[Agon] - So-so'ing our way around the Island of Lycophon
lumpley:
No, that's not what I'm doing.
Darcy's original analysis is clear and plausible: Agon's rules didn't give his group the occasion to create and share vivid enough imaginary details, so their game felt flat.
I don't think there's any reason to second-guess his group and its play history, in the face of such a straightforward observation. I think it'd be great if we could move past the second-guessing and talk about the observation instead. I want to hear Darcy's thoughts about rules designed to support move vivid, and more shared, in-fiction details.
-Vincent
Darcy Burgess:
Hi,
(Aside: no, I haven't played Beast Hunters)
(Aside: After my little play, Vincent paraphrased what I was trying to say exactly right.)
Ok, so a set of rules that support more vivid, more shared in-fiction details you ask? Hells, yes, I've got an example.
When we're resolving a conflict in Black Cadillacs, it goes like this: the Troopers (PCs) have an overarching goal for the conflict. We break the resolution down into little chunks called Gos. Each Go resolves a bit of action that will either move the Troopers closer or further from achieving their goal. That's just the context for the rules that I want to talk about.
After the roll, the winner (Player or GM) of the Go decides whether to apply mechanical currency or to narrate the outcome of the roll. The loser does whichever the winner doesn't. The mechanical currency comes in three flavours: Horror, Valour and Hubris, and its assignment occurs before narration.
When narration occurs, it's constrained by three things: the declaration of intent for the Go, success or failure on the die roll, and the flavour of the currency assigned.
The currency doesn't simply serve to constrain narration; the values of the currency effect the Troopers' ability to win Gos.
So, what we end up with is a pretty good feedback loop -- we're constantly examining the levels of the currency because that's where efficacy comes from. We make choices about currency assignement becasue they affect the new currency levels, and therefore future efficacy. Those choices end up impacting everyone's understanding of what's happening in the SIS through the narration rules.
Additionally, because this all (usually) occurs at a fairly fine scale (resolving "I shoot him in the face" as opposed to "I win the battle" during a Go), the sharing of new details tends to happen in manageable chunks. I find that the magnitude of the stuff that's left unshared is quite fine, so that the SIS is pretty complete.
I have some things to say about the balance between sharing during Intent and sharing during Effect (IIEE), because I think different designs feed the SIS more or less in those stages of resolution. All of this is just focusing on the proper care and feeding of the SIS during resolution! Obviously, it happens at other times, too.
Yeah?
D
Filip Luszczyk:
Vincent,
Quote
Darcy's original analysis is clear and plausible: Agon's rules didn't give his group the occasion to create and share vivid enough imaginary details, so their game felt flat.
Yes, that's why I think actual design intent vs. group expectations would prove a much more fruitful angle for the problem's analysis. I find the assumption that the game should provide a very particular sort of vividness in the first place fundamentally flawed and it doesn't seem to me that the ruleset itself is at fault here. It feels nearly like blaming the design of Chess that gameplay doesn't naturally produce an engaging narrative, I'd say.
RPL's account seems particularly relevant to the issue, showcasing how games of similar sort don't fall flat when approached with compatible expectations.
Either way, since there doesn't seem to be much solid common ground for the discussion (e.g. me having no actual play experience with Black Cadillacs and Darcy having no actual play experience with Beast Hunters), and Darcy doesn't seem interested in that sort of analysis, there's probably nothing more to say for me regarding the problem at hand.
Callan S.:
Hi Vincent,
You've read me all wrong. If there was a game who's support of a potentially vivid SIS was 10 out of 10, and a group's inclination to render a vivid SIS was 2 out of 10, then it remains 2 out of 10 even though the game is amazingly supportive. It doesn't matter how supportive the game is, if people aren't inclined to use it. Or as Ron put it, you literally cannot design a game which makes a person participate. Horse to water and all that, blah blah.
So even if a game like agon is 2 out of 10 for potentially supporting a vivid SIS, it may be the players are only inclined toward a 2 out of 10 level themselves. That's why I'm asking Darcy if the other players match his rating - cause it sounds like his own inclination is higher than a 2.
Perhaps they aren't. Perhaps their play is capped at 2 because of the games design and they are inclined to something higher - I totally grant that could be possible. That's why I'm asking.
Hi Darcy,
Your answer scares the crap out of me! You seem to be putting inclination to enrich the SIS as so much the prerequisite your putting it ahead of consent itself. Like you say both examples are the same - as in, the persons consent being present in one is meaningless and the only important thing is how much in each the SIS is enriched (that's how your measuring their similarity - ie zero enrichment in both).
I'm almost thinking if someone was sleeping near the gaming table and talking in their sleep and it was actually enriching of the SIS, that'd be the key thing for you, even though he has no inclination to play. Though listening to a sleep talker probably sounds humourous and puts off my scaryness point, but oh well.
Darcy Burgess:
Hey Callan,
I'll try rephrasing again, as we're obviously at loggerheads.
Content can happen in any artistic medium; content is key!
However, without a SIS, we're not roleplaying, we're engaging in another kind of art.
That's all that my play was trying to say. This is also the fundamental sticking point between me and Filip, I think. My expectations of "roleplaying" are just that: collaborative art that involves a SIS. That's it - but that's a pretty broad definition. Once you dive in, and start talking about a particular game or type of game, you have to add on to that definition.
In other words, I don't see anything to analyze with regards to expectations. Me and my friends (and almost assuredly you and yours) are mature and intelligent enough to discriminate between roleplaying, creative writing and music. Second guessing whether or not we're actually expecting to role-play strikes me as so much hand-wringing.
D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page