There is a persistent myth amongst theorists of a construct enacted amongst groups to explain the relationship between group members and the acts that unfold before/between them. The concept is known as the “magic circle.” It is an unseen and inexplicable boundary that can be traversed without movement. All one has to do is agree to participate in any given activity to enter into this liminal space. That is the core of the magic circle’s purpose: to facilitate transition across the barrier; what underlies it is the rules by which it operates. All magic circles are temporary social contracts, which use rules that supersede a culture’s normative behavior.
To make sense of this, this piece will look at what social contracts are and how they function. Social contracts are comprised as much by codified laws as they are the unwritten scripts that inform a culture of its standards. They are arbitrary systems by which a group defines what it means to not only be a member, but also what governs acceptable behavior that ultimately promotes the group’s survival. Games are no different in this regard as they operate under similar rules as any other social contract. In a game, the rules define acceptable behavior and the limitations on how one can conduct himself. Anything outside that code is a violation of the group’s trust of the individual, just like in society at large. This is effectively the definition of cheating.
In light of the above, why is the magic circle so special? In part, it is because it lets us suspend social and cultural norms. The magic circle is also a temporary social contract that can be broken with few to no stigmas attached to withdrawing from the contract. The magic circle is truly magical because it makes everyone equal in the activity undertaken. Despite all appearances, everyone’s participation carries the same weight no matter how small an individual’s role may be. Artistic performances, sports events, religious ceremonies, and other forms of play all require participation by everyone in attendance in some form or another. Sermons are ineffective without a congregation, for example. Plays do not carry the same meaning if no one outside the cast and crew see the performance. So, by virtue of attendance alone, an audience is equal to the speaker or performer, and a member’s silence gives license for the person(s) at the center of attention to continue. Historically, this hasn’t always been the case (patrons regularly shouted out at one another and the actors of stage performances in the 15th-17th centuries), which is what makes such instances of the social contract seem so magical to us today.
Pointing to an earlier installment of this series in which I discussed issues of game balance (Precision Games), there has to be something that provides an incentive to make players want to repeat the experience. The necessary conditions that provide balance are the same that give the players a feeling of equality. After all, it is the rules of the game which establish the conditions under which the game behaves, not the respective roles participants must enact. There is no incentive for following the rules; or rather, there are no punitive measures that dictate how players behave while in the play space. The former is only partially true. The reward for following the rules is in knowing that you are more adept than your opponents by winning the game. By agreeing to follow the rules, a player is accepting the conditions of the magic circle and tacitly a contract with one’s fellow gamers to extend to them that only skillful actions within the narrow confines of the rules will be used to best one another.
One of the reasons for why the magic circle is a myth is the ease in which one can walk away from the performance at its core. The circle is that fragile. This is why suspension of disbelief is critical. To lose that is to lose the erstwhile magic inherent in the activity. Suffice it to say, magic is fragile for all its power. It is why in some stories a kiss can break a spell.
What if one wants to play with the magic circle rather than abide by its strictures? Certain activities are often held sacrosanct by the majority of a population, like ceremonies. Most people would be unwilling to disrupt these outright, but playing with those rules is another story. It is like laying another magic circle atop the one which everyone else has agreed to. Sneaking food into a movie theater, ducking out in the middle of a performance or even walking in front of the stage while the speaker or performer is playing the role the audience came to see are examples of transgressing the rules of the magic circle without completely breaking them. Doing this in a church is likely to get more attention than at a sporting match or concert. Granted, the audiences are often larger at the latter two, but the fact remains that it will disturb those around the transgressor to some degree. With games, there is even less of a chance that this will draw ire from an audience, although it might anger the other players. By playing with the rules, gamers are playing something else entirely. It is this sort of behavior we commonly refer to when speaking of metagaming. For some, this is where the magic circle may take a weird twist.
Other than fudging the numbers on a die role, there are few ways to “game,” or cheat, the system in an RPG. But that leaves open the door to play with the rules and their intended meaning. Rules lawyers do just this. Technically it isn’t cheating. Language, being a fuzzy thing, makes an easy target for those looking to get a word in edgewise for their benefit. Grammar, which includes the procedures in a game, can’t be questioned unless there is a flaw somewhere in the logic. The exact meaning of the words used to describe the grammar can be, however.
Playing with the social contract of the play space is still a form of play and can be the focus of the game. Games like Fluxx and the recently released Metagame are prime examples of games that play with the rules and make transgressing the liminal barrier part of the game (Metagame does this by making other games the subject of play). As such, the actions of rules lawyers and supposed cheaters are still within the scope of play. Where they differ with other players is in what game they are playing. These various levels of play show that none of the elements of the magic circle are sacrosanct, regardless of the venue, as much as we would like to believe. That said, failing to observe the social contract that makes the space possible disrupts the illusion of equality within the magic circle’s power enough to anger those who would like to preserve the circle for the duration of an event. In this regard, cheaters never prosper as repeat offenders often find themselves without an invitation at worst and on the outside looking in at best.
This is a complex topic and further discussion will be forthcoming to cover other aspects of the magic circle.
Previous:
Anatomy of Game Design: The Technology Involved
Next:
Anatomy of Game Design: Kitchen Table Theater