Hey there,

I'm starting a few separate threads about Fang's game Scattershot. All of them are based on the content of these threads (at the date of this post) and some private messaging:
I: Core concept
II: Whence go the mechanics
III: Difference between players and GM
IV: Sorting out the nuts and bolts
And V: Actual mechanics

This thread is about the initial Premise of the game, and you know what? It has one. A really interesting one. You see, Scattershot is about Exploring Situation and System in depth, and that means it "begins" or "looks" like a Simulationist type o'thing. But the actual plan - which I like to think of Uncle Fang's Lurking Desire - is to provide tools for "transition" to Narrativist play insofar as anyone wants to. The Narrativist-type Premise arises, therefore, from various passions or concerns incited by various instances during play. Once that happens, the mechanics enhance these elements' ability to become major engines of events during play, as determined by the players.

I use Fang's term Transition here because it makes a lot of sense - a form of Drift which is facilitated, consistent, and accessible merely through application of the rules in particular ways, as opposed merely to tweaking, revising, ignoring, or overriding existing rules (which Drift generally does).

Now that means that at first glance, Scattershot has plenty of traditional-gaming trappings that - for some of us - have an alarm-bell quality. You buy a bunch of skills with points, said skills being rated according to how easy they are to learn and hence costing more. There are six attributes starting with "Strength." There is a big chart called UE that cross-references abilities' values with extent, magnitude, duration, and all that sort of thing (very like DC Heroes at first glance).

My point is that these alarm bells are false. Fang has written the material to be accessible specifically to the old-school gamer, in a deliberate 70s-gaming kind of structure. But that structure is much like a swaybacked horse with a sleepy expression, which grunts a little when you pat it on the nose. Little do you suspect what it will do when you mount up …

The context for play is intended to be customizable to various degrees (1) of depth of rules-use and (2) of rules-use per unit time. Cool. Let's settle at whatever one we want and take a look at "medium" Scattershot, what most of us want to know about based on my readings and interactions at the Forge.

Basically, you're looking at a character with six attributes: Strength, Agility, Hit Points, Reaction, Observation, and Power. (Yes, I know it looks like 1980! Chill out! Uncle Fang is merely disguising his Lurking Desire very well.) You buy a bunch of abilities at various ratings with a starting bank of points. "Abilities" cover all sorts of things, like skills strictly speaking, magic stuff, etc.

Ya do things with your abilities. You roll 2d10; get under the rating, you did it; equal it, you barely did it; over it, you fail. The difference is called the MIB and is taken to the UE. The UE allows you to modify the difference (called MIB) between your roll and the rating with the "magnitude" column of the UE for a related characteristic - ie, you hit a guy with your Punch ability, but the effect (on the table) is modified because your Strength rating gives a nice multiple. Again, all very early 80s-Sim, Mayfair-feeling.

[Fang, I know I'm skimming various details, especially the fact that opposed rolls actually use the difference between attacker's and defender's MIBs on the UE, and the Residual Modifiers thing. Bear with me, I'm not trying to present Scattershot with every nuance but to show the Transition in action, and only presenting stuff that lets this point be made.]

Ha ha! You're in for it now! Check out the following:

1) The group has set a "Hard limit" for certain MIB's, either successful or unsuccessful. It might be 1 or 7 or 10 or whatever. If a rolled MIB (remember, diff between your roll and your rating) exceeds the hard limit, the player of the recipient of the effect now states why this single event is a life-changing, significant, later-to-be-acted-upon element of the character's life. This is a big deal, eh? Think "Kicker." (Oh, and it's optional if the MIB is under the hard limit; the hard limit means you have to do it. Uncle Fang cannot help himself and releases a sinister belly-laugh.)

2) If you're only a couple MIB shy of succeeding, feel free to adust any UE feature to make your roll successful, ie, "it takes longer" or anything similar. You can also do the reverse, using excessive successful MIB to adjust the degree or magnitude of the effect for the better. This is player-driven and highly customizable. (Did I mention metagame?)

3) Experience dice are being handed out left and right all the time during play. You spend these dice by adding them to any roll you feel like, either before or after the basic 2d10 roll. (Metagame and player power are not only present in Scattershot; after an initial "closeted" phase, they are buck naked and dancing ecstatically down the street.) [These dice may also be spent to improve one's character, with a mildly randomized mechanic.]

