[Rifts] -- Rifts workable? Possibly, maybe...
Ron Edwards:
I've been trying to reply for days! Anyway, without the link I was looking for (the thread exists but searches aren't working well due to server hassles) ...
I see! Many thanks. We are in full agreement about Rifts, in that tire-kicking - and a lot of it - seems absolutely required. I think this was very common among the more well-known 1980s games, including the first three editions of Champions, Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest of that era, and to a very great degree, AD&D2. I think that (Andreas' Rifts thread; I'll add the link later) offers a good example of how much tire-kicking of a very different sort was applied to the same or similar rules text, for different goals of play.
I was especially struck, in your first post, about how when you were younger, you role-played in order to fill a void in your life. I don't want to know the details, but I do think that was the case for quite a few people attending this site. It would be useful one day to see an Actual Play thread in which people compared that phenomenon.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Hi Andre,
I'd like to offer a second opinion that's very different. I would say not only to keep seeing text and behaviour (here called 'system') as the same, but also strongly advise against seperating the notions. Weve a long history with board and card games where text and behaviour/system are identical and mirror images of each other. Where they aren't identical, it's either called cheating, or the technical phrase for it is 'a fuck up'! :) I'll give three examples, the first a non gamey one, because this extends well beyond gaming as it applys to alot of self correction.
1. I was watching a competative cooking competition on TV (blame my woman for that), and they had footage of one of the contestants slowly but surely spooning the entire contents of a jar of mustard and putting it into the mix. They cut to an after interview and she said she genuinely thought the recipe asked for an entire jar, when the recipe asked for a teaspoons worth (or some much smaller and fixed amount).
Now, if an observer of her were to say she is inventing a new recipe, or that she was inventing a system in doing that, that observer is incorrect and is actually colouring the result. It's actually the observer who is inventing a new recipe, if they 'see' a recipe being invented. It's the observer who is inventing a system if they 'see' a system. She isn't inventing anything - it's a fuck up. Not a recipe, not a system.
2. Way back, playing the underground RPG, my friend Dan got it into his head that you can do as many attacks as you want, but you just take a penalty to hit on each one. He genuinely thought this was part of the 'recipe' so to speak and was doing this in play.
If an observer of were to say he or the group is inventing a system there, that observer is incorrect and is actually colouring the result. Again, it's simply an error. It's the observer who is inventing a system if they 'see' a system. There's no system here as much as when someone has an epileptic fit, they are not inventing a system to their bodies movements, they simply spasm.
3. A more recent game, rifts perchance. Chris and Dan were adding two points of megadamage from the fencing skill, when he attacked with his MD vibroblade. Now I was looking at them wondering if they just fucked up, because it only gives 2 extra normal damage in the text. But I ended up asking and Chris (GM at the time) said, in a quietened voice (I wonder about that?), that nah, were making it that fencing gives 2 extra MD when using an MD melee weapon.
In this case it is a system, but I will argue that having told me this, I now have a text in my head on the fencing matter, the exact same text Dan and Chris have in their heads. Basically again text and behaviour (we all add the +2 megadamage) are identical, as it has been for thousands of years of boardgames and cardgames which use written text. And where a discrepancy between text and behaviour emerges, it's either called cheating or a fuck up. There is no middle ground - that is the self corrective method: that there is no middle ground. Trying to draw a distinction between text and behaviour is attempting to make a middle ground, which by it's nature throws that self correction method out of the window (and the real issue is, that no replacement for the self correction is made).
Alot of talk from me. What I'd say is to look for where your GM is damn sure he's following some sort of rule, but textually he isn't (his behaviour does not match any text present and/or any text he claims to be following). In those particular cases, you have identified an absence of system. What can actually be present isn't anything a human invented, in the same way as a human can have an epileptic fit, yet not have invented the actions of that fit. The woman with the mustard was can do all the many fine dexterity actions of spooning a whole jar of mustard into the pot, without actually inventing a new recipe. And so on.
It's a frightening notion to internalise for people who have gone to these experiences for years and years. A bit like trying to suggest to a guy with $2k of whitewolf books on his shelf there might be something wrong with his investment.
Further, on your questions
Quote
I suppose I'm really just trying to wrap my head around the idea that the game and the text are two separate things. In other words: What is the "game," really? It's not the text, but it's also not totally independent of the text.
I think it's a question of what is AND WHAT IS NOT the "game".
There has to be some method of rejecting certain behaviours as not being "game", else any old thing seeps in and is treated with dignified respect as 'game'. The traditional method, used by board and card gamers for centuries, is for behaviour to match the text - which is the very reason (above) I'm warning against trying to seperate text and behaviour from each other, as doing so is chucking out the only corrective method present and the actual terrible part, not replacing it with another corrective method.
