fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
David Berg:
Callan,
I figured "SIS" was useful shorthand here. I guess not. How about if I rephrase the fun activity as "people talking to each other"? And then clarify that what they're talking about is the stuff they're making up?
I thought we were discussing procedures/mechanics/currencies to support that. You still up for that?
Callan S.:
Fair enough clarification, David. But even further, what I'm describing is larger than supporting the activity. Instead the procedures and mechanics are the very origin of the activity. They aren't like an add on to your talking to each other. Instead they are the reason your talking at all.
Even in traditional gaming, even though say GM's and even players might learn how to nulify a mechanical roll by (bluntly) asking for more rolls or (more subtley) downplaying the result, some of these mechanical results get past the 'story before book!' goal keeper (so to speak) and to a small extent people will be talking because of what the roll resulted in. Not as a support to their talking, but the actual foundation stone. It's a pretty pivotal difference! I think plenty of my own play history is partially (a small part, sadly) derived from rolls/mechanics use in traditional (read: D&D) type gaming. I'll talk about Roche the Corde, my hated nemesis, being dead, not as a support to my talking with others, but in part, because of mechanics use having previously happened. My talk stems from the mechanics - I'm not talking with some help from mechanics, I'm talking because of them. But generally, because of BS like the golden rule, as well as the laze fair model of 'assign whatever difficulty number or monster ya want, GM! Oh, and describe the result as you will, as well!' design, it's usually dead easy to nullify mechanical input - and it's only the odd occasions that get past the nullifying goalie that create this origin effect. Ironically, I think people really enjoy the way certain mechanics can give certain effects when it sneaks through. Some other ways are perhaps repulsive enough though that once bitten, twice shy.
As a support - well, you see as a support the mechanic is basically beholden to whether someone actually initiates it. It's pretty clear that a mechanic can not change the way you play if no one initiates it. And by making it merely a support, it's making it valid gameplay to not use it, as it's just a support.
I think as a support, sometimes it can get initiated, and then sometimes it'll get past the goalie (if any). And then people will talk because of what the mechanics resulted in, then they'll get a little excited about how it altered/augmented the way they game to something they otherwise wouldn't have done if they had just talked. Possibly the excitement we all felt when we first gamed and our imagination for the very first time took a right turn we didn't even think of (we never imagined it there) and our imagination sailed on into previous uncharted waters. I'll grant that can happen - but it's a little chancey to me - it has low odds of happening.
So, fair enough clarification (forgive me, my last post could apply in regards to many gamers), but a support is just too...wobbly, for me. Heck, I could describe something as a support to you and you could say 'but what if I didn't use it' and I'd have to both A: concede that since it's merely a support, it's optional, so you not using it is valid and B: that it obviously wont have an effect then.
To me, support isn't enough to definately get a result from designing. I guess I didn't say that to begin with, but I only realise that detail of my approach in discussion here so I'm kinda stuck that way!
What do you think?
David Berg:
Crap, now it's an issue with the term "support"! I didn't mean to say that a mechanic would be like an optional bonus to the primary activity of roleplaying. I just meant that, when designing mechanics, and asking, "What do we want this mechanic to accomplish? What's our goal?" the answer would relate to talking about imagined stuff.
RPG design with mandatory and encompassing rules sounds appealing to me too! But only if, as a player, I spend most of my game time talking and imagining.
I can imagine this being the case! Your ex-girlfriend example seemed to me to be a move in that direction: a low handling time mechanic, player decision based in large part on aesthetic judgments of the fiction, mechanical options that add fictional content, and currency that makes the process of talking and imagining more concrete, purposeful, and game-like.
I can understand that you don't want to put a lot of thought into a mechanics example of the type I've requested only to have me write back and say, "Ew, I don't wanna play like that!" All I can say is that if, in conceiving mechanics, you do your best to relate it to the stuff that we agree on (yay currency-fiction synergy!), then I will too in responding.
Ps,
-David
Callan S.:
Hi David,
I think I have concieved of mechanics here, like the girlfriend one, and said them. I'm not sure what else you still need? Except perhaps that your focused on a goal of talking about imagined stuff.
With my girlfriend example, talking about imagined stuff isn't the primary goal, it's simply a means to getting to the goal of the thorny (or perhaps hot? (just to be possitive for a change)) issue of ex girlfriends. It's perhaps a secondary or tertiary goal to talk about imagined stuff.
Are you trying to grasp the idea of currency-fiction synergy in relation to just continuing talking about imagined stuff?
You might be, but I'd be willing to bet money the ex girlfriend thing sounds interesting to you because it's outside, seperate from and beyond 'talking about imagined stuff'.
I'm thinking maybe if your goal, as in goal, is to talk about imagined stuff, then I can't really explain this currency-fiction thing to you, only give more and more examples of it. And I'm kind of hitting a writers block on that - actually, it kind of feels like GM burn out.
Other than that I'm not sure what else you still need to be able to extrapolate your own ways of doing it? Sorry :( It's been a long thread - perhaps I've forgotten something in a prior post on that?
David Berg:
What I'd like is an example of mechanics that end and begin scenes. By "begin a scene" I don't necessarily mean a hard cut in the fiction; any leap forward in situation counts ("Now we're in a new place faced with new surroundings and choices!").
I'm picking this because I think it's a good example of a situation in which all of the RPGs you and I have played have left us to make this decision without reference to currency. I'd love to see what the alternative might look like.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page