Shadows and aquariums

[apparition13]

Actual play, huh.  Well, let's see...

Started playing:  1979.
Played regularly until:  1984
Played irregularly until:  1989?
Haven't played since.

So what the heck am I doing here?

I stopped playing, but I never stopped buying or reading RPGs.  I'd need a shelf 20 to 25 feet long just to store them all, and given the volume of novel stuff coming out now my consumption hasn't exactly slowed.  I like seeing what different designers come up with,  particularly in regards to mechanics and settings.  I have also continued to tinker with mechanics and settings of my own.  Were I to be given some anti-procrastination medication I might even be able to finish something someday.   Given the preceding, my recent purchase of a computer (just joined the 20th century, 21st will have to wait for a blog), and an abiding interest in things theoretical  my interest in the proceedings here and at similar sites is hardly surprising.  Foregone conclusion, you might say.  

So why am I posting to actual play instead of one of the theory or design forums where my primary interests are?

Wasn't really planning on it, but given the recent exchange in this topic
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12756&highlight=  I thought it prudent to post something here.  So, a long, long time ago  in a roleplaying universe far, far away... my favorite character.  

I generally played 2-3 times a week;  a late night/early morning (start at 8-10 and go 'til 4-6) game and a weekend afternoon game that I usually GM'd and sometimes a one on one during the week with another player who sometimes GM'd.  The game system was ostensibly AD&D, modified by some Dragon articles, but for this character it really didn't matter.  

For those who are interested, stats were str 21, con 20, dex 11, chr 10, wis 8 and int, oh about 4.  I might occasionally roll stats for inspiration (which, other than strength and con, had more than a little to do with Brighteyes stats) but when it came time for chargen I generally just assigned stats to fit my concept.  In this case it was Kars Brighteyes (with Giantfriend earned later), a young, 8' tall barbarian berserker with snow white hair and beard and crystal clear bright blue eyes.  The name was taken from the novel Eric Brighteyes  by H. Rider. Haggard, though other than being Norse Kars had nothing to do with the Brighteyes from the book.  The real key to his personality, and the inspiration for the character, was the 4 intelligence.  That was what made the character for me:  a friendly, enthusiastic, energetic, bubbly five year old who would throw a major tantrum if he or his friends were faced with violence, in the body of a mini-frost giant.  So that's chaotic-good then, right?  

Okay, so how to get the show on the road.  Why would he leave his home, friends and family?  Well, turned out a ship crewed by "those short people with the funny eyes" (Japanese, though I don't know if they existed in the campaign world before that moment) had visited the village and Kars became fascinated with them and, after they left, resolved to go and find them.  He packed up his sled, hooked up his sled dogs (he started with 15 or so, the alpha male and female of whom had 8 or 9 ints, which gave the GM a way to keep an eye on him, but more were born on the journey), waved bye-bye to everyone and set off... in a southerly direction.  

GM threw a couple combats at me, but while they were okay (Look!  A winter wolf cloak!), something was missing.  It wasn't until the following encounter that we figured out how to play.

Brighteyes and pack were in snow covered mountains when they crested a hill and saw before them a valley.  A green, lush, warm, summer-in-the-midst-of-winter valley.  Dead stop.  The sled wasn't going to make it through that, no snow.  I told the GM Kars was going to sit down (pose of... the thinker) until he could come up with the idea "wheels".  I figured it might take a while.

A couple hours passed, and then I (see, immersion) heard a hello from behind.  I turned my head, and there was a man standing there.  Dressed all in black robes.  With black hair (and maybe beard).  Holding a black staff.  With a fist-sized ruby growing out of the top (or maybe the staff was growing out of the ruby, hard to tell).  "What are you doing?" he said.  "Well," said I, "I saw these short people with funny eyes and they were really nice to I decided to go find them so I got my sled and my dogs, this is Fang, isn't he nice? and we started going... and there were these winter wolves... and then we got here and there's no snow and the sled won't go where there's no snow so I'was trying to think of a way to get through the valley and then you said hello, what are you doing and I told you."  That's not word for word, for one thing the  ... were filled in, but its pretty close.  "Oh, you don't want to go down there" he said.  "Why not?"  He leaned in and whispered "because that's the valley of shadow."  Eyes wide, I leaned in asked... "who's Shadow."  Pause.  I think I surprised the GM, he seemed to need a couple seconds to respond.  "Why, I'm Shadow" said the man.  