To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I have seen. It presents a solid/realistic (in the specific-to-setting sense) Simulationist framework for establishing what's up, what you're looking at, and who's who - but also provides a tremendous number of techniques to permit metagame, Author stance, and player-power-sharing techniques during play, many of which may facilitate a Narrativist application. The primary technique is Fortune-in-the-Middle, which all three of the numbered items above not only make possible, but loom up like … well, I'm out of metaphors. They loom up big.

My question is how Gamism is or would be a direction of Transition, or whether that's even a design goal. If not, no big deal. If so, though, I'm not sure how it (ie mechanics to facilitate it) gets into there. Insight about that would be appreciated. The thread that looked like it might discuss that, based on its title, ended up being about something else, unless I misunderstood it.

I still have plenty of questions, especially about certain mechanics and especially about how IIEC is handled during/post rolling in a conflict situation. But those are for other threads, soon to come. This one's the goals/GNS thing, and I am willing to be corrected by Fang regarding my impressions, or to see what others have made of them and the game itself.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: This thread is about the initial Premise of the game, and you know what? It has one. A really interesting one. You see, Scattershot is about Exploring Situation and System in depth, and that means it "begins" or "looks" like a Simulationist type o'thing. But the actual plan - which I like to think of Uncle Fang's Lurking Desire - is to provide tools for "transition" to Narrativist play insofar as anyone wants to. The Narrativist-type Premise arises, therefore, from various passions or concerns incited by various instances during play. Once that happens, the mechanics enhance these elements' ability to become major engines of events during play, as determined by the players.

I use Fang's term Transition here because it makes a lot of sense - a form of Drift which is facilitated, consistent, and accessible merely through application of the rules in particular ways, as opposed merely to tweaking, revising, ignoring, or overriding existing rules (which Drift generally does).

Now that means that at first glance, Scattershot has plenty of traditional-gaming trappings that - for some of us - have an alarm-bell quality.

Ron Edwards wrote: My point is that these alarm bells are false. Fang has written the material to be accessible specifically to the old-school gamer, in a deliberate 70s-gaming kind of structure. But that structure is much like a swaybacked horse with a sleepy expression, which grunts a little when you pat it on the nose. Little do you suspect what it will do when you mount up....

[Editted for brevity.]

To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I have seen. It presents a solid/realistic (in the specific-to-setting sense) Simulationist framework for establishing what's up, what you're looking at, and who's who - but also provides a tremendous number of techniques to permit metagame, Author stance, and player-power-sharing techniques during play, many of which may facilitate a Narrativist application. The primary technique is Fortune-in-the-Middle, which all three of the numbered items above not only make possible, but loom up like … well, I'm out of metaphors. They loom up big.

My question is how Gamism is or would be a direction of Transition, or whether that's even a design goal. If not, no big deal. If so, though, I'm not sure how it (ie mechanics to facilitate it) gets into there. Insight about that would be appreciated. The thread that looked like it might discuss that, based on its title, ended up being about something else, unless I misunderstood it.

Ron Edwards wrote: I still have plenty of questions, especially about certain mechanics and especially about how IIEC is handled during/post rolling in a conflict situation.

Hi Fang!

Lots of topics to deal with here …

I definitely hear you about the Color, Situation, Character, and Setting material coming later. The key to me is that at first glance, the setup seems highly focused on Exploration of something, and given the other material you mentioned, Exploration of everything. No criticism! As I said, I appreciate the "reassurance" quality this has on the old-school.

GAMISM AND SCATTERSHOT
My take on Gamism seems to raise some hackles, and I'd request that we deal with it here as it stands: Fang is asking me what I think; this is not a good venue to tell me I'm wrong (that would be the GNS forum).

<Gamism babble ensues>
At this time, I look at Gamism as simply the enjoyment of competition in an extremely broad sense. People can have different roles in that competition, up to and including a referee-role (he does not compete with the players, but his presence means the competition can happen in a certain way).

A lot of suffering seems to occur when people consider a published scenario - how can you "compete" with it? That always puzzles me. Of course you can, it seems, insofar as the game designers do exist as humans, and it's fun to pit oneself (or one's team) against someone who's posed a problem for you. Or even if one imagined some weird scenario that was not written by humans, it's fun to see whether you can do better than anyone else who's trying it.

