Task vs. Conflict and Scene vs. Action? (for Ron)

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

I've been playing GURPS for quite a while ignoring point totals. If you don't have limits, then why bother having the points at all?

In GURPS there is no reason; GURPS points are conceived and designed to support the 'balance' concept.  In Scattershot the points don't work with the same breakdown because they are designed to clarify what a participant thinks is important to them in the character.  (More often than not, it seems to occur after-the-fact.)

Basically put, this would be like making up a character in GURPS and afterwards calculating where the points went.  Looking at those points, a few things can become obvious.  Things like, are the character's stats, skills, or advantages more important?  Are most points in 'effectiveness' ratings or background?  Is the character a one-trick-pony (meaning it does one thing very well – not an invalid design for things like hackers et alii)?  Things that the creator may not have gone into design thinking about.

All of this becomes obvious better in Scattershot because, unlike points weighted for 'balance,' our points are weighted more on how things might be needed by, be used by, or should not be neglected by the play of the game.  On another level, you might think of them as a niche protection mechanism working more like bookmarks as opposed to character classes or archetypes (or those games where the character is wholly described by a player-generated short phrase).

The reason this kind of protection seems to work so well for us is because most niche protection mechanics seem to require an early-in-design decision of what niche to choose, whereas ours allows a fair amount of design-in-play without sacrificing niche protection or degrading the character's value to the play of the game.  It is also paired with a collection of techniques to shepherd the evolution of the character so that it does not lose focus even though it can change.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-22 10:51 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-22 09:06, Le Joueur wrote:
All of this becomes obvious better in Scattershot because, unlike points weighted for 'balance,' our points are weighted more on how things might be needed by, used by, or should not be neglected by the play of the game.  On another level you might think of them as a niche protection mechanism working more like bookmarks as opposed to character classes or archetypes (or those games where the character is wholly described by a short phrase).

I think I get the concept. Universalis has this feature as a primary part of its design, actually. Are there actual mechanics then that support the idea that the points provide this niche-protection or story directing power? Or are the points just informative, meant to give an idea of where the game should go?

Forgive my ignorance, but is Scattershot available somewhere, yet?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Just as a teeny aside, and reference to a comment in my essay. Various drifting aside, I suggest that point-totals in GURPS may be used solely for faithfulness to Setting, rather than as a balance-issue.

If a group happens to be using them that way, which would imply a certain looseness to the actual total (95-105, perhaps, rather than a strict 100), then I think that's consistent with Simulationist goals (specifically, Explore System, secondarily Setting). "Balance" need not be involved in the sense ordinarily used.

But perhaps that's another thread. In fact, looking over this thread, I believe the basic question has been raised and answered. Secondary topics, like design applications that emphasis task vs. conflict, or scene vs. individual, should really begin their own threads. Same goes for GURPS stuff and/or Scattershot stuff.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-22 11:05 ]

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

All of this becomes obvious better in Scattershot because, unlike points weighted for 'balance,' our points are weighted more on how things might be needed by, be used by, or should not be neglected by the play of the game.  On another level you might think of them as a niche protection mechanism working more like bookmarks as opposed to character classes or archetypes (or those games where the character is wholly described by a short phrase).

I think I get the concept. Universalis has this feature as a primary part of its design, actually. Are there actual mechanics then that support the idea that the points provide this niche-protection or story directing power? Or are the points just informative, meant to give an idea of where the game should go?

Mechanically, Scattershot has a 'not Narrativist' focus (and we all know how important Ron tells us GNS focus is for a game).  We see niche protection as primarily of Gamist function that can have correspondence to spotlight-time issues (though neither direct nor necessarily).  To address these complicated issues, rather than resorting to an arbitrary mechanical solution, the decision was made to incorporate a large amount of advice on 'best practices' into Scattershot.

Because a lot of story direction and spotlight-time issues are heavily influenced by personal preference and social issues, it was decided that information on how to make use of the character point mechanisms in Scattershot would need to take that into account.  Since we feel that this should vary a great deal from gaming group to gaming group, we are setting it up as a discussion of 'how to' use this mechanic in the technique section.  This way we can also address some of the 'social contract' and 'good gamesmanship' issues at the same time.

Forgive my ignorance, but is Scattershot available somewhere, yet?

