From the thread on colour, which is a quote from Ron

If I can see the bigger reward system, grasp the Currency, and get bug-eyed to transform the Color into System through play

Well, the idea is to look at a group really at play and figure out what their system is, not to look at a person's decisions and classify them as in-system vs out-of-system. Start with play and observe system, don't start with system and classify play.

If you look at dysfunctional play, like the play you're describing, you'll find dysfunctional systems, like "I put up with shit." That's not surprising.

-Vincent

Callan,
I disagree that System should be limited to the rules.  You can measure all the other things as well, at the very least by the binary marker of "Did he show up to game or did he find some other way to spend his time?"  The relationship between players and GM is part of the System, most definitely.  There are whole books written on managing these relationships, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Robins-Laws-Good-Game-Mastering/dp/1556346298

Relationships between people are messy and complicated, but they are quantifiable and can be measured and adjusted.

There's a link in the spawning "How does Color get into System" thread here: http://www.lumpley.com/anycomment.php?entry=234 that I think helps here.
Vincent divides System into four parts: Ad-Hoc Decisions, Principled Decisions, the Rules You Use, and the Rules you Ignore.
Most of that post is a discussion of what Vincent means when he says "The Rules," so it doesn't matter here.  But his model is useful:

In your example, You saw the Aiming Time decision as Ad-hoc (not principled), but a Good, because it increased the Fun. 
When the Reloading Time decision came up, you tried to get it accepted as a Good, because it would increase the Fun, not because it made sense (was a Principled decision).  The GM tried to make a case that Reloading Time had to follow a 'Realism' Principle, and you pointed out that there wasn't a Principle behind Aiming Time, so why did there have to be a Principle behind Reloading Time?

Your discussion about whether or not you were willing to put up with those house rules was a discussion of whether or not you wanted to agree with the group's System.
IMHO, you agreed to decisions made in play when you don't say "That's bull, I don't want to play with that,"  You agreed by Omission, rather than by Commission, so to speak.

People talk about Capes on this forum as either being playable in two different ways: Ultra Gamist or Ultra Narrative, with no middle ground.
In that case, the rules don't change, but a group making Decisions how those rules are applied is Exploration of System. (as well as any of the other Explorations).  As long as all the players are Exploring System in the same way (operating on the same Principles), the game goes well.  There are a number of APs where groups hate Capes because the group was not united in Principle (and Exploring System in different directions).

-Fred

Guys, your starting off with the assumption system did exist, then looking for evidence only in that direction. Particularly when/if you say 'what the system is' rather than 'whether there was a system at all, and if there was one, what was it?'. I mean, speaking with absolutely no doubt there was a system, it's just a question of what it was? Absolute certainty? No capacity for failure at all in terms of thinking that? Utterly perfect knowledge on that matter?

Put it this way - do you think it's even possible for there to be an abscence of system?

If not, oh well, I'm not taking that on in this thread, that's for sure.

This thread is for people who go 'Well, I guess it's possible' and then we ask 'How would you measure whether it was the case, assuming it can be measured?'

Callan, there's a bit of philosophical stuff going on in this thread, to do with circular logic, empiricism, falsifiability and all that business, but before I get into that, you have quoted a sentence fragment there, so I can't really see what your aha moment was:

"if x and y exist and b becomes c, then ....."

I don't really see how that can give you any insight into c, aside from the fact that b can possibly become it. Where's the insight? Does it require something else in the rest of the post you quoted from?

Secondly, and I think this is really important, the big model is about functional play. People have seen great things and want to describe it, they had a good game yesterday and want to work out what was present in that game. It may be you've never had a good game in your life, or it might be that you've only had good games in certain specific situations: When you worked together happily and had a really enjoyable game, that's where the measurement is being taken and the theory is about finding a pattern of experience that connects those good times. This kind of theory is about what it looks like when we "win" at making a form of arrangement that everyone is happy with, that we want to continue. Once you know the target, then you can compare your current situation to it and try to find how to get there.

Hi Josh,

I don't really understand or recognise your own rephrasing? Perhaps your rephrasing is off?

And again you've given the assumption that there definately was a system - this time you've given the conditional that if you had a good time there must have been a system involved.

Really? If you had a good time, that definately means a system was involved? As I ask above, is it possible that even in an enjoyable game, no system was involved? Do you think it's even slightly possible? If not and your certain there has to have been a system - well, I'm not tackling that sort of certainty in this thread. I'm not sure it's possible to tackle, even - if someones not prepared to doubt their beliefs to some degree, what could anyone else say or do to change that, anyway?

It's possible for a series of events to occur that happen to be quite fun. Afterwards one can try and recall those events, invent a procedure and try and make it all occur again by following that procedure. But this is inventing a system after those events happened. It doesn't mean there was a system going on at the time just because afterward you can think of a system that fits those events. If someones walking past a stack of beach balls and it collapses perchance and they have fun dodging them, can they stack up the balls and deliberately make them collapse for dodging fun/make a system of it? Yes. Does that mean there was a system involved the first time? No. It was just a chance event.

Honestly, your all aware of how many traditional games get played in multiple different and incompatable ways, yet you think how things occured in those games come from some system? No, it's like the stack of beach balls - they sat down, shit happened, it was fun. But there was no system, even though those fun events are recreatable.

Again for everyone, if your only certain that system must have existed, or system must exist if the game session was good, this thread isn't for you. It's only for people who can mull over the idea that perhaps it's possible that no system existed, and how to measure if that was the case (assuming it's measurable).

Just try mulling over the idea of "what if there was no system involved in X instance of my own play history", for thirty seconds. Don't even have to post about it or anything that might acknowledge the idea at all. Just mull it over. What harm could mulling do? Or if you do want to post and say "Well, I thought about it but it seems crazy, because that would involve things being X...and I know they are Y", go for it. And if you don't want to think about anything but your premise of there being a system is right, don't post. The only way I know of to prove something is false, is if the person will humour the idea even slightly that it's false. Unless you put some effort into disproving something yourself, nobody can disprove it to you, simply because your simply not even putting the effort of absorbing what is said. If you wont, it's a waste of time trying to disprove it - atleast by words, anyway. Don't post, you'll be wasting your time and you'll be wasting my time.

So you're basically asking: Does system exist as a thing itself outside of and pre-existing our definitions?

That's easy. No.

