--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/scatter-GNS.txt	Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,1411 @@
+About the Forge </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> |
+Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/>
+
+	*
+* <#>
+Home <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>
+Help <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help>
+Search <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search>
+Login <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login>
+Register <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>
+Welcome, *Guest*. Please login
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login> or register
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>.
+Did you miss your activation email?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=activate>
+March 15, 2006, 02:37:40 PM
+
+Login with username, password and session length
+
+	
+*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
+
+*Search: *    Advanced search
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search;advanced>
+
+*198792* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * -
+kuljek
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6115>* 	Most
+online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006,
+03:03:12 PM)
+
++  *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
+|-+  *Inactive Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#5>*
+| |-+  *Scattershot <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=22.0>*
+| | |-+  *About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.0>* 	« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265;prev_next=next>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 	Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1265.0>
+
+Author 	Topic: About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+ (Read 1308 times)
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11888#msg11888>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11888#msg11888>*
+« * on:* January 21, 2002, 09:58:55 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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:
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1073 <"<a>">I: Core concept
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1087 <"<a>">II: Whence
+go the mechanics
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1080 <"<a>">III:
+Difference between players and GM
+http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1096 <"<a>">IV: Sorting
+out the nuts and bolts
+And http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122 <"<a>">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
+	Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11922#msg11922>
+*[Scattershot] About what it's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11922#msg11922>*
+« *Reply #1 on:* January 21, 2002, 10:35:39 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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 know, that was one of the things that scared me the most about
+posting it here (if you needed to understand my reticence).
+
+And it's no surprise that you see the premise is of exploring System and
+Situation, this is after all just the mechanics.  If I understand your
+use of the terms, I have a whole 'nother book of additional rules (the
+larger one at that), I call 'em techniques, that deal with attention to
+Color, Character, and Setting.  Color and Setting are dependant upon the
+genre-reliant materials this Generalist mechanic gets published with (we
+are preparing 12 sets so far).  Attention to Character is one of the
+major pieces of the techniques section (and I must apologize for the
+fact that I am still pulling this information together and don't even
+have a rough draft /outline/ yet).
+
+I separate them into techniques and mechanics because of some of the
+priorities of Transitionism.  (Many of those 'old school gamers' recoil
+in horror from /mechanics/ for Narrativism, but strangely when they are
+called 'techniques,' think that they're just quirky advice.)
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+Gamism /is/ one of the Transitional design goals (whether I serve it
+well or not, is a good question).  Some ways we do this, I have
+described elsewhere.  Raising the 'hard limit' on the MIB turns it into
+not much more than a clever way to skip having elaborate 'critical
+hit/fumble' tables (in keeping with the 80's disguise of the work).
+ Making Experience Dice rare turns them into another resource for the
+savvy Gamist to sheperd facing the larger challenge presented.
+
+I do have a favor to ask.  I am not sure how you define Gamism in the
+time since you came to understand and like the mode.  Can you give me
+some idea what you would look for in a Gamist game; that I can better
+respond to with how the mechanics of Scattershot (might) meet those needs.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+I still have plenty of questions, especially about certain mechanics and
+especially about how IIEC is handled during/post rolling in a conflict
+situation.
+
+I /would/ like a chance to toss in a response prior to getting these
+other threads started.
+
+In the sequence of resolution, Scattershot somewhat collapses the Intent
+and Initiation into a single point.  When a player indicates their
+action for resolution, the action is considered begun.  The reason I say
+they are combined is because of how some actions indicated by a player
+are result of a somewhat predetermined script of actions (the following
+actions material).  The easiest example would be the riposte, it follows
+a parry thus the parry contains the Intent for the riposte.  As I (in
+possibly the best attempt ever) described a few minutes ago in another
+thread, the 'Effects phase' (I know it doesn't precisely work like that,
+but you get my drift) occurs when the dice roll and the chosen actions
+of the interacting parties are combined.  The reason I bring this up
+here is because it talks some about one way that Scattershot approaches
+Gamism.  Our more Gamist playtesters occasionally turn this
+'calculation' phase into a bidding war using the FitM mechanics
+Scattershot has.
+
+As for directly connecting to IIEC, I think a lot of that varies
+depending on whether you are using Scattershot in General, Specific, or
+Mechanical play.  In General play almost everything functions as
+Conclusion (That is the term, isn't it?).  In Specific play, it can
+range all the way from Intent when the Speaker is depending heavily on
+the resolution mechanic to generate /most/ of the detail, to Effect when
+the mechanics are invoked by someone other than the Speaker, calling the
+narrative direction into question (such as introducing complications).