If anyone wants to call all this competitive stuff "struggle" or "testing yourself" or whatnot, they may go right ahead. I think it's a matter of sugar-coating, rather than useful rhetoric, but I'm willing to give a little. Gareth's points about that in the GNS forum are extremely well-taken; we don't exactly agree, but I think his points must be taken into account.

I also have perceived a certain weird assumption that a Gamist would automatically "hate to lose," or would necessarily be obsessed with "balance," which doesn't match my observations of the foundations of that mode of play, much as it might apply for some individuals.
<Gamism babble is over>

OK. So how does this apply to Scattershot? You have mentioned the strategic use of experience-point spending or the role of the hard limit, but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play (resource management e.g.) that apply nicely to the goal of Narrativism as much as to Gamism, perhaps more so. Let's take a look at a Scattershot player who has glommed onto these techniques and likes them a lot. Basically, if he gets a "do better than Bob hair up his butt (even if Bob is abstract)," rather than a "story hair up his butt," then he's transitioned to Gamism.

At my current understanding of the rules, though, which hair gets up his butt is pretty much a matter of individual taste, and perhaps elements of the Color, Situation, Setting, and so forth of the instance of play. It seems to me that the hair is most likely the "story" one because of the hard limit, especially - being required to make that event important to the character's future decisions seems more of a moral-Premise judgment-call than it does a strategic decision regarding advantage or individual performance (in the sense of acing a test or winning a race).

IIEC AND SCATTERSHOT
(Intent, Initiation, Execution, Completion)
I think you've laid out the issue pretty clearly for me now, across the range of General, Specific, and Mechanical play. I do think it might be interesting to see how the differences of IIEC application might change over time, if the group were minded to do so. Thus, if they begin with a strong commitment to Mechanical play, is there any provision for shifting later, without (much of) a hitch-and-clutch? If so, then Scattershot is really achieving something.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: GAMISM AND SCATTERSHOT

Selected text on Gamism that Ron wrote: My take on Gamism seems to raise some hackles, and I'd request that we deal with it here as it stands: Fang is asking me what I think;

I look at Gamism as simply the enjoyment of competition in an extremely broad sense.

If anyone wants to call all this competitive stuff "struggle" or "testing yourself" or whatnot, they may go right ahead.

OK. So how does this apply to Scattershot? You have mentioned the strategic use of experience-point spending or the role of the hard limit, but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play (resource management e.g.)

Ron Edwards wrote: but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play (resource management e.g.) that apply nicely to the goal of Narrativism as much as to Gamism, perhaps more so. Let's take a look at a Scattershot player who has glommed onto these techniques and likes them a lot. Basically, if he gets a "do better than Bob hair up his butt (even if Bob is abstract)," rather than a "story hair up his butt," then he's transitioned to Gamism.

At my current understanding of the rules, though, which hair gets up his butt is pretty much a matter of individual taste, and perhaps elements of the Color, Situation, Setting, and so forth of the instance of play. It seems to me that the hair is most likely the "story" one because of the hard limit, especially - being required to make that event important to the character's future decisions seems more of a moral-Premise judgment-call than it does a strategic decision regarding advantage or individual performance (in the sense of acing a test or winning a race).

Ron Edwards wrote: IIEC AND SCATTERSHOT
(Intent, Initiation, Execution, Completion)
I think you've laid out the issue pretty clearly for me now, across the range of General, Specific, and Mechanical play. I do think it might be interesting to see how the differences of IIEC application might change over time, if the group were minded to do so. Thus, if they begin with a strong commitment to Mechanical play, is there any provision for shifting later, without (much of) a hitch-and-clutch? If so, then Scattershot is really achieving something.

Hi Fang,

You've expressed yourself very clearly, and I think we're saying pretty much the same things. Basically, Transition in Scattershot is driven by preference, and that's a fine thing.

It seemed to me that the "story-ish" payoff for bringing in the hard limit was especially nice for a Narrativist player, but I also agree with you that a Gamist player can find meat in it too. That meat seems a little less focused in terms of in-game events, but then again, Gamist play in general is probably the most unapologetically metagame-ish in its needs, and hence the payoff for those players/GMs will be in unabashed people-terms, with less need for in-game terms (That dovetails with my previous comments about how good this mode of play is at finding "the stakes").