System, the term, exists solely as a means to analyze play, text, and the interaction between text and play.

There is not abstract truth to it. If you want to do analysis of play, text, or the interaction between text and play without a concept labeled "system" go right ahead. You don't need anyone's permission.

Callan wrote:
I don't really understand or recognise your own rephrasing? Perhaps your rephrasing is off?

Callan wrote:
And again you've given the assumption that there definately was a system - this time you've given the conditional that if you had a good time there must have been a system involved.

Hi Ben,

That doesn't seem to jive with the system does matter article? It specifically refers to system as a way of resolving what happens during play, not a way of analyzing what might have happen during a gathering?

Hi Josh,

taking it as a statement of fact, all it tells you is that something can become something else;

At the end of this, they may say, "system exists in this form ____"

Callan wrote:
That's not worth questioning/I wouldn't be questioning that? Wait, never mind that, I'll just cut to the chase - yes, I'm questioning this statement of fact.

Callan wrote:
If someones walking past a stack of beach balls and it collapses perchance and they have fun dodging them, can they stack up the balls and deliberately make them collapse for dodging fun/make a system of it? Yes. Does that mean there was a system involved the first time? No. It was just a chance event.

Callan wrote:
If your skipping from one to the other and back again, intermingling the situations as if they are one and the same - that's probably the core error to this I'm trying to point out.

Josh, I think your just pitching that a wrench can be used like a hammer, thus it's both. Do we have any common ground on what it's original intent was? Cause if we don't, then we don't.

But people always make definitions and act as if they are true, that's called acting on your current understanding, it's called living! The question is whether you challenge your definitions by subjecting them to demonstration

It may be that people are misusing a word, confusing themselves by shifting from one definition to another inconsistently, or it may be that they define a word differently to you, and you are only just realising this. Perhaps their not confusing themselves about what they mean, just you?

Here's what I'd say, it's similar, but not the same. In other words there is some component of Vincent's games that allow him to get away with pissing about with the authority structures of the game.

But maybe that's not true, maybe tolerance is all there is. That the thing that holds the game together moment to moment is just tolerating the crappy bits of what someone does and enjoying the good bits? Does that view help? Explain anything?

Callan wrote: Okay, how about an old AP example I heard from RPG.net, where a new guy joins a group and at a certain point when his character was hit by a bullet, the GM, under the table and without saying anything prior, shoots him in real life in the gut with a paintball gun. Is that a system? The other guys at that table apparently stayed around. If people stay at the table, does that mean system must exist?

If your tolerance hasn't snapped yet, does that mean there's a system? Or just that your tolerance hasn't snapped yet?

Also awhile back I played in a game of rifts, and the GM (a friend of mine) had been saying that aimed/called shots, which take up an attack, don't mean you have to wait. Eg, if it would use up two attacks, you don't sit through two turns doing nothing, you do it now and your total attacks for the melee round is reduced by two. However, when it came to reloading, latter in the same game, no, you had to use an attack and do nothing for a turn. I tried to present this apparent conflict, but he literally said something like 'Aww, come on, you can't just reload and shoot all at once'...despite the fact that apparently people were carefully aiming for some time, yet shooting instantly and somehow that aiming time happened after the shot (was taken off the number of attacks). At this point I thought of the golden rule, how it'd eventually get invoked no doubt, and ceased bothering to discuss it and just went with it (and chalked up yet another dumb and uninteresting point against the golden rule).

Hi Caldis,

If they are able to make it work then yes it's a system.

They have a system, it's one you dont like but there is a system.  Does that fact that you dont like the system suddenly mean there isnt one?  If the rest of the players at the table dont mind it and continue to play after you leave are they playing systemless?  Of course not.  There is system, one where the gm determines how the rules work.  It is a system even if it's not systematic.

If they are able to make it work then yes it's a system.  It may be a crap system but it's a system.  It's how they are determining what happens in the game, it sounds like there are a lot of mind games going on to get people into a mental state that brings them closer to their characters.  The link between getting shot by a paintball and your character being shot seems pretty tenuous at best but there are a lot of other crap systems that dont actually achieve what they are intended to do.  System as a term is value neutral.  It is what it is, these people are doing this and that is how they play.  It's left to you to make value judgements on whether you like that system or not.

Callan wrote: Hi Caldis,I'm not sure what you mean, chronologically? Take my beach ball example - when the balls fell down by chance, there was no system. But then after that, the guy decides to set them up to avalanche at him. That set up is obviously a system at that point. If that's what your saying, that after the events he can find a way of repeating them that works, well at that point that's a system, yes. It's a system he worked out after the original chance fall of the beach balls.

Callan wrote:
Josh, I think your just pitching that a wrench can be used like a hammer, thus it's both. Do we have any common ground on what it's original intent was? Cause if we don't, then we don't.

Callan wrote:
People could define a glass of cyanide differently from me - doesn't mean their defining it differently will mean it'll have different properties once drunk. On this principle, no, I don't respect 'oh, this is our special definition'. Or I respect it about as much as the cyanide would, anyway. (a dark humour part of me wants to say that upon finding this to be true, a gamer would then redefine the word 'drink' and thus declare the problem solved, because they weren't drinking the cyanide anymore)

I'm just not seeing much coherance to the original authors of the idea (or willfully ignoring the intent, yet still amazingly using it as a reference for arguement). In other cases I've pitched the idea that perhaps there was no system and said this is not a thread for zealous conviction there must be a system, you must humour doubt there was a system (even if you don't really believe that, but are just humouring the idea) to participate, and in those cases participation stopped. And with Gareths/contracycles post, it's mostly establishing what I'm trying to establish, so that's already complete. So I'm summing up.

You can't make system through play. You can ask someone if they want to follow a system you've thought up. No, there is no principle of "Oh, you don't always have to ask permission for something". Why? Because ask the damn people your going to play with if you don't have to ask permission always. If they say no, then clearly no, there is no such principle! They just said no to it! But because I, here on a chat forum, can't prove you don't always have to ask (oddly enough I can't in advance prove what someones going to consent to), that must make it a true principle you don't always have to ask? No! Ask the damn people your playing with. It's just wank to sit on a forum and tell each other that yeah, a group of players can do something, for example, the GM didn't agree to, and thats a rule of how things work in life, like gravity is a rule of how things work in life. No, ask a GM in that position if he wants to do that. If he says no, then clearly there is no "Oh, you don't always have to ask permission for something" principle that exists in real life, otherwise he'd be compelled by that real life 'fact' to say yes. Thinking otherwise is as bullshit as all the ideas that if you buy a woman X, Y and Z she'll sleep with you, as if it's a principle that 'woman brain' just follows. That's just a display of lame theory of mind, that's blind to consent and only sees a new rule of physics on 'how things work'.