+ As above, Mechanical play functions on some curious fusion of Intent
+and Initiation.  Does that clear anything up?
+
+Fang Langford
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11941#msg11941>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11941#msg11941>*
+« *Reply #2 on:* January 22, 2002, 07:40:14 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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
+	Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11993#msg11993>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg11993#msg11993>*
+« *Reply #3 on:* January 22, 2002, 10:06:31 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+GAMISM AND SCATTERSHOT
+Quote from: Selected text on Gamism that Ron
+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.)
+
+In my studies of the medium, I have identified one major component
+necessary for Gamism from a designer's perspective: structure.  I hear
+the ghost of its relevance whenever the 'yardstick' discussion comes up.
+ I also hear it when the discussion turns 'win/lose.'  No matter what I
+think of those topics, the both speak of structure and consistency.
+
+The converse would be playing Gamist in a situation where nothing can be
+counted on, everything is in some state of flux.  I haven't experienced
+a happy Gamist who does not have some consistency or structure in what
+they are playing /with/.  As a designer, one kind of structure I can
+provide is mechanical.  I really appreciate what I learned by adapting
+Scattershot to contain a collectible card game; all those long
+discussions of game theory helped me make Scattershot's core mechanic as
+strong a structure as I could have hoped to make it.
+
+The other kind of structure I see commonly used has to do with a
+Gamist's exploration of Setting.  As surely as there is mechanical
+"competition" in the gladitorial arena, so too is there in the courtly
+life of king's favor.  One of the techniques I have already discussed
+here on the Forge has to do with simplifying the moderation of a
+background that has enough structure and consistency (as well as
+verisimilitude, but that's for another type of players altogether); I
+call it *Dynamic Status Quo
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=458&highlight=dynamic+status+quo>*.
+
+I see things like "resource management" being of value to Gamists
+especially when in concert with some kind of structure.  Under that
+premise, the meticulous nature of Scattershot's mechanics should fall
+clearly in that camp at least /mechanically/.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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).
+
+I might argue that you /do/ still have some bias towards Narrativism.
+ In playtest, /how/ the Critical Juncture mechanic gets specifically
+used is almost a direct indicator of whether a player is Gamist,
+Narrativist, or Simulationist.  As you see it (and as I tend to express
+it, did I mention my continuing problems communicating?), a Narrativist
+will use the opportunity presented by exceeding the Critical Juncture to
+advance their thematic statement of a games premise (am I using those
+terms correctly?).
+
+A Gamist on the hand will take those opportunities to adopt additional
+liabilities (when it goes against them) or strategic advantages (when it
+goes for them).  One thing I neglected to include was that the *MIB*
+created when the Critical Juncture is exceeded, can be used (in a rare
+post-randomizing indexing on the UE Chart) as the foundation of adding a
+new disadvantage or problem.  (In my favorite example, when Robin in The
+Prince of Thieves first attacks the Sheriff, I call it a Telling Blow.
+ The Sheriff's player, gamemaster or no, chooses to take an
+appearance-based disadvantage and play that off the character's vanity.
+ I'm not entirely sure it had any bearing on the Theme explored by the
+film, but you can see how it created more 'challenge' for the Sheriff's
+player.)
+
+A Simulationist becomes evident for their interest in how such a change
+to their character bears on, and fits into, their explorations.  They
+seem to have an uncanny intuition for the Critical Juncture result
+that's /right/.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+Actually going 'up' from Mechanical play is about as hard as falling in
+love.  Once you stop going, "Okay, your two actions are done, now it's
+his turn," and skip using dice in every resolution bound to a Rating,
+you're at the 'bottom' of Specific play.  As you let the Ratings be more
+guidelines (as in "I've got a 14 that means I'm so good, I won't fail")
+and eventually leave the dice behind (except when you use them to create
+detail, often good to 'get the creative juices flowing'), you transcend
+Specific and grow into General play.
+
+What's missing so far is that these are just /the mechanics/.  There is
+a whole morass of information I call 'techniques.'  (You'd just call
+them 'lots more rules.')  Part of the difference, is the presentation.
+ I intend to present the techniques in a fashion that /seems/ geared
+towards using them to determine what is good or bad /about any game/.
+ It was quite odd to me to have this in mind only to later discover that
+the GNS was described as existing exactly for the same purpose.
