The Forge Archives

Inactive Forums => Scattershot => Topic started by: Le Joueur on April 28, 2002, 01:47:57 PM

Title: Emergent Techniques: Sine Qua Non
Post by: Le Joueur on April 28, 2002, 01:47:57 PM
Once upon a time, I might have tried to parse these techniques on something like a weekly basis, but due to the 'rough cut' nature of what I am now doing, it's going to be much 'clumpy.'  Here goes...

I've spoken of Sine Qua Non before, here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12828&highlight=sine+qua+non#12828), here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12855&highlight=sine+qua+non#12855), and here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12885&highlight=sine+qua+non#12885).  Heck, I even mentioned it in my first post on the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2123&highlight=sine+qua+non#2123).  Herein, I'm going to sketch out what is probably the most important technique in Scattershot.  Feel free to jump in for clarification at any time, I haven't really polished it much yet.

Sine Qua Non is latin and it literally means "without which, not;" the technique used here is an extension of the propriety concept in Scattershot.  Each character, persona or otherwise, in a game has a Sine Qua Non.  ...Hm, this isn't going anywhere; let's just dive right in.

When you make your persona, you need to define their Sine Qua Non.  The simplest method I've come up with when someone is having trouble, I call 'three up, three down.'  List the first three things you want people to remember about your character, then list the last three things you would let anyone forget.   In SMACS (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2006) (where 'infra-Scattershot' is first described), this gets reduced to five things (see that listing for examples).  Next, if it wasn't in the 3/3, you can list the persona's precipitating event; the thing that happened that defined the characters 'role' (a profile of potential things they will do, often looked at as an archetype), often this is the point where the character initially becomes a persona.

You can also lay out a 'goal' for the persona; this is not a goal that the persona pursues, it's 'what they are for.'  Finally, if you haven't come up with it by now, you need to invent something that 'drives' your character, the 'fire in their belly.'  If you can't make something defining about the character from any of that, and you're still struggling, I suggest introducing a 'mystery.'  This is something that occurs on or just before the beginning of play that your persona, being who they are, cannot avoid looking into/getting 'caught up in.'

As a technique of play the Sine Qua Non is not meant to be an immutable artifice, but a 'living' feature of a character.  Frequently used to aid in character development, it also changes at that time as well (it can be used to chart new directions for the character to move in).  One of the reasons for making Sine Qua Non explicit is how it aids the social contract of gaming.  Along with the Genre Expectations, it is used to determine what or how many rewards are given between sessions and it is at that time it may also be reviewed for pertenancy.

What makes this a really complicated concept is all the different interpretations depending which kinds of play your group prefers. Players of the Joueur, Auteur, Swashbuckler, and the Avatar (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662), have different needs, uses, and relationships to their Sine Qua Non.  It also varies depending on how Self-Conscious (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662) the narrative is.  Finally, Sine Qua Non is integral to how the group interacts within the various sharing levels (Self-Sovereign, Referential, or Gamemasterful (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662)) and that is also affected by the kinds of play.  I don't really have room here (or the time) to go into the 24 different permutations, so I'll just sketch out the basics.

For those playing the Joueur, the Sine Qua Non often functions as a list of uncompromisable abilities or sometimes an indirect map of what the player wants to engage in for the game.  Things not included in their Sine Qua Non may still be important, but no one can pull a deus ex machina on anything in the Sine Qua Non, rendering it useless.

When playing the Auteur, your Sine Qua Non defines the persona's relationship to the overall narrative.  It also can include what 'stylistic' elements are not to be sacrificed.  It orchestrates the pinnacle of what the player wants in the game (indirectly).  It can even place a 'lein' on how the player wants the game to treat their persona.  Disappointment is the only result of abridging this Sine Qua Non.

Sine Qua Non for one playing the Avatar is about 'protecting' what makes up their character.  The qualities and capacities involved with how they want to play is defined and supported here.  It also indirectly illuminates how the play of the Avatar will proceed.  To violate this Sine Qua Non defeats the point of playing this Avatar.

Playing the Swashbuckler has the Sine Qua Non that establishes 'who they are' in the realm of the game.  It kinda says what they can do and what they're 'supposed to do.'  It functions like niche protection both keeping them able and active in the game.  Violating this quickly turns a persona into a useless or helpless appendage.

Simply?  The Sine Qua Non in a Self-Conscious narrative is, well...Self-Conscious.  For each type of play it serves to reinforce or specify explicit elements of focus for the persona.  (You can imagine it gets much more complicated than that, though.)

I haven't had much time to think out the details, but the Sine Qua Non will describe how to handle conflicts of proprietorship at the various levels sharing in the game.  I hope you get the idea how this would work; I need to revisit this later.

Not only is Sine Qua Non used in concert with the Genre Expectations (for giving the game direction and determining what is deserving of reward), they are themselves pretty much the Sine Qua Non of the game the group wants to play (more on this technique later).

Well that's all for now.  I hope I can clarify anything you don't understand.  Feel free to ask any questions, what you don't understand will help me describe this better later.  I look forward to making this a better more usable description.  I find it most useful (otherwise why design it into a game).

Before I go, on the topic of Transition, you can see many times how what a person puts their persona's Sine Qua Non can give some insight into what types of play they are interested in.  Furthermore, what's missing is important when Transition becomes a play goal; it is the missing that must be fulfilled if Transition will go forth.

Fang Langford
Title: Emergent Techniques: Sine Qua Non
Post by: Joe Murphy (Broin) on April 30, 2002, 07:51:55 AM
Holy mother of god. I think I just felt my mind expand.

