[Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show
Callan S.:
Well, I drew a conclusion from my main point, that you might disagree with that conclusion. But my main point was that to judge someones artistic expression, is just artistic expression itself. That it 'doesn't make sense' is just an act of the imagination on the beholders part. Who's art comes ahead of the other art? As before, I note that everyone can see that 2+2=5 doesn't make sense, but it's easy to find accounts of people at a gaming table where someone sees a big violation of game world logic, but another person at the same table finds it plausible. If it were a logic violation like 2+2=5 is, that surely couldn't happen.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Callan,
Quote from: Callan S. on March 08, 2009, 10:59:51 AM
(...) it's easy to find accounts of people at a gaming table where someone sees a big violation of game world logic, but another person at the same table finds it plausible.
Yeah, I know that and I call it dysfunctional play and failure at Exploration. I don't think it is made any better by a rule that gives a "final say" to any one person. Do you enjoy play where the participants do not find each others' contributions to the game appropriate?
- Frank
Callan S.:
What can I say? I'm gamist inclined. As long as I'm winning, or losing but it'll be a merciful death (not a long, dragged out one - and I aught to have researched that in advance myself, anyway), I'm happy. Everyone finding each others contributions always appropriate is icing on the cake. Or perhaps more like a second layer added to the cake - not just cosmetic like icing, but even without the second layer there's still cake to be enjoyed. And those final say rules are the precise reason why any cake remains, even if the second layer becomes absent.
I'm not even sure it's because I'm gamist inclined - I think it's also because I'm a rules first imaginer. As opposed to imagination first, then using rules that fit the imagined content. I use rules (or observe others using them) and then use the results/that inspires my imagination in funny little ways (like one might start making up a little story in chess, from the purely mechanical moves, or start thinking what it was like for the character to win the beuty pagent in monopoly, after a purely mechanical card draw). That inspiration, I find, starts to build up a second layer of cake. Heh, we still talk about the time the dwarf fighter critted for the very first time with his axe - for a subdual attempt! Purely mechanical, but we still talk about how that guard must have been put in a fucking coma by that massive critical! SMACK! It still inspires me...
Although I'm probably a rules first imaginer because I'm gamist inclined. But it doesn't require a gamist inclination to do rules first imagining, I'd say.
JoyWriter:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on February 13, 2009, 08:39:08 AM
My experience with WuShu and sometimes PtA has been that narration rights, especially when combined with a “style over substance” mindset, lead to a mode of play where people, for lack of a better word, neglect the Shared Imagined Space. They don’t care for details, they don’t care for consistency (whether based on genre conventions or “realism”), they don’t pay attention to what their fellow players establish.
Interesting you should say that. My experience of Wushu is that the "say what you like + veto" thing doesn't stretch you as much. Perhaps in a game like liquid it's like playing a strategy game with points values, and then just passing the limit because of one cool unit. So there are rules and restrictions, but only to a specific level of accuracy, say the nearest 10, and the leeway is there for plausible, unlikely but amazing actions.
I like the idea of empty space, or "ask a player". it reminds me of "man in the loop" in some systems design. You just have a blank space where the system gives no clue what to do next, and in that (sometimes scary) place, people can come up with stuff. I wouldn't do that too often though, as it is actually more tiring than many other methods, even ones that ask the same questions in advance. Now for this to work the result coming out the other side needs to depend on what happened inside the box, as with Vincent's game. This means that you need to have a very clear and flexible way of assessing what that turns into, without descending into "obvious choice" game theory. There is something about black box theory in there, with the idea that the player reaction should be an "uncorrelated variable" which in other words makes it effectively random if you don't know the player and their character.
So probably one thing to watch out for is some kind of mechanical or resource based over-investment, or on the other side of the spectrum affirmation "do you like this person's creativity" voting. Because these pre-decide the reactions of the players, which is a danger that can happen in D&D4e; "it's a skill challenge for loot, of course you want to do this" and in wushu "how do I say I didn't think that response was cool without offending that person?".
Quote from: Callan S. on March 05, 2009, 04:50:36 PM
That 'inner logic of the SIS' is, in my words, just an artistic expression as well. It's quite possible for one person at the table to see some violation while another just shrugs. I take that as evidence the person who see's the violation is actually making an artistic expression themselves. Everyone who sees 2+2 = 5 can see an error - how come one guy is shrugging at this alleged game world logic violation but the other is adamant? That's because its just the other guys artistic expression. There is no real logic being broken here - there is only an artistic expression (the expression being that logic) that someone elses contribution is not forfilling.
Which basically says "My art is above yours and your art should conform to it". Well, usually it avoids any ownership clause by the person refering to the SIS, rather than my artistic contribution. Indeed I think it's often put that way in a dream like way, rather than deliberate, like one might act upon a dream world while sleeping, not as if it is the artistic creation of ones sleeping mind (which is it), but if it is THE world* and something that is nothing to do with ones own artistic expression (creative denial?).
