Social Mandate: Did you remember to bring your guitar?
Callan S.:
Split from The Social Mandate
Heya Ron,
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Callan,
I think you're correct in that some kind of culturally-understood statement will have to be involved. However, plain old win-lose isn't going to cut it. I agree that "no one wins or loses" has often been a little dicey or dishonest in RPG texts. Still, win-lose simply cannot apply to Narrativist and Simulationist play. The key for them, or at least the beginnings of thinking about that key, lies in terms of successful vs. unsuccessful play, much in the sense that a musical performance might be.
For instance, regarding My Life with Master, the answer to your query is functionally "no." The rules about that are subtle and superficially appear to support the possibility of the Master's survival, but successful play does mean his or her death. It was even a key point/principle during the game's design: "The Master must die" (I know, because I briefly debated about that point and lost).
I want to say with the same certainty, that 'win-lose cannot apply to nar/sim' has only been asserted here - no supporting argument has been given. In the same light, the 'key' of thinking about successful Vs unsuccessful play hasn't been given an argument as to why it's the key. So the following can't fully engage it, but I think its useful.
Taking the musical performance example, what happens if your guitar strings are broken? Or your microphone is set up wrong, conking out half way through a show - or you can't even get your speakers to the gig? There's no ambiguity of 'successful show vs unsuccessful show' - no matter how succesful it could have been, the intended show can't actually happen without those material components set up as intended. Maybe you can do an amazing acoustic session, but if you intended to do one with blaring speakers, you've failed at your goal if you do accoustic. "Great session guys - but lets try harder next time and get those speakers there, hey?". A system of self improvement has been set up. (or even alternatively "Hey, I love acoustic - lets give up on the whole speakers requirement!" - ie, a real concrete choice instead of kinda sliding into something without really thinking).
Win-lose does apply to narrativist and simulationist play. It sets up a self improving pattern of trying to get all the gear required for the activity, into the activity. I remember when I tried GM'ing TROS a couple of times - completely forgot to involve spiritual attributes (didn't make up material around them, didn't encourage players to try and find ways to apply them). Did I fail at running it? Then why not continue the way I did?
I'm not just talking a checklist here - though in the end, it could mechanically just be a checklist. However, adding a win/lose condition to completing the checklist ties into general culture, and that makes it more than a checklist and instead important to forfil. Important and accountable. No ones going to ask 'Did you complete the checklist with that game', but they will ask 'Did you win?'. Unless you feel like lying about the end result to anyone who asks, there's a massive reality check built into the game. You have to face the truth - you didn't play it very well, you didn't complete the checklist "Hmmm, what would it have been like if I'd actually used spiritual attributes?". I remember a RPG.net review on TROS, where the guy had ditched spiritual attributes basically because 'they were unrealistic' or such, and gone on to write his negative review. It would have been interesting if he had had to say 'But I guess I never won at it, so I can't be sure of what it's like to win'.
With 'My Life with Master', I really need to get to the store in town again and see if this time they can order in these things. However, the model you describe isn't really much different - instead of win/lose it's "Have you won yet?", and the person can say "YES!" or "No, but were still trying" or "No, we gave up, it was too big for us". Sure, it's not a win/lose, it's a 'Keep trying, dammit!' model. It still requires an honest responce of whether your still trying or have given up the attempt. That honesty means honest use of the system. Personally I don't see much difference at all - you can still lose by giving up, so to me it looks like a win/lose system as well. But that's kind of my own outlook, rather than a technical observation.
Finally, when you actually win a session - when you've not just brought your guitar, but completed the very last song of the set you decided to play. Is the performance good? I think that's a different question. But I think only when you've actually won are you in a position to judge that performance. Until then you'd be judging losing sessions. Also, I rather suspect that once you win at the technical side, it's not a matter of good or bad, it's just what the person is. Someone can train their voice wonderfully, but have a heart empty of passion. But that's getting ahead of myself and rambling. What do you think?
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
By that construction, "I win" applies to any human activity that works out all right. I make dinner? "I win!" I get laid? "I win!"
But you know what, no one can tell you how to talk. I used a narrower definition of "win/lose" in the other thread (from which Step On Up was defined in the first place, so it's no wonder they correspond), and you didn't like being restricted to that. Fine. For you, "win" means any task, any outcome, any action, when it turns out all right.
Your take on what the general culture means by the term and my take on the same thing are simply different. I think people will think X when they hear "win," and you think they'll hear Y.
The really stupid thing is that we agree 100% on this business about successful vs. unsuccessful activities. You call that successful musical performance a "win," and I don't. That's the difference - simple and stupid terminology, no difference at all in our assessment of the reality.
There is no point in shouting "does too" and "does not" back and forth at one another, which is how I'm reading your post here. You can assert that Narrativist play wins and loses, because it's a task or activity, and it can work or not work. I can assert that it doesn't, because Address Premise doesn't carry the specific sort of failure that Step On Up does. You can say that I'm not backing up my definitions, and I can say your definition is one of those broad useless things that lets everyone be right. I can imagine exactly where it'd go from there, and one of us would end up being insulted and mad.
I don't have the time or inclination for any of that. I concede to what I think is your aim in posting: I can't control what winning and losing means for you, and if you want to employ it to help people understand role-playing in general, go right ahead, not as if you needed my permission anyway. I do not agree with your choice of words, but since this is really about what we each think everyone else thinks of those terms, there's no point in arguing.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Whoa, I'm not making any definition - I'm deliberately altering the activity into a win/lose situation. If I bet you you can't make dinner, and you will get $5 and congrats from me if you do make it and teased for awhile if you don't, I've just modified the activity. 'I win' doesn't apply to making dinner by default. But if I jam 'I win' stuff in there, it applies as much as I jam it in. That's what I mean here
Quote
I'm not just talking a checklist here - though in the end, it could mechanically just be a checklist. However, adding a win/lose condition to completing the checklist ties into general culture, and that makes it more than a checklist and instead important to forfil.
Man, if I was defining a task like 'make dinner' as containing 'I win' just by itself, then all those RPG's would somehow magically have 'I win' in them already just naturally and I wouldn't have posted. But they lack it, so I suggested adding something to the activity.
I'll note that saying "Making dinner doesn't have 'I win' in it" is a self forfilling prophesy. If I bet you five bucks you can't make dinner and you say 'Making dinner doesn't have 'I win' in it', then you've declined my bet - and without a bet, yeah, making dinner has absolutely no 'I win' in it. But it's just declining my bet - the activity doesn't itself exclude making a bet over it. Nor do the rules use activities of sim or nar roleplay exclude that. The addressing premise type bits do exclude it, cause your focused on that. But shuffling numbers and using rules, that doesn't exclude making a bet over getting it done right. Saying "For you, "win" means any task, any outcome, any action, when it turns out all right" is just a complicated way of saying 'Making diner doesn't have 'I win' in it, cause if it did then every task would and that's too broad and silly'. Dude, if I challenge you to making dinner, even putting up some cash to show I mean it, you will do me the honour of recognising my challenge and not intellectualise it all away!
Hope that wasn't over the top to say it - partly a desire to emphasize what I mean, and partly an old nerve from years of blank, ignoring stares when trying to throw down a bit of a challenge (and not articulating it well). If it's okay, it'd be useful to reread my posts in light of this.
Bastoche:
Betting 5$ on making dinner sounds like "stepping on up" to me :P
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
You lost me, but that is OK, 'cause I'm not the only reader. If what you're writing makes sense and helps others, then great.
You mentioned some actual play, so if you can pop some in to clarify or exemplify your points, that would be very good. This is not a call for "proof" but rather to conform with the forum goals.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page