Now what.  As a player, black robes, danged impressive looking staff and funky weather imply really powerful wizard.  All of the above plus the name "Shadow"  could lead one to infer Eeevil wizard.   To an eight foot tall five year old with the intelligence of an oak... I stood up, stuck out my had and said "Pleased to meet you mister Shadow.  I'm Kars Brighteyes Giantfriend." He was a little taken aback, but recovered to shake Kars's hand and invited him to his home.  I seem to recall floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall glass windows and (my comment:  "you know, I have a 4 intelligence.  I don't get to save vs. illusions.") mid-air, illusory aquariums.  Kars would stick his head into the "water", shake his head around blowing bubbles at the "fish" and pull out soaking wet and laughing.  We hung out for awhile, then off I went again. A session or two later the  GM  arranged some Dwarves, who wound up giving Brighteyes an enchanted sled, and that solved the no snow problem.

I believe the GM left town not too long after that, and I never played Brighteyes again;  not that I played him more than half a dozen times anyway.  He was my favorite character, and the one I enjoyed playing the most, but he was also the most difficult character I ever ran.  I had to be in exactly the right mood to be able to get into the frame of mind I needed to be in to "channel" him.  There were occasions where we had planned on running Brighteyes, but I wound up playing another character or even GMing because I wasn't able to get to that place of childlike wonder that was vital to our experience of the character.  

I think you can see what I meant by the rules not mattering in this case.  They kind of fell by the wayside as, with the exception of the rare combat,  we went verbal, riffing off each other as we went.  Lots of actor stance (the "E" thing) with some author and director thrown in on my part and co-conspiring, cooperative and supportive rather than impartial or competive GMing on his part.  

Well, that's it for now.  If you have any comments, feel free to respond.  Otherwise, consider this my hello.

[Mike Holmes]

I think you can see what I meant by the rules not mattering in this case. They kind of fell by the wayside as, with the exception of the rare combat, we went verbal, riffing off each other as we went. Lots of actor stance (the "E" thing) with some author and director thrown in on my part and co-conspiring, cooperative and supportive rather than impartial or competive GMing on his part.

Welcome. What's your name? Can you give us at least a vague idea of where this all happened? I'm trying to get some context for the events. Many believe that the context is actually more important than the events themselves, in terms of trying to get a hold of what's going on in play.


Before someone else gets to come in and be pedantic, I'll steal the opportunity. ;-)

I can see what you mean by the rules not mattering. But a lot of the theory around here is based on an idea that the statement that the rules don't matter is never correct. See the "System Does Matter" essay in the page linked to by the "Articles" link above.

So that means that somebody's wrong here, right? Well, no, not really. It's a matter of what you mean when you say that the rules didn't matter in this case. From the "System Does Matter" perspective, the rules mattered a lot. That is, they were so unlinked to what you were doing that they had no impact at all. The lack of an effect is an effect, IOW. System Does Matter, in fact, exists precisely because players dissatisfied with the fact that their system does nothing for their style of play, or in fact actually inhibits their style of play (by, perhaps, causing other participants to militate against it), these players could do better with a system that supported their desired sort of play.

That is, what if you'd been playing a system that actually helped get you to that childlike state of mind? Wouldn't that have been superior to the system in question? I'm not sure if such a system exists, but do you see my point? System always matters, because it's always better or worse for what you're trying to do.

Do you see the perspective we have here? It's an important one, because, sans this perspective, if we buy that System Doesn't Matter, then how does one proceed to make a better game? If the system doesn't matter, then why not simply use one of the multitudinous games already on your shelf? Why buy more (setting material aside)?

Make sense?

Mike

[apparition13]

I said:

I think you can see what I meant by the rules not mattering in this case. They kind of fell by the wayside as, with the exception of the rare combat, we went verbal, riffing off each other as we went.

