Mercurial Mercurial > src > index.cgi > jeuderologie / diff
summary | shortlog | changelog | graph | tags | bookmarks | branches | files | changeset | file | latest | revisions | annotate | diff | comparison | raw | help
Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
references/WhatsSystemIs.txt
branchecjdr
changeset 68 be57f0035c67 
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/WhatsSystemIs.txt	Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1151 @@
+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>
+Edit Profile <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile>
+Logout
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=logout;sesc=082104b9fb3680bdc2299754828a5ad4>
+Hey, *fabien*, you have 0 messages
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm>, 0 are new.
+Total time logged in: 20 minutes.
+Show unread posts since last visit.
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unread>
+Show new replies to your posts.
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unreadreplies>
+February 14, 2006, 02:50:32 AM 	
+*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>
+
+*195768* Posts in *18371* Topics by *5864* Members Latest Member: * -
+sunshine8up
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5991>* 	Most
+online today: *83* - most online ever: *143* (January 24, 2006, 05:56:13
+AM)
+
++  *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
+|-+  *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*
+| |-+  *RPG Theory <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=4.0>*
+| | |-+  *Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0>* 	« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001;prev_next=next>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.15> 3
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.30> 4
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.45> 	Mark unread
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=12001.0>
+Send this topic
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=12001.0>
+Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12001.0>
+
+Author 	Topic: Wait, What Matters Again?  (Read 2499 times)
+
+*Ben Lehman
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1400
+
+splendidquetzl
+<aim:goim?screenname=splendidquetzl&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+<callto://benlehman/>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1007> WWW
+<http://www.tao-games.com/> Email <mailto:taogames@gmail.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1007>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128175#msg128175>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128175#msg128175>*
+
+« * on:* July 14, 2004, 09:54:05 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Wait, what Matters again?
+Or
+The Extent of Sys
+Or
+"If you have a D&D game without orc-killing, is it Drift?"
+Or
+"No complete RPG will ever be made."
+
+Jargon Alert: If you are not familiar with these terms as they are used
+in Forge discourse, go and look them up before reading this:
+1) The lumpley Principle (I call it lP sometimes), which I wield like a
+fucking club all over this post.
+2) Shared Imagined Space (which is my favoritest term ever)
+3) Exploration
+4) Exploration, components of (Situation, Setting, Color, blah, blah)
+5) Credibility
+6) Drift
+
+Curse Alert: For some reason, I am particularly vulgar in this essay.
+
+System does Matter.
+
+What?
+
+What matters?
+
+Good question.
+
+What the hell is this "System" anyway?
+
+Well, for a lot of people, this is like art and porn -- they know it
+when they see it.  This is not a satisfactory definition to me and, I
+venture, should not be a satisfactory definition for anyone who gives a
+damn about discussing the theory of RPGs which is probably everyone
+reading this post since the god-damn forum is called "RPG Theory."  I
+mean fuck, people.  If you're not interested in RPG theory I can't
+exactly hold your fucking hand through this thing, can I?  Just go read
+your pansy "Actual Play" or suck it up, stay here with the theory wonks,
+and quitcherbitchin.
+
+That intro was actually a little misleading -- I'm going to take my
+definition from the lumpley Principle (the only piece of role-playing
+theory so low-budget it can only afford one capital letter), so I
+already have a definition in hand.  But what I'm going to do is take a
+look at that and go "holy fuck, that's a hell of a lot bigger than I
+thought.  Like, fuck, man!  I gotta design all that shit?"  Or
+something.  Basically, what I am saying here is "the System" covers a
+huge range of stuff, only a small subset of which is ever talked about
+or even acknowledged by game texts.
+
+So, okay.  Let's look at the l.P.
+"The System is the means by which players negotiate the contents of
+their shared imagined space."
+
+Right.
+
+So what is it?  What's in there?  To find this, I'm going to "run the
+statement backwards" and say that "The means by which the players
+negotiate the contents of the shared imagined space is the System."  I
+realize that this is a different statement.  Call it the "lumpley
+Principle adjunct" or the "Little Timmy Principle" or, perhaps, the
+"'kiss my ass, you 'systemless rpg' players' principle."
