Calvinball rules

[clehrich]

First, let me second M.J.'s request.  I would very much like to see a specifically pedagogical game like this, and having actually slogged through "Gladiator optimus est, meus gladius acutus" sort of stuff my own self I would be very interested to read it and, who knows, maybe playtest it.

Ars Memorativa is too hard for most nowadays, almost unknown,  and it's effect on learning languages is entirely undocumented, so I deemed it necessary to go for it through games.

Actually this isn't the case.  Matteo Ricci learned a phenomenal amount of Chinese through the ars memorativa [that's Art of Memory, incidentally; read John Crowley's Little, Big for a fictional precis].  Of course, Chinese is a funny case itself, since it has essentially no grammar whatever and everything is memorization of the terms, but still.  And actually, the correlation of the Ars to RPG's fascinates me as an idea (but is a subject for another thread).

If there is interest (for playtesting, even), ...

Consider this a vote of interest.  Take your time!

Chris Lehrich

[taalyn]

As a language geek (Oppin suomea...)

  Shouldn't that be "gladiator optimus sum" (instead of 'est'), since the next phrase translates as "my sword is sharp"?
  Also, Chinese does have grammar - just not inflection. Those are two different things. Saying "wo ba xin xieqi" is just plain wrong, grammatically, as is "wo qu dao ta de jia" - they should be "wo ba xin xiexialai le" (I wrote down the news, or, I wrote a letter) and "wo dao tade jia qu" (I went to his house).

[clehrich]

Shouldn't that be "gladiator optimus sum" (instead of 'est'), since the next phrase translates as "my sword is sharp"?

Yes, it should.  Eero got it right; I'm tired.

Also, Chinese does have grammar - just not inflection. Those are two different things. Saying "wo ba xin xieqi" is just plain wrong, grammatically, as is "wo qu dao ta de jia" - they should be "wo ba xin xiexialai le" (I wrote down the news, or, I wrote a letter) and "wo dao tade jia qu" (I went to his house).

Yes, yes, quite true.  I just meant that at base, Chinese has fantastically simple grammar that can be learned in about 30 minutes, so that you can learn everything else by rote memorization.  And yes, literary Chinese is more complicated, though not by a whole lot.  But we're getting off-topic.  My point was just that I think a language-learning game that constructs sentences and thus transforms the rules as you go is a striking concept, and one that does indeed go well with the art of memory.  But back to Calvinball....

Chris Lehrich

[Ben Lehman]

Also, Chinese does have grammar - just not inflection. Those are two different things. Saying "wo ba xin xieqi" is just plain wrong, grammatically, as is "wo qu dao ta de jia" - they should be "wo ba xin xiexialai le" (I wrote down the news, or, I wrote a letter) and "wo dao tade jia qu" (I went to his house).

Yes, yes, quite true.  I just meant that at base, Chinese has fantastically simple grammar that can be learned in about 30 minutes, so that you can learn everything else by rote memorization.  And yes, literary Chinese is more complicated, though not by a whole lot.

BL>  As someone who is currently struggling with the intricacies of Chinese verb combos, I'd like to say "screw you all."  Chinese does not have *conjugation* but it does have both grammar, inflection, and a form of tense, thank you very much.

  That said, I'm all behind a game is a language learning tool.  Hmm...  I'm going to be living in a house full of Chinese learners next year...

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Now, Chinese Characters... yes... lots of memorization.

[Eero Tuovinen]

As a language geek (Oppin suomea...)

That'd be "opin suomea". The gradation is, from what I hear, one of the harder parts of learning Finnish. For the uninitiated, Finnish has a system of strong and weak gradation of consonants where a word drops or changes consonants when it's inflected. Like "oppia", "to learn", which becomes "opin", "I learn" loses the second 'p'. The rules for this are somewhat complex and don't apply to many foreign words anyway. I couldn't list all the rules right away, as Finnish people learn these instinctively.

Luckily, I (in my teacher persona) abstain from nitpicking when teaching languages. Pure madness to worry about gradation when there's many more important things when striving from functional skill. This is a principle in evidence in those games of mine, as well.

Anyway, my reason for posting was that, as mr. Lehrich said, we should stop this discussion about languages, interesting though it may be. This is a thread about Calvinball.

For the record, I support the claim that Chinese has a syntax ;)

[M. J. Young]

That said, I trust your judgment, mr. Young (I have great respect for your web-pages ;).