Mike Holmes replied:

I can see what you mean by the rules not mattering. But a lot of the theory around here is based on an idea that the statement that the rules don't matter is never correct.

Okay, allow me to be more precise.  The rules (modified AD&D) became irrelevant once we figured out that for this character, and this character only, outside of the rare combat, a completely freeform approach was the most effective method of achieving what we wanted, namely to see what the heck Brighteyes would do next.  "Riffing off each other as we went" was our mechanic of choice.  He would come up with something, I'd respond and a creative spiral might start that would take up somewhere we wanted to go.  You could look at it and say we were trying to out-do each other, but you would be wrong.  It was a cooperative venture attempting to pull the character into our game reality.  In a sense, it may be more accurate to say both the GM and I were engaged in playing a game of Brighteyes.   In that case,  the system would have been  freeform Brighteyes with AD&D for the rare combat, in which case our system was ideal for our game.

Do you see the perspective we have here? It's an important one, because, sans this perspective, if we buy that System Doesn't Matter, then how does one proceed to make a better game?

Of course I see this perspective.  It was never my claim that System, (capitalized) doesn't matter but only that  this system (lowercase) didn't matter in this case because we dropped it and freeformed for this character.

I don't know if I've cleared things up any or not, but frankly if I'd thought it would be an issue I'd have formulated things otherwise.  I never saw the statement that system didn't matter as anything but peripheral.  On the other hand, I wouldn't have come up with the idea that our system was the character, which tickles me no end,  without Mike's post, so well done.  

Any other comments, feel free to riff.

(p.s.  Just saw a link to Mike's 3D model;  what we were doing would be ID, immersion goal with decentralized control, under his classification.  Of course freeform isn't enough of a system to be a system, so it wouldn't qualify as an example of a system with ID as a design goal either.)

[Mike Holmes]

I know you didn't mean that "system doesn't matter" per the essay meaning. Hence why I said that I could see what you meant. That is, you're coming in with a common perspective on some things here. Which is fine, nobody expects otherwise. My point was to sorta break you in on how the language here is probably somewhat different from what you're used to.

For another example, you note that "freeform" isn't enough of a system to count as a system. Again, I get what you're saying entirely. But in the dialectic we use here, there's something called the "Lumpley Principle" that speaks to what system might mean. And from that POV, freeform is just another system. That is, an agreed to means to have things happen in what we refer to as the "Shared Imagined Space."

Another difference in how we'd discuss your play here is that we'd note that you were playing heavily "drifted" D&D. Meaning that it was pretty far from the rules as they're written. To fit this into the local perspective, we'd say that you'd drifted D&D to create a new system that supported the sort of play that you were interested in seeing. Not so much that you were ignoring playing the D&D rules that you had, but that you were playing by a set of rules that you'd decided were better for what you wanted to see.

One thing about this that would be interesting to discuss would be what sort of things would trigger going from the "playing D&D" part of the system, to the "freeform" part of the system. Was it just obvious to everyone? If so, why? If not, what behavior happened that would indicated when the switch occured.

Another possible talking point: have you considered that there might be other systems besides the "D&D shifting to freeform" method you were using that might have been even more supportive? From another POV, do you think that it would be impossible for anything but freeform to support the sort of play that you were doing when in the freeform parts of the game?

One of the reasons that the dialectic occurs as it does here is to point out that, in fact, play of the sort that you're looking at can be supported by mechanics. That is, System Does Matter exists in part because people have clamied that no system can do what freeform does in these circumstances - that in these cases you "just play" and the system doesn't matter. We tend to look at this statement critically, because it turns out that there are things one can do to promote this sort of play - or any other.

Again, none of this is saying that your perspectives are incorrect, I do see what you're saying. What I'm trying to do is to give you an idea of how we see the same issues.

I really like your observation about the character as the game or system. Can you expand on what you mean there? How was it that the character "informed" you all as to how to play?