I agree with you about Gamism requiring structure, although in many ways I think that requirement may be found all 'round the variety among and within GNS modes (not in every possibility, but scattered all 'round).

(Side note: I, for one, see no flaw/inconsistency or anything "wrong" with your use of GNS jargon - your reference to any of it is clear, fair, and makes sense.)

Here's my concern now: different participants having different goals. To pick the most obvious example, we might have Bob who seizes upon the available techniques to "go Gamist" in a big way, up to and including open verbal enjoyment of success in those terms (over whom doesn't matter: GM, fellow player, published scenario, etc). Then we also have Sam, at the same table, who is equally invested in (at last) playing a fantasy game which through human efforts of actual play attains the personal weight and epic consequences of, say, The Lord of the Rings.

The problem arises because people don't role-play in isolation but with one another. The goals/modes of GNS operate successfully when shared and abetted by more than one person. Hence, Bob might be irritated with Sam for not putting in tactical effort at one point or another; Sam might be irritated with Bob for not considering the moral/thematic outcomes of Bob's character's actions.

To a very large extent, this is probably not solvable. I'm not suggesting that Scattershot is under any obligation to amend it in any special way. However, it's clear that you've laid out the philosophical goals and design of Scattershot along with its mechanics (or rather, that the final MS is going to be a combination of all these). Your post illustrates a good example, regarding the Transitional techniques. Will that sort of material, the (for lack of a better word) philosophical part, address the issue of Nar/Gam interpretation of the same mechanics at the same table?

Best,
Ron

P.S. "Techniques" is a term I use a lot too, for the same reason you do - it seems to carry less emotional baggage for people than "rules" or even "guidelines."

Ron Edwards wrote: I agree with you about Gamism requiring structure, although in many ways I think that requirement may be found all 'round the variety among and within GNS modes (not in every possibility, but scattered all 'round).

Ron Edwards wrote: Here's my concern now: different participants having different goals. To pick the most obvious example, we might have Bob who seizes upon the available techniques to "go Gamist" in a big way, up to and including open verbal enjoyment of success in those terms (over whom doesn't matter: GM, fellow player, published scenario, etc). Then we also have Sam, at the same table, who is equally invested in (at last) playing a fantasy game which through human efforts of actual play attains the personal weight and epic consequences of, say, The Lord of the Rings.

The problem arises because people don't role-play in isolation but with one another. The goals/modes of GNS operate successfully when shared and abetted by more than one person. Hence, Bob might be irritated with Sam for not putting in tactical effort at one point or another; Sam might be irritated with Bob for not considering the moral/thematic outcomes of Bob's character's actions.

To a very large extent, this is probably not solvable.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm not suggesting that Scattershot is under any obligation to amend it in any special way. However, it's clear that you've laid out the philosophical goals and design of Scattershot along with its mechanics (or rather, that the final MS is going to be a combination of all these). Your post illustrates a good example, regarding the Transitional techniques. Will that sort of material, the (for lack of a better word) philosophical part, address the issue of Nar/Gam interpretation of the same mechanics at the same table?

Hey Fang, Ron,

To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I have seen.

The discussion of Scattershot as a transitional game design has yet to draw the interest of Forgers besides the two of you. And I can't help but wonder if it's because people don't really know why they need one.

If I'm an activist liberal, I don't really want a centrist candidate. I'll vote for one because my ideal candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and because the centrist is better by far than the conservative. But I'm not forced into the same situation with RPG's. I can buy a game that suits my GNS bias and play it with like-minded players.

What am I missing? Who's the target customer of a transitional game design?

Paul

Paul--

Maybe more centrist gamers? I mean, you & I are pervy narrativists, but there are those out there who groove on simulationism AND narrativism, & I could see Scattershot appealing to them. (Hell, I could see it appealing to "reg'lar ol' gamers" who see the outer "traditional" trappings & dig that kind of thing.)

I'd be interested to hear from Mike "lemme do the math for you" Holmes about what he thinks of Scattershot.