I'm pleasantly stunned; I'm pleased you have benefited from them, whichever ones they were.

If I give you the game to read and you think something worthwile would accrue from introducing it to someone, go ahead.

If there is interest (for playtesting, even), I'll translate and expand my notes on the game within the coming months.

I have taken the liberty of mentioning it to my eldest, who is second in facility in Latin in the house (I, alas, am a distant third, learning most of mine as church, medical, and law Latin, and in linguistics), and he says it sounds like something we could very much enjoy playing. So consider us available to playtest as soon as you have something we can read.

I'm in a hurry with other projects right now, but I'll have plenty of time starting in May, so interested people may expect the game in the summer.

I certainly understand time pressures. I shouldn't admit it, but I've finally managed to read through the simulationist and gamist essays, and have the narrativist one sitting on my desk "up next" for my leisure attention (and Chris, you're coming up soon after that). I can certainly be patient.

Regarding the quality of teachers, they vary greatly, as do those in any profession.

In relation to whether they could use a game to teach in school, I'll mention a couple of things that are relevant.

[*]Many high schools in this area have gone to what they call "block scheduling". What that means is that students take four courses, two hours a day, from September through January, and four different courses from February through June (roughly). This means that they are in the classroom for two hours a day, five days a week. I can easily see a teacher dedicating every Friday to playing a game that actually does improve student abilities in this area--and teachers would make the best referees in this regard, as they would know whether the statement was correct.[*]Oddly, at least in New Jersey, a lot of high schools have very active "Latin Clubs", where students who study Latin get together as an extra-curricular activity. They usually have an annual Roman Banquet as a fundraiser, and become involved in a lot of joint activities. The odds seem to me to be pretty good that such a club would get a lot of use out of a game such as you've described.[*]Latin is a rather esoteric subject in some ways; people who don't take it don't understand why anyone would, but people who do tend to be pretty dedicated to learning it. Introducing students to a game that would improve their abilities, through their classroom participation, has a lot of promise.[/list:u]I'll also note that interest in using role playing games in education is on the rise. CARPGa has been making inroads with this just in the past few years, and there's another thread on this forum from someone doing a thesis in the area. So you may be on the cutting edge with this, Eero.

I look forward to seeing it, at your convenience.

--M. J. Young

And of course all languages have syntax. They just approach it differently.

[Ben-Ra]

I hope this isn't terribly OT.  This is my first post here at the Forge.

Anyway, myself and a partner are working on an rpg, and it contains a mechanic/setting element which allows the characters to make changes to the world (and rules, though that wasn't necessarily the original intention).  I admit to not being familiar with Universalis, but my understanding is that the rule-changes are player-based, and thus strictly a metagame mechanic.  As in, the characters themselves aren't aware of these changes.  What do people see as the difference between a 'change-mechanic' that is character-based instead of player-based?  Of course, in a character-based mechanic, the players are still obviously pulling the strings.

Again, sorry if this is OT, if so feel free to move it or whatnot.

[Varis_Rising]

Just thinking about how it works when players can make rules in character and out of character. (I can't talk about Universalis either)

Walt wrote-

One interesting design question here is how to regulate how much specificity from the context of the relevant instance is brought along into new rules. So, if the hero is killed on the second try by being backstabbed by a villain named Clem on a Tuesday under an apple tree, and the group dislikes the outcome, is the new rule "Heroes cannot be killed before the third try," "Heroes cannot be killed on the second try by being backstabbed by villains named Clem on Tuesdays under apple trees," or "Heroes cannot be killed?"

If a player was going to have their character make it so hero killing never happened then they would have a number of possible IC solutions. The characters might choose to go for a baldur-esque invincibility spell. This change, effectively a rule/behavior change, is not an absolute.  There will always(99.99999% of times) be a way around any obstacle in a continuous system and if RPG's reflect this then they become more balanced. A parallel from Calvin ball is

(First rule maker’s intent: Everyone has to cluck like a chicken)
Rule #1: Everyone has to cluck like a chicken.
(second rule makers intent: effectively get around first rule)
Rule #2: Everyone thinks a chicken's cluck is silent

In an RPG this would work differently with character and player being separate, though like Ben pointed out, the player and character are still the same entity.

When a rule change is done out of character then the game universe changes. Instead of players having to worry about how to make sure the hero doesn't die, they know the end result can never happen unless it is defined in "in-game terms," terms which mirror IC solution.