Started by Callan S., October 22, 2009, 12:42:44 AM
QuoteIf I can see the bigger reward system, grasp the Currency, and get bug-eyed to transform the Color into System through play
Quote from: Callan S. on October 23, 2009, 08:04:35 PMI don't really understand or recognise your own rephrasing? Perhaps your rephrasing is off?
Quote from: Callan S. on October 23, 2009, 08:04:35 PMAnd again you've given the assumption that there definately was a system - this time you've given the conditional that if you had a good time there must have been a system involved.
Quotetaking it as a statement of fact, all it tells you is that something can become something else;
QuoteAt the end of this, they may say, "system exists in this form ____"
Quote from: Callan S. on October 25, 2009, 03:34:26 AMThat's not worth questioning/I wouldn't be questioning that? Wait, never mind that, I'll just cut to the chase - yes, I'm questioning this statement of fact.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 23, 2009, 08:04:35 PMIf someones walking past a stack of beach balls and it collapses perchance and they have fun dodging them, can they stack up the balls and deliberately make them collapse for dodging fun/make a system of it? Yes. Does that mean there was a system involved the first time? No. It was just a chance event.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 25, 2009, 03:34:26 AMIf your skipping from one to the other and back again, intermingling the situations as if they are one and the same - that's probably the core error to this I'm trying to point out.
QuoteBut people always make definitions and act as if they are true, that's called acting on your current understanding, it's called living! The question is whether you challenge your definitions by subjecting them to demonstration
QuoteIt may be that people are misusing a word, confusing themselves by shifting from one definition to another inconsistently, or it may be that they define a word differently to you, and you are only just realising this. Perhaps their not confusing themselves about what they mean, just you?
QuoteHere's what I'd say, it's similar, but not the same. In other words there is some component of Vincent's games that allow him to get away with pissing about with the authority structures of the game.But maybe that's not true, maybe tolerance is all there is. That the thing that holds the game together moment to moment is just tolerating the crappy bits of what someone does and enjoying the good bits? Does that view help? Explain anything?
Quote from: Callan S. on October 27, 2009, 06:41:18 AMOkay, how about an old AP example I heard from RPG.net, where a new guy joins a group and at a certain point when his character was hit by a bullet, the GM, under the table and without saying anything prior, shoots him in real life in the gut with a paintball gun. Is that a system? The other guys at that table apparently stayed around. If people stay at the table, does that mean system must exist?If your tolerance hasn't snapped yet, does that mean there's a system? Or just that your tolerance hasn't snapped yet?
QuoteAlso awhile back I played in a game of rifts, and the GM (a friend of mine) had been saying that aimed/called shots, which take up an attack, don't mean you have to wait. Eg, if it would use up two attacks, you don't sit through two turns doing nothing, you do it now and your total attacks for the melee round is reduced by two. However, when it came to reloading, latter in the same game, no, you had to use an attack and do nothing for a turn. I tried to present this apparent conflict, but he literally said something like 'Aww, come on, you can't just reload and shoot all at once'...despite the fact that apparently people were carefully aiming for some time, yet shooting instantly and somehow that aiming time happened after the shot (was taken off the number of attacks). At this point I thought of the golden rule, how it'd eventually get invoked no doubt, and ceased bothering to discuss it and just went with it (and chalked up yet another dumb and uninteresting point against the golden rule).
QuoteIf they are able to make it work then yes it's a system.
QuoteThey have a system, it's one you dont like but there is a system. Does that fact that you dont like the system suddenly mean there isnt one? If the rest of the players at the table dont mind it and continue to play after you leave are they playing systemless? Of course not. There is system, one where the gm determines how the rules work. It is a system even if it's not systematic.
QuoteIf they are able to make it work then yes it's a system. It may be a crap system but it's a system. It's how they are determining what happens in the game, it sounds like there are a lot of mind games going on to get people into a mental state that brings them closer to their characters. The link between getting shot by a paintball and your character being shot seems pretty tenuous at best but there are a lot of other crap systems that dont actually achieve what they are intended to do. System as a term is value neutral. It is what it is, these people are doing this and that is how they play. It's left to you to make value judgements on whether you like that system or not.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 27, 2009, 08:37:07 PMHi Caldis,I'm not sure what you mean, chronologically? Take my beach ball example - when the balls fell down by chance, there was no system. But then after that, the guy decides to set them up to avalanche at him. That set up is obviously a system at that point. If that's what your saying, that after the events he can find a way of repeating them that works, well at that point that's a system, yes. It's a system he worked out after the original chance fall of the beach balls.