[Theory] Let's have a good look at Colour, again
Troy_Costisick:
Heya,
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 09, 2009, 11:55:31 AM
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."
Okay, there is one super-duper important thing I want to cover before going any further. This is something I trip up on all the time. The Big Model is a model of play- that is, people sitting around a table actually and actively playing a game. Ron’s comments in that Ronny’s quote were about design. Design and Play are two very different things. For better or worse, they share a lot of the same vocabulary. But to take Ron’s comments about Designs and try to apply them to Play is just going to cause confusion. The Color he spoke of was referring to details within the printed text of a game. The Color most often talked about in Actual Play, especially when referring to Exploration/SIS, is details in the narration among the players.
Ron, please jump in if I’m putting words in your mouth. The transforming Color into System he spoke of was taking the details of a game’s rules and then turning them into “…the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.” aka the lumpley principal. He isn’t talking about some aspect of the SIS that exists exclusively as Color and transforming it into something that exists exclusively in System. He’s talking about turning Design into Play (Rule Color into Play System). It’s like he’s saying, “I can’t wait to play a dwarven cleric when 4E comes out.”
Let’s talk the –3 penalty applied to dwarven baldness. I don’t think you have any trouble recognizing that there should be modifiers with cleric or dwarf because those are widely recognized aspects of Character and System. But with baldness you seem to draw a line and say that’s just Color. And you know, I can totally get that. The amount of textual rules associated with dwarf is likely humongous, while baldness might have very few rules associated with it or be left entirely up to System as you describe in your example. Regardless, though, baldness is no different from cleric or dwarf as far as Color is concerned. They’re all aspects of a Character.
The difference is, from what I can tell, baldness had not had any mechanics associated with it prior to the incident with the chick-wooing. It went from non-mechanical Character Color to mechanical Character Color.
Over the last few posts there’s been a tendency to ascribe my Design terms of Essential and Casual Color to Play. I hadn’t ever considered that before and perhaps my reply above to Fred suffers from crossing the line between Design and Play with terminology. But if you are interested in trying to apply my Design terminology to Play, that’s something we can maybe explore together. I don’t know how it will turn out.
So, using my terminology, in the instance of Play your mentioned above, the Casual Character Color of baldness is shifted into Essential Character Color of baldness when the GM assigns it a –3 penalty and the group decides through its System that –3 is fair and appropriate. Color, therefore, could theoretically shift from Casual to Essential and back through the System. But it must be clear that Color does not transform into System during play. Instead, the System merely assigns mechanics to Color as needed.
So let’s deal with the sextant. From what I can tell, Christoph believes that because Color does not affect action or resolution it’s unimportant. Color is absolutely key to enjoying a game. Color is on even footing with System and Situation in Exploration when it comes to facilitating play. I sure wouldn’t want to play anything without it. The sextant he describes is Character Color. Later the System incorperates that Character Color and uses the meaning that has been attached to it to resolve the Situation.
So that’s Color being used in resolution, right? No. Christoph said it best, “So far, sextant or no sextant, I could have done this narration however I wished, it has strictly no effect in the essential evolution of the situation.” The fact that it was a sextant doesn’t matter at all. It could have been a globe, a severed head, a longsword, a compass, or any other object. It didn’t matter to the resolution mechanics. However, the meaning that was attached to the sextant by the players through the System is what mattered. And it was that meaning that resolved the Situation- not the physical properties of the object. The detail of the object was irrelevant. The Situation would have eventually worked out in some way or fashion even if the object had been called, “Item #3.”
But regardless, the Color was always part of the Character and maybe Setting. It was never separate by itself. It was never detached from anything and then attached to System. The System used it, but just like dwarf, cleric, darkness, and uneven terrain, the Color remained where it was. Christoph is confusing Design language with Play language.
From my reading, the quote Christoph used from Ron talking in “Colour and Reward” is all about Ron’s book, not about an instance of actual play. Again, that’s conflating Design with Play. Especially pay attention to where Ron said, “but without Color that rivets one's attention on those before they are experienced in full, then they'll never get into action.” This is all prior to Play. Christoph’s sextant was created during play. In my mind, that makes it a wholly separate topic from what Ron was talking about.
Youssef, are those distinctions making sense?