+
+The sticky part is that my 'techniques' are secretly based on a couple
+of the alternative Transitional goals.  They will hopefully be presented
+as 'if you liked how /this/ works, why not try /that/,' and 'if you
+liked /that/ then /this also/ might be fun.'  I want to create a series
+of step-wise growth /tools/ expressly for facilitating Transition.  This
+has been my goal since before I met the Forge.
+
+Ultimately one thing became clear in playtest.  It seems hard for
+players to have "a strong commitment to Mechanical play."  So far every
+test group seems intuitively at ease moving up and down this scale
+without hardly noticing it.  (Well, excluding the collectible card game
+'testers, they seem pretty rooted in Mechanical play.)
+
+Now, can you tell me if that answers your question on Gamism is
+Scattershot?  Am I still missing something?  (Or is it just my usual
+inability to express these ideas clearly on the first go?)
+
+Fang Langford
+
+(Who is actually quite curious what others think of a Transitional game
+design.)
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12013#msg12013>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12013#msg12013>*
+« *Reply #4 on:* January 23, 2002, 06:05:36 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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."
+	Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12035#msg12035>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12035#msg12035>*
+« *Reply #5 on:* January 23, 2002, 09:21:05 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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).
+
+/That's why we named it Scattershot!/
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+Aye, therein lies the rub.  We don't know if we can reach that plateau
+either.  So far, what we have is more based on explaining it so that Sam
+knows what Bob is up to and that Bob likes it, and vice versa, and then
+suggesting that everyone just 'try to get along' or find a new group.
+
+I'm pretty sure that if either player are the sort to make an issue out
+of this kind of thing, /there is nothing a designer can do about it./
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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?
+
+Definitely.  That's where I'm going with the whole *Get Emotional!
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457&highlight=emotional>*
+nomenclature.  I am trying to make differing goals in gaming more
+explicit in lay terms.  I am also trying to make high emotions in player
+to player conflict in pursuing those goals into the 'dark side.'  By
+this I mean to suggest that a 'live and let live' approach to Sam and
+Bob facing off.  If they both understand that their approaches are
+different and are willing to forgive the friction caused, instead of
+reacting emotionally, then they might be able to still play together.
+
+At least that's the theory.  /This/ is one thing I have yet to put into
+playtest.  Any advice?  Anyone?
+
+Fang Langford
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Paul Czege <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 1845
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4> WWW
+<http://www.halfmeme.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12191#msg12191>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12191#msg12191>*
+« *Reply #6 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:32:18 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Game weary? Play My Life with Master <http://www.halfmeme.com> and get
+your hunch back.
+
+*joshua neff
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=28>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 844
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=28> WWW
+<http://www.goblin-cartoons.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12194#msg12194>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12194#msg12194>*
+« *Reply #7 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:41:22 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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.
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+--josh
+
+"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes
+
+*Mike Holmes
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=42>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 9963
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=42>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12223#msg12223>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12223#msg12223>*
+« *Reply #8 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:04:46 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Member of Indie Netgaming <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming/>
+-Get your indie game fix online.
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12262#msg12262>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12262#msg12262>*
+« *Reply #9 on:* January 25, 2002, 11:01:10 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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
+	Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12268#msg12268>
+*Who's it for?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12268#msg12268>*
+« *Reply #10 on:* January 25, 2002, 11:28:59 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Paul asks an excellent question.
+
+Quote from: Paul Czege
+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?
+
+
+I can't really say about Transitional designs in general, there are so
+few to know what they are yet, but I can talk about Scattershot; so does
+Joshua:
+
+Quote from: joshua neff
+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.)
+
+Actually the theory goes something like this.  There are a lot of
+Simulationists-by-habit out there.  Heck, there's a lot of
+Anything-ists-by habit out there.  Why?  I think because of a lack of
+exposure.
+
+So this segment of the intended audience can pick up Scattershot (not
+realizing it is a Transitional game, if I am doing it right), play it
+for a while and notice all this other kooky stuff 'hidden' throughout.
+ If they give any of these unfamiliar techniques a try, and like them,
+they have Transitioned from habit to potentially what they would most
+like (again, if I am doing it the way I intend).
+
+Heck, I can't think of anything more 'habit' bound than "reg'lar ol'
+gamers."  That was the primary reason for creating all the "outer
+'traditional' trappings;" to attract /them/.  From my experiences 'over
+the counter' they make up a significant section of 'the market.'  And
+technically, as a retail thought-experiment, Scattershot is supposed to
+reach as much of 'the market' as I can make it.