What Josh said. Aren't those people looking for El Dorado (defined as a simultaneously Sim and Narr game) going to be interested in such? As I've stated before, I'm not one of those "pervy" Narrativists. Actually, I like all three of the GNS decision making processes, and can enjoy any game that is not incoherent. I'm a gaming Centrist (political one, too, FWIW). The only impediment to my enjoying the potential Transitionability (to coin a term) of Scattershot would be any incoherence that it introduced.

While we're at it, I suppose that I should breach that topic. Why should we believe that Scatttershot is any less incoherent (sorry for the double negative) than any other game that previously failed to focus on a single GNS mode? Actually, I have much less problem with the whole N/S shift (which does include mechanics to accomplish) than the inclusion of G.

The argument seems to be, well, the player can use the results either way, and we'll tell all the players to accept other players conflicting styles. Isn't this just suggesting drift? Also, this seems like a law that suggests that you not kill people but includes no punishment for doing so. My understanding of System Matters is that mere admonishions to play a particular way that are not supported by the mechanics are nice, but having actual mechanics that reinforce those admonishions are better. This is the main complaint about V:tM, right? That it says to play in one way but provides no support mechanically for that mode of play. Right?

So, why does Scattershot get a pass here? Note that I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here.

Mike

Fang,

I've been thinking about this Transition stuff. A few related points all contributed to my conclusion, so I'll do points-first and Point last.

1) Both Gamism and Narrativism are distinguished by the overt priorities of the real person in play, in that the priority is overt (if not verbalized). Hence most mechanics involving "player intrusion," to use a somewhat outmoded or Sim-oriented term, may serve either Gamist or Narrativist purposes, of particular sorts for each depending on the mechanic in question.

2) Much experience has taught me that players committed to either mode do not hesitate for an instant to insert or interpret their "agenda" into role-playing through whatever window of opportunity presents itself, either in mechanics or via social pressure or whatever.

3) Narrativist agenda is simple: address Premise, via character-confronts-ethical-conflict. Gamist agenda is similarly simple: strategize, perform, prevail, via character-conflicts-logistic-conflict. They are, however, very different from one another and tend not to get along too easily in the same game, except in fairly specialized combinations.

4) If merely provided with player-empowering mechanics that are either-or-whatever (as referred to in #1 above), the choice of agenda, per player or group, is essentially catch-as-catch-can. Clearly Transition may occur in playing Scattershot as currently written, e.g. Narrativism from the hard limit perhaps, or Gamism from the currency-management perhaps (these are just examples out of many possible). The rather … scattered potential for the Transition, though, may be troublesome. Note: may be.

Now for my big point. These two agendas (perhaps at the level of their multifarious and not-necessarily-compatible subsets) may be further specified by various mechanics (rules, guidelines, techniques, whatever). These "specification" variables fall into very, very distinct forms, because of the clarity of the agendas in question.

STAKES AND ACHIEVEMENT are the keys to Gamism in general. The thing to avoid, I think, is "effectiveness is the means to achievement and achievement is the route to more effectiveness," which creates a recursive, spin-the-wheels effect that only appeals to a minority of people who might enjoy Gamism in role-playing. (I, for example, enjoy Gamist play when the stakes/achievement are rewarded by bloody-well-winning, not merely by being able to play again, only better.)

ETHICAL/BEHAVIOR CRUNCH is the key to Narrativism in general. The thing to avoid here, I think, is de-protagonizing events and habits of play, as discussed in various places 'round the Forge.

I suggest that some "evolutionary context" for each of these might be made available for Scattershot, as a "as we go along" game-group-developing mechanic. In other words, as you continue to play, the rules change or focus as folks see fit, in a reasonably comfy, not patch-it way. So all the rules they've been using get honed or tweaked or shaped, in such a way that either ethical/behavior crunch or stakes & achievement are emphasized as the point of play.

How to do that? Damn good question. Scattershot offers us an arena to address it.

Best,
Ron

Paul asks an excellent question.

Paul Czege wrote: To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I have seen. -- Ron Edwards

The discussion of Scattershot as a transitional game design has yet to draw the interest of Forgers besides the two of you. And I can't help but wonder if it's because people don't really know why they need one.

What am I missing? Who's the target customer of a Transitional game design?

joshua neff wrote: Paul--

Maybe more centrist gamers? I mean, you & I are pervy narrativists, but there are those out there who groove on simulationism AND narrativism, & I could see Scattershot appealing to them. (Hell, I could see it appealing to "reg'lar ol' gamers" who see the outer "traditional" trappings & dig that kind of thing.)

