[Theory] Let's have a good look at Colour, again
JoyWriter:
Here's my take, ie the key that allowed me to meaningfully engage with people's discussions about colour:
Colour is the overarching stuff that the system doesn't define the workings of.
In other words you get this:
___Colour__
/ \
Character(s) Situation
\__System__/
System defines how they change each other, colour defines how they are part of each other. But also System defines the general pattern of change, and Colour defines the general moods/themes/similarities.
Now this definition is false some of the time, ie the style of the setting obviously requires patterns of change; you can build the colour into the system. But when the game is in flow that still distinguishes the stylistic stuff that is in the game from the stylistic stuff that is "activated", providing you have a constant system. If you have a changing system, then the definition must be time stamped, so things can be colour "for now".
Using this to look at the Prosopopée example, the sextant was a sextant, and that meant stuff to you over and above what the system said it could do. But instead of that extra meaning sitting on the side, it jumped right into the middle of the game, and the colour became a part of system; the relationships you observed between setting and situation (as well as their relationship to other stuff outside the game) implied a pattern of change, and you were able to make that dynamic of change a part of the in game changes you explored, turning colour into system without breaking anything!
Now on that "stuff outside the game", did anyone explicitly state why they thought it fitted for it to be doing that, or was the colour slowly matched up and layered from all of you until you could all make the same implications? In other words did people say "I think it could be cool if that causes this to happen because of ___", or did you spend most of the time just getting the visions to match up, so that when actual rules changes happened everyone was OK with it?
My suspicion is the latter, as the slow and surreal game would give you space to do that, by hinting at stuff and then developing those hints, but if it was the former I'd be interested to hear how this was communicated.
JoyWriter:
Oh, just noticed my definition of situation and setting diverge from the forge language, just substitute "setting" for situation in my diagram and you shouldn't loose any meaning.
Ben Lehman:
I have no idea what I was talking about then. But Polaris has very strong color, and very loose resolution (precise resolution, but loose) which means that there's a color -> ad hoc system transition which happens very easily. Polaris relies on this as the primary engine of play.
My frequent example is in one of our games we had this huge giant. We were all really into how big and tough he was. So thus, despite the fact that we *could* have just killed him according the raw rules, killing him because a huge quest-focus for the game: we had to travel to the sky, make a deal with the moon, get backstabbed by the moon, etc.
The color there is basically informing our systematic decisions so strongly that it basically becomes ad hoc system.
I think that there's something theoretically worthwhile in the color -> ad hoc system transition, but I can't quantify it any more than to point at these AP reports and go "yeah, that."
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. I don't mean to imply that this is a unique feature of Polaris. I'm pretty sure that all games must do this to some extent. Polaris was designed, explicitly-if-unconsciously, to rely and exploit this phenomenon.
FredGarber:
I think the amount of Color that can transform into System is Social Contract dependant as well as System dependant.
I think your play examples are from two systems that encourage that sort of behavior, however, In Polaris, what the players DO is transform Color into system. I can't tell about the other one, but the "selection for inspiration" for sure seems like it's part of the game. In other systems, that sort of behavior isn't the primary engine of play.
Color pushes into System? Play Example 1
The DnD party goes into the Tavern, and the bard offers to sing for our suppers. He sings, rolls well, and the DM adjucates that the innkeeper gives us food. The next day the characters are still talking about dinner as they hike, the stereotypical Legs of Beast, etc. The DM calls for an Endurance Saving Throw. Some of us fail, and the GM informs us that the food was badly cooked, and all fails result in being Food Poisoned, with decreased Effectiveness. The party goes on to give a terrible impression when they meet the King, since half of them are running off to the toilet in the middle of Court.
Example 2:
The DnD party is wondering where to go next, to cleanse a castle of Skeletons or to hire ourselves out as Caravan guards. My priest decides to vote for being caravan guards. Everyone looks at him. A Cleric (who has Anti-Undead powers) avoiding the Undead? My cleric explains that the group is low on funds, and being a caravan is steady pay, plus the chance to loot the robbers' loot. Skeletons, on the other hands, do not have pockets, and so probably don't have a lot of monetary reward for the risk. Everyone laughs, and we go off to the Castle anyway, my cleric grumbling.
In example one, our group saw this as Bad Play.
On one hand, the rules for poisoning are there. On the other hand, DnD is all about choosing your challenges and Stepping On Up, and usually the Encounters (or potential encounters, like Wandering Monsters) are clearly marked as such. On the other hand, this was a memorable encounter and certainly had impact for our campaign and on the SiS. "I check the food for Traps" was often said.
In example two, our group saw this as Good Play.
My character was very Effective in the Challenges, and yet offered to not Step On Up, based purely on Color: I didn't know what Gold Pieces there were in each Encounter, and the System tells the GM to make it up anyway. "Does the [monster name] have any pockets?" was often said.
Posed back to the Forge:
We were taking Color and pushing it into System. In both cases, it happened, but in one case, it was Bad Play, and in the other, it was Good Play. Could a different group defined them differently? I believe so, and therefore I think that Social Contract is somewhere where you should look for this issue too.
Joy: I like your model. How strong those links are between the words is where I'm focusing: some Systems and Social Contracts strengthen some of those links and weaken others.
-Fred
Callan S.:
This is where I recall how all encompasing the idea of 'system' is, and whether it's worthless in practical terms because of it. For example, if you forget to add a bonus while playing and the resolution roll happens, isn't that the means by which the group agrees to imagined events? Isn't that system? Or is it just shit happens? What if someone goes out for a smoke at a vital juncture, misses something said and acts latter on on it and everyone agrees to how he acts (no one realises it was because of misses something said/no one corrects him), isn't going for a smoke part of that system? Or is it just shit happens?
Shit can happen and then people agree to what is the aftermath of shit happening - that doesn't make that shit a system, though. If I used a RL weather vanes direction as a randomiser in a game, the rule that makes it a randomiser is system, the weather vane and it's direction are system, but the wind itself is not a system. It's just shit that happened.
I'm really just noting a different perspective which I think is important to this, but I think it would take the thread off it's topic, so I'm only noting it. I'm thinking up how to start a seperate thread on it, or whether to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page