+
+Secondly, Transition is meant to be /optional/; that means that
+Scattershot could theoretically (provided it succeeds at its design
+specifications) be picked up by /any/ of 'near' "pervy -ists."  If they
+can play it and opt to not Transition (without the rest of the material
+becoming encumbering, excess baggage), then Scattershot reaches a second
+intended audience.  The reason I give this a priority is because if a
+group of habitual gamers discovers they have different tastes, it will
+help them continue gaming if they have a system in common with any of
+the more 'focused' groups they might move to.
+
+Finally, Scattershot is also meant for 'people who have never played
+role-playing games, but would like them if they did.'  This is another
+reason I created it in the traditional guise.  It is more likely that
+'traditional gamers' are the people one would 'hook up with' after
+initial exposure (the remainder of the market doesn't seem as 'flagrant'
+about their gaming status).  Having something like Scattershot in common
+might help 'ease' them into the hobby community.  (There's also the fact
+that the traditional model, for as much as people complain about it,
+/works/, especially for new players.)
+
+Ultimately, Scattershot was not created to meet any clear and present
+need.  Paul says, "people don't really know why they need one," about
+Scattershot.  Who can say?  Nobody 'needed' the internet; nobody
+'needed' fax machines.  Nobody knew they 'needed' pointer devices for
+their computers.  You don't always create something because there's a
+need for it.  Like I always say when someone points out that I am going
+to a *hell* of a lot of effort for something I am intentionally not
+going to market myself, "even if it never sells, I'm gonna have a heck
+of a toy to play with."
+
+(And appealing to centrists is just gravy as far as I'm concerned.)
+
+I think that the fact that people don't 'need' it, will help them help
+me.  That kind of 'need' breeds certain passions for it to come out a
+certain way (to serve the needs of the person who 'needs' it).  Since no
+one 'needs' it, any advice they offer will be geared towards making
+Scattershot transparent to their gaming style (one of the design goals).
+
+Scattershot also wasn't written to appeal to 'far' "pervy" whatever
+types either; my experience is that they generally have something they
+really like a lot and are not likely to go for something new that
+easily.  Likewise targeting any of these groups is questionable at best;
+a fickle market I think.
+
+Anyway, all this is a bunch of theoretical hooey.  I made it
+Transitional, because that's how I play.  Originally it was a game I
+could play with any of the "pervy" groups out there so I can /Zelig/ in
+with each of them.
+
+Fang Langford
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12284#msg12284>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12284#msg12284>*
+« *Reply #11 on:* January 25, 2002, 12:43:01 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Mike Holmes
+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.
+
+(And doing a good job, you may be up for promotion next quarter.)
+
+Scattershot shouldn't.  Right now a lot of what we've heard about
+Scattershot is still theoretical.  We have a glimpse of the mechanics,
+and with that glimpse, Ron believes we can see 'the gears and wheels' of
+what can be turned into Transition.
+
+What we don't see is the techniques (the rest of the rules, if you will)
+that make use of those 'gears and wheels' in a fashion that makes it
+truly Transitional.  Rightly said, we can't say anything like 'this is
+truly a Transitional game' until we have enough (of the rules) /to
+actually play it/.  You can't judge the coherency of something until you
+see all of it, right?
+
+I, for one, think that these claims of coherent Transitionalism are
+fraught with hubris.  I think we should wait until we see more before
+any determination is actually made.  I am looking forward to whether or
+not this game can support Transition.  I think this should be held
+separate from El Dorado, because El Dorado /combines/ Simulationism with
+Narrativism; Scattershot is purported to only let you Transition freely
+back and forth, not necessarily both /at the same time/.
+
+Like Mike, I would like to know if these mysterious 'techniques' will
+actually 'put teeth' in the mechanics that must necessarily hold the
+game consistent with its on-going point of Transition.  I mean, if the
+game is Transitioning somewhere between Simulationism and Narrativism,
+it will need to 'keep itself together' or coherency is nothing more than
+a pipe dream.  Furthermore, without 'teeth' how can the system say that
+it actually supports /any/ kind of focus, GNS or otherwise, during
+Transition?
+
+I can see a lot of potential in this concept, but so far the delivery of
+which has been bearly a trickle.  It's okay to /not/ expect it to fail,
+but this 'pass,' as Mike describes it, better expire when we see more
+and can /only then/ actually judge the coherency.
