[Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show

[Frank Tarcikowski]

i]immediate<

[Valamir]

Frank, let me see if I'm following this correctly.

There are some games that give definitive rules on where-the-buck-stops, who-has-the-ball, however-we-want-to-phrase-it; and other games that don't.

1) Games that have such rules allow play to progress mechanically forward with the rules sytem being being engaged to resolve stuff in the fiction, even when all of the players are not completely engaged with that fiction.  They permit people to introduce elements into the SIS, because they have the authority to do so, even if those elements don't stem naturally or causally from previously established fiction (or reasonable conjecture about the fiction).

2) Games that don't have such rules don't allow play to progress mechanically forward in this way, because since no one has the authority to just introduce smoothing elements into the SIS, the group as a whole has to remain engaged with and fully utilizing the SIS or the game just mechanically...stops.  Thus, when the game is functioning, all players are engaged with the SIS in a way you find very enjoyable.

Is that the distinction you're drawing?

If so its one I completely understand, but I'm a bit nervous that definitive procedural rules might be being held to blame for what is essentially just lax / sloppy / poor play. 

In #1 type games the definitive procedures allow the games to progress even when the player's aren't engaged and playing well, which I consider to be a feature, not a bug.  In contrast #2 type games just tend to crash and burn when player's aren't engaged and playing well.

What I'm seeing is a description of some #2 type play where everyone was playing well being compared to some #1 type play where the group was being a bit lazy (or perhaps just overexcited by The New and plunging forward too eagerly).  Of course the former is going to deliver a better more fulfilling time than the latter.

I think a truer comparison would be some #2 type play experience you had where everyone was NOT playing well.  and whether that experience was still better than the lackluster #1 type play experience.

I suspect what you'll find is that both types of play bring the awesome when people are all firing together, but when the people are not all firing together, #1 type play at least works and provides entertainment (even if not the best time ever) while #2 type play produces much less enjoyable "bad" experiences.  i.e. Less than great #1 type play will generally be more fun then less than great #2 type play, although both will be less enjoyable than great play of either type.

Am I in the ball park?

[Callan S.]

I think, and I may be wrong, Frank might see that crashing and burning in #2 as a feature and not a bug, as well. Either your fully engaging and investing in the SIS, or your not playing at all (crashed and burned) - no inbetween. The SIS only ever gets high levels of engagement and investment - it never gets lacklustre levels. It's a feature that it only gets high levels, or play isn't happening at all. This is, as said, a heavy priority on the SIS, perhaps like an artist might heavily prioritize the creation of their artwork over all other things at that time - either that, or they stop creating completely. The art never compromises for anything else.

Or am I way off, Frank? Hope I'm near the target, anyway!


For my own preferences, I'm strongly inclined towards Ralph's #1. Though I wouldn't call it sloppy, poor or lazy to not invest on the SIS. Despite how much causality and 'Of course X would happen!', in all the AP accounts I've seen how the SIS grows is hardly a scientific progression. It's always artistic - an act of artistic creation, no matter how much someone asserts 'Of course X event would happen next!' as if it were a scientific principle (and I would quickly compare this assertion to 'Of course my character X does so and so next!' - which is also clearly an artistic expression on the speakers part, no matter how certain they are the character would do that).

If someone isn't inclined to make an artistic expression, either in general, or at the current moment, I wouldn't call that poor or sloppy. They're just not inclined towards doing art. For the person who doesn't care to at the moment, the clear procedures are great, because there's nothing worse (in my mind) than "Be creative right now!". Maybe latter on they will spark up, and that's great! And for the person who doesn't care about doing art in general, well, their just not interested in the artistic endevour. It's a bit sad, but that's people! And probably roleplay is more vulnerable to this since with music bands, the guys have practiced using musical instruments before being invited into the band. So clearly they are interested in musical art (even if their crap at it, they are interested in artistic expression, which is the main thing). With roleplay you might invite someone and find they have no interest in using an artistic 'instrument', only once play has commenced. A bit like inviting someone into a band and then they just stand there, arms folded, not touching an instrument in front of them. To be honest I think calling it poor or sloppy might be a hold over from playing in #2 games, since I'd also say most traditional RPG's, especially early D&D, were procedurally (ie, the lack of it) squarely in #2 territory. And we all played them, alot. But that's alot of conjecture and assertion on my part

[Frank Tarcikowski]

i]especially<is tempting to no longer bother with situational details once you get really excited about the larger plot arc.