Or it's worse than wank. I'll draw your attention of how domestic violence becomes ingrained into the 'system' of the 'relationship', with bullshit justifications "He only does it when he's angry". Oh, and you know these people genuinely believe it's a relationship - clearly showing that people, human beings, like you or me, can make a 'system' out of really...murky elements. Before you start 'spoofing' the GM or anybody, you might want to ask if that's how you want to live and tell others enmasse by forum it's okay to live that way. Because I can't honestly prove that the domestic violence couple aren't a 'system' or a 'relationship'. But just because something can't be disproved as a system, doesn't mean it's something you want to do in your life. I'm wondering if standards in the community are degrading, or atleast measured against my own set of standards (which I'm not saying are the be all and end all), they always were degraded.

All right. This is probably gonna get me into arguments, but what the hell.

There is no such thing as "shit just happening." If something happens, it happens because something caused it to happen. Gravity, momentum, Newton's second law of mechanics, and conservation of energy caused the beach balls to behave as they did (what causes gravity, et al? Fuck if I know, but before we get into anything like that, such theoretical physics are a bit beyond our scope here, yes?).

Likewise, if some people are sitting around a table, anything that happens at that table happens because one or more of them caused it to happen.

Such a collection of causes and their effects, and the events that prompt causes into action, among a specific group of players for a specific unit of play comprises a specific System (as defined by the LP). Therefore there is no way for System to not exist. There is no way for things to happen at the table without someone causing them to happen.

A System can be disordered; it's still a System. You can cause things on accident; you still caused them, and it still contributes to the System. You can be displeased with the System's results; it's still a System.

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Marshall wrote:
Such a collection of causes and their effects, and the events that prompt causes into action, among a specific group of players for a specific unit of play comprises a specific System (as defined by the LP). Therefore there is no way for System to not exist. There is no way for things to happen at the table without someone causing them to happen.

A few things need to be straightened out.  The System does matter article predates the Lumpley principle so what that article is talking about and what system has come to mean may not be exactly the same thing.   Look to the provisional glossary or better yet check out http://www.lumpley.com/opine.html

I think you guys are getting messed up because you are thinking of system as something you use to help you play out a session.  That's not the case, when we talk system we're talking everything you actually did when you played out the game to determine what happened.  So if in game a combat situation comes up and you try and play by the rules of the game to resolve the conflict that's not the entirety of system.  The system includes things that most games dont really resolve such as where all the combatants were in relation to each other when combat broke out, what the conditions were in terms that may cause penalties like lighting cover and obstacles, are there any objects that can be used as improvised weapons. The system includes determining all these things and how and by who they are decided.  It may be by negotiation between players and gm, it could be up to the gm to decide or it may be determinable by expending resources.  All of it makes up system.  If you are using ad hoc decisions to determine what happened in the game then that is part of the system the game is using.  And yes Contra there is only one system and your definition nails it "People sit around and agree what happens in the game." That is exactly the definition of system the question is how do they get to the point of agreement.  If they dont agree about what happens in the game it's impossible to have a game.

Caldis wrote:
A few things need to be straightened out.  The System does matter article predates the Lumpley principle so what that article is talking about and what system has come to mean may not be exactly the same thing.   Look to the provisional glossary or better yet check out http://www.lumpley.com/opine.html

 It may be by negotiation between players and gm, it could be up to the gm to decide or it may be determinable by expending resources.  All of it makes up system.

   If you are using ad hoc decisions to determine what happened in the game then that is part of the system the game is using.   And yes Contra there is only one system and your definition nails it "People sit around and agree what happens in the game." That is exactly the definition of system the question is how do they get to the point of agreement.  If they dont agree about what happens in the game it's impossible to have a game.

contracycle wrote:
I think you have a serious case of category confusion going on.  The rules of the road do not, of course, tell you how to drive in every specific situation, but they do provide a rule based method for figuring out what to do, or what to expect others will do, when you encounter real situations.  Of course in driving from point A to point B you will be required to make many ad hoc and specifically situational decisions, but those things do not supplant or invalidate the general rules of road conduct you have learned.   The ad hoc decisions you make are executed within the framework of, and with reference to, the general systematic rules.  "You steer the car to get where you're going" is not a useful method by which to determine who should give way at a roundabout.

Caldis wrote:
That's the thing though.  There are rules of road conduct and they govern how you should act on the road however does anyone follow all of them all the time?  If we want to look at how someone is driving do we look at the laws of the road and then determine that obviously this is the way the person is driving?  If the person drives for years, speeds, parks illegal, doesnt shoulder check but has always gotten to work and back how safe without causing any accidents cant we say that he has a system where sometimes he follows the rules and sometimes he ignores them?  It's repeatable, he's done it multiple times and it always works out despite no written rules that show exactly how he was driving.

In a more role play fashion.  I've played several games basically free form.  We get together come up with ideas and run with them.  When characters come into conflict we've sometimes negotiated the outcome or sometimes we'd roll dice and compare to help us decide what happened.  There are no written rules anywhere but we are able to resolve what's happening in the game, we have some kind of system going on since we're able to do it repeatedly.

Maybe system is the wrong word maybe it should be thought of as process because essentially that's what we are talking about.  What steps happen that take us from point a to point b and this is why design is important, why system matters, and where creative agenda comes in.  You cant just look at the mechanics of a game and think you have everything figured out.  You can try and make mechanics that tell you exactly how to play but if you dont also tell the person what the goal of the game is they're quite likely to abuse them or misuse them.   If you only consider the mechanics of a game system then you are missing out on what's going on simply because no one has created a mechanic for it before such as setting and situation creation which are absent in the vast majority of games.

Marshall wrote:
All right. This is probably gonna get me into arguments, but what the hell.

There is no such thing as "shit just happening." If something happens, it happens because something caused it to happen. Gravity, momentum, Newton's second law of mechanics, and conservation of energy caused the beach balls to behave as they did (what causes gravity, et al? Fuck if I know, but before we get into anything like that, such theoretical physics are a bit beyond our scope here, yes?).