Mike

[apparition13]

For another example, you note that "freeform" isn't enough of a system to count as a system. Again, I get what you're saying entirely. But in the dialectic we use here, there's something called the "Lumpley Principle" that speaks to what system might mean. And from that POV, freeform is just another system. That is, an agreed to means to have things happen in what we refer to as the "Shared Imagined Space."

Which is where this observation, which was triggered by your previous comments as I was writing my reply, comes in:

In that case, the system would have been freeform Brighteyes with AD&D for the rare combat, in which case our system was ideal for our game

.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Another difference in how we'd discuss your play here is that we'd note that you were playing heavily "drifted" D&D. Meaning that it was pretty far from the rules as they're written. To fit this into the local perspective, we'd say that you'd drifted D&D to create a new system that supported the sort of play that you were interested in seeing.

Out of curiosity, at what point would "drifted D&D", or for that matter drifted anything,  become a new system?

Not so much that you were ignoring playing the D&D rules that you had, but that you were playing by a set of rules that you'd decided were better for what you wanted to see.  One thing about this that would be interesting to discuss would be what sort of things would trigger going from the "playing D&D" part of the system, to the "freeform" part of the system. Was it just obvious to everyone? If so, why? If not, what behavior happened that would indicated when the switch occurred.

In this case, everyone was two, myself and the GM.  The trigger was the realization that the combat monster I'd created was most enjoyable in social interactions, and D&D didn't support those.  Once we both came to this realization, namely that both the GM and I enjoyed seeing what Brighteyes would do in a social situation/encounter more than any other kind of situation/encounter, we spontaneously shifted.  This wasn't a subconscious decision, but it wasn't voiced or discussed either.  In fact, I can't say for certain that the GM would agree with anything I just said, though I suspect he would.

Another possible talking point: have you considered that there might be other systems besides the "D&D shifting to freeform" method you were using that might have been even more supportive? From another POV, do you think that it would be impossible for anything but freeform to support the sort of play that you were doing when in the freeform parts of the game?

At the time, 1983/4, I wasn't aware of any.  I suppose you could say the freeform we were doing was actually a rules-light, and light-hearted, drama resolution mechanic.  My intuition is that any more structure would have been too intrusive to the SIS.

One of the reasons that the dialectic occurs as it does here is to point out that, in fact, play of the sort that you're looking at can be supported by mechanics. That is, System Does Matter exists in part because people have claimed that no system can do what freeform does in these circumstances - that in these cases you "just play" and the system doesn't matter. We tend to look at this statement critically, because it turns out that there are things one can do to promote this sort of play - or any other.

Examples?  Are you aware of any system that would support this style of play?

I really like your observation about the character as the game or system. Can you expand on what you mean there? How was it that the character "informed" you all as to how to play?

Character=game...  The character of Brighteyes will be the filter through which exploration, by both the GM and myself,  will occur?  Premise, in the original sense of "why play" would be what will the character do?  By the way, is there a new term for the old sense of premise?  It seems a useful concept to me.
 
Character=system=lumpley principle... Events will be shaped to fit the character?  For example, the events of the "Valley of Shadow" began with a challenge that didn't fit the character;  he's not smart enough to think his way out.  I was prepared to turn around and try another route, but by sitting and thinking I was hoping the GM would modify the situation to something more appropriate to the character.  He introduced a character, named the valley and, when I surprised him by misinterpreting Valley of (containing?) Shadow as valley belonging to Shadow he adjusted on the fly and integrated my ad-lib by naming the NPC and introducing him to my character.   This final adjustment turned the situation into one that Brighteyes could meaningfully respond to.  Writing this leads me to wonder though;  which of us was actually GMing?  I was playing the character, he was playing the world, but if the world changes to fit the character is the character the setting and the world the character?  

Finally, do you think there is any validity to classifying this as ID, immersion goal with distributed control?

[Mike Holmes]

Out of curiosity, at what point would "drifted D&D", or for that matter drifted anything,  become a new system?

Pretty much at the point at which the game was changed to support the differing mode. In fact, some would say at the first change (meaning that few people play D&D without drifting). There are grey areas that have to do with decisions regarding things that the rules themselves are grey on.