+
+I would like to go on record saying, "Well, where is it?  Why haven't we
+seen it?  When is it coming?"  I think more Scattershot should be posted
+and soon, if it's going to make good on any of these amazing claims.
+
+Fang Langford
+
+[Oh.  Wait.  That's me....  I take it all back.  No really, ignore this
+post.  Damn, where's that delete button!]
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12286#msg12286>
+*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12286#msg12286>*
+« *Reply #12 on:* January 25, 2002, 01:08:43 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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
+	Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12324#msg12324>
+*Any Hope?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.msg12324#msg12324>*
+« *Reply #13 on:* January 26, 2002, 04:20:17 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Elsewhere Ron Edwards
+Any hope of a comment on my last post before this one...?
+
+Hope?  Yes.  Time?  That depends.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+And I'll address them one at a time.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+These 'overt priorities' are, in simple terms, conflicting.  While a
+highly sophisticated approach to play /might/ be able to contain both of
+them, I think I clearly lack the skills to write a description for that.
+ This is the main reason my interest lie in Transition.  Transition
+occurs when the overt priorities of one form lose their emphasis and
+those of another become more important.  The challenge with the
+techniques is making them clear 'alternatives' to each other.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+Another intended feature has to do with how I plan to make a lot of the
+advice look like 'reviewers' guidelines.  These will allow the different
+players to become more aware of 'what they like' in /other/ games.  It
+should highlight the differences in terms of 'other people are different.'
+
+If I make the game as robust as I hope, having the players insert their
+'agendas' into the game will fix the Transition point where they will
+like it, and the game will support that in its form (remember Transition
+is optional).  One thing I hope is that my texts will give people of
+conflicting styles the ability to make informed decisions about no
+longer playing together.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+As I said above, this is the reason Scattershot Transitions /between
+them/, not into some fusion of them.  This must be at /the taste of the
+whole group/.  Consensus is key in Transition, I think.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+More important than how the mechanics support Tranisition, is the
+techniques that 'drive' the actual act of Transition.  As mentioned
+elsewhere, 'keeping it together' during slow Transition is the key to
+focus of style and coherency.
+
+However, simply on the level of mechanics alone (as opposed to the
+upcoming techniques), I think the potential for each form /should be/
+'scattered' throughout.  Even better when I can bind two or more forms
+onto the 'ends' of a single 'sliding' mechanic, like I /think/ the
+Critical Juncture has worked.  That way, when the techniques drive
+Transition into the different forms, there won't be whole sections of
+mechanics left fallow (simplicity suggests that such should be abandoned
+for the final version).
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+That is actually the ulterior motive I had for starting the 'more than
+three boxes' discussion.  To attempt to collect some idea of popular
+agendas 'out there.'
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.)
+
+I'm not sure, but I think achievement might actually apply to the other
+forms as well.  I think Narrativism without achievement makes it hard to
+create statements of theme; I believe /how/ achievement addresses the
+premise is what gives Narrativist play its 'kick.'
+
+(Scattershot talks not only about the difference between player rewards
+[that tend to be outside of the game, like Experience Dice] and
+character rewards [that tend to be in-game] but the importance of making
+both relative to the game [as opposed to say giving a vampire character
+a missle as a reward].)
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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 think we'll need another thread to bring up the potential pitfalls to
+be avoided and Scattershot's possible solutions.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+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.
+
+This is exactly what I was getting at talking about in 'focusing play on
+the current Transition point' coherence issue.  I believe I will be
+including both something that gives perspective of where a group is and
+techniques for short shifts and how to use the mechanics to suit the new
+'positions,' as well as things of value that may motivate these
+Transitions in a groups future.
+
+Quote from: Ron Edwards
+How to do that? Damn good question. Scattershot offers us an arena to
+address it.
+
+I'm counting /at least/ four questions.  Care to start a thread about
+today's favorite question?  (We'll deal with the others later, please.)
+ In the mean time I'll keep working on my 'just the mechanix' list.
+ Perhaps I'll start talking about the first few techniques that have
+emerged from playtest.
+
+Fang Langford
+	Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System.  This project has been permanently suspended.  If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 	Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1265.0> 
+
+« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1265;prev_next=next>
+
+Jump to:  
+
+
+Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
+<http://www.php.net/> 	The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
+<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
+*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> 	Valid XHTML 1.0!
+<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
+<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>
+