[Diary of a Skull Soldier] Dry, bitter, excellent
Callan S.:
Hello Ron,
On the points -
On #1 and #2, I'm not sure I understand the...faithfulness? To something? I'll put it this way, when I said it was the diary of an NPC I wasn't making a point. Nor when I left the setting pretty much what one might think of it from the diary, was I making a point. The only faithfulness concern I'd see is not ignoring the authors points, when he makes them (doesn't mean you agree with his points, you just don't ignore them utterly). But since I'm not making a point when I say it's an NPC's diary, heck, totally mess around with the idea of who's it is as much as it feels good in the moment! Utterly ignore me, because heck, I wasn't making a point. Or setting - hey, alien planet or Bagdad, don't need to jump to any conclusion. Ambiguity leads to creativity. Or at the very least, like oncoming car head lights on high beam, ambiguity is facinating.
Now did I make clear where I'm making a point and where it's up for grabs? Not really. So I'll pay that. But (okay, quit reading this paragraph as I get off the usual acceptable trail of conversation and quit if you don't wanna) I still wonder even if I did, would you go and be faithful to...something? It's just to me, pretty much every RPG is Gene Wolfe-like, if I understand your reference. Pretty much everything is a human perception and projection in RPG (barring cold, metalic, rules), no matter how intense the setting description is in an RPG text (indeed more-so human perception and projection, for that intensity). Like you say to David what else can you do but play a character, when you say it's hard to do Gene Wolfe-like stuff in an RPG, I think, what else can you do? I once had a GM who described a female character character as, IIRC, beautiful. Latter he revealed she was sort of psychic shapeshifter. Latter, talking to us as players, he said 'You all (the RL players) just imagined your own idea of beauty! I never said how she is beutiful! You just filled in what you wanted to!', as if we had all tricked ourselves into thinking the beauty we'd imagined is the one he'd described. But all I could think is 'That's all we ever do'. I don't think he realised that applied to all of the other GM descriptions he'd ever given. What else can you do?
Quote
I applied this thinking to my elaborations of the diary entry which began each in-play scene.
Did you lay out the diary entry, for everyone to read over each others shoulders, but essentially reading it alone?
Quote
At one point, James referred to some attempted action in play as being "possible" due to the outcome of a previous roll, and I didn't want to shut him down or distract from the immediacy of play, so I said "yeah" as non-committally as I could and moved on, with the imaginary Callan on my shoulder beating my head with his fists and screaming "No!!"
Actually I was the confused monkey on the back. See, I berated myself on this in the other thread - who can initiate a roll? Only the GM? Anyone? Can anyone veto a roll? I didn't define this shit, left it up to the pattern of roleplay culture. Probably fell for consensus fallacy, really. As author, this is my fuck up.
But past that, basically the lack of the rules eliminating options means it's up for grabs - so here comes confused monkey, going 'Why is James saying something is somehow now possible any more than before - the rules have not changed?" and further, here you concerned about it?
I'm going to go off the kosher conversational path again - don't read the following paragraph unless you want to: There's a thing where communicated fiction is taken as warrant or enablement of some action supposedly not possible previously? And that it's a concern. I wouldn't be screaming no, I'd be saying that either they keep declaring they are enabled to do things which they already were already enabled by the rules to do and so there is no issue, or they'll claim enablement to do something that the rules say they can't and then we'll see which comes first with them, rules or sense of fictional enablement. Actually this paragraph doesn't sound bad to me - maybe didn't need a disclaimer.
Quote
4. I didn't reveal the explanation for Marks until play was over.
I think I wrote the rules with the idea that everyone reads the rules and so would have read about them. Granted with my group on the first go of a new game, perhaps someone hasn't read the rules, but generally have read them to some degree on latter play. I think if I moved onto a new draft this would need changing - adding instructions that all participants read about marks prior to play and you read it alone, each reader mulling over their own conclusion. If they don't read, they can't play. Another problem is that marks are actually described in part through the document, described as worries, concerns, etc. The 'what are marks' section more describes what they are for in terms of the game, not what they are.
