*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 19, 2014, 04:52:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 87 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Author Topic: Exploration of System (split)  (Read 8153 times)
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2003, 09:11:51 AM »

Right here: Pervy Sim, Points of Contact, Accessibility: an example game.

I was suffering the same System confusion as everybody is now, and Ron you said to me: Vincent, System is just what you were ranting about.  And I said, oh!

What you said precisely is: System is the Lumpley Principle in action.  By "the Lumpley Principle" here you meant the principle that nothing happens in the game until everybody agrees that it does, my rant.

So "the Lumpley Principle" became shorthand for "System is the process ('in action') by which the players come to agreement about what happens in play."

-Vincent

Edited for clarity.
Logged
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2003, 11:20:19 AM »

So where the hell does that leave us now. I'm more confused than when we started.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2003, 11:21:06 AM »

Hi there,

I was sort of hoping that my post at the bottom of p. 2 would do the job. Vincent, it's your call.

Best,
Ron
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2003, 11:27:37 AM »

My call?

I'm fine.  I was just pointing to the thread.

I think we should press on, boldly.  System means the actual process in actual play, the Lumpley Principle remains the Lumpley Principle we know and love, not whatever its roots once were.  I surely didn't mean to be confusing.

-Vincent
Logged
Jason Lee
Member

Posts: 729


« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2003, 11:38:02 AM »

Quote from: lumpley
So "the Lumpley Principle" became shorthand for "System is the process ('in action') by which the players come to agreement about what happens in play."


So then, is this the answer to what "System" means in the Exploration context?

If so, I'm missing how you can prioritize the process by which players come to agreement about what happens in play.  If System is a lower priority then, you're what, disagreeing more?
Logged

- Cruciel
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2003, 11:49:41 AM »

Hi Jason,

No, it's what I described to Mike on the previous page: more attention and effort. It takes work to apply System when you play GURPS, in order to find and apply various modifiers. It also takes work to do it in most so-called System-less (i.e. Drama-mechanics) games, in order to negotiate where the buck stops this time.

As a related point, none of this has anything to do with what people call "System-heavy" or "System-light." It has a lot to do with what I used to call Vanilla vs. Pervy, but now gets discussed as "Points of Contact." The whole issue is whether the System itself becomes a subject of attention. Think in real-people terms of attention, discussion, usage, and stuff like Search and Handling Times.

I suggest that yes/no on this issue is not a matter of good or bad, but rather is very significant for any mode of play. Thus, one may see Vanilla Gamist play or a wide variety of Pervy Gamist play; Vanilla Sim play or a wide variety of Pervy Sim play; Vanilla Narrativist play or a wide variety of Pervy Narrativist play.

To repeat some of my earlier points about that, "Vanilla" of one mode does not resemble and represents no sort of combination with any other mode. Some people in the past thought I meant Sim/Narr hybrid by Vanilla, but they were very mistaken.

Best,
Ron
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2003, 12:05:10 PM »

One player says "[let's imagine that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!"

What has to happen before the players as a group agree that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush?

Sometimes, nothing.  The right player said it, everybody goes along with it, no discussion, no negotiation, no process needed.  "Dude!  An orc!  Battlestations!"  Low Exploration of System.

Sometimes, just a little.  "Really?  An orc?"  "Yep."  "Huh.  Well, okay."  Slightly more Exploration of System.

Sometimes, mechanics.  "...Okay, if you make your having-an-orc-show-up roll.  Throw down!"  "Ha!  57!"  "Orc it is."  Exploration of System, with mechanics.

Sometimes, a whole heck of a lot.  Debate the likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of orc-jump-out likelihood...  That's a whole boatload of Exploration of System.

That's my take.

-Vincent
Logged
Jason Lee
Member

Posts: 729


« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2003, 12:30:27 PM »

Ron,

Ok, the Vanilla/Pervy thing flipped a switch.  I read your post about eight times, then I went and re-read the first post in thread #4.

Either one of two things has happened:  either I get it or I have confused myself beyond the ability to express my confusion.  Either way...time will tell.
Logged

- Cruciel
Walt Freitag
Member

Posts: 1039


« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2003, 12:58:55 PM »

In all of Vincent's examples, though, the change in the world state (the addition or repositioning of the orc) is the same.

So "system as the causation of change in the imagined space" is equally manifest in all those cases.

While "system having attention paid to it and being explored" varies depending on points of contact.

So we're still dealing with different shades of meaning of "system," (we can also throw in system-as-abstract-set-of-rules), which has been the problem all along, but we can work around it. This all makes sense if exploration of system is "attention and effort applied to points of contact." Time and motion in the examined space is driven by system, but that process does not necessarily have exploration of system in the forefront because the system may or may not have high density of points of contact.

Silly but actually apt physics analogy: the difference between heat and temperature can be confusing. The key is understanding heat capacity, which is the ratio between the two. Heat capacity varies between different materials. "Heat" is system-in-action, "temperature" is exploration of system in play, "Heat capacity" is (density of) points of contact, a characteristic of the play heavily influenced by the system-as-abstract-set-of-rules.

Points of contact is the key. That works for me.

- Walt
Logged

Wandering in the diasporosphere
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!