In this case, everyone was two, myself and the GM.  The trigger was the realization that the combat monster I'd created was most enjoyable in social interactions, and D&D didn't support those.  Once we both came to this realization, namely that both the GM and I enjoyed seeing what Brighteyes would do in a social situation/encounter more than any other kind of situation/encounter, we spontaneously shifted.  This wasn't a subconscious decision, but it wasn't voiced or discussed either.  In fact, I can't say for certain that the GM would agree with anything I just said, though I suspect he would.

Sounds like someone "started" it, as is usually the case in non-verbal situations (and even in verbal). So did you start playing the character a certain way first, or did he just start presenting differently? Or did you sorta slide into it over time, making it a sorta chicken/egg situation?

At the time, 1983/4, I wasn't aware of any.  I suppose you could say the freeform we were doing was actually a rules-light, and light-hearted, drama resolution mechanic.  My intuition is that any more structure would have been too intrusive to the SIS.

There weren't any games at that time, no. But what do you think now? Could a game be created that wasn't too intrusive?

Examples?  Are you aware of any system that would support this style of play?

Well, I'm not trying to create a contradiction here - there is no mechanical system that's also freeform per se, no. So perhaps not. It depends on how broad your requirements really are. Some games that seem to me to be close to your style, and so might fit, would be My Life With Master (your character reminds me of a minion, in fact), Inspectres, Dust Devils, and Trollbabe.

Check out The Pool, if you haven't already, and tell me what you think.
http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html
It's free, a quick read, and might be interesting to discuss. It's also possible that none of these games might be at all interesting to you - really don't know a lot of things about the style at this point.

Character=game...  The character of Brighteyes will be the filter through which exploration, by both the GM and myself,  will occur?  Premise, in the original sense of "why play" would be what will the character do?  By the way, is there a new term for the old sense of premise?  It seems a useful concept to me.

Heh, I've always lobbied for one. But I get what you're saying anyhow.
 

Character=system=lumpley principle... Events will be shaped to fit the character?  For example, the events of the "Valley of Shadow" began with a challenge that didn't fit the character;  he's not smart enough to think his way out.  I was prepared to turn around and try another route, but by sitting and thinking I was hoping the GM would modify the situation to something more appropriate to the character.  He introduced a character, named the valley and, when I surprised him by misinterpreting Valley of (containing?) Shadow as valley belonging to Shadow he adjusted on the fly and integrated my ad-lib by naming the NPC and introducing him to my character.   This final adjustment turned the situation into one that Brighteyes could meaningfully respond to.  Writing this leads me to wonder though;  which of us was actually GMing?  I was playing the character, he was playing the world, but if the world changes to fit the character is the character the setting and the world the character?  

Interesting. Shades of MJ's insanity rules from Multiverser. That is, reality being presented as the character's perceptions. A few other game systems mandate this as well.

Finally, do you think there is any validity to classifying this as ID, immersion goal with distributed control?

Absolutely. This form I think has a lot more on the techniques level that make it a specifically interesting and more precise form of play, but as a category, that seems to fit.

Mike

[apparition13]

I was about to call it on the thread, but I'm curious...

[quote="Mike Holmes] your character reminds me of a minion, in fact, [/quote]

in what way?

[Mike Holmes]

Well, the classic minion is Frankenstein's monster (the movie one, admittedly). Problematic in the intelligence department and social skills, frighteningly strong and dangerous, not really bad, but definitely sees the world in a childlike way that causes him to be dangerous when he doesn't understand it.

All he'd need is someone to abuse his lack of intelligence and prey on his ego, and he'd fit perfectly as a minion. In which case the system would promote looking at themes of that sort.

That's not to say that you'd be interested in doing that with that character, BTW, just that it strikes me that it'd work. All of the games that I mentioned have specific angles that might not work precisely for Brighteyes. But generally I think they support looking at some of the issues in question.

