I learned about System from Munchkins
Callan S.:
Quote from: contracycle on January 06, 2010, 05:39:31 AM
Here is a common, although AFAIK never-discussed-in-any-text behavioral rule: you agree to be bound by the outcomes of die rolls. It's a behavioural rule, and one that extends far beyond RPG's, mainly in gambling. We learn this behavioural rule very early and I've never seen a game text discuss the matter. So far so normal.
I think they're describing something else. Note the repeated references to stuff determining either how you imagine or above, even how you play, that does not have to be in rules. The forge glossary reference for system includes this.
The thing about rules is that you are concious of them - you can see the rules/be concious of them and you can consent/commit to them. Yet they keep refering to things you are not concious of, but apparently affect the fiction made or even how play is done. Presumably that involves consenting to that. So that's consenting to something they have no idea about what they are consenting to. Unknown permissions. It's like writing out a blank cheque.
Your talking about something you can conciously consent/not consent to, rather than...I don't know how to describe it? Write something a blank cheque (perhaps it's called 'the fiction') on how you behave and act as 'the fiction' dictates in the moment to moment, since you agreed to it even though you don't know what your agreeing to. Presumably out of faith it'll turn out all right/good. A religion analog, AFAICT. (indeed these days I wonder if fundie christians were against D&D not because of it's content, but because they/their mem could sense it encroaching on their/it's turf)
So I think they are talking about something else entirely.
Side note: I'm pretty sure the lumpley principle, when first presented, was in the concious consent model (with it's direct references to real life negotiation between participants), but over time it's articulation has sunk into the unconcious as it includes consenting to things that aren't rules/aren't known.
contracycle:
That distinction doesn't particularly concern me at this point. Not all rules in other areas are either conscious or consented to, consider "money", for example. That is a slightly different issue.
What seems to have become lost in the "new" view of system is that it used to be fully termed a resolution system. Extending it to anything and everything that happens in a game eliminates the resolution element and reduces it to just "stuff that happens". Sure you can have rules that are behavioral, and you can have rules that establish a mood or context for play. But unless they resolve something in the game itself, I don't think it's meaningful to refer to them as system.
Daniel B:
Quote from: contracycle on January 09, 2010, 12:36:33 PM
That distinction doesn't particularly concern me at this point. Not all rules in other areas are either conscious or consented to, consider "money", for example. That is a slightly different issue.
What seems to have become lost in the "new" view of system is that it used to be fully termed a resolution system. Extending it to anything and everything that happens in a game eliminates the resolution element and reduces it to just "stuff that happens". Sure you can have rules that are behavioral, and you can have rules that establish a mood or context for play. But unless they resolve something in the game itself, I don't think it's meaningful to refer to them as system.
Yes, but now the question become "to what do you refer by 'game itself' ". The paradigm shift for me was in recognizing the fact that 'game itself' need not be restricted to the SIS. The Polaris candle is a great example. By lighting and extinguishing the candle, you are in fact playing the game.
I can respect your opinion that unless it affects resolution of a conflict within the SIS, it's not part of the game, but think of it this way. What rules are or are not part of the game of basketball, which has no SIS at all. It is just simply a set of rules people agree to bound their behaviours to, in order to get out some entertainment. Why is an RPG any different? It just so happens that by following the rules of an RPG, you generate an SIS, but some rules may exist there simply to help enhance the experience.
Callan S.:
But Gareth, the candles do affect resolution - your just not concious of how! You need to have faith that it does! If your asking for evidence here that this candle thing is relevant to resolution, that means you want to be concious of how it works and as you said, not everythings about being concious of what your doing, man! Everything matters, man, and that's why it's all system! And no one has to explain how that is so because it doesn't have to be concious!
I'm being satirical in saying that, of course. I think the lack of conciousness issue is dead on target.
Daniel, I think the entertainment of basketball stems, at it's core, from resolving a real life event. Adding on rules about lighting candles or such wouldn't add to that entertainment, since it resolves no real life event. You don't follow the rules of basketball because they are entertaining in themselves. You follow them because they resolve a RL event and that is the core of the entertainment.
If your lighting candles and finding it entertaining, you've moved away from the rules model basketball is using. Indeed I'd just call it ritual.
contracycle:
Quote from: Daniel B on January 09, 2010, 01:36:20 PM
I can respect your opinion that unless it affects resolution of a conflict within the SIS, it's not part of the game, but think of it this way. What rules are or are not part of the game of basketball, which has no SIS at all. It is just simply a set of rules people agree to bound their behaviours to, in order to get out some entertainment. Why is an RPG any different? It just so happens that by following the rules of an RPG, you generate an SIS, but some rules may exist there simply to help enhance the experience.
Well, imagine a situation in which two teams had different pre-game rituals akin to the candle concept. One, I dunno, does yoga, the other has a grapefruit breakfast or something. Can they really be said to be playing the game of basketball according to different rules?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page