Likewise, if some people are sitting around a table, anything that happens at that table happens because one or more of them caused it to happen.

Such a collection of causes and their effects, and the events that prompt causes into action, among a specific group of players for a specific unit of play comprises a specific System (as defined by the LP). Therefore there is no way for System to not exist. There is no way for things to happen at the table without someone causing them to happen.

I think you guys are getting messed up because you are thinking of system as something you use to help you play out a session.

Hoo boy, it is the word police! Well at least we're still trying to act for the benefit of other human beings, and that should give us something to work with.

Callan, you make a valuable point about the dangers of stating a system; it can encourage people to stick with crap just cos they have a name for it. Why? Because people can confuse structure for necessity; just because a group of people do create a repeating or continuous pattern of behaviour, doesn't mean that's the only way for them to do it. That sort of fatalism is what can be really dangerous about creating a picture of the world, but they can be a force for change, because even if the picture was true a moment ago, the very fact that you can see it now means that the pattern itself may change.

That's one important reason why it is valuable to spot patterns in behaviour, whether pre-arranged or otherwise, because you can change it.

Another good reason is because as you suggest, you can see an awesome series of events that happened, and try to replicate them.

But there is no need to fear "systems". So to answer your very first question, yes a verbal abusive man on a train + your lack of response to it, or a husband who physically abuses his wife, and her response to it, or a GM who damages your investment in a game + your response to it, can be considered a set of systems, with potentially quite different dynamics. Not from the (perhaps fictional) "forge consensus" perspective, but from any number of people out there who model social structure. But those structures might not be fixed, there may be ways to resolve them, and perhaps recognising their structure and their persistence will help to remove both of them. The assignment of blame wouldn't change, but maybe it wouldn't happen again.

And I wouldn't push the brain damage idea too far either, a simpler explanation of why people "already have story" is because your words are butting into each other. Perhaps in deference to their language you could say "a better kind of story, which I find so much better I don't call the other stuff story at all", or the same for system. You may find when you start comparing your's and their' versions of story and system, that you both have something to learn from each other, and their not brain damaged so much as unconvinced.

Contracycle, generality is only dangerous if we stop there; we do not complain about all books being in the same library because "I got a book from the library" is not a very informative statement. In the same way, a general definition of what happens in a game is only a problem if it stops there, and we say "stuff happens, hallelujah" or something equally uninformative. The alternative is to look at different kinds of system (subdividing like looking through the library's filing system), and ask which are better, and if the better ones can be shared etc. For example, supposedly David Donachie GMs his game Solipsist very well, but other people can't get the same goodness out of it. If the definition of system is broad enough, we have a big net to catch facts about how he GMs, and develop explicit systems from them.

Now when you compare explicit systems to inexplicit ones, a funny thing occurs; sometimes following rules that specify your entire behaviour doesn't result in the same experience for those doing it. In the beach balls example, replaying a series of events is basically just setting up the original starting situation again and letting it run to it's conclusion, or it is constraining a different pattern of change to the previous one, perhaps with lots of guiding wires attached to the balls.

This is a challenge I have experienced in game design, sometimes it's not about getting someone to replicate what someone else did, as that will only lead to external correctness, but about getting them to the same place or a similar one to that of the original you are modelling, more like method acting or something. I expect that such additional structures are irrelevant for those who can already do the core thing they are supposed to encourage, so I also hope to build them so that they fold away as neatly as possible when not in use. Tricky!

I wouldn't be surprised if almost no-one takes issue with the rather simple idea that we can do things unconsciously or consciously, and we don't pick out and choose every event that happens by perfect scanning of the future. The full consequences of events are almost always more than we plan, than the human activity systems we agree to between each other. I don't think labouring this point will solve the disagreement, because I'm not sure if anyone was making this error to any substantial extent.

I think we could however pick out some interesting stuff about the difference between tolerance and agreement, and predictive capacity in decision-making.

Josh, if I wasn't, for example, word police, but you went on to post as if I absolutely were... well, in that example atleast, you'd be being disruptive. And willfully so, since it'd be ignoring any possiblity of being wrong on that and so deliberately acting in a way that doesn't match the situation.

Summing up in short form, if you treat both
A: Going into a store, handing someone money and taking from them some milk and bread
B: Going into a store with a knife, opening the till, taking money and leaving
as being 'system' in the same tone, equally, without caveat, then you are speaking about them as being equal and the same. As you treat them, so they become - either in other people that hear you or in your own eyes. If you treat them equally, so they, over time, will become equal.

Also it's possible this is occuring only because of some oversight/theory of mind issue. I think it's possible to ask for consent through body language alone. And I think if you miss the fact that asking and giving happened, you might start to think you don't have to ask for consent all the time, as if you can just do X sans that body language ask. I think we also often have loose, overall understandings of behaviour between people in our various cultures, that they were raised with and essentially consent to (well, I'll say 'essentially' to keep this simple). I think if you miss the fact these exist and are in action at the gaming table (as well as everywhere else), you might start thinking the smelly chamberlain example shows you don't always need constantly reinforced consensus and is an example of that, even though because of those prior understandings existance, your essentially bathing in constantly reinforced consensus.

Take this quote from Ron

We mean something more like "get" in the informal sense of the word, or "run with from now on," or even "stay consistent with from now on, at least close enough for government work."

Callan wrote:
And willfully so, since it'd be ignoring any possiblity of being wrong on that and so deliberately acting in a way that doesn't match the situation.

JoyWriter wrote:
That's one important reason why it is valuable to spot patterns in behaviour, whether pre-arranged or otherwise, because you can change it.

Another good reason is because as you suggest, you can see an awesome series of events that happened, and try to replicate them.

....
can be considered a set of systems, with potentially quite different dynamics.

Callan wrote:
as being 'system' in the same tone, equally, without caveat, then you are speaking about them as being equal and the same.

Callan wrote:
If you want to really look at system, you'll see that this isn't describing how something works to me, it's asking me to 'get' it. And in asking, it's asking me to consent to 'getting' it. That's the actual system that's happening.

Callan wrote:
... That's the actual system that's happening.