On the other hand, while your #2 type procedures are no prerequisite for maintaining a firm grasp on situational SIS details, I wanted to point out how they dois tempting to no longer bother with situational details once you get really excited about the larger plot arc.

On the other hand, while your #2 type procedures are no prerequisite for maintaining a firm grasp on situational SIS details, I wanted to point out how they do

[Valamir]

Cool.

So you'd rather the game just come to a (potentially rocky) end, rather than continue on luke warm.

Interesting.  I've always been an "even bad sex is pretty good and better than no sex" kind of guy myself.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Yeah, I'd rather suffice to myself, if ya know what I mean. ;o)

But I think this may cause the wrong impression now. To be clear, shallow play is possible in many variations, and we've probably all seen games that were only concerned with getting SIS details right, but to no end as nothing meaningful ever happened. That's not what I'm after, I want the whole package of details and meaning. Only I'm saying that even the potentially most meaningful choices in a roleplaying experience feel empty and invalid to me if the SIS is nothing but a blurr.

And personally, I'd always start with getting the details right before I get to the meaning, not the other way round. That's probably the point where we differ, plus maybe the amount of detail and consistency we prefer.

- Frank

[Frank Tarcikowski]

[Callan S.]

Well, this is getting onto another subject (a related one, but still another subject).

That 'inner logic of the SIS' is, in my words, just an artistic expression as well. It's quite possible for one person at the table to see some violation while another just shrugs. I take that as evidence the person who see's the violation is actually making an artistic expression themselves. Everyone who sees 2+2 = 5 can see an error - how come one guy is shrugging at this alleged game world logic violation but the other is adamant? That's because its just the other guys artistic expression. There is no real logic being broken here - there is only an artistic expression (the expression being that logic) that someone elses contribution is not forfilling.

Which basically says "My art is above yours and your art should conform to it". Well, usually it avoids any ownership clause by the person refering to the SIS, rather than my artistic contribution. Indeed I think it's often put that way in a dream like way, rather than deliberate, like one might act upon a dream world while sleeping, not as if it is the artistic creation of ones sleeping mind (which is it), but if it is THE world* and something that is nothing to do with ones own artistic expression (creative denial?).

I'm starting to see why Ron put emphasis on the 'right' in 'the right to dream'. It determines who's art comes first. Which, I think, isn't so bad if you decide it in advance with some ruleset. It's not terrible to say your art is above someone elses and they have to conform their art to yours, if you can point out some rules they agreed to and understood (when reading it) that these rules determine who's art is above who's.

As I said, more of a side topic. I hope I've granted legitimacy to using pre agreed rules to put one art above another is okay. I just have to write it out because for years now, in lots of actual plays, I see people pushing their subjective artistic expression above someone elses as if it were pure logic, with no actual rule granting them such a lofty position (to put it politely). As roleplay culture is, I need to make a bit of a stand against that rather than remain silent about it. But I hope it's clear I'm not stamping on the idea completely - with pre agreed rules about who's art comes first, it works fine. I'm just being pedantic.

	Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>

[Frank Tarcikowski]

[Frank Tarcikowski]

P.S.: And this is SO on topic, as we are finishing the loop here! In the Liquid game, the participants were actively judging and approving what happened the whole time, that was what validated the creative contributions and lent Credibility to those who made them. Therefore, the correct application of the resolution mechanics was not required as a validation and I did not feel betrayed when I learned the GM had sometimes just rolled the dice for show.

[Callan S.]

Well, I drew a conclusion from my main point, that you might disagree with that conclusion. But my main point was that to judge someones artistic expression, is just artistic expression itself. That it 'doesn't make sense' is just an act of the imagination on the beholders part. Who's art comes ahead of the other art? As before, I note that everyone can see that 2+2=5 doesn't make sense, but it's easy to find accounts of people at a gaming table where someone sees a big violation of game world logic, but another person at the same table finds it plausible. If it were a logic violation like 2+2=5 is, that surely couldn't happen.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Callan,

(...) it's easy to find accounts of people at a gaming table where someone sees a big violation of game world logic, but another person at the same table finds it plausible.

