Where can you talk about "Objective" and "Sub

[Callan S.]

As I said in the original 20x20 Room thread, I disagree that objective rules are inherently clearer.
*snip*
My point is just that I don't think there is a simple optimization here.  Objective interpretation is often clearer -- but depending on the people, I do think there are many times when a subjective explanation is clearer to them.

I agree. But just like the computer code, the primary goal is to set concrete steps to follow. And by their having a concrete state, others can follow them at the same time as you, with you (and not split off into a similar but different games).

It may sound counter intuitive, but the primary goal for this is not to be easy for one individual to understand. Sounds odd, eh?

Take threads on the forge for example. Theres resistance to the use of jargon. "Why can't you just say something that's easy to understand instead of using all these unfamiliar words?" or "Why can't I just use a word my way, rather than the way the forge uses that word?".

There's difficulty in understanding something like this, because it's not supposed to be understood by just one person alone. Anyway, if I seemed to be arguing these types of rules are more clear, it wasn't my intent. Indeed, SISA rules seem far clearer...I've seen plenty of people on the palladium boards who say they understood a particular rule immediately. Usually several people in the same thread...but not actually sharing that same immediate understanding between them. When you don't have to work to understand a rule, it'll seem clearer.

[Jasper Polane]

Without that, no one else has an objective measure of what you've contributed. When given the opportunity to give a point, by assessing that opportunity and what you did with it, I can triangulate an understanding of that decision. With SISA I've only got one point to work with "Something happened and it could have happened at any time". Triangulation isn't possible.

Do you agree that you need to give others tools so they can understand you, if you want to do work as a group with them? Or do you think understanding just comes?

I may give you a token when your character helps my character face his inner demons. If I give you a token, I clearly communicate: You helped me face my inner demons, I think this deserves a token. How is this not group play? To my mind, communicating with the group IS working with them.

--Jasper

[Callan S.]

"Dude, why didn't you give me a token? When Michael took away your drink, you gave him one."
"Then I was drinking away my guilt over my wife's death. Now I'm, y'know, just enjoying my drink."

If your playing from the one set of rules, why would someone have to ask that?

The first dude from your example here did what he thought he needed to do to get that point. But there hadn't been any clear communication.

Don't get me wrong, you can go on and talk with the guy, tell him what it takes to get a point (like in the example). But that's you guys at the table working out rules together as best you can.

How have the rules in the book aided that exploration?

They didn't. They set up something to explore, then left you to your own devices, even as they appear to be some sort of resolution mechanic.

SISA rules are not something you conclude an exploration with...they seed exploration. For example, if the rule is:

"When it would seems dramatically right to do so, the GM may declare the princess is about to be kidnapped (taking away their safe princess token)"
This isn't a resolution, it's the begining of an exploration. "Why is she vulnerable to kidnapping now? What happened to set that off?"

"When a player helps another character face their inner demons that character's player may award them a Squeegee Token."

In just the same way this isn't a resolution, it's the begining of an exploration. "Why did he give that point, and how do I get one? What happend to get that handed out?"

Both prompt you to explore why that happened, even if your just making up a conclusion all on your own.

Now let's look at this one:
"When a players happyness score reaches 5, they may give another player (who they think helped them) a token"

There's no exploration here. You already know why the dude is handing out a token at all, it's because he has five points of happyness. And given that he can only hand out that token when he reaches five, there is some strategic reason for doing so. You might not know what his strategy is, you might even want to find out what it is, but you don't need to find it out to continue play. You don't need to explore this, because there's nothing really left to explore about it.


To tie this in with playing as a group; SISA rules don't help everyone play the same game...they instead provoke everyone to explore what game other people are playing. "Dude, why didn't you give me a token?" stands for "What game are you playing/what rules are you using for when you hand out this point?"

If you want play to revolve around that real life exploration rather than SIS exploration, then cool. Indeed, lots of people do enjoy working out social contract between them, and such a design facilitates this. But don't try and pass this off as a resolution mechanic. Otherwise system does matter and your using the wrong system/tool for the job.