Quote
But I wonder if I'm supposed to let the impetus to do that be entirely generated by them, without any prompting or mention on my part.
Really you've left the game at that point and it's beyond my purview as author. I could talk about what I'd do as a fellow man, instead - if I was interested in something, I'd show it to someone. But that's just me.
Quote
As a side point, silently reading the diary entries together, simultaneously, was a curiously intimate act. I think it served as a social framing device.
Alone together. Beautiful! Everyone cognizant that they are seperate entities, yet still doing the same activity. Agreement not needed every second yet still moving in paralel.
As I asked above, did you do this for the first two scenarios, in play?
And now onto MARKS! I was looking forward to this bit.
And...I'm going to blame myself as author. I think I need to describe things more so. The marks you present are actually...well, conclusions! Of course no one looks at their own conclusions and wonders - perhaps that's why it sounds post modern? Jame's ones actually start with conclusions and kind of head towards actual marks as you go down.
Quote
7/10 "In war everyone loses, some just lose more."
7/10 "Everything's falling apart, especially us."
3/10 "I hear death's laughter echoing in every sound."
7/10 "Any moment could be the last"
The closer you get to a non rationalising fear or other emotive reaction, the more it's a mark. As it says in the document in other spots, marks are worries and concerns. You can move on from a conclusion - a worry is just that for not being able to move on from it. The last two on the list here are marks.
I don't know how wondering about hearing deaths laughter echoing in every sound is post modern. It sounds fucking terrorfying to think about, to me.
Quote
7/10 "I said stay down!"
*snip*
7/10 "Get them back!"
These just need to be peeled back a bit more, like taking the skin off a grape...get to the wet, oozing stuff...back to the thing that would make you say this, instead of what it'd make you say.
And that's it. I appreciated hearing about the marks generated. I thought they'd come alive and they did.
While I'm here I'll give a shout out to all for the under appreciated SLORP RPG, with it's trust/certainty dichotomy economy. Bit of a mundane setting, granted, but nicotine girls is like that too.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
I'm quite excited to be having this conversation.
We did, in fact, read all three diary entries silently and simultaneously. Four guys, unevenly spaced side by side or in two rows, clustered together a little. In the cases of the first two chosen, which we used for play, we did not have any conversation immediately afterward, but moved straight into play beginning with GM elaboration.
As I mentioned, this technique had a distinct, personal, intimate quality which I enjoyed very much.
Regarding the Marks, I read the rules for writing them during play itself, at the time when any player earned one, by request. Specifically:
Quote
... you've taken on a 7/10 strength mark of the skull soldier, related to the area he describes in his diary and what your doing. What are his concerns, the elements of his perspective. The ones tied to what you tried to change or do. That's the name of your mark and what it's about.
I changed the value to 3/10 when necessary, but otherwise that's exactly what I said, verbatim. I didn't have to read it for all nine marks generated in play, but if I remember correctly, I did so at least four times.
In my post above, when I wrote about not reading the explanation for the marks until play was over, I was talking about the "to make you wonder what they are" part only. That's the only part which makes me uneasy about telling them first; it seems to me that doing that might undercut the point.
As far as the content of the marks is concerned, clearly different players interpreted the above instructions a little differently. I agree that they didn't always measure up to the "worries and concerns" criterion, but I also agree that the ones which didn't are at least steps toward getting there. I didn't offer any critique or "not good enough" statements of any kind, preferring instead to see how the instructions played out from text to player on an individual basis. My inclination is to retain that flexibility and not try to force more or different content in any specific case, especially not during play.
I like this phrase of yours a lot:
Quote
The closer you get to a non rationalising fear or other emotive reaction, the more it's a mark.
That would be a good addition to the text.
I'm not responding to the other parts of your post because of time constraints, but also because I don't have much to say except "yes" or "I see" and stuff like that. My blanket response to your overall post is to nod and feel like I'm learning something, or learning how to say something I know better.
Is there any hope that you might clean up some of the grammar, otherwise tart up the presentation a little, for a new working draft? I'd really like to see it keep that personal voice feature that you mentioned in the feedback thread, so I'm definitely not suggesting that you genericize it or make it more familiar in game-text terms. But it'd be great to have a slightly beefier and more readable version to use.
