News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Gamism: Exploration of conflict & Address of conflict

Started by Callan S., July 26, 2005, 12:50:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TonyLB

Quote from: Callan S. on August 13, 2005, 02:05:27 AM
The middle ground is not about control at all.  It's that everyone else at the table don't have to agree with the address, just absorb the address. That's it.

That's not the middle ground.  It's the opposite extreme.

You're proposing that one point of view is "Someone else has complete control over whether address is accepted or not."  Granted.  Common.

You're further proposing another point of view, which is "Nobody else should have any control over whether address is accepted or not."  Granted.  Workable, if less common.

I am proposing a third point of view, which is "Everybody can have some control over whether address is accepted or not."  Make sense?
Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum

Callan S.

Do you mean the third view can and is used in play?

I'll have to ask a question to answer it. Can and is "Everybody can have some control over whether address is accepted or not." used in narrativist play?

If we take it that gamist address of challenge mirrors narrativist address of premise, then the answer to the above question also applies to gamism. Currently my own answer to the above question is that it will not lead to healthy narrativist play.
Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>

TonyLB

Yes, everyone can have some control over whether an address of premise is accepted or not.  I have seen this lead to healthy narrativist play.
Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum

Callan S.

Okay, gotcha. Did the healthy play involve questioning the realism of a players address, to determine if it's accepted "No, your guys a priest and priests never do that" or "That's completely against how you've played Jake all this time!" or "I'm the GM and I think it'd be more realistic if Jake did (insert GM's own address of premise for Jake, here)"

Or is it more along the lines of "Ummm, yeah, but remember this guy scarred your sisters face! Your going to just let him walk away?" or even stronger "Dude, he killed a whole town! My PC Jake would never let him live! What is up with your guy!? Come on, explain again how he could let him live given these facts!". Or perhaps like "Well, that was interesting, but what if the bad guy turned out to be a woman...and pregnant? Now what?"

Also I'd like to pin how were using the word 'accepted'. When I've used it here I mean that it is kept as part of the games recorded structure. Like if you were writing down each players input into the game, 'accepted' means that it stays on the record. Not accepted would mean it would be struck from the record.

Basically that means getting crediblity for the input. But I really want to keep seperate the ideas of crediblity and peer evaluation. In that getting credibility for you own input doesn't mean others have chosen to give it positive peer evaluation/chosen to agree with it. And in the same way, if you give someone else credibility for their input, it doesn't mean you've also granted them possitive peer evaluation/agreed with them. Getting crediblity does not mean automatic success at the peer evaluation level.

You can probably see I'm leading heavily here; in seperating cred from positive peer evaluation, a challenge is created.
Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>

TonyLB

I don't do any of that stuff in your first few paragraphs any more.  Seriously.  Why debate what "should" happen?  Go to the rules system and figure out what does happen.

Things go like this:  "I will prove my hero's worth by saving Penny Stilton from the vile Doctor Mold's evil cheese-mold death-trap!"  "Wow!  That would be really cool!  But y'know what?  No.  You don't.  Gamma Jack flies in and saves her instead, shaming you utterly, in the following manner.  Why?  Because I've got the resources, the dice are favoring me, and I like my own idea better than yours."

I don't think this addresses your issues of Credibility vs. Peer review, and I'm sorry about that.  I get the feeling that we're coming at this from distinct, but not irreconcilabe, angles.  That makes it hard for me to know how to map my real-life experiences to the theory constructs in a way that will communicate the same thing to both of us.  I'm hoping that after a bit more talking we'll be able to address those issues without confusion.
Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum

Ron Edwards

I'm callin' it, guys. This topic is in serious need of an actual play context. Go post there and link back to this one to provide background.

Best,
Ron