[3:16] Home is for the hating
Callan S.:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2009, 03:20:07 PM
I think you're on the right track, Callan. 3:16 and Contenders were the High Ronnies winners for the October round in 2005 (that long ago? geez), and I noted that for some reason, they both made use of what might be thought of as the My Life with Master structural approach to play, but ramped it up even more. Yet imagination is by no means in the back seat, even if it's not the starting point. Kind of like the way a driver encounters the interface of the dashboard and pedals and steering wheel, but the motor is really what makes the car go. So the rules are like the interface that lets everyone connect and engage to the shared motor.
I'd been thinking about a single players imagination being inspired/starting from system, but yeah, it's not just that. The whole group is being inspired/starting from the same origin point that is the ruleset, so all of their imaginations (no matter how wild) share an origin together. On a side point that strikes me as a nice social bonding sort of thing. But on the main point their imagination share an origin and then bounce of and inspire and all that stuff together, from that point.
Perhaps as opposed to what might be in many traditional games, where the group has to 'find each other' to begin with, before they can bounce off each other and inspire in new directions. Indeed I sometimes wonder when I read certain AP whether some people put some much emphasis on finding each other to begin with, they completely block any bounce off/bounce away/new directions away from each other once they do actually find each other. Come to think of it, I could see that in my groups history, where thought certain batshit stuff gets in the way of the game and to knuckle down, but losing that wild tangent stuff in the process.
And (as I understand it - I don't own 3:16), you keep following procedure during play (a procedure which tells you what to go to next, right?), so you keep maintaining a shared imaginative origin. In traditional play perhaps character creation is a shared imaginative origin, but then typically what procedure happens next is up to the SIS (or from my perspective, someone makes it up, either delibrately or following however their imagination twists and turns (which sounds good except a group activity isn't about one mans imagination alone)).
I had an analogy about bee swarms and how they can all go in all sorts of directions to each other and yet the swarm can head in an identifiable direction and not break up because of a certain origin to the swarm, but I bravely resisted giving it. Or did I?
Gregor Hutton:
Thanks, Ron. I do love the possibility that Viper might be first to claim it.
Weaknesses can be interesting to use. At first, a lot of people just see them as "lesser" Strengths, purely used to save their own character's hide, but I've seen people switch on and use them to get out of encounters leaving other PCs high and dry. It's also fictionally really interesting to see what people choose to fail at, and what they think caused that in their character's past.
I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I often see Strengths used that are, on the surface, less than positive human qualities, and weaknesses being honourable or noble traits! It's also fascinating to see them build up and define the character and the group (and the 3:16 and Terra as a whole).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page