I learned about System from Munchkins
contracycle:
Callan, I understand the point you're making but lets leave that alone for now. It's not that I disagree about the impications you identify, but that it's difficult to conduct any conversation on the basis of what the other party is assumed to say rather than what they actually say. If that line of argument is advanced it can be confronted directly, and if not then this question can be discussed on its own grounds.
Daniel B:
Quote from: contracycle on January 09, 2010, 05:26:56 PM
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?
CC, you're debating that if we open the door to non-resolution elements, the border between System and Non-System becomes so fuzzy that it ceases to exist. You're right to a degree; if we indiscriminately include non-Technique elements, it becomes a big mess. However, this is why there is a separation between the rules and the System. The game starts out with the rules and only then grows to include other elements in System as the players jointly agree to it. To see this, try flipping your example around and see what we get.
Let's say you have one pair of basketball teams in the NBA following the "Rules of Basketball" to the letter, such that the smallest infraction is caught and called by a referee, while another pair of teams (kids in someone's backyard) follows the rules so loosely that they're violating the written rules left and right, and even rewriting the rules to adapt to their environment and the lack of referees. The Systems are quite a bit different, but can they really be said to be playing different games? Also, in either case, if one player does yoga and another eats a grapefruit breakfast, neither of these can really be considered parts of the System, because they don't qualify as jointly agreed-upon techniques.
Furthermore .. what's all this "it-must-perform-resolution" business? Just because it resolves nothing in the SIS doesn't mean it's not a Technique. It's a game, and rules in games have never needed to meet the bar of being "useful". This is where my insight from those Munchkin-type games comes in. That Zombie-Fluxx game required that I groan like a zombie whenever I put one into play. What does groaning like a zombie resolve?!?! Similarly, the Polaris Candle Ritual doesn't resolve anything in the SIS, and it doesn't have to. Although I've never played it myself, I can see how that ritual would be a lot of fun.
Abkajud's recent thread in Actual Play, "[Polaris] a therapist tries Story Now", outright gave me chills when I read it. The most powerful elements of the game were the rituals. If you excised the rituals and made it a plain D&D game .. YAWN!
Callan S.:
Well, there's some consensus here on talking about ritual as opposed to resolving a real life event (and the fun stems from that RL resolution).
The question it raises to my mind is whether the forge term 'system' was defined as the former or latter, or some higgledpiggledy in between that can only be clarified as either if your drinking beers with the clarifier (ie, not a useful term to people who aren't able to share a beer on this).
contracycle:
Quote from: Daniel B on January 10, 2010, 04:04:41 PM
Let's say you have one pair of basketball teams in the NBA following the "Rules of Basketball" to the letter, such that the smallest infraction is caught and called by a referee, while another pair of teams (kids in someone's backyard) follows the rules so loosely that they're violating the written rules left and right, and even rewriting the rules to adapt to their environment and the lack of referees. The Systems are quite a bit different, but can they really be said to be playing different games? Also, in either case, if one player does yoga and another eats a grapefruit breakfast, neither of these can really be considered parts of the System, because they don't qualify as jointly agreed-upon techniques.
Well, I suggest that if you went to these kids and asked them, they might very well say they were playing something like "street basketball". If you pushed them, I am quite confident they would admit that they were not in fact playing according to the full rules of basketball. And that is all fine. They can, for example, be playing with what amounts to a subset of the rules because what they really want is to practice shooting hoops, not to Really Play Basketball. Are they then really "playing basketball"? Only in the most dubiously representative sense. You can say it and I know what you mean for the most part, but it's only approximately true. If I walked onto their court and asked to join their game, I'd probably have to have a conversation with them about precisely which rules they considered to be active. If you had told me they were "playing basketball", that statement would have failed to communicate to me which rules were actually in use.
Quote
Furthermore .. what's all this "it-must-perform-resolution" business? Just because it resolves nothing in the SIS doesn't mean it's not a Technique. It's a game, and rules in games have never needed to meet the bar of being "useful". This is where my insight from those Munchkin-type games comes in. That Zombie-Fluxx game required that I groan like a zombie whenever I put one into play. What does groaning like a zombie resolve?!?! Similarly, the Polaris Candle Ritual doesn't resolve anything in the SIS, and it doesn't have to. Although I've never played it myself, I can see how that ritual would be a lot of fun.
Well my point is, that's the big and radical change being proposed. Furthermore, that precisely DOES mean those things are not Techniques; from the Glossary: "Specific procedures of play which, when employed together, are sufficient to introduce fictional characters, places, or events into the Shared Imagined Space." So fine, I don't like making arguments to definitions, and the definitions are only there for mutual understanding rather than to be statements of perfect truth. But as the term is used at present, groaning like a zombie is not a Technique in any relevant sense because it has no impact on the SIS.
Now as I have already agreed, sure these things can be significant to the mood and atmosphere, the ritualisation of the experience, to the overall quality of play. It is fair and legitimate to include them in a rules text, and to be expect them to be mandatory. But I see no point in conflating them with IS-affecting system or techniques, mainly because I see no problem with writing or reading rules that speak directly to the Social Contract. It seems perfectly feasible to me to say that groaning like a zombie or lighting candles and whatnot are SC rules rather than system rules per se.
Jasper Flick:
We play Zombie-Fluxx.
I say: "I put a Zombie in play". (I put a Zombie in play.)
What just happenen to the SIS? What technique was used? Did I abide by the rules of Zombie-Fluxx?
I say: "Uhhhng... brains!". (I put a Zombie in play.)
What just happenen to the SIS? What technique was used? Did I abide by the rules of Zombie-Fluxx?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page