Yet if everyone thinks they are describing something that exists, rather than in describing something and in doing so, asking consent to it - if they don't recognise they are asking consent...well, I think maybe you get the smelly chamberlain thread. Whole bunches of people thinking they are talking about system when really the system is that they are asking each others consent to a certain procedure.

Oh and by the way that last post is the consequence of hitting post instead of preview, I'll have a more substantial post up within the next few days!

I've not only distinguished between those patterns we want to preserve and those we want to change, I've suggested that the abusive ones might themselves be distinguishable from each other!

I've invited you to do loads of things in this thread, all focused on bridging between what other people think and what you think, no dodgy power-knowledge stuff.

Are they? Could you be wrong on that?

JoyWriter wrote:
Contracycle, generality is only dangerous if we stop there; we do not complain about all books being in the same library because "I got a book from the library" is not a very informative statement. In the same way, a general definition of what happens in a game is only a problem if it stops there, and we say "stuff happens, hallelujah" or something equally uninformative. The alternative is to look at different kinds of system (subdividing like looking through the library's filing system), and ask which are better, and if the better ones can be shared etc. For example, supposedly David Donachie GMs his game Solipsist very well, but other people can't get the same goodness out of it. If the definition of system is broad enough, we have a big net to catch facts about how he GMs, and develop explicit systems from them.

I think there are two discussions happening here and that's a big part of the confusion.  Contra, I think where we may be getting messed up is related to the example with the paintball guns.  Is shooting someone with a paintball part of system if everything in the SIS has already been resolved?  No, it's not part of system it's tangentially related like color in the earlier discussion that lead to this.  Do the people playing have a system? Yes if they are able to construct events in the SIS and resolve them and everyone agrees what happened then they have a system.  The paintball gun is irrelevant to system, it exists more on the social contract level.

Callan on the other hand is arguing that there is no system, even though there is evidence that things have been resolved.

Callan wrote:
This is probably the core dissonance here, Marshall - you've switched from 'something', to 'someone'. Treated them interchangeably, just as I was talking before about confusing and mixing up darwinistic system and man made system.

Is someone at the table causing gravity to exist? Is someone at the table causing momentum to exist?

Callan wrote:
Summing up in short form, if you treat both
A: Going into a store, handing someone money and taking from them some milk and bread
B: Going into a store with a knife, opening the till, taking money and leaving
as being 'system' in the same tone, equally, without caveat, then you are speaking about them as being equal and the same. As you treat them, so they become - either in other people that hear you or in your own eyes. If you treat them equally, so they, over time, will become equal.

When I say "at the table" I mean "in the context of this thing that we call roleplaying." All the events that happens in-game? They don't exist. Nothing happens to the fiction unless the people imagining it (US) cause it to happen. The process by which we cause it to happen is what is termed "System." For there to be any possibility at all that System might not exist, you'd have to establish that things can happen in the SIS without people causing them to happen. Which is plainly impossible.

A good System and a bad System are both a System. This does not make them equal. Both are Systems, but one is good and the other is bad. Ejecting bad Systems from the status of "System" is nonsense and accomplishes nothing.

Callan on the other hand is arguing that there is no system, even though there is evidence that things have been resolved.

Callan wrote: Hold on, haven't you been saying raw physics counts as system?

If it did count, it wouldn't matter if things are resolved or even unresolved amongst people at the table. By that measure, it'd still be a system.

Or are you adopting some sort of view that raw physics are not enough to qualify as system? And now your speaking in terms of there being things resolved, as evidence of systems existance? Adopting just for this thread or such...I'm not implying your fully adopting it or anything.

Callan,
I could start arguing that we can and do, indeed, control and decide our imagination and dreams, even if not always consciously (which, as far as I'm concerned, in no way absolves responsibility). That would be nothing but a big shitfight. Luckily, I don't have to, because it's completely irrelevant.

What I'm imagining, on my own, is not the thing here. What goes into the SIS, that's the issue. If you accept "roleplaying" as the act of creating and developing an SIS, then System (as defined by the Lumpley Principle) is the means by which a group decides what goes into the SIS and what doesn't. If I imagine something and someone else doesn't, then it ain't in the SIS, and is in fact not relevant to play, at all*, until I utilize System to introduce it to the SIS and make it relevant.

* Do some people get kicks out of imagining this stuff anyway? Apparently. I don't think it's a good idea. But that phenomenon isn't pertinent if we're talking about the group activity of "roleplaying."

Hmm, how does that tie in with the million and one AP accounts out there (and this is even noted way back in T&T) that go something like
"Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?"
"No, your standing over there"
"If I'd known that I would have run way over here!"
"Well, your there and your burnt!"

I'd say that proves unshared imagination matters to play. Or are you saying if the player put his foot down and did not accept that he was standing over there/did not, along with everyone else, also imagine his PC was standing over there, are you saying he'd have no consequence. Ie he'd not be burnt by the dragon. And so your saying that unless everyone imagines it, it's not relevant to play?

Callan,

Can play continue if they never resolve where the character actually was?  Somehow that has to happen or else the game falls apart.  You cant have a player saying his character wasnt burnt by the dragon while the GM says he was.  Either they resolve it in some manner, negotiation, ret-con, someone gives in or else the game has reached an impasse and can not continue.  How they do that is the system in use.

Well, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.

What's really interesting here is the very different emphasis - compare the following:
* Play can't continue because we did not resolve where the character is, fiction wise
Vs
* Play can't continue because someone is not following the rules. Playing with a fractured fiction is fine (say that five times fast!), but if people wont follow rules, play cannot continue.

It seems to be the fiction first/rules first divide. Which kind of was discussed here, once.

I think I do understand what your getting at with the sense that play can't continue until this thing on where the guy is, is resolved. I can see that as being the hurdle to get over. But I can also switch perspective and see it as nothing all that important and it's whether people are following rules, assuming there are any to follow, that matters and the fiction can stay fractured and that's no biggy - the show/play goes on regardless. I can mentally flick between the two emphasis...though my own preference is the latter.

I imagine that if your emphasis is on the former where play can't continue until that fiction is resolved, my half damage rule from above probably seems anathema, perhaps provoking a responce like "Who cares if you can keep following some darn procedure! Where is the guy!? Where is he...you can't go on like that!". Indeed it's probably seen by many as the feature of roleplay as a hobby, in that play can't go on without an intact fictional package.

