasa’s feedback and suggestion community (note: “pup” is player slang for “character”): I’ve noticed lately that some characters have been deviating knowledge and have been using it for their characterizations, plots, and threads. My issue, however, is that the knowledge gleaned are thoughts and information that the characters should have no access to (ie: narrative, thoughts, threads the pup would have no knowledge of). However, it’s being played out like the pup does hear these kinds of things…I suppose this post is just to encourage that people please, please just make sure that their pup hasn’t magically become psychic. Some information is meant to stay personal and that’s why it’s only a thought. It can start to affect interactions, relationships, and gameplay and I know that we as a game can put a stop to the omniscient knowledge that really shouldn’t be possible.

Tags contain both a character’s inner thoughts and reactions, which are understood to be hidden from the other participating character, and the reactions and expressions which that character physically displays. A player has access to all the information in a tag, and they make use of all of it, provided that usage is sensible. In this way, sensible in-game interaction is maintained, and that interaction is recognizable as a form of Goffman’s dramaturgical interaction, as well as conventional face to face interaction, despite the fact that neither the characters nor the players are physically present with each other.

Conclusion

In the above discussion and analysis, I have laid out the ways in which sociological conventions of social interaction function not only in the familiar settings of real conversations and other interactions in the real world, but in the less familiar setting of a roleplaying game played out through text on the internet. Even within the bounds of the kind of communally constructed narrative to which such a game gives rise, rules of interaction are in play and help to make the game functional and sensible to its players. Parallels can and have been drawn between the game and a play performed on stage. Undoubtedly, the text-based game of Tabula Rasa and more conventional instances of interaction are deeply connected and understandable in many of the same ways. This analysis indicates that many other forms of game may be understood to operate along the same lines, and further study may confirm this. (Source: Game Studies)