Yeah, I know that and I call it dysfunctional play and failure at Exploration. I don't think it is made any better by a rule that gives a "final say" to any one person. Do you enjoy play where the participants do not find each others' contributions to the game appropriate?

- Frank

[Callan S.]

What can I say? I'm gamist inclined. As long as I'm winning, or losing but it'll be a merciful death (not a long, dragged out one - and I aught to have researched that in advance myself, anyway), I'm happy. Everyone finding each others contributions always appropriate is icing on the cake. Or perhaps more like a second layer added to the cake - not just cosmetic like icing, but even without the second layer there's still cake to be enjoyed. And those final say rules are the precise reason why any cake remains, even if the second layer becomes absent.

I'm not even sure it's because I'm gamist inclined - I think it's also because I'm a rules first imaginer. As opposed to imagination first, then using rules that fit the imagined content. I use rules (or observe others using them) and then use the results/that inspires my imagination in funny little ways (like one might start making up a little story in chess, from the purely mechanical moves, or start thinking what it was like for the character to win the beuty pagent in monopoly, after a purely mechanical card draw). That inspiration, I find, starts to build up a second layer of cake. Heh, we still talk about the time the dwarf fighter critted for the very first time with his axe - for a subdual attempt! Purely mechanical, but we still talk about how that guard must have been put in a fucking coma by that massive critical! SMACK! It still inspires me...

Although I'm probably a rules first imaginer because I'm gamist inclined. But it doesn't require a gamist inclination to do rules first imagining, I'd say.

[JoyWriter]

Quote from: Callan S. on March 05, 2009, 04:50:36 PM

That 'inner logic of the SIS' is, in my words, just an artistic expression as well. It's quite possible for one person at the table to see some violation while another just shrugs. I take that as evidence the person who see's the violation is actually making an artistic expression themselves. Everyone who sees 2+2 = 5 can see an error - how come one guy is shrugging at this alleged game world logic violation but the other is adamant? That's because its just the other guys artistic expression. There is no real logic being broken here - there is only an artistic expression (the expression being that logic) that someone elses contribution is not forfilling.

Which basically says "My art is above yours and your art should conform to it". Well, usually it avoids any ownership clause by the person refering to the SIS, rather than my artistic contribution. Indeed I think it's often put that way in a dream like way, rather than deliberate, like one might act upon a dream world while sleeping, not as if it is the artistic creation of ones sleeping mind (which is it), but if it is THE world* and something that is nothing to do with ones own artistic expression (creative denial?).

I can understand that in limited areas this can be a problem, and is where rules-lawyers or narrative-dissonance defenders pop up. I would say that the rules system and setting should specify to what extent the game follows normal physics, or other tropes, and people agree at the start, and put inventive or unexpected use of ramifications down as a natural "risk" of working with clever human beings.

You've also talked about what extent the game should "force" you to be authors, and whether it should also just rumble on through the dispute. This reminds me of the old rule we had for interpreting dubious situations in warhammer: roll for it, biased by level of agreement (allowing you to concede your point was weaker), and then stick by that rule for the rest of the game, and argue about it later. It works ridiculously well, because it auto-creates house rules that everyone has agreed to. It holds the game together, not by ignoring a section of the table as "the dodgy part" where something may or may not have happened, but condenses that uncertainty into one roll and does away with it. In addition, the fact that you try one side gives you shared experience to help decide the rules in future. "How did it work out?"
A similar but different rule applies when people get to a part that doesn't interest them; they can randomise their own choice, as people do in situations like character design when they just want to get into play. Why not extend the process! In terms of the same black box theory, the rules detail has not been reduced, so a system that runs on a high level of detail cannot be derailed if it has such "creativity aid" systems built in. Of course, this is a cop-out and not as smooth as other approaches, but it maintains the integrity of a detail and logic heavy game system.

In other news, a few months ago I invented an alternate version of wushu that makes it have more respect for setting, by design, I'll post it up some time, if you like.

[Silmenume]