Maybe it is, historically, I don't know. Certainly this discussion of system seems very much fiction first/play can't continue unless the fiction is resolved.

Callan wrote:
Well, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.

Callan wrote:
Hmm, how does that tie in with the million and one AP accounts out there (and this is even noted way back in T&T) that go something like
"Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?"
"No, your standing over there"
"If I'd known that I would have run way over here!"
"Well, your there and your burnt!"

I'd say that proves unshared imagination matters to play. Or are you saying if the player put his foot down and did not accept that he was standing over there/did not, along with everyone else, also imagine his PC was standing over there, are you saying he'd have no consequence. Ie he'd not be burnt by the dragon. And so your saying that unless everyone imagines it, it's not relevant to play?

Caldis wrote:

Callan wrote:
Well, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.

This is resolving the events in the SIS.  It may not answer where exactly the character was but it does resolve what happened, he was at least partially damaged by the fire.  This is system and it works exactly as per definition and the same as your earlier example where you didnt agree with the gm's ruling but let it go.

Even here you have both parties agreeing on what happened or the game breaks down.  If one side doesnt agree with using your solution then the game still cant continue.

So once you agreed to the golden rule interpretation what happened with the fiction?  Your character wasnt able to shoot his gun at the same time as he loaded the weapon.  You may not have agreed with the ruling but you accepted it.  There is no your version of events that happened and the version the gm used there is only the version you both accepted, you werent able to shoot and load.  Likewise in the Dragon example you've both accepted the character was close enough to be damaged by the flames, we may not agree on where exactly the character was but if it doesnt affect the resolution or the action it's a disagreement about color not system.

Jeez man, you really are explicitly telling me what I've agreed with!

If some tribe had a law that said I had to wear a red sash upon first visiting their village, because otherwise bad spirits come, and I wear the red sash, does that mean I agree that their bad spirit exists? Or that I just agree to abide by their laws?

Your projecting spirits onto procedure, then telling me that as I've agreed to the procedure and it's resolutions, I've agreed to the spirits.

I agreed to the golden rule procedure outcome - I did not agree to some fictional level that anyone else projected onto it or it's outcome, or that you are projecting onto it right now. And the guys in my dragon example, they are doing the same - they do not agree on fiction, they just agree to the procedure to continue with. Your just blatantly making stuff up now when you say they agree 'he was close enough'. They did not. I should know as it's my example, but your actually telling me what the guys in it have agreed to.

Or are you gunna keep saying "You put on the sash! You've agreed there are spirits!"?

And your first questions a loaded one - "what happened with the fiction?". The questions asserting that one single 'the fiction' existed. It's like asking me "Where were you on the night of the murder you commited?"...bit hard to answer that one without simply admitting something that isn't true. Similarly I can't answer your question without admitting your premise that there was one single fiction, because the question is rigged that way.

I cant add anything else here.  All I can say is what did happen in the game.  Was your character able to shoot and load at the same time like you wanted?  Did that happen?  Did you get to move on to the next step that would happen in a game if your character was allowed to fire his gun?  Did you roll to hit?  There is no multiple fictions here, I'm sorry but you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.  Only one thing happened you loaded the rifle and continued with the game as the gm ruled. 

If X = 0, spend one Y to put the value of X at the value of Z.

X is given the tag 'ammo', Y is given the tag 'attack' and Z is the maximum value of X.

It's quite easy to follow that procedure without agreeing to any fiction anyone else has in their pretty little head. Just like it's possible to play the card game 'lunch money', following the instructions without any fictional level at all, or follow the instructions, studiously ignoring any fiction that pops into anyone elses head. Eg, the 'big combo' card in lunch money, which does X amount of points, the instructions encourage you to describe the move. Does that mean the other person simply must have agreed with the description as being the one and only fiction? Or are they just nodding through and humouring how your imagination goes, as they follow the instructions?

But ultimately I'll put it this way - if I knew someone else was going to be absolutely certain I'm agreeing with their fiction when I'm not and I'm actually telling them I don't agree? I don't want to give that impression - so I'd pack up and leave. That simple. Take the 'reloading' thing - if the other people involved wont accept at that very point when it came up I don't agree with their fiction and there are two seperate, disparate fictions, I'd just pack up and leave. Not because anyones done anything bad, I just don't want to give the impression, by hanging around, that I agreed to something I didn't agree to. If you can't see I don't agree with your fiction, but if I stick around you'll have the impression I do agree? Then I'll leave. As soon as the GM says actually it still takes an attack to reload, I'll just say bye and leave then. I wont stick around and humour or support what is a false and deluded impression. To be honest, if I knew, I wouldn't play with such people to begin with. Not because they are bad, just because I don't want to humour their deluded impression of what I have agreed to.

I'm really dreading that somehow someone will take this to a pythonesque "Oh, even if you leave, you agreed to the fiction". Which brings all sorts of absurd comedy skits to mind "What if I pulled a gun and shot them all?" "Still agreed!" "Nuke?" "Still agreed!". Which would basically mean LP and 'system' are hotel california. But hopefully this is just a probability of what someone will say and one that just isn't the RL case.

IMVHO the word "system" as defined in the glossary generates a lot of misunderstanding.
In part because it's the only concept that takes the ownership to actually make the imagination come fictional truth.
Maybe, a better definition could be:
"System is whatever must occur between players in terms of explicit (written and not interpretable) or implicit (deduced by common sense or built-in in the human nature) game rules or social behaviours in order to agree to fictional events during play".
Rob

I think it needs to be defined as existing, based on something that is physically detectable. The original iterations of the lumpley principle rested on negotiation, which is fairly detectable at a physical level.

Otherwise you could say invisible fairies are at the table whispering in ones ears and influencing what goes into the SIS, thus invisible fairies are part of system!!!1! "But you can't prove they aren't there, and I say they are there, so they are part of system, it's exactly as the definition says etc etc" And in strict symantics, it is part of the definition.

That might sound over the top, but that's how the smelly chamberlain, or the idea I agreed to the GM's fiction on reloading, appear to me. Based on things that are invisible and while they can't be proven, they also can't be disproven. And the inability to disprove them is enough 'proof' for many to take them as being the case. Although in the latter case, immediately leaving the table might be enough to disprove the notion.

'whatever' isn't enough. It allows the invisible fairies a way in. Or to be more exact, superstition. Currently the LP is allowing just that.

