Started by Christoph Boeckle, October 11, 2009, 05:56:58 PM
Quote from: chance.thirteen on November 05, 2009, 08:33:57 PMTroy, having read your article I like the terminology of essential and casual color. However, your essential color affects situation and character it seems. Unless I misunderstand what way "affect" is used in this model. EG if it it important to understand the nature of a dwarven priest in specific , then that is either character, or perhaps situation? Balding is obviously a casual detail (unless that too is somehow an important detail revealing something deeply unusual or specific about the individual like they are devoted to a certain practice or are deathly ill etc). So wouldn't all color as described by the Forge be Casual detail?
Quote from: Troy_Costisick on November 08, 2009, 08:05:27 AMMechanics, resolution, values, and other fiddly bits of the game do not flow from Color to other parts of the SIS. Color is what makes those and other parts of the SIS real. An object does not first exist in Color and then move to one of the other areas in the SIS. The object has always introduced in the other areas with its Color.
QuoteQuote from: Ron EdwardsIf I can see the bigger reward system, grasp the Currency, and get bug-eyed to transform the Color into System through play (think about that one!), then the hard work is over, and it's all playtesting and refinement from here.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 09, 2009, 02:55:31 PMThe line of text that started Christoph's discussion in the first place was this: "Some things Ron said back in the November results for the Ronnies stuck in my head ever since.I have been trying to make sense of them. Specifically, I'd like to pick out this fragment;QuoteQuote from: Ron EdwardsIf I can see the bigger reward system, grasp the Currency, and get bug-eyed to transform the Color into System through play (think about that one!), then the hard work is over, and it's all playtesting and refinement from here.This one got me thinking about what Colour could really achieve in play."
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMWow, I think I do see the distinction. It's not particularly revolutionary, distinguishing between the Design of the game and the Play of the game, but it really does discount almost all of the material in this four-page thread.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMFor Christoph's purposes, how does this distinction affect a revised definition of Color?
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMFor mine, I'm trying to understand a distinction between Design and Play when talking about the very place where they actually meet. (I don't mean to suggest the distinction isn't here. I'm just trying to see it.) The Design of the game - the text that all the players are working from - will obviously affect the Play, via the Lumpley principle. It's not the only thing that affects play, but if a rules set gives a GM the authority to set a bald dwarf at a disadvantage in a chick-wooing contest, then all the players use that text to agree to it.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMAs I had been reading the thread before, the thing that got Christoph excited about "Color" (undefined; what he was talking about in the last line your quoted section) was the idea that a rules set would encourage (or provoke) players to choose a piece of Color from Play and incorporate it into the System (the agreement by which the players imagine). Using that view, Christoph's quote of Ron's sounds esoteric: can I make a design that drives players to alter their game's world based on the Color the players themselves bring to it?
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMHowever, if I understand the distinction between Design Color and Play Color, Troy, the line "get bug-eyed to transform the Color into System through play" merely means "I wanna try out this game." ... ... Which is what you said, "It's like he's saying, "I can't wait to play a dwarven cleric when 4E comes out." In which case, the entire line itself (not just the bug-eyed phrase) is about clarity of Design writing. If he understands the game's rewards and currency and gets excited to play it, then the hard work is over...
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMIf the second view is correct, then it's like discovering Samson's Hairbrush has no power. This big pursuit for four pages culminates in "Explain it well and get me to want to try it."
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 02:33:50 PMBut by plugging in the Design vocabulary into Play discussion, Christoph fired off more than a couple of sparks in my own head (not to mention the thread's participants.) I've got half a mind to pull a Marshwiggle/Quixote: I'm going to hold with the first view (even if misconceived) because it portrays a goal I'd actually like to get to. (Not that winning prize money is a bad idea... Hmm.)Thanks, Troy,-Youssef