And man! If you could find an artist to deliver one single illustration that you think is just right, that would be exciting.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Quote
We did, in fact, read all three diary entries silently and simultaneously. Four guys, unevenly spaced side by side or in two rows, clustered together a little. In the cases of the first two chosen, which we used for play, we did not have any conversation immediately afterward, but moved straight into play beginning with GM elaboration.
Ah, that's good. I imagine four people looking at the very same semantic markings, each imagination working on it's own and in doing so, heading in a certain direction. I picture it as of four lines departing from the same point and moving forward and out, but then curving forward and back to intermingle to various degrees.
On marks, I think I'll just pay I didn't explain it enough. I was probably engaging in consensus fallacy - like everyone thinks 'that' way about this, etc. I will say even if I write more that doesn't mean anyone will get it, but I could do alot more by my own standards atleast.
I'll just affirm that the players in the game got somewhere and made some ground, so to speak. Maybe they don't need that affirmation, but just saying in case - I can see the heart lines in the marks listed. It's not just ink marks on paper. But they prolly all get that very much so - again, just saying in case.
Quote
As far as the content of the marks is concerned, clearly different players interpreted the above instructions a little differently. I agree that they didn't always measure up to the "worries and concerns" criterion, but I also agree that the ones which didn't are at least steps toward getting there. I didn't offer any critique or "not good enough" statements of any kind, preferring instead to see how the instructions played out from text to player on an individual basis.
I don't think anyone saying 'not good enough' fits this model anyway (further diluting the GM role, I guess) - it's more like a personal challenge, but along the lines of daring to look at scary emotional places rather than a winning type challenge. If someone doesn't go deep, it's not wrong, it's just maybe they didn't meet up to the challenge they set out to take up. It's kind of up to each person to ponder that one alone. And yup, this in itself that could go in the text.
Quote
Quote
The closer you get to a non rationalising fear or other emotive reaction, the more it's a mark.
That would be a good addition to the text.
Yup.
Quote
In my post above, when I wrote about not reading the explanation for the marks until play was over, I was talking about the "to make you wonder what they are" part only. That's the only part which makes me uneasy about telling them first; it seems to me that doing that might undercut the point.
That makes me really curious. What point would that be?
I mean, even without knowing exactly what point your talking about, maybe I want to undercut it? At the end of the game, leave everyone suddenly without a point and with things that say they hear death laughing in every echo? I remember hearing of a band who didn't play the last note of a song at a performance, just stopped. It made people hear the music more than they otherwise would have.
But then again maybe you'll say some sort of point and I'll go 'Oh that, yeah, hmmm, okay, didn't want to drop that thing, have to think on that'. So I'm really curious?
I wont pounce on it - but it just might not be kinda integral to me?
Quote
otherwise tart up the presentation a little, for a new working draft? I'd really like to see it keep that personal voice feature that you mentioned in the feedback thread, so I'm definitely not suggesting that you genericize it or make it more familiar in game-text terms. But it'd be great to have a slightly beefier and more readable version to use.
To what extent? I genuinely run a blank on what criteria I'd be trying to satisfy in doing it? Maybe I'll ponder what pretties I might add on, if any and if so maybe it'll match up as pretty by someone elses standard, or maybe it wont. I mean, there's a challenging question for any writer - in formating, what are you doing it for? What effect are you definately sure your going to produce in a reader? I dunno, I'm left with alot of questions on that.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
By the point of the Marks, I mean strictly exactly what you said to be their purpose. Change "point" in my sentence to "purpose," and then reference your stated purpose in the rules, and that's all I meant.
So the question is simple: do you want everyone playing to have read the rules in full or not? My impression now is yes.
Regarding formatting, you're absolutely correct that it's up to you. My desire is to see the thing brought out of its current (to use your words) "utter crap" state, even if it's merely a grammatical sweep-through. Physically and visually, hey - whatever you'd like to do with it, that's what I'd like to see.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page