Indie summer!

[JC]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there! This is a nice thread to see.

I'd like to run through your observations and give you some feedback. It's sort of interesting to do it this way, because ordinarily, as moderator, I discourage taking bits and pieces from threads and responding to them in isolation. But since the whole topic is an abstracted overview, it makes sense to break it down this way. So here goes.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

	Logged

[JC]

thanks for the detailed reply

Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 21, 2007, 06:57:11 AM

Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 21, 2007, 06:57:11 AM

	Logged

www.redmourning.com

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Cool! These are good topics to discuss.

You wrote,

what people said to me, espacially with DITV, is "this game makes me use rules at times when I really don't want to be bothered by rules, and just concentrate on the role-playing"

what I really think this means is "the way I usually play is either a/ we decide what happens and then manipulate the system and the dice to accommodate for that, so we don't actually bother with the rules until after the important facts have been established, or b/ the GM just decides what happens, while pretending to use the rules, much to the same effect... that way, I can just role-play (meaning go all Sim), and the rules are never really an issue... the only time the rules are really an issue is when we fall into gamist mode, like during combat scenes"

I see what you mean and have seen/heard this many times. However, it's not Simulationism talking, not necessarily. In my experience, when the person says "so I can just role-play," there is something they can reliably get out of play during those times which the mechanics (as that group applies them, in that game system) interfere with. Whatever the something may be. It can be a Creative Agenda - any of them. It can simply be a preferred range of comfort, such as a minimal to absent chance of losing their character to damage, or any of a thousand techniques.

I wrote about this pretty extensively in the thread [Werewolf] Complete the mission! Realistically! (GN S?), when I was talking about bucket seats. It's a complex thread, but the posts I'm thinking about show up in about the middle of the second page. You'll see what I mean, I think.

I also think we could talk productively about two distinct large-scale approaches to play, including issues of what I called "the murk" last year, and related matters. But that might be getting out of the immediate topics at hand, or maybe I'll wait for a few posts that go over the present issues first.

About the story-as-product vs. story-creation-as-process, that's not just you, it's actually a widespread concern. I tried pretty hard to explain it in the opening sections of my essay, Narrativism: Story Now, in which I related a story which might emerge from play, and demonstrate that it could have arisen from any imaginable play experience, played from any Creative Agenda.

I explained it more recently, and I think pretty well, in my interview with Clyde Rhoer, about 6 or 7 minutes in. The link is Theory From the Closet #004 (warning: the link goes right to the MP3).

Best, Ron

[JC]

what people said to me, espacially with DITV, is \\\"this game makes me use rules at times when I really don\\\'t want to be bothered by rules, and just concentrate on the role-playing\\\"

what I really think this means is \\\"the way I usually play is either a/ we decide what happens and then manipulate the system and the dice to accommodate for that, so we don\\\'t actually bother with the rules until after the important facts have been established, or b/ the GM just decides what happens, while pretending to use the rules, much to the same effect... that way, I can just role-play (meaning go all Sim), and the rules are never really an issue... the only time the rules are really an issue is when we fall into gamist mode, like during combat scenes\\\"

I see what you mean and have seen/heard this many times. However, it\\\'s not Simulationism talking, not necessarily. In my experience, when the person says \\\"so I can just role-play,\\\" there is something they can reliably get out of play during those times which the mechanics (as that group applies them, in that game system) interfere with. Whatever the something may be. It can be a Creative Agenda - any of them. It can simply be a preferred range of comfort, such as a minimal to absent chance of losing their character to damage, or any of a thousand techniques.

I wrote about this pretty extensively in the thread [Werewolf] Complete the mission! Realistically! (GN S?), when I was talking about bucket seats. It\\\'s a complex thread, but the posts I\\\'m thinking about show up in about the middle of the second page. You\\\'ll see what I mean, I think.

OK, I read pages 1 and 2 of the Werewolf thread

I think I understand what you\\\'re saying here in this thread, but I\\\'m not sure

let me try and spell it out, and then you tell me if I\\\'m correct or not, if you like

I understand you\\\'re saying \\\"when your friends tell you they don\\\'t want the rules of DITV to get the way of their role-playing, what they really mean is that they don\\\'t want the rules of DITV to get in the way of the techniques they like, rather than in the way of Sim\\\"

is that what you\\\'re saying?

if it is, I see how this could apply to gamers in general, but I actually think that the friends in question really go for Sim, as I understand it

but maybe I\\\'m not good enough yet at separating the little green platform from the secondary structure

nota: I\\\'m not picking on DITV, it\\\'s just an example

I also think we could talk productively about two distinct large-scale approaches to play, including issues of what I called \\\"the murk\\\" last year, and related matters. But that might be getting out of the immediate topics at hand, or maybe I\\\'ll wait for a few posts that go over the present issues first.

I\\\'m game, but I have no idea what you\\\'re talking about here

About the story-as-product vs. story-creation-as-process, that\\\'s not just you, it\\\'s actually a widespread concern. I tried pretty hard to explain it in the opening sections of my essay, Narrativism: Story Now, in which I related a story which might emerge from play, and demonstrate that it could have arisen from any imaginable play experience, played from any Creative Agenda.

I explained it more recently, and I think pretty well, in my interview with Clyde Rhoer, about 6 or 7 minutes in. The link is Theory From the Closet #004 (warning: the link goes right to the MP3).

I\\\'ve read the essay

I\\\'d read it before, but realize now I hadn\\\'t understood half of it at the time

this point is clear for me now, I think

I just hope I\\\'ll be able to explain it better

and yeah, I\\\'ll listen to the MP3 as soon as I get the chance