I see your point and it looks right to me.
"System is anything that must occur and is physically detectable between players in terms of explicit (written and not interpretable) or implicit (deduced by common sense or built-in in the human nature) game rules or social behaviours in order to agree to fictional events during play".

That could open the flank to "sensism" counter-arguments, but I hope not.
Rob

Callan wrote:
I honestly can't see you distinguishing between what you want to preserve and what you want to change (and by change I assume you mean remove). Even when you say you want to preserve awesome series of events, I can't honestly see you saying you would also remove things you thought morally iffy (and I mean even atleast by your own moral code, rather than by mine or some general one). You just talk about different dynamics, not right and wrong.

Callan wrote:
But with Ron, that's the interesting part and what prompted me to post probably too quickly...
When I say 'that's the actual system that's happening' then I'm describing the system, at it's current point, between me and Ron.

The interesting thing is that if I am wrong on what he was doing, then there is no system between us. Or no single system - he'd be running off some pattern of doing things, I'd be running off another pattern of doing things. Given the wide use of system here, you could call that clash of patterns 'system', but then again you could call two cars smashing into each other, as it's happening, system, with that broad a notion of system.

In terms of being disruptive, if myself and Ron were actually two patterns crashing against each other at that point, I don't think I could get more disruptive than has already happened. And yet everyone wants to call that crashing 'system', with no moral distinguishment. So if you want to call me disruptive, as in something morally iffy, go ahead, but then equally you'd have to name the smelly chamberlain thread examples that too, rather than just calling them 'system' without caveat and without tone.

Callan wrote:
"Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?"
"No, your standing over there"
"If I'd known that I would have run way over here!"
"Well, your there and your burnt!"

Callan wrote:
But ultimately I'll put it this way - if I knew someone else was going to be absolutely certain I'm agreeing with their fiction when I'm not and I'm actually telling them I don't agree? I don't want to give that impression - so I'd pack up and leave. That simple.

rgrassi wrote:
I see your point and it looks right to me.
"System is anything that must occur and is physically detectable between players in terms of explicit (written and not interpretable) or implicit (deduced by common sense or built-in in the human nature) game rules or social behaviours in order to agree to fictional events during play".

That could open the flank to "sensism" counter-arguments, but I hope not.
Rob

Hi Josh,

Also it might be helpful to contrast all of these robberies and things with an actually healthy situation; have you referred to anything in this thread that you would consider right?

Now I'm going to see if I can take a stab at defusing this right here, here's hoping aye!

You can go back to the start of this thread and see me suggesting that you provide an alternative, a way of looking at games so people can "pretend your view is true". Until then, there's no possibility of shared understanding, it's just "I don't think the same as you, maybe your wrong". Perhaps we're all wrong, but if you provide an alternative view then people can decide to try yours out, hypothetically, and compare it to their own one. Your starting to do this, which is great, but it's still board games or card games, not your own explanation of actual rpg sessions.

Is that what you did, in that game? Did you declare that you disagreed? And the game carried on anyway? And you didn't pack up and leave?

Did you start going "well if that is how reloading works, I'd have to do this"? That's what people are referring to, an agreement to build on something as if it was what actually happened. You might call it tolerating, and make a moral distinction between the two. But if so, what you call "tolerating", other people have included as part of "agreement". That's all, no confusion, just disagreement.

What people maybe haven't seen though, is that you tolerated something you really didn't like. Why? You'd have to answer that. (if I'm right that I'm right that .....)

Those personal views of the fiction are pretty much irrelevant.  Role playing is a form of social interaction where people are sharing their imagination.  When we look at game play we are looking at what was shared because that is out in the open.  What's going on inside the contributors mind, exactly how they see it, doesnt matter because we cant know that.  What we can know as a contributor or as an outside party watching is what was shared, what was communicated between the individuals what was seen to happen.  In your example a situation developed and combat broke out, you tried to have your character reload and fire in the same round in the same manner as the other characters had aimed and fired in the same round.  You proposed that he should be able to do so, the gm interpreted the rules against your intended action, play continued.  That was the system in action.

Caldis, that's slipping into 'Roleplay IS...' territory. It is not. It's just your own personal preference expressed. With some things you can say what it is, like 'fire is hot' or 'water is wet' and it's genuinely how things are. But those things physically exist - while roleplay is just an idea. As such it is not a case of what it 'IS' but what the idea can be, between us, if we both agree.

If you don't take that to be case and don't even humour any doubt as to being wrong on that (just humouring...even scientists humour the idea that the theory of evolution could be wrong), all I can do in terms of conversation is walk away. Because you'll just be taking my continued presence as some sort of support for this perception of yours.

Just to tie that in more, it's very easy to be right on a subject if you can keep inventing facts on what that subject 'IS' and that subject is A: Something that doesn't physically exist (it's a name for an invented activity, it's not a name for a physical object, like water), so there can be no physical test to disprove it and B: You have decided you don't need the other guys agreement on what it is. You could be telling me what sort of hats the invisible fairies wear - I really have no way of disproving which hat they wear (and indeed, whether they exist) and in doing so it's not asking for my agreement to what hat they wear, it's just telling me.

Or I'll pitch it the other way around - there are invisible fairies, that you can't see or feel. They are part of the process and they are why you are wrong. And they definately exist. I'm telling you, not asking.

In do unto others terms, not something you want argued to you, not something you want to argue onto others.

Callan wrote:

Also it might be helpful to contrast all of these robberies and things with an actually healthy situation; have you referred to anything in this thread that you would consider right?

I think this would just change the topic. After all, that I think something is right, or that I even consider if something is right, is not, as far as I can tell, any reason for anyone else to. And if I talk about what I think is right, that'll get pointed out to me. Instead I'm just nakedly trying to prompt moral reflection (or find if it's there and I missed it) simply on the basis of do unto others and all that shit.

Callan wrote:

Perhaps we're all wrong, but if you provide an alternative view then people can decide to try yours out, hypothetically, and compare it to their own one. Your starting to do this, which is great, but it's still board games or card games, not your own explanation of actual rpg sessions.

Well, you seem to be insisting on absolute shared understanding, rather than shared understanding on following procedure and a possible absence of shared understanding in terms of fiction.

Callan wrote:

What people maybe haven't seen though, is that you tolerated something you really didn't like. Why? You'd have to answer that. (if I'm right that I'm right that .....)

