Started by Callan S., October 22, 2009, 12:42:44 AM
Quote from: Callan S. on October 27, 2009, 06:41:18 AMJosh, I think your just pitching that a wrench can be used like a hammer, thus it's both. Do we have any common ground on what it's original intent was? Cause if we don't, then we don't.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 27, 2009, 06:41:18 AMPeople could define a glass of cyanide differently from me - doesn't mean their defining it differently will mean it'll have different properties once drunk. On this principle, no, I don't respect 'oh, this is our special definition'. Or I respect it about as much as the cyanide would, anyway. (a dark humour part of me wants to say that upon finding this to be true, a gamer would then redefine the word 'drink' and thus declare the problem solved, because they weren't drinking the cyanide anymore)
Quote from: Marshall Burns on October 29, 2009, 07:43:42 PMSuch a collection of causes and their effects, and the events that prompt causes into action, among a specific group of players for a specific unit of play comprises a specific System (as defined by the LP). Therefore there is no way for System to not exist. There is no way for things to happen at the table without someone causing them to happen.
Quote from: Caldis on October 30, 2009, 12:37:39 AMA few things need to be straightened out. The System does matter article predates the Lumpley principle so what that article is talking about and what system has come to mean may not be exactly the same thing. Look to the provisional glossary or better yet check out http://www.lumpley.com/opine.html
QuoteIt may be by negotiation between players and gm, it could be up to the gm to decide or it may be determinable by expending resources. All of it makes up system.
QuoteIf you are using ad hoc decisions to determine what happened in the game then that is part of the system the game is using. And yes Contra there is only one system and your definition nails it "People sit around and agree what happens in the game." That is exactly the definition of system the question is how do they get to the point of agreement. If they dont agree about what happens in the game it's impossible to have a game.
Quote from: contracycle on October 30, 2009, 01:32:50 AMI think you have a serious case of category confusion going on. The rules of the road do not, of course, tell you how to drive in every specific situation, but they do provide a rule based method for figuring out what to do, or what to expect others will do, when you encounter real situations. Of course in driving from point A to point B you will be required to make many ad hoc and specifically situational decisions, but those things do not supplant or invalidate the general rules of road conduct you have learned. The ad hoc decisions you make are executed within the framework of, and with reference to, the general systematic rules. "You steer the car to get where you're going" is not a useful method by which to determine who should give way at a roundabout.
Quote from: Caldis on October 30, 2009, 11:54:47 AMThat's the thing though. There are rules of road conduct and they govern how you should act on the road however does anyone follow all of them all the time? If we want to look at how someone is driving do we look at the laws of the road and then determine that obviously this is the way the person is driving? If the person drives for years, speeds, parks illegal, doesnt shoulder check but has always gotten to work and back how safe without causing any accidents cant we say that he has a system where sometimes he follows the rules and sometimes he ignores them? It's repeatable, he's done it multiple times and it always works out despite no written rules that show exactly how he was driving.
QuoteIn a more role play fashion. I've played several games basically free form. We get together come up with ideas and run with them. When characters come into conflict we've sometimes negotiated the outcome or sometimes we'd roll dice and compare to help us decide what happened. There are no written rules anywhere but we are able to resolve what's happening in the game, we have some kind of system going on since we're able to do it repeatedly.
QuoteMaybe system is the wrong word maybe it should be thought of as process because essentially that's what we are talking about. What steps happen that take us from point a to point b and this is why design is important, why system matters, and where creative agenda comes in. You cant just look at the mechanics of a game and think you have everything figured out. You can try and make mechanics that tell you exactly how to play but if you dont also tell the person what the goal of the game is they're quite likely to abuse them or misuse them. If you only consider the mechanics of a game system then you are missing out on what's going on simply because no one has created a mechanic for it before such as setting and situation creation which are absent in the vast majority of games.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on October 29, 2009, 07:43:42 PMAll right. This is probably gonna get me into arguments, but what the hell.There is no such thing as "shit just happening." If something happens, it happens because something caused it to happen. Gravity, momentum, Newton's second law of mechanics, and conservation of energy caused the beach balls to behave as they did (what causes gravity, et al? Fuck if I know, but before we get into anything like that, such theoretical physics are a bit beyond our scope here, yes?).Likewise, if some people are sitting around a table, anything that happens at that table happens because one or more of them caused it to happen.Such a collection of causes and their effects, and the events that prompt causes into action, among a specific group of players for a specific unit of play comprises a specific System (as defined by the LP). Therefore there is no way for System to not exist. There is no way for things to happen at the table without someone causing them to happen.
QuoteI think you guys are getting messed up because you are thinking of system as something you use to help you play out a session.
QuoteWe mean something more like "get" in the informal sense of the word, or "run with from now on," or even "stay consistent with from now on, at least close enough for government work."
Quote from: Callan S. on November 01, 2009, 01:24:32 AMAnd willfully so, since it'd be ignoring any possiblity of being wrong on that and so deliberately acting in a way that doesn't match the situation.
Quote from: JoyWriter on October 31, 2009, 11:21:46 PMThat's one important reason why it is valuable to spot patterns in behaviour, whether pre-arranged or otherwise, because you can change it.Another good reason is because as you suggest, you can see an awesome series of events that happened, and try to replicate them..... can be considered a set of systems, with potentially quite different dynamics.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 01, 2009, 01:24:32 AMas being 'system' in the same tone, equally, without caveat, then you are speaking about them as being equal and the same.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 01, 2009, 01:24:32 AMIf you want to really look at system, you'll see that this isn't describing how something works to me, it's asking me to 'get' it. And in asking, it's asking me to consent to 'getting' it. That's the actual system that's happening.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 01, 2009, 01:24:32 AM... That's the actual system that's happening.Yet if everyone thinks they are describing something that exists, rather than in describing something and in doing so, asking consent to it - if they don't recognise they are asking consent...well, I think maybe you get the smelly chamberlain thread. Whole bunches of people thinking they are talking about system when really the system is that they are asking each others consent to a certain procedure.
QuoteI've not only distinguished between those patterns we want to preserve and those we want to change, I've suggested that the abusive ones might themselves be distinguishable from each other!
QuoteI've invited you to do loads of things in this thread, all focused on bridging between what other people think and what you think, no dodgy power-knowledge stuff.
QuoteAre they? Could you be wrong on that?
Quote from: JoyWriter on October 31, 2009, 11:21:46 PMContracycle, generality is only dangerous if we stop there; we do not complain about all books being in the same library because "I got a book from the library" is not a very informative statement. In the same way, a general definition of what happens in a game is only a problem if it stops there, and we say "stuff happens, hallelujah" or something equally uninformative. The alternative is to look at different kinds of system (subdividing like looking through the library's filing system), and ask which are better, and if the better ones can be shared etc. For example, supposedly David Donachie GMs his game Solipsist very well, but other people can't get the same goodness out of it. If the definition of system is broad enough, we have a big net to catch facts about how he GMs, and develop explicit systems from them.