Mike Holmes wrote: While we're at it, I suppose that I should breach that topic. Why should we believe that Scatttershot is any less incoherent (sorry for the double negative) than any other game that previously failed to focus on a single GNS mode? Actually, I have much less problem with the whole N/S shift (which does include mechanics to accomplish) than the inclusion of G.

The argument seems to be, well, the player can use the results either way, and we'll tell all the players to accept other players conflicting styles. Isn't this just suggesting drift? Also, this seems like a law that suggests that you not kill people but includes no punishment for doing so. My understanding of System Matters is that mere admonishions to play a particular way that are not supported by the mechanics are nice, but having actual mechanics that reinforce those admonishions are better. This is the main complaint about V:tM, right? That it says to play in one way but provides no support mechanically for that mode of play. Right?

So, why does Scattershot get a pass here? Note that I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here.

Agreed on all counts. I'm not yet claiming we've "seen the light" of Transition-based design, but as a design goal it is a fine and as-yet-unknown plan. Oh, and of course, I agree entirely that El Dorado is something entirely different.

Any hope of a comment on my last post before this one ...?

Best,
Ron

Elsewhere Ron Edwards wrote: Any hope of a comment on my last post before this one...?

Ron Edwards wrote: I've been thinking about this Transition stuff. A few related points all contributed to my conclusion, so I'll do points-first and Point last.

Ron Edwards wrote: 1) Both Gamism and Narrativism are distinguished by the overt priorities of the real person in play, in that the priority is overt (if not verbalized). Hence most mechanics involving "player intrusion," to use a somewhat outmoded or Sim-oriented term, may serve either Gamist or Narrativist purposes, of particular sorts for each depending on the mechanic in question.

Ron Edwards wrote: 2) Much experience has taught me that players committed to either mode do not hesitate for an instant to insert or interpret their "agenda" into role-playing through whatever window of opportunity presents itself, either in mechanics or via social pressure or whatever.

Ron Edwards wrote: 3) Narrativist agenda is simple: address Premise, via character-confronts-ethical-conflict. Gamist agenda is similarly simple: strategize, perform, prevail, via character-conflicts-logistic-conflict. They are, however, very different from one another and tend not to get along too easily in the same game, except in fairly specialized combinations.

Ron Edwards wrote: 4) If merely provided with player-empowering mechanics that are either-or-whatever (as referred to in #1 above), the choice of agenda, per player or group, is essentially catch-as-catch-can. Clearly Transition may occur in playing Scattershot as currently written, e.g. Narrativism from the hard limit perhaps, or Gamism from the currency-management perhaps (these are just examples out of many possible). The rather … scattered potential for the Transition, though, may be troublesome. Note: may be.

Ron Edwards wrote: Now for my big point. These two agendas (perhaps at the level of their multifarious and not-necessarily-compatible subsets) may be further specified by various mechanics (rules, guidelines, techniques, whatever). These "specification" variables fall into very, very distinct forms, because of the clarity of the agendas in question.

Ron Edwards wrote: STAKES AND ACHIEVEMENT are the keys to Gamism in general. The thing to avoid, I think, is "effectiveness is the means to achievement and achievement is the route to more effectiveness," which creates a recursive, spin-the-wheels effect that only appeals to a minority of people who might enjoy Gamism in role-playing. (I, for example, enjoy Gamist play when the stakes/achievement are rewarded by bloody-well-winning, not merely by being able to play again, only better.)

Ron Edwards wrote: ETHICAL/BEHAVIOR CRUNCH is the key to Narrativism in general. The thing to avoid here, I think, is de-protagonizing events and habits of play, as discussed in various places 'round the Forge.

Ron Edwards wrote: I suggest that some "evolutionary context" for each of these might be made available for Scattershot, as a "as we go along" game-group-developing mechanic. In other words, as you continue to play, the rules change or focus as folks see fit, in a reasonably comfy, not patch-it way. So all the rules they've been using get honed or tweaked or shaped, in such a way that either ethical/behavior crunch or stakes & achievement are emphasized as the point of play.

Ron Edwards wrote: How to do that? Damn good question. Scattershot offers us an arena to address it.