[Theory] Let's have a good look at Colour, again
Christoph Boeckle:
Hello Josh
Your assumption is correct: we didn't specifically talk about the sextant becoming central, it happened because of our successive ideas piling up in a particular way (what some would qualify as "naturally"). Saying that we spent time just getting visions to match up is stretching it though. I had my guy manipulate a sextant, and the others suggested some reactions to that, and all the while things were going forward. At some point, the precedents were so rich it just "made sense" to wrap up the episode the way we did.
Hi Fred
Exploration is a subset of Social Contract according to the Big Model. So yes, it is relevant, although I think you're advancing to topics which are already beyond my basic point of just examining how Colour becomes System, Situation, Setting and Character.
Ben, whatever you really ever let transpire in your posts, this is indeed what I was looking forward to reading from you!
Callan: Yes, do open a thread about shit that happens vs system! I'd like to see your idea expressed in some context, because I've never thought of this before.
Simon C:
So if colour is the stuff in the SIS that hasn't become part of the system yet, what does that mean? What are the implications for design and for play? Why is it useful to define colour?
What about games where what you narrate is never relevant to the mechanics of the game (i.e. Contenders, and MLWM to some extent)
Does it make a difference whether it becomes relevant to the rules (by which I mean the game text that is used + principled decisions) or to the ad-hoc system?
Silmenume:
Hi Christoph,
From my perspective, and that is a Sim one only so take this for whatever its worth, there is no “color” in Sim as “color” is defined here at The Forge. Color is to Sim (maybe all CA's – I have no clue) as Style is to Prose or as Texture is to Music (wikipedia definition – so apologies to real music theorists). That means everything, every “layer” of the model is under the influence or presence of “color” even the Social Contract layer when “color” could be discussed e.g., “this game is epic heroic” or “this world is dark and cynical.”
The corollary is that if a statement enters the SIS then everything accepted, or at least not contested (nods to the Lumpley Principle), can be drawn upon immediately or in the future as a referent for future play.
JoyWriter:
Simon, suppose you make a game about Vampires playing golf, it's just a game about people playing golf, but their vampires.
If you'd done that years ago, you can get a funny overlay of meaning where you talk sort of like businessmen and how they are taking advantage of their companies, unless they are actually talking about their feeding grounds.
If you do it more lately, people will probably go "oh God not more vampires" and maybe even play it as some kind of reference to the clichés of modern vampire fiction.
In that situation colour is important, because it is symbolic and stuff. It's effect on the system is pretty close to non-existent, as you could take out the vampire colour layer and just have businessmen.
In that game the fact that vampirism never appears in any specific technique, doesn't stop you enjoying it when it appears.
Now in MLWM, it generates colour from the rules; like I said before there is colour plugged into the rules, so that they produce a certain style of game. Now this means that the mood of the game goes a certain way, and you stick with the options that are built into the existing system.
Now defining colour positively as symbolic or style based overarching stuff between setting and character, then noticing that symbolism (sometimes wordless in-your-gut type symbolism) appears in system too, is just another way of saying "system matters"; playing a courtly intrigue with D&D 4e, or heroquest, will influence it's style.
So the system can sort of fix what colour is possible, but how? Well some things are fine to sit in the background, but they should also be able to come forward when their time demands it; in that D&D game with the poison, the GM presumably didn't say, "ok you're poisoned, remember that your poisoned" with it having no ongoing effect, the colour just doesn't work if it isn't built into the system.
Quote from: Silmenume on October 15, 2009, 03:15:10 AM
everything, every “layer” of the model is under the influence or presence of “color” even the Social Contract layer when “color” could be discussed e.g., “this game is epic heroic” or “this world is dark and cynical.”
Jay, your view actually matches up with the big model quite nicely; your creative agenda is all about colour, so everything points to it, system, character etc and it engulfs everything in that it becomes the total point of play. That "arrow" sticking through all the layers is all about colour.
This matches up with the thing I said above; if the integrity of the colour of the game can be damaged by not including it in system, then your choice on that trade-off is immediate; "Well change the system then!"
But others might say that the colour should fall by the wayside if it is not accommodated in the existing system, because of how that can make it incomplete and make prediction impossible purely on the basis of system alone, and may even "break" it from their perspective.
My view is more like a tradeoff of those.
Quote from: Christoph Boeckle on October 14, 2009, 04:04:09 PM
I had my guy manipulate a sextant, and the others suggested some reactions to that, and all the while things were going forward. At some point, the precedents were so rich it just "made sense" to wrap up the episode the way we did.
Ah ok, that's sort of what I meant, but it seems different from another version I've come across, which I'll call Indiana Jones and Chekov's gun:
In that version there is a trap of some kind, or just something pregnant with potential, and people tentatively push towards it, like someone trying to defuse a bomb, but as they do so, they give the GM some space to decide what it actually is, until everyone is clear what something is and what it will do, and the trap goes off, or the action reveals itself. (According to the tropewiki guys this is actually Schroedinger's gun)
But in your version, rather than "what will happen" being the thing that people are lining up, it's more what is happening. The tentativeness there is that you don't suddenly go "the sextant destroys the world!!!!", instead people explore it's significance bit by bit, like people building the common ground for a treaty out of things acceptable to both sides. Interestingly, like the film Donny Darko, the time travel element actually allows you to turn "what is happening" into a satisfying resolution (although yours sounds much more satisfying than that film!). In other words normally when "what is happening" is resolved, it has already happened, and a whole different movement of plot ensues about trying to deal with it, whereas you could mix it almost instantly in, because time travel makes everything easier! I suspect the same effect could be used in a game about Godlike power.
In case the link between that and what I was talking about is not clear, once everyone has got their visions together to some degree, then you can create a common system from that agreement, if everyone interprets the same way and if the colour requires specific forms of change. Freeform between people who know each other well sometimes works this way. In terms of the plot this agreement of colour expresses itself in new dynamics in the situation, and from the hypothetical "point of agreement" onwards new consequences can be drawn from that colour, new system that has supposedly "always been there" but is now taken advantage of directly.
Silmenume:
Hi Josh,
Quote from: JoyWriter on October 15, 2009, 04:18:48 AM
Jay, your view actually matches up with the big model quite nicely; your creative agenda is all about colour, so everything points to it, system, character etc and it engulfs everything in that it becomes the total point of play. That "arrow" sticking through all the layers is all about colour.
Actually the definition of color in the Big Model says that color, while possibly interesting, has NO effect on situation. IOW color is a pretty but does NOT have any substantial effect on game play. I'm saying the exact opposite - that color suffuses everything including situation. My definition stands in direct opposition to the Big Model. Now whether or not that is of any interest to you - I'll leave up to you to decide!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page