I am sorry about this, but no.  Scattershot has been a labor of love on my part (game design is something I could no more give up than breathing).  Unfortunately its priority is subordinate to a number of other things.  You see, my family is the most important thing in my life and I will not sacrifice a moment or a dollar from them, but neither could I give up game design (which by itself costs nothing, but we all know how expensive and labor intensive publication is.)

Anyway, as a mental exercise, Scattershot then has to be the best product I can design (for the open role-playing gaming market – this adds to the challenge).  What confuses a lot of people is that I take my design very seriously and yet insist that I will never likely publish it.  Since I see it as a mental exercise, I have no problem with that and this is why there is no schedule for its release.

I know it sounds strange; here I am such a passionate designer whose goals are so publishing-based, yet I have no interest in actually marketing my writing.  The best defense I have come up with so far is, when it is done, it will be a hell of a toy for the kids and us.  (We are already testing the preschool edition of Scattershot.)

So I have no plans to pursue this as a business venture.  The reasons are many, but it boils down to the fact that I cannot justify taking any of my time or income away from my family nor could I satisfy my interest in supporting a published product line on what little I have with my family.  Unless it is accidentally a hit, I could never justify the resources necessary to publish.

Fang Langford (who does already own scattershotgames.com, if it ever gets that far)

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-22 12:23 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Wow. That last part was pretty Freudian. Anyhow, it sounds interesting, at least.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

Perhaps "publish" is best considered in its broadest interpretation: to make public, or made usable by individuals through some medium that is not one-to-one distribution.

So publishing is not PRINT, not BOOK, not STORE-BOUGHT, or anything like that. Those are means of publishing, not publishing itself. Marketing, business, or commerce of any sort is another issue entirely.

If, for instance, you were to post the rules on a website, I consider that publishing. If you were to require or even just request payment for access or use, I consider that commercial publishing.

Given that interpretation, is Scattershot planned for publication in any form at all? If you prefer the word "release" or "public distribution," or any other term, that's fine. I would like to know if the game is conceivably going to be available outside the circle of your use of it.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-22 18:07 ]

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

Perhaps "publish" is best considered in its broadest interpretation: to make public, or made usable by individuals through some medium that is not one-to-one distribution.

When I say Scattershot is being prepared as though for publishing, I mean in print, on the store shelf, for the casual shopper.  I also mean as product, or commodity, that hopefully gets racked not only with other games but also with any line that it carries a license for.  When I say publishing-based, I mean that there are free hand-out thumbnails being developed, plans include types of displays at trade shows, and even a web site is being designed that not only vends the product but also provides consumer support, answers questions, offers downloads of the 'freebies,' and even includes a character generation engine.  I am not just designing a game, a game system, or a game book.  The project is for an entire line of products (including the awareness that such should have a sustainable open-ended production possibility).

Given that interpretation, is Scattershot planned for publication in any form at all? If you prefer the word "release" or "public distribution," or any other term, that's fine. I would like to know if the game is conceivably going to be available outside the circle of your use of it.

To be honest, if Scattershot is ever released in any form beyond playtest or 'reviewtest,' I expect it will be more of an happy accident.  You see; I place a high value on my work and feel of two minds.  First, just 'putting it out there' would be mere vanity on my part and I don't feel comfortable with making some of my best ideas free to be picked up without acknowledgement.  Second, I feel that any game I make deserves the respect requiring not only follow-up but also the full support that multiplies the time needed.  (If you are familiar with some of the background of the FUDGE game, you can understand how much work it can be to take even a 'freely available' product and give it the support worthy of it.)

I also feel that, since I am going to offer it to a handful of publishers, the broad release of even the early forms would sour some of the value they might see in bringing it to print.  (Taken altogether this makes for some really complicated disclosure thinking, doesn't it?)

What it all comes back to eventually is what I am doing for myself.  This is a mental exercise for me.  When I challenge myself, I like to pursue very difficult challenges.  I guess that's where I have met the most difficulty (and hostility) in describing my work.  Many people seem to have a hard time understanding why I go to so much effort when there seems only the slightest of possibility of my ever profiting from it.  I guess I am just old enough to see the journey and not the prize as the reward (although that confuses as well, I conceived of this challenge when I was 25).

I hope this explains why I get so defensive about my work.  (Besides what's wrong with a 'slight possibility' without the gamble?)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-23 09:45 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In part due to my own posts, this thread has outlived its topic by a solid page. I strongly suggest that we take GURPS, Scattershot, publication issues, and - well, anything else to other threads.

Best,
Ron