Chance, I am not in any way at all overthrowing the accepted definition of Color. Mechanics are not Color. However, mechanics can be assigned to Color. Do you see that difference? Longsword is System Color. 1d8 damage is System Mechanics. 1d8 damage is boring. Longsword is interesting. Calling 1d8 damage longsword makes the 1d8 damage mechanic real for the players. The fact that it’s a longsword is irrelevant to the resolution system. It could be a club, a mace, a baseball bat, or it could be called Item #3. The resolution system doesn’t care. It only cares about the 1d8 damage. It’s the players that care about the longsword. Does that help?
Peace,
-Troy
HeTeleports:
Wow, 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.
For Christoph's purposes, how does this distinction affect a revised definition of Color?
For 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.
As 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?
However, 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...
If 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." Naturally, the subjectivity was stated plain in the contest, so it seems like a natural answer.
But 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
Christoph Boeckle:
Hi guys
This is going nowhere, as far as I'm concerned. I thank Youssef for trying to get back to my point, but it's no wonder you're finding my points esoteric, seeing which angle you chose.
Let's not care what Ron really meant. He might come around and clear that point up. Or he might not. In a certain way, right now, I don't care what he meant. What I care is that I was dissatisfied by the definitions of Colour I have found all over the place. I gave actual play examples to show why. I've shown that some things which at one point in play where just Colour (about a Character, about a Setting), were later fundamental to how the game actually ended and how it felt rewarding to me as a player. If Colour is just details that don't change action or resolution, then it doesn't describe what I reported. I'm not saying that definition is necessarily wrong, just incomplete. So I went off to say that Colour transforms into System, perhaps (Ben gave some good ideas here). Or maybe it's more that there is some other thing at work which we should describe to really get the full picture. I don't really care and I said that I would need time to reflect on all the things people said.
Then the thread was kicked off again, and Lior came and said: "Christoph, you're just saying that Colour is details which inspire." And yes, he probably captured the most significant point I was trying to isolate (and it does flow in to what was said earlier in the thread). Nobody has said that before, as far as I'm aware of. Get that. Troy's notion of Essential Colour just categorizes what is important to know in a reactive way. It doesn't say anything about how we create using it as a starting point. Plus, it's totally impossible to decide in play if Colour is Essential or Casual, this decision can only be made in retrospect (as my APs show).
So, if Colour is more than details, if Colour inspires players in making choices down the road, then yes, I can start making sense out of my observations (in this sense, the sextant gave us another ending than a washing machine would have). I'm not sure I quite grasp that thing about Colour ending as a central point of the sessions' Reward, but for the while being, I want to play some more before I make big declarations (maybe that is just a coincidence!)
See how we don't even need to reference Ron's citation any more? My point is here, regardless of Ron's point of view. See how I don't need any additional theory nitpicking? See how the Play/Design distinction is not helpful at all? If you don't care for my point of view, that's fine. I'm very happy Lior came along, I'm very happy about some other points made before, about how Colour allows us to make ad-hoc decisions. I want the thread to end here, definitely. Take your points to new threads, by all means. I'm sure good things can come out of them, but this thread needs to rest.
Thanks
Troy_Costisick:
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
Wow, 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.
-Actually, yeah, I think it does. I don’t want to discount the fun that was produced by those Actual Play accounts. That’s as real as real can get. But I do believe the initial premise of the thread was based on an easy-to-make misreading of a post that was made four years ago.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
For Christoph's purposes, how does this distinction affect a revised definition of Color?
-If Christoph wants to know, I’ll let him ask that.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
For 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.
-Everything you said I agree with, except maybe that the penalty for baldness can also be something the players make up on the fly. But I think you’re cool with that; it’s a minor point.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
As 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?
-Yes you (or anyone) can! And that sounds like it would be an awesome game. You’re talking about taking an innocuous object on a character and turning it into the crux of the game? Absolutely! “The stone that was rejected becomes the cornerstone…” is a time honored premise and something that would make an excellent start for a game.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
However, 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...
-That’s exactly what he’s saying as I understood it in 2005 and how I understand it now. However, I don’t want to put words in Ron’s mouth, so I’m totally willing to be corrected if he feels it’s necessary.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
If 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."
-You nailed it.
Quote from: HeTeleports on November 11, 2009, 11:33:50 AM
But 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
-All our endeavors here are Quixotic. So you’re on the right path :)
Peace,
-Troy
Troy_Costisick:
Christoph,
I didn't see your post before adding mine. So I appologize if you wanted the thread to end prior to my response to Youssef. Please feel free to ignore eveything I said.
Peace
-Troy
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page