At the roots of roleplaying

Started by rgrassi, June 23, 2009, 10:43:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Callan S.

Well, that's one thing this thread makes a point about. I think so many gamers have gone without a validation space for so long, they see Jo's responce as normal, everyday behaviour. It's isn't - he (she?) is cheating and whining - if she agreed Bob has this call, then she is now going back on her agreement. This isn't validation, this is someone being a cheat and using emotional blackmail to get their way. But many gamers have probably gone on with this for so many years, starting in their teens, it has become a part of their social contract that if someone agrees someone else is in charge, they can ignore that agreement without consequence for themselves, if they get sufficiently upset. Ie, the 'validation' space is whether a tantrum is thrown or not.

Actually, I'll water that down - it's not cheating in some galactic standard sense. It is cheating by the sort of codes of behaviour used in most board games, card games, sports, and work places around the world. It's not cheating and whining in a galactic sense, but it is hugely different to how most people in the world conduct their activities. Most people abide by their agreements and do not see, even to themselves, that loudly saying "It sucks!" means they get out of their prior agreements somehow. There is no such 'validation' stage in their case - instead, read the fine print and only agree to things that you can stomach.

But gamer culture doesn't seem to. And it's probably extensive use of speaking directly into the SIS/no validation space use, during early years, that triggers it. The nose is cut off and...instead of the early teen reflecting on what they agreed to and stomaching it, they do what they would have done a scant few years prior - they tantrum. And either the group explodes (perhaps never roleplays again) or they internalise it as 'how you do it'. I think I'm slightly echoing something Ron has said previously, but I may be wrong on that. Ron, if your reading, could you shoot me down if I'm wrong on that connection?

Or that's all bullshit, if you want to call it bullshit. But I think Rob is talking so much about his type of validation space, because likely his group evolved to suggest the nose cutting off - and if it horrorfied people, it was just a suggestion and ignored. No one has to tantrum when someone suggests something to them, because the very nature of a suggestion is the speaker is granting the other person the chance to decline the suggestion. There's no need to internalise 'IT SUCKS! I'm not gunna play anymore" as part of normal gaming behaviour, in such a case.

ROB! Hey, am I way off! I've posted a few times to you and haven't heard from you?

Adam Dray

Hrm. If that was in response to me, Callan, then I need to clear up some things. I don't think my example is acceptable behavior. I also don't think it happens that often. I was just stretching for an example and that example could not exist without there being an evaluation step there. That's all.
Adam Dray /
Verge -- cyberpunk role-playing on the brink
FoundryMUSH - indie chat and play at 7777

Callan S.

Hi Adam,

If it involves unacceptable behaviour, it doesn't count as a validation space. Or atleast not the type of validation space that's being talked about by Rob, I think. We'll see what Rob's trying to get at.


Hi Adam...

Bob and Jo's characters are in a melee fight. Bob wins narration.
Bob: "So Bobdar the Barbarian swings his axe down and CUTS OFF Jongar's nose! She's mutilated forever!"
Jo: "Seriously? That sucks. If you do that, I won't play any more."
Bob: "The rules say I have authority here."
Jo: "Yeah, well that sucks anyway. No way."
Bob: "Uh. Okay. He cuts off one of her fingers then."
Jo: "I can live with that. Bastard."

Despite our best effort no "game rule" can enforce acceptable social behaviour or avoid something you say in your example. As Callan says this is not a type of Validation.
Validation 'phase' in my figures takes care about the following stuff:
1) Things that cannot happen due to internal logic violation (and this may occur during conch shell games, and is the only check made, but it's a check made in EVERY kind of narration, even for non interactive narration. You make internal logic check even when you read a book or a newspaper)
2) Things that cannot happen due to aestetic parameters of the group.
3) Things that have passed the 1) and 2) check and MAY happen. For this sort of things all the (up to now) known techniques are employed to determine if they actually enter in the SIS. After this check some things that may have happened have happened and other have not happened.
I'll soon post my doubts over the three aeeows...

I'll re-read the thread looking for your specific answers/doubts in order to give a specific reply/feedbak to them.
Levity d6 - Interactive Storytelling and Roleplaying System


In order to start a discussion I'll post my doubts/questions over the first arrow, referring to the image below.

As usual, sorry for my english... And, can you please help me to fill in the table below?

Sorry again for the image, but i wanted to represent this in table view, and didn't want to edit a badly formatted post...
I'm interested to add questions and, hopefully, an extensive list of answers and reference games.
I think that if we go in depth adding questions and examples to this table, and focus, for the moment, to the first arrow, we could have a simple reference graph and map to look if we're missing some interesting or important design concepts, related to the phase in which one player submits his/her move to the Validation Space.
Hope you find it interesting and useful...

P.S. Sorry Callan, I'm still delaying my answers, but, if you don't mind, I'd prefer to follow this sequence of arguments, before...

P.P.S Ron, please feel free to stop this thread in any moment, if you think it's useless and "out of scope" for the purposes of the forum.
Levity d6 - Interactive Storytelling and Roleplaying System

Ron Edwards

Hi folks,

At this point, I'm not inclined to close this thread forcefully, but I really want to emphasize that once you (meaning anyone) think you have made your point well enough for an outside reader to understand you, then you should be willing to stop posting. It should not be about forcing a fellow participant in the thread to submit or to admit anything, or even to give you the attention and acknowledgment that you feel you need.

Best, Ron


Ok, so I'll close the thread posting the tables, in the next days, with some of questions/doubts...
I think that an outside reader should have enough information to understand my point.
Thank you very much Ron.
Levity d6 - Interactive Storytelling and Roleplaying System


As promised, a last post with tables of questions and possible answers (most are really just a reference, only to give a direction of work).
Starting from this:

Here you have an example of questions and things to work on for each arrow.

Levity d6 - Interactive Storytelling and Roleplaying System

Ron Edwards

Hi everyone,

Thanks Rob! Let's stop this thread here and spawn new threads to address the various possibilities, issues, questions, objections, or examples. (also, if you intended to post more end-of-thread graphics or tables, let me know)

Best, Ron