I can understand that in limited areas this can be a problem, and is where rules-lawyers or narrative-dissonance defenders pop up. I would say that the rules system and setting should specify to what extent the game follows normal physics, or other tropes, and people agree at the start, and put inventive or unexpected use of ramifications down as a natural "risk" of working with clever human beings.
You've also talked about what extent the game should "force" you to be authors, and whether it should also just rumble on through the dispute. This reminds me of the old rule we had for interpreting dubious situations in warhammer: roll for it, biased by level of agreement (allowing you to concede your point was weaker), and then stick by that rule for the rest of the game, and argue about it later. It works ridiculously well, because it auto-creates house rules that everyone has agreed to. It holds the game together, not by ignoring a section of the table as "the dodgy part" where something may or may not have happened, but condenses that uncertainty into one roll and does away with it. In addition, the fact that you try one side gives you shared experience to help decide the rules in future. "How did it work out?"
A similar but different rule applies when people get to a part that doesn't interest them; they can randomise their own choice, as people do in situations like character design when they just want to get into play. Why not extend the process! In terms of the same black box theory, the rules detail has not been reduced, so a system that runs on a high level of detail cannot be derailed if it has such "creativity aid" systems built in. Of course, this is a cop-out and not as smooth as other approaches, but it maintains the integrity of a detail and logic heavy game system.
In other news, a few months ago I invented an alternate version of wushu that makes it have more respect for setting, by design, I'll post it up some time, if you like.
Silmenume:
Hi Frank!
I read through this thread of yours and can say that my current gaming experiences are nearly identical to yours differing only in the specifics of the setting. That the GM does not roll out everything or even just floats through most of the evening is exactly like the game I play. The motto regarding dice rolling is “dice add spice.” Mechanics are definitely a background kind of thing taking second or even third chair to the SIS and the process of interacting with it. There are no mechanics for direct input into the SIS. In fact input to the SIS is more nakedly “the Lumpley Principle™” in action because of the near total removal of the mechanics abstraction layer. IOW everyone is making those credibility apportioning decisions directly in real time all the time. The criteria by which those decisions are made is found in the accumulated SIS, the source material and whatever experiential the players are desiring to celebrate. It seems in your case that the source material was Wild West, Steampunk, Victorian age gentlemen, voodoo and zombies. All this material was to be celebrated in a “cinematic” fashion. As a point of theory I would say that the “manner of celebration” would be what is called Color. Within the SIS there is no “color” – everything can potentially be put to use.
I believe and have argued that the type of resolution mechanics you mentioned are not so capricious as most people seem to believe. There is a huge amount of interpretation of the “structures” or “logic” of the established SIS as well as the original source material that is not “just” fiat. Everything must fit, or even better, must be an acceptable and creative extension of what has been already established. Now if you can do all that AND be cinematic about it, then you're cooking with gas! In order for this to function one must be deeply invested in the SIS or it simply cannot work. There are many times when randomized outcomes can be anywhere from not necessary to outright nonsensical. The GM as adjudicator must be just as invested in the SIS as everyone else at the table. He cannot just judgments without regard to the history of the SIS; he too is required to respect the SIS as tightly as any player. No set of mechanics can replace the “what-do-you-do-next” precisely because of the primacy of the SIS and the fluidity of its ever evolving history over all other concerns. This means mechanics can only run in a supportive role; which brings us to Callan's tightrope metaphor. The players are either all working in harmony and are all walking that tightrope or are not working in harmony and everything hits the floor and the game either does die – or it should.
This means that players do need to bring in a certain set of skills a priori or they will function well in that game. Again I steal from Callan using the analogy of the practiced musician. And yes, in my experiences there are many players who are not used to being “...creative right now.” This is a problem and can mean the difference between a player fitting or not fitting in with a group (with the attendant falling of the tightrope – dysfunctional play). If one cannot be “creative right now” or have no inclination for it then they are not an appropriate match for that particular group. This is also true if a player cannot or is not interested in keeping the SIS front and center and in sharp focus.
Frank I also agree with you regarding the acceptability of a particular piece of player input - if no clear judgment is possible then Exploration has failed. I also agree with you that credibility needs to be earned. In the game I play in a new players needs to prove their “chops” before they are granted credibility via the agency of continued invites. I should also note that above and beyond all others at the table the GM absolutely must have earned credibility. For this kind of play to function the players must trust the GM precisely because of the secondary role of mechanics (and mechanics must be secondary or the primacy of the history and the current state of the SIS will be lost by definition) or the game will fail utterly (again falling off the tight rope).
A side note to this is that what mechanics there are flow from the source material and the SIS, not the other way around.
So.....that you were not troubled by your GM not admitting to using resolution mechanics very frequently (or at all) makes perfect sense. His input must “fit” the SIS as much as any other player at the table. If his input was found acceptable ala the Lumpley Principle then it doesn't matter whether his input was “dictated” or “regulated” by mechanics or not. That his input was found acceptable means that his input also followed from the SIS and was found to be an acceptable addition to it. Paul Czege had the right of it.
The process can be called bricolage. It is how Sim functions.
I hope that I've said something helpful or interest.
Jay
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page