1. Do you see yourself as your own authority on what is, for yourself, a 'game' and what behaviours have ceased to be, for yourself, a 'game'? If so it's simple, you yourself decide how you determine what is a game and what isn't. You might like to draw on boardgame culture for how you measure it, since that way your using a method that matches hundreds of thousands of people and has that benefit (mostly people outside 'gamer' culture though, sadly). But maybe you'll decide some other method for yourself.
2. If you don't see yourself as the authority on the matter, who do you see as the/an authority?
3. Or do you see the answer as to what is 'a game' as a physically existant thing, like the distance between two cities is not something an individual is an authority to decide for themselves, they instead physically measure it?
I hope these questions don't seem far out - I'm asking them because instead of pretending to be an authority who will tell you what is what, I'm punting the role of authority on to you, and asking as your own authority for yourself, what have or do you decide on these questions? I'm not going to say there are any wrong answers on the matter (except to take authority for oneself and treat it as also having authority over other peoples choices on these questions).
Quote
2). Is the supposed generation gap I mentioned between the 1st generation of gamers (who started at the beginning with basic D&D, etc.), and gamers who started the hobby with later games... is that anything other people have noticed? What I mean is, the GM of this game really loves the Palladium rules. He says they're really innovative and flexible. Whereas, my own experience with the game is that the rules are rather bizarre and idiosyncratic, at least when compared to a lot of other games that came along even a couple of years later. I'm just curious about any thoughts that more experienced gamers would have on the matter.
is that anything other people have noticed?
In terms of generations, not really. If I undestand you right, I do think I see it simply at the individual level - guy X thinks innovative and flexible, guy Y thinks bizarre and idiosyncratic. At the individual level, yes I have noticed it - I've noticed it so much that it has even, over time, lead to this slightly extensive post.
But I'm interested in reading your answers to 1, 2 and 3, if I can, thanks :)
Andre Canivet:
Hi Ron--I know what you mean about difficulty posting! :)
My experience with 1980's games is limited to Rifts and AD&D2, but that's how it has felt to me as well. Also, although I think you touched on this in one of the core essays, the vast majority of that tire-kicking seems to be done by the GM. So system is quite often more a creation of the GM rather than the whole group, which tends to make his or her authority fairly absolute. System in that case can become kind of a stick to bash the players with---especially if they are less experienced with the game in question. Normally it doesn't get that far, but when there's a dispute, things seem to polarize---the GM gets a bit tyrannical, and the players start rules-lawyering.
With regard to games filling a void in people's lives; I think it comes down to having some sense of control, and looking for it in a virtual world when the real world is lacking. Heck, it doesn't even have to be teenagers playing RPG's. How many people decide to move or re-decorate their homes, or maybe get a little treacherous at the office, when some part of their personal lives is out of control?
In any case, I would also be interested in an actual play thread where these experiences in gaming are compared. I would certainly contribute to one.
---
Callan:
Thank you for pointing that out, as it is a really good point. If I may, I'll try to synthesize your and Ron's views: There really is only a system when it's somehow explicit / agreed to by social contract, and even though it may be unwritten, it still constitutes a "text" of a sort, which behaviour is expected to
follow. Random mistakes and misinterpretations aren't system---unless of course, everyone agrees that these behaviours are "canonical" and appropriate.
Also, ironically enough, you've brought up one of my questions for this new GM... I've written up the preliminaries for a Cyber-knight using the Ultimate Edition rules, with the fencing skill (which in this version seems to add +1D6 to sword damage). Does that bonus apply to the knight's psi-sword?
But not to get off topic, I'm bound to run into areas where my ideas of system conflict with the GM's. In this case, our systems are "implicit" in that I have one, and he has one, and presumably the other players have their own, and yet we haven't yet had occasion to resolve the differences in these ideas and expected behaviours. We play again this tuesday, and I'm sure it'll come up---especially since we'll probably use the combat rules this time.
In response to your questions, they don't seem far out at all. In fact, I'm afraid my answer may be a bit far out. When I was asking what the game actually is, I was grappling with the idea that the game is this phantasmal thing--a kind of living imaginary process that resides strictly in the minds and the conversation of the players. The written text of the game---even the unwritten "text" or system, and things like maps, miniatures, artwork, dice, etc., can all represent and interact with the game... but they are not the actual game.
It's like music. A CD or an MP3 file isn't music; lyrics aren't music; sonic vibrations aren't music; only the experience of music in the mind & body of the listener is the music. The music might be generated by all these other things, but is not identical to them.
It's a little different to a board game. When I play a game like Monopoly or Risk; I'm absorbed in the physicality of the game--the board, the tokens on the board, the dice, the cards, etc. Even the rules, as you point out, are generally unambiguous in a board game and point directly to acceptable behaviour. At least, that's how it is for me. I've never really asked my friends where their attention is when they play, but perhaps it's time I did.
I don't know if that answers your questions, really, but it's kind of what sprung to mind when I read them. More directly:
1 & 2) I do consider myself an authority on my own experience, and for me the experience of a role-playing game is an internal and ephemeral one, whereas a board game is much more external and material.
