Trying to understand where color stops and system begins
Callan S.:
Hi Ron,
What if you don't agree with the 'lantern draws a monster' example, specifically? You find it agreeable and that it makes sense to you, but what your really agreeing to is that the GM can drop in a monster at will? Agreeing 'the GM can drop in a monster at will' is part of the system. But if the lamp had been doused, there would have been no monster attack. That's a fair change and yet apparently outside of the system/agreement method. Where does that lie?
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
All I can do is tell you how I interpret it.
1. We're talking about scene framing, specifically a combat scene in this case if I'm not mistaken. Everything about the discussion is now System, period, because scene framing is a technique.
2. How it's done are sub-techniques. In this game, encounters come in two types: planned (i.e. mapped) or relatively unplanned. A well-known sub-technique for the latter is the wandering monster roll. In this group, as the DM saw it, "I say so because of what you did" was another sub-technique.
A final point: I bolded how in my statement of the Lumpley Principle on purpose. You are apparently focusing on the "agree," like many people mistakenly do, and interpreting the statement as support for informal consensus. The Lumpley Principle actually challenges the very notion of informal consensus by saying we never use it, but instead we use a system of some kind, in order to play successfully.
Another way to look at it is to say "Play without system is impossible." Or, as I put it, "System does matter."
Agreement, in this case that Alex describes, does not mean happy enthusiastic consensus. It means acquiescence or even obedience to authority, which I've written about in some detail earlier, and won't go into here except to say it was problematic for them. That changes nothing about the basic point. We could discuss what sort of Social Contract might be involved, or puzzle over the long-standing absence of scene-framing rules from game texts, or anything we like, but there's nothing mysterious about what System and Color were doing in that bit of play.
Alex, you're interpreting Color as "anything that's not covered by a rule." You're also confounding textual rules with System. In your example, dousing the lantern isn't Color. It's an action, resolved through Drama (i.e. no roll was necessary, no score or other on-the-sheet feature was consulted). It's still System. Color could modify it by some description of "the light flickers briefly, and goes out." Whether the book says anything about it or how to do it, is irrelevant.
I recognize that you as a player, at the time, thought of it as Color regarding your characters' going to bed. But the DM, just as you described and I'll paraphrase, took pleasure in interpreting any and all actions as the opportunity to scene-frame. Your character's action was System to him and, as was often the case in playing that game, the DM ruled over System in an autocratic fashion, so that "agreement" was defined as obedience.
We can talk about that disconnected understanding between you and him, but as I said to Callan, there's no reason to consider what you described as anything not accounted for in the model.
Clearly, I'm dealing with stereo confusion in this thread. To shift analogies, dealing with these posts is like trying to dribble two basketballs at once. The only hope for getting anywhere is for one of them to stay quiet and see what happens with the other. Callan, this is Alex's thread, so that means you. Please don't consider yourself excluded; my point is to settle Alex's issues and then see where you're at.
Best, Ron
FredGarber:
First, for me, it's easier to point to my own example, rather than try and analyze your experience.
second, I'm going to footnote this where I use a lot of Forge Jargon, so that I don't ramble or confuse the thread. Alex, don't be confused by the footnotes.
I had, in a D&D(****) game, a halfling, that I determined was called Etienne, and spoke with a flourish and a Outrageous French Accent.
My friend Randy called his halfling Milo, and he spoke entirely in 3rd person (*): "Milo wants to sleep now."
We had predetermined that they were cousins, also.
Now, this accent was Color. The fact that we had two different speaking styles didn't affect Setting:
We didn't establish that all Halflings speak one way or the other, and the "explanation" for the accent was only worked far down the line into the Setting because I like to Lonely Play (**) that sort of thing.
The fact that Etienne's accent was French didn't affect Character: He didn't adopt any particularily French stereotypes, "French" habits, or anything like that. He had a strong "Halfling" racial identity, but that had nothing to do with the Frenchness.
The fact that he had a French accent didn't affect System: I didn't get any bonuses or penalties because I was "French" or a "French Halfling" nor were any of the rules of our Social Contract affected (***).
So that was Color - It was the ephemera that didn't matter, but was one of the things that made Our D&D different from Other People's D&D.
And yes, Color can bleed into System or Setting or Character if your group lets it, like with the Obsidian instead of Guano: As soon as your GM allowed that, he allowed what used to be Color into the System domain. In fact, if your GM had you meet other Alchemist NPCs, or go to Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe and pick up Alchemical Spell Components from the same bin as Wizardly Spell Components, he had altered Setting to fit your Color. (*****)
-Fred
(*) He spoke that way with Immersion: It wasn't Randy describing Milo's actions, it was Milo describing Milo's actions and having trouble with the first person singular pronoun
(**) I like to come up with detailed bits of setting that either provide background for my character, or things that only matter to me about the setting. That's Lonely Fun: The things you do associated with Role Playing that aren't actually at the table (like painting figures, etc)
(***) The Social Contract is the rules your group plays under, spoken and unspoken. For Example: "Aaron has no girlfriend, so his character always makes a big deal about his sexual relationships. Ignore that: it's just Aaron." or "If Heather or Cass show up, self-edit out all the raunchy bits. There's no need to edit for Amy."
(****) Which flavor doesn't matter here, does it?
(*****) Since some versions of D&D have Alchemy as a skill or an established part of the Setting in a different way than you and your group played it.
Callan S.:
Hi Ron,
In the same way you bolded 'how', I was careful to use the words 'at will'. I haven't refered to using group consensus, only the GM's will and his will alone, in exactly the same way one chess player decides which piece he moves by his will alone. Now if the GM busts out an ouija board as his way of deciding his will, that isn't how I agree events happen. How I agree to what happens in play is that I agree to his choice, not how he arrives at his choice. Yet how he arrives at his choice clearly affects gameplay (in gamist play, second guessing your opponents way of deciding his choice is paramount, for example. Yet how he chooses is not part of any agreement system). Whether he uses an ouija board, a notion of scene framing + "I say so because of what you did", or a Twoface style coin flip, it's not something I'm agreeing to in terms of how things turn out - what I agree with is that he can make a monster appear at his own will. I'm taking it an individual human will is outside any system of agreement, yet at the same time the procedures and nuances of how that will decides the choices given to it, obviously effects the game. As much as will is outside the system, those procedures and nuances of choice making are outside of system/are not part of the system. Twoface in Batman is a good way of illustrating it - the coin isn't part of any particular system, it's part of his will.
I'll hold off (btw, you asked me as the author of the BM, right, rather than moded?), but I think this is worth keeping in mind during any following discussion, rather than dismissed as a mere reference to group concensus.
Ron Edwards:
I see your point, Callan, and yes, it also shows me that you weren't confused (as I wrongly stated) ... but I want to stress that we're not talking about you. We're talking about Alex, regarding that particular play experience. And as far as I can tell, "DM says" and "I agree" were synonymous for them, with the only alternative being a wearying, stubborn argument with everyone having zero fun. That was their System for scene framing.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page