Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Mark D. Eddy, June 15, 2002, 10:31:27 AM
Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Mark,Well, the only quibble I have is that a game which reliably produces Coherent play (as I define it), without Drift, is not Incoherent in terms of design.It seems to me that you're labelling any game which isn't One-True-GNS-Mode "incoherent," and that's not how I defined the term.Also, what you're describing has been claimed for a few games, among them Multiverser. To turn to the main commercial examples, though, I think the usual trend for such games is incoherence, meaning that so much subtraction and (often) modification is necessary for enjoyable play that you basically have two or three fuzzy-defined different games smushed together, with the transactions ending up being themselves specialized.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn theory, what you describe is possible. [To return to the issue of actual play for a minute, it seems to be the claim of Robin's Laws that a GM's goal is to manage transactions such that any game is treated as if it were like this.]Best,Ron
Quote from: Ron Edwards- Full-Transitional? (to make use of Fang's excellent use of "Transition")
Quote from: WaltI think the realm of asymmetrical (in the GNS sense) play is fertile and largely unexplored. I'm looking at GNS as a potential tool for characterizing the asymmetry. There are six asymmetrical GM-player combinations before even considering drift, transition, and variant styles within modes. GNS meets transactions? ...In a transactional model asymmetry fuels transactions, and symmetry can stall them. If everyone in the cafe wants to recite poetry and no one wants to listen to poetry, no one's going to be very happy, unless they break the symmetry by dividing things up to create local asymmetries that get things moving again.
Quote from: wfreitagHi folks,It sounds to me like what Mark is describing and we're groping for a term for (non-coherence? rapid-fire-transition?) is very similar if not identical to what I described as "asymmetrical play" in the "Narrativism hold the Premise" thread. That thread is here, but since there's a lot of other stuff going on there, allow me to quote myself from the relevant post:
Quote from: wfreitagI was mostly thinking in terms of straightforward and time-stable combinations like "simulationist GM, narrativist players," but the poetry cafe analogy also suggests the time element in the form of either cyclical asymmetry (a participant prioritizes one goal at some times, another at others, not haphazardly but in an organized way that serves a purpose), or useful asymmetry deliberately created by subdividing time (everyone shares S and N goals, but they deliberately take turns prioritizing one or the other while others do the opposite). For any given combination, we should ask: what is necessary (in terms of social contract, expectations, and technique) for this combination to be functional?
Quote from: wfreitagUm, I rather ran on there. I guess I should take a breath and get a reality check from Mark. I want to join Mark's topic, not hijack it. Am I on the right wavelength to continue on this thread, or should I take some of these ideas to a new thread?- Walt
Quote from: Mark D. EddyNow, here's the fun part: how do we work up a system that allows these sorts of transactions to occur, if not effortlessly, with the least amount of stress to the system?