I don't actually have an issue with fractured fictions. Other peoples imaginations work in weird ways that mine doesn't.

Callan wrote:
However, when it came to reloading, latter in the same game, no, you had to use an attack and do nothing for a turn. I tried to present this apparent conflict, but he literally said something like 'Aww, come on, you can't just reload and shoot all at once'...despite the fact that apparently people were carefully aiming for some time, yet shooting instantly and somehow that aiming time happened after the shot (was taken off the number of attacks).

Callan wrote:
At this point I thought of the golden rule, how it'd eventually get invoked no doubt, and ceased bothering to discuss it and just went with it (and chalked up yet another dumb and uninteresting point against the golden rule).

Callan wrote:
I dunno, is everyone this way, needing absolute understanding on both rules AND fiction, at all times?

Bang, you just did it! That was exactly what I was referring to, jumping from "it reminds me of this" to "I think it's like this". It may seem a tiny distinction to you, but it can give other people (like me) a lot more to get hold of when talking to you. If this is an accurate description of how you play (agreement to procedure before everything else), and how you want to play wheras the former is not, then we can make a big distinction between why and how you play and why and how other people (like Vincent) play.

That your problem actually was that his idea differed from yours, it differed from yours in that it was inconsistent, when interpreted as relating to the same fictional world.

This is what I think most people would be talking about when they talk about lumpley principle style agreement in a game, not that you overwrite your own personal view of the situation, that you fork it and work off the public build. Where I think you may have made a powerful insight is that people can follow the system and "agree" in that sense, despite having persistent misgivings that may not be dealt with. In other words "agreement" or "sufficient tolerance" can be reached that is sufficient for play to continue but not for actual satisfaction of the participants, and that something extra that you want from a game might be different from what other designers here want and insure they preserve.

The problem with your multiple visions of the fiction approach is that it has the potential to ruin causality.  You need to be able to create a sequence of events in a game.  That's not always possible if different people are seeing things differently.  I accept that people have different views of the fiction and I dont believe it's possible to always be on the same page, nor does it matter in a lot of cases if they do differ,  but at a certain point you may have to resolve those differences and how you do that is part of system.

Take your example of the falling bottle.  In most situations it doesnt matter if the bottle breaks or not so it's fine if people have different views on whether it breaks or not.  Now what if we change the situation and there is a Genie trapped in the bottle who cant escape while the bottle is intact.  If in the game the bottle falls off the ledge we then all have to know what happens.  Half the group cant believe the bottle remains intact while the other member believe it broke.  If the Genie comes out once the bottle is broken then unless everyone agrees the bottle broke the game cant continue.  The question has to be resolved and it may involve going back to retcon the situation to resolve peoples differing views of the fiction.  Whether or not you allow going back to change the situation is also part of system.

Likewise in your example with the reloading rifle.  Your vision of the fiction may be that your character did fire his gun at the same time as the others who had aimed and that they just didnt allow you to roll the dice at this time.  If in the interim your character is shot and killed by an enemy he may have been able to shoot and kill had they allowed you to attack at the same time as the rest the fiction in your head is irrelevant, you cant claim that your character is not dead and use that as a justification.  The system has already determined that you didnt get to shoot.  Basic cause and effect brought about by system.

Caldis wrote: The problem with your multiple visions of the fiction approach is that it has the potential to ruin causality.  You need to be able to create a sequence of events in a game.

I'm sorry you've lost me in hypothetical nonsense again.

If you are trying to say it's possible to play purely proceedural with no reference to fiction please relate an actual play where this happened.  Or develop a game that does so, play it and come back with play examples.  I dont see how this relates to the topic though.  What you propose is a game where the rules match system it doesnt change how system works in all other games or the concept of system.  In the game you actually played system included the 'golden rule' as you put it, in that example the gm overuled your view of the fiction.  It really is that simple and I dont understand why you are trying to complicate it.

Do you have some physically measurable quality in mind that would prove it's the case, Caldis? If not, take it elsewhere and be productive in another thread - I've provided an example, your denying it not based on anything physically measurable, just your own willfull assertion. I had thought my own word for what I have agreed with would be enough. Apparently not. Okay, so describe a physically measurable quality that, if the activity measures up to it, proves play entered into procedure only. Or go away and be productive elsewhere. I might have seemed to be humouring willful assertions - I'll prove I'm not by asking here for a physically measurable test, or go and work on some other threads other than this one.

The people were able to play and decide what happened that's the physically measurable quality.  System is a component of role playing it's how it was done.  For there to be no system requires no successful play.  Here's an example of play without system.

Kids playing cops and robbers.

"Bang I shot you, you're dead." 

"No you missed."

Arguement ensues, the game ends they all go home.

They couldnt agree on what was happening in the game.

This group did have system.

"Bang I shot you, you're dead."

"No you missed."

Negotiation ensues, result shot player falls down counts to ten and is back in the game.

They had system and it included negotiation.  They agreed to what happened.

The people were able to play and decide what happened that's the physically measurable quality.

System is a component of role playing it's how it was done.  For there to be no system requires no successful play.

Indeed, take your first cops and robbers example and say there was a rule "If two people can't agree on the fiction of who shot whom, flip a coin and whoever loses lies on the ground and counts to ten"

Let's say they play, argue, realise they can't agree, flip a coin and the one who loses the coin toss does lie on the ground and counts to ten. That's successful play.

"But they agreed on who was shot!"

No, read the rules - they agreed on who would lie down for a count of ten. That's all - if your pasting an imaginative level onto that, that's just you doing so, all by yourself. No one asked you to add an imaginative level to that nor is anyone agreeing with the imagination you weren't asked to add.

There's the rule, they can be physically observed as following it, that's successful play. Except for a simulationist bent on the continued integrity of the imaginative space.

Five pages is about as far as any Forge thread I've ever seen manages to get without looping back on itself or turning into repeated claims and counter-claims. This one has reached a point at which each addition becomes less constructive.

I'm going to call for daughter threads if anyone wants to continue the discussion. Each daughter thread, should there be any, must be founded on discussions of actual role-playing experiences.

This thread is now closed to further posting. No one's done anything terribly wrong in it, but its time has come. "To everything, turn, turn, turn, there is a season, turn, turn, turn," and all that.

Best, Ron