3) In the case of a board game--yes, it seems to be (mainly) a physically extant thing. For an RPG, the answer is "not really" or "sort of." A board game is sport, an RPG is fiction... if that makes sense.
I'm certain there are many other ways of experiencing these things; that's just how it seems to me :)
Cheers,
-A.
Hans Chung-Otterson:
Quote from: Andre Canivet on May 30, 2010, 10:54:52 AM
When I was asking what the game actually is, I was grappling with the idea that the game is this phantasmal thing--a kind of living imaginary process that resides strictly in the minds and the conversation of the players. The written text of the game---even the unwritten "text" or system, and things like maps, miniatures, artwork, dice, etc., can all represent and interact with the game... but they are not the actual game.
It's like music. A CD or an MP3 file isn't music; lyrics aren't music; sonic vibrations aren't music; only the experience of music in the mind & body of the listener is the music. The music might be generated by all these other things, but is not identical to them.
It's a little different to a board game. When I play a game like Monopoly or Risk; I'm absorbed in the physicality of the game--the board, the tokens on the board, the dice, the cards, etc. Even the rules, as you point out, are generally unambiguous in a board game and point directly to acceptable behaviour. At least, that's how it is for me. I've never really asked my friends where their attention is when they play, but perhaps it's time I did.
Andre, way cool. I love this kind of discussion, though I don't think there's any real answer to it, so I won't blabber on and on about how everything is ephemeral & postmodern. I post here just to say: I don't think it is different in a board game. What's the game? The rules aren't, they're just the rules for how to play the game. The board & cards & pieces aren't, they're just the medium for the game, same as talking & mutual confirmation of what's said & any pieces are the medium in rpgs. The game is just an after-effect of what happens when you follow the rules and interact with the medium. So I guess I do have an answer after all. Hopefully this is helpful to your thinking.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Andre Canivet on May 30, 2010, 10:54:52 AM
Thank you for pointing that out, as it is a really good point. If I may, I'll try to synthesize your and Ron's views: There really is only a system when it's somehow explicit / agreed to by social contract, and even though it may be unwritten, it still constitutes a "text" of a sort, which behaviour is expected to
follow. Random mistakes and misinterpretations aren't system---unless of course, everyone agrees that these behaviours are "canonical" and appropriate.
There's a critical absense there so no, in fact your summerising the exact opposite of anything I've described.
Just agreeing behaviours are canonical and approprite is meaningless if your just ignoring what you had previously agreed to. Agreement is a load of pointless wanking unless you adhere to those agreements. That, or recognise and acknowledge when you've decided to break previous agreements.
In the past, like years ago, I thought the whole 'it's about agreement' would be useful and break people out of their 'what does the character want' missplaced focus on fiction. But it seems to have just been the breeding ground for a bunch of pointless wanking to become legitimised. The new focus on 'it's HOW we agree' further misses that if your not sticking to your previous agreements, it doesn't matter HOW you 'agree'/say something but ignore it five minutes from now (in as much as one form of wank is the same as another, HOW you wank doesn't matter).
Quote
But not to get off topic, I'm bound to run into areas where my ideas of system conflict with the GM's. In this case, our systems are "implicit" in that I have one, and he has one, and presumably the other players have their own, and yet we haven't yet had occasion to resolve the differences in these ideas and expected behaviours.
I think it's entirely possible for people to spend many hours at a kitchen/gaming table, yet never have resolved any differences. Then they go off and say 'it worked', based on the fact they did indeed stay at the table for hours. I think your not necessarily going to resolve any differences at all. You might, but whether you will, or you'll just spend a long time at a table, who knows?
Quote
In response to your questions, they don't seem far out at all. In fact, I'm afraid my answer may be a bit far out. When I was asking what the game actually is, I was grappling with the idea that the game is this phantasmal thing--a kind of living imaginary process that resides strictly in the minds and the conversation of the players. The written text of the game---even the unwritten "text" or system, and things like maps, miniatures, artwork, dice, etc., can all represent and interact with the game... but they are not the actual game.
It's like music. A CD or an MP3 file isn't music; lyrics aren't music; sonic vibrations aren't music; only the experience of music in the mind & body of the listener is the music. The music might be generated by all these other things, but is not identical to them.
Are you saying this just for your self (either about roleplay gaming or music), or are you saying that for everybody? As I said, the only wrong answer I can think of is to take authority for oneself and treat it as also having authority over other peoples choices on these questions.
Quote
1 & 2) I do consider myself an authority on my own experience, and for me the experience of a role-playing game is an internal and ephemeral one, whereas a board game is much more external and material.
I'm not sure if this answers my question or not? What you experience is obviously not always what is actually present? That's the whole thing behind a magic show, after all - you might experience the guy pulling a coin from behind your ear, for example. Your experience is magic. The actual circumstance is sleight of hand.
Anyway, the forge has been down for awhile and maybe the conversations ended, but I wanted to wrap up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page