Now, what they might not do well, is support the "immersion" qualities. But that's a highly problematic term, anyhow as to what it means precisely. The Elayjatists (sp?) would say that rules should be kept to a minimum in these cases, to keep distractions from that immersive quality to a minimum. You might want to look at some of their thoughts on how to run things. Do any LARPing?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Whoa, thread closing? I wanted to chime in, based on another angle of discussion entirely.

App, one thing that struck me about your account of play is that you didn't get to play the character very much. Half a dozen sessions, max? Given the pace of most play from Back in the Day (as I recall), that's not a whole lot of ... well, realization of the character in the classic sense of the term.

When I consider that by System, I like to think in terms of reward cycles, with each cycle containing a great deal of resolution and modification of the character ... well, I suggest that one of the reasons this character has remained bright in your mind all this time is that you didn't get to play him, not fully. He remains evergreen as potential play rather than an example of play.

If this idea doesn't seem completely out to lunch for you, and I'd rather check that before going on, there are some implications and consequences that follow from it.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

I suggest that one of the reasons this character has remained bright in your mind all this time is that you didn't get to play him, not fully. He remains evergreen as potential play rather than an example of play.

The James Dean Effect.

Paul

[apparition13]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Problematic in the intelligence department and social skills, frighteningly strong and dangerous, not really bad, but definitely sees the world in a childlike way that causes him to be dangerous when he doesn't understand it

.

Don't really see it.  He was only dangerous when physically attacked (he never lashed out in anger/frustration) and, though his Charisma didn't reflect it, in play his naive charm is what got him through.  Low Leadership but really high Fellowship, to borrow terms from other games.  On the other hand...

Ron Edwards:

I suggest that one of the reasons this character has remained bright in your mind all this time is that you didn't get to play him, not fully. He remains evergreen as potential play rather than an example of play.

and Paul Czege:

The James Dean Effect.

for the lovelorn stone golem who had killed his master (for threatening the woman  who had awakened whatever soul a golem might have and had then disappeared), and whom I never really had a chance to play, absolutely.  That's a character I wouldn't mind another crack at.   Brighteyes though,  it's the clarity of the feeling of being him and the "perfect moment" that the Shadow encounter became that keeps things vivid.  There are plenty of other moments that are just as vivid, this is simply the strongest of the role-playing ones.  Do I wonder what might have been?  Sure, but there's no real sense of unfulfilled potential.  Even with only a half a dozen sessions I feel confident saying I never inhabited a character as completely, or fulfilled potential as fully, as I did this one.  So, maybe the "James Dean effect" after all, but in the after-image rather than what-might-have-been sense.

Mike:  No, no LARPing.  There could be plenty of movement and acting out of actions and so forth while I was GMing, but that's as far as it went.

Finally,

Ron Edwards wrote:

I like to think in terms of reward cycles, with each cycle containing a great deal of resolution and modification of the character...

I'm not sure this is always appropriate.  There is a tradition, particularly in episodic television but certainly in other media as well, of the wandering hero who leaves change in his wake and then rides off into the sunset  seeming unaffected himself.  Whether this appeals to someone or not seems a CA question.  I certainly have no objection, and think it a fairly accurate description of what happened with Brighteyes.  If you meant not character developement (psychological) but rather character advancement, I'm still not sure sure it's always important.  It's certainly the default condition in role-playing games, but since the idea of playing a fully developed character appeals to me and play-balance has never been a bugaboo of mine I could sometimes live without it.


***********

She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
"I thought you'd never say hello," she said
"You look like the silent type."
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century.
And every one of them words rang true
And glowed like burnin' coal
Pourin' off of every page
Like it was written in my soul from me to you,
Tangled up in blue.

Artist:  Bob Dylan
Song:  Tangled Up In Blue
Performance:  (though I certainly like Dylan's as well) The Indigo Girls
Album:  1200 Curfews (live album)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In the interest of clarity, my point refers to modification of any kind, whether psychological or even merely of making the character more vivid. Improvement of scores is only one fairly tiny version of this sort of modification, given far too much weight by gaming culture, as I'm pretty sure you'll agree.

The above is not an argumentative point for you to cope with, but rather a clarification of my earlier post, for anyone who's interested.

Best,
Ron