ARG Uncertainty


In the essay ‘Uncertainty in Analog Role Playing Games’ Evan Torner asks the question “What varieties of uncertainty are required in different types of role-playing experiences, and how does RPG design attend to the different levels of uncertainty at work?”. I am still grappling with this idea of uncertainty and the distinction being made here about how it functions in the game space as opposed to life outside of the magic circle. He talks about constraints and external influence over decision making in RPG scenarios like someone knowing the premise of the narrative and therefore perpetuating it or how a player who feels ill may not make the choices they would otherwise. These scenarios produce what he refers to as ‘certain types of play’ that should be investigated ‘as opposed to other types of play’. Perhaps I am misreading but it sounds like Torner is suggesting we examine the specificity of play types and and design around them rather than take them for granted in a controlled game design.

I think this is an interesting idea that could be explored in an ARG. As I am sure we all know by now the ARG structures allows for a variety of uncertainties beginning with the rabbit hole itself. Never being sure of what is or is not part of the game is another uncertainty that can generate a variety of play types. The play types that I am thinking of would be antagonistic play versus protagonistic play. Under what circumstances could a player be guided into antagonistic play in an ARG and could they subvert that? Torner talks about control in RPG design but in ARGs it would seem designers cede more control to the players than one might in other game types. What would happen in an ARG if different trails were modeled around different play types and the players choices could effect their path and influence their participation and/subversion of the trail design. Torner quotes Erik Fatland who says “When we design [role-playing games], we are playing basically with the building blocks of culture. Not just our fictional cultures; real cultures as well … [directing] human creativity toward a shared purpose.” Are the choices and actions of the players the building blocks being referred to here? Are they the desires to be complicit or undermine a given structure?  Much like how art is a safe space to put pressure on notions of form perhaps the game space is one to put pressure on these cultural building blocks.





  1. I agree with you suggestion that ARGs might be a good place to undermine given structures. The game space I experienced playing Dread, enabled me to say and do things I have thought about but never totally acted on. Enabling the safe framework of a game enables one to act in real space but justify actions to be for the game. I don’t think this is problematic because the lines between the game and reality are fabricated by the game to encourage players to act in the space. I think under the safety of a game, culture can be not only critiqued but changed and discussion around difficult topics can be approached.

    1. haha wow dude. we want the update stop acting like we shd&nolu#8217;t be pissed that we haven’t gotten it yet. clean your face and get the pimples removed then teach me how to download the leaked version. HAHAHAHAHA

  2. Det är helt beÃrv¶dligt att jag inte kommit till skott med döda vita män än. Och jag ska kalla mig anglofil! Men det är bara sÃ¥ mycket baran i vägen hela tiden.. Intressant blandning för övrigt. Jag vill läsa allihop, förutom Savage garden dÃ¥ som redan är avbockad, ha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s