[Theory] Let's have a good look at Colour, again
FredGarber:
So, Troy, in the Standard Relationship (C*Sy*Si (Se+Ch)) of areas of Exploration, Color isn't really one thing called "Color." It's "Essential Color" AND "Casual Color." Both look identical to the outside observer, but sometimes System/Sitation/Setting/Character is tied to Color (eg, I wear "Plate armor" instead of "Cloth Robes", and the System changes.) and that's Essential Color, but sometimes I'm just Bald, and that's Casual Color.
For example, my character could walk into a tavern, and hear that it is well-lit and cheery. Casual color?
Until the moment when my character wants to extinguish those lights. Now the GM has to determine what part of the System I have to use (water? blankets? magic?) in order to put out these lights, and now the light is Essential Color?
Or was it always Essential Color, but no one Explored the Color until my character thought about putting out the lights?
Is it the Design that provides the Principles by which non-ruleset Decisions (instead of Ad-Hoc) are made as to whether a snippet of Color is Essential or Casual? How is a player to know before he tries to Explore it if the Color was Casual or Essential?
-Fred
HeTeleports:
Quote from: Troy_Costisick on November 08, 2009, 05:05:27 AM
Mechanics, 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.
Hey there Troy,
Sorry to weigh in so late in the discussion, but I've been avidly reading this along with the "Look at System again."
In the blogpost you linked, you did an excellent job categorizing two different types of color, which again adds definition - something I think the original poster was looking for.
The 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;
Quote
Quote from: Ron Edwards
If 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."
I'm about to plug your two categories of color into that line. Hopefully, the Christmas lights will turn on. If they don't, I might have a loose bulb somewhere on the string.
It was the "transform Color into System" that got Christoph excited, and it's what most of the first two pages of this discussion have been wrestling with.
Your two categories for color (Casual and Effective) refer to color that hasn't been or has been transformed.
Look at the bald dwarf cleric example you make in your blogpost.
The character itself is all color, but the "cleric" and the "dwarf" definitely add to the system in tangible, measurable ways. The things the dwarf does professionally, how well the cleric will survive a cave-in, etc. Those two items are "effective" color.
I posit that those two items are pieces of color that have been "transformed into system." Because of what you and I are imagining with this character, it's going to affect the rules of how we play..
... and then the baldness.
As a victim of male-pattern baldness, I sympathize with your dwarfy cleric. A blank pate isn't going to affect my dungeon-going adventures. Meaning, at this point, the "bald" piece of color is "Casual."
Until our GM introduces an element where the baldness becomes part of the system.
Our bald, cleric dwarf needs to woo a chick. Cleric gives him some positives and negatives (some girls like a guy who's celibate); Dwarf gives him some positives and negatives (maybe the chick's short, maybe she dislikes dwarven food);... but when the GM gives our character a -3 penalty on attempting to woo this chick because the character is bald, then he has transformed the color into system.
Said another way, "inspired by the Casual color, the GM has turned that piece into Effective color."
Again: "A player at the table has taken one element of the shared imagination and established some system because of it."
I use the "GM introduces element" line because that's how DnD's system works. In other systems, the players provide similar elements; sometimes the player alone provides the color that gets harvested into system. The dynamic seems to be clearly present in the games Christoph described earlier. I like the sextant example best, though "the head in his hands" character is also inspiring.
Although role-players have been doing some form of that transformation since the beginning of the hobby (whatever game used), a good design makes that transformation easier for players to do and is a regular feature of gameplay.
HeTeleports:
....aaaaand, I posted without the following postscript. I'm way to quick with the Post button.
While my post is addressed to Troy, I realize he was there and posting when Ron made the comment Christoph was thinking on.
If my post rings of "He had to say it himself to understand it," that is half-true. I've been explaining it to people in my small circles for a while now.
On one hand, I wouldn’t pretend to educate on the Forge pages. But, on the other, no one has said the “transform color into system” as baldly as I hope I have.
(accidental pun there.)
-Youssef
Troy_Costisick:
Heya,
Fred, those are some excellent questions. I’ll try to answer them as best I can.
First, let’s tackle that equation. The way Ron actually wrote it in the Big Model is Color*(System * Situation = (Setting + Character)). For now, ignore the enigmatic part where Situation equals Setting plus Character. If you want to talk about that, lets start a new thread. I’m going to go back to our old Algebra classes and use the Distributive property on that equation and let C equal Color. If we do that, the SIS actually looks like this: (CSystem * CSituation = (CSetting + CCharacter)). To me, that’s a much more clear picture of the relationship between Color and the other elements of Exploration.
You cannot really separate Color from the other elements. It’s always right there with them. In fact, I submit that System, Setting, Character, and Situation do not exist without Color being firmly and inextricably attached to them. I have yet to read an Actual Play where they did.
With that in mind, I think we can tackle a lot of your questions at once. Let’s take your well-lit tavern example. By the way, that was an excellent choice for an example. You’re right to say that the light wasn’t essential to understanding the Setting until your character made it important by wanting to extinguish the lights. The GM could have just said the building was a “tavern” and that probably would have been enough Color for everyone at the table. So you’re good there.
The small area of contention I would have with you in your example is where you say, “…but no one Explored the Color until my character though about putting out the light?” Yes, the light is Color but the lights are also Setting. So a better way to phrase that question would probably be “…but no one Explored that part of the Setting Color until my character thought about putting out the lights?” Color is not existing on its own there, it’s an integral part of the Setting. So to answer the question you were really asking, if we’re going to use my design terminology (Essential and Casual Color) then yes, in this instance the lighting moved from Casual Color to Essential Color. Or better yet, it moved form Casual Setting Color to Essential Setting Color. Does that make sense? :)
Next, lets answer this question, “Is it the Design that provides the Principles by which non-ruleset Decisions (instead of Ad-Hoc) are made as to whether a snippet of Color is Essential or Casual?” It is System not Design where decisions both rule set and non-rule set are made, and where an object can move from Casual to Essential Color. A game’s design (i.e. rules) can set up procedures for making decisions, but it is the System (in the lumpley principal sense) where those decisions happen. I might be misunderstanding your question, so if I am, please tell me so.
Finally, you ask “How is a player to know before he tries to Explore it if the Color was Casual or Essential?” My first reply would probably be, “When would that matter?” Isn’t that part of the fun of exploration? My second reply would be to reference my article. I defined Essential Color as Color that the players have to know in order to properly understand how to interact with a given Character/Setting/System/Situation. That should be an adequate guide, if I’m understanding your question correctly.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: Youssef, I will get to your post as well. I think you raise a very important issue that should be addressed.
chance.thirteen:
Troy: You were clear enough the first time.
My point is that if you accept the definition of color is that is has no mechanical effects, then anything that has a mechanical effect isn't color. I can't tell if you wish to overthrow the current definition of color, or are trying to explore something else.
To me color starts with language. Anything isn't "this alters your chances of doing something" probably has color to it, because we want to assign importance to certain details of our play. Otherwise it would read like this:
"There is."
"I do something"
"Things change."
"I do something else"
Beyond that we want to know what we are doing, why that is the approach to use, what we bring to the table that gives us power to affect the situation like that, and what the consequences are. The answers to these questions are what game design seems to be about in general.
So in some games, fighting is the best way to achieve goals, and it's focused on equipment, or special abilities. In others it's about internal personal development, and posing gnarly choices for the character is the way to achieve this. And so we design cause and effect realities for each of these setups, which carry the flavor of our focus. That may or may not be called color, depending on how youwant to define the term, but I still think it will always be on a slippery slope of language.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page