I think I understand the Sine Qua Non. But could you run through two characters, from two completely different genres, perhaps even played with each of the Jouer, Avatar, Swashbuckler and Auteur approaches, to give me some more examples to mull over?

I can feel a lightbulb moment coming on.

Joe.
Title: Emergent Techniques: Sine Qua Non
Post by: Mike Holmes on April 30, 2002, 11:09:30 AM
All simply sounds like a framework for group collaboration to provide a Premise (G, N, or S) for play. Which is cool. Goes along with the recent discussions of games that start Premiseless, but in shich premise is defined at the start of play. The only question I have would be to ask if there were any mechanical reinforcement. How does a player who feels that his character's Sine Non Qua have been violated respond? What recourse does he have?

Mike
Title: Two Examples
Post by: Le Joueur on April 30, 2002, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Joe Murphy (Broin)Could you run through two characters, from two completely different genres, perhaps even played with each of the Joueur, Avatar, Swashbuckler and Auteur approaches, to give me some more examples to mull over?
Completely different?  Hmm....

Okay.

Ajimiru 'King Blade' for Scattershot presents: Armageddon Engines (a game of giant robot anime)

Three up, three down:
Title: Mechanical Reinforcement?
Post by: Le Joueur on April 30, 2002, 11:35:01 AM
Quote from: Mike HolmesAll simply sounds like a framework for group collaboration to provide a Premise (G, N, or S) for play. Which is cool. Goes along with the recent discussions of games that start Premiseless, but in which premise is defined at the start of play. The only question I have would be to ask if there were any mechanical reinforcement. How does a player who feels that his character's Sine Non Qua have been violated respond? What recourse does he have?
There aren't any in the mechanics per se, in terms of the techniques (what most people call rules that aren't so arbitrary in Scattershot) the very fact that a Sine Qua Non is created and shared explicitly is the first part.  So far I haven't come to a conclusion if there's going to need to be any more of the social contract spelled out in the techniques beyond them having a Sine Qua Non and expecting them to go, "Hey, that's my job!"

That's pretty far up the 'pyramid' of techniques, so I am still open to suggestions.  Do you think I need to spell it out or does 'having' Sine Qua Non represent that well enough?  Make no mistake Sine Qua Non is all about preventing "violation," I just need to know how much you think I need to spell out.

Fang Langford
Title: Emergent Techniques: Sine Qua Non
Post by: Mike Holmes on April 30, 2002, 12:48:47 PM
Your system delineates them as well as possible, I think. That's not the problem. But in the modst of play someone is going to make a mistake (we won't even consider the possibility of this happening maliciously, though, any solution that fixes that possibility would be welcome as well). They are going to accidentally trammel another PCs Sine Non Qua. As it stands it seems that the offended player's only recourse is to cry "foul!" Then what? If the players agree that a mistake has been made, then do they reverse the declaration? Or just continue with an admonition not to do it again? And what if they don't agree? Or worse, what if two conditions colide? Is this then adjudicated by the Third Party method that I remember hearing you talk about? What if one player feels that he's being ganged up on?

I personally feel the need for enumerated procedures, possibly including mechanics that help to prevent such cases from occuring before hand.

Mike
Title: When You Put It That Way
Post by: Le Joueur on May 01, 2002, 12:33:50 AM
Quote from: Mike HolmesYour system delineates them as well as possible, I think. That's not the problem. But in the midst of play someone is going to make a mistake (we won't even consider the possibility of this happening maliciously, though, any solution that fixes that possibility would be welcome as well). They are going to accidentally trammel another PCs Sine Non Qua. As it stands it seems that the offended player's only recourse is to cry "foul!" Then what? If the players agree that a mistake has been made, then do they reverse the declaration? Or just continue with an admonition not to do it again? And what if they don't agree? Or worse, what if two conditions colide? Is this then adjudicated by the Third Party method that I remember hearing you talk about? What if one player feels that he's being ganged up on?

I personally feel the need for enumerated procedures, possibly including mechanics that help to prevent such cases from occuring before hand.
Mechanics sounded like a good idea until I realized that the ends served by them would be heavily skewed based on which approach you take to the game.  For example, the mistakes involved with playing the Joueur are markedly different than those playing the Auteur.  Worse, erring one way could easily be a result of playing more Self-Consciously with the narrative and corrections would destroy that kind of play for those who desire it.  Since the mechanics of Scattershot are meant to apply all the way across the board and this clearly falls under the umbrella of 'staying focused' on a particular form of play, I'm going to have to stick with it being a Technique.

That being said, you have quite convinced me that even well-seasoned gamers will need Techniques to handle these conflicts, rest assured we will address them in light of your discussion.  Thanks for the insight; I agree this sound most clearly rings through the 'third party referee' stuff as well as the gamemaster stuff.  We must keep in mind how this will apply to the LARP Techniques most assuredly.  Thanks for the direction.

Unfortunately this is not yet the time to delve into the conflict resolution component for I feel that more of the 'tools' that put the conflict 'into the light' need to be expressed.  The same Techniques that would apply to conflict with someone's Sine Qua Non should apply to conflicting with things like Genre Expectations or the agreed upon approach to play.  Once I address those, and some of the other 'foundational' components of the 'Techniques pyramid,' I plan to carefully address this topic.

Your input has been very clear and helpful; thank you very much.  I hope to hear from you on other matters involving Scattershot.

Fang Langford