+
+Well, let's start with the obvious thing:  Mechanics.
+
+What are mechanics?  Mechanics are things which say "If your roll of
+17d7 is greater than or equal to the target number correlated from
+charts 2.5 to 6.4.1 inclusive, your character succeeds."  Or, "The
+character with the higher Warfare will, all things being equal, win any
+strategic or tactical situation."  Or, "when Virgo is ascendant, the
+leftmost player takes on the role of High Priestess, which means that
+she speaks for the Mother in all things, particularly to combat with
+axes, maces, and tangerines."  Essentially, mechanics are anything which
+resolves situations in the RPG through deliberate, particular means,
+often mathematical.  There's a hell of a lot of analysis of mechanics
+out there.  To some people, actually a lot of people, mechanics is all
+there is to system.  System and mechanics are the same thing.  This
+people are poorly informed assholes, fuckwits, and malcontents, not
+worthy to lick the dirt out of my toenails.  Or perhaps we just have
+different definitions of system.  Either/or.  
+
+Are mechanics a part of system?  Well, duh.  Are they the whole shebang?
+ Not even fucking close.
+
+How about setting?  A lot of gamers (including me) have this whole
+hang-up about setting/system differences.  A lot of people say that an
+RPG text is comprised of setting and system.  "So they're totally
+different, right?" asks Little Timmy.
+
+Well, Little Timmy ("Don't call my little I am twenty-three") let's look
+at the lumpley Principle.  Hrm...  Can setting effect the contents of
+the shared imagined space?  Fuck yes!  Setting is the background of the
+shared imagined space.  In fact, I would say that, given the definition
+of system from the lP, setting is often a greater component of system
+than mechanics.  I mean, which has more weight on the actual play of the
+game "We are using the D&D mechanics" or "We are playing in the
+Forgotten Realms?"  Yeah.  Hard question, ain't it?
+
+So Setting goes in the box.  Wait, does this mean that all setting-less
+game texts are fundamentally incomplete with regards to system.  Yes.
+ Fucking right.  Precisely so, Little Timmy.  Now take your medicine and
+get out of my face.
+
+Okay, how about situation?  Marco talked about this a little bit with me
+recently, which is what set me off on this whole thing but, essentially,
+does the basic situation of the game effect the shared imagined space?
+ Or, as he (roughly), put it, "is it still D&D if you aren't killing
+orcs?"  I used to be a big opponent of the idea that sitch could be a
+part of system or, rather, I would talk about playing D&D *without
+drift* (by which I meant Mechanical Drift).
+
+I was a fucking bonehead.  *I'm* not even fit to lick to dirt out of my
+own toenails.  Look, can situation be used, by a player, to make a
+statement about the shared imagined space?  Yes.  Of course.  If it
+can't, well, I don't know what it is.  It's like the situation has
+nothing to do with what's going on in the game?  Whatever.  It doesn't
+happen.
+
+Okay, let's stop it with this piece-by-piece shit and just eat the whole
+pie like the fucking fat pigs we are:  What isn't System?  What, in the
+entire act of role-playing, is not a part of System, as it is defined by
+my god and saviour, Vincent "lumpley" Baker (whose principle I'm sure
+you are sick of hearing of, at this point)?
+
+Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some
+such) -- System
+Who ordered pizza?  -- most likely system.  I mean, you don't want to
+kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene.  That's just low.
+The emotional state of all the players?  -- System, definitely.  More
+important to System than mechanics, more'n likely.
+That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I
+think.  This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find.
+
+I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not,
+in some regard, a part of System.  I can't even conceive of the
+possibility of their being such an element.  Please offer suggestions,
+if you can.
+
+So, okay, what does that mean to designers?
+
+Well, it is pretty fucking obvious that no game text can, will, or
+should present a totally complete system -- that is a game without
+players.  However, a lot of chunks of system (The GM-player
+relationship, say, or the little social rules that game groups carry
+with them) are carried from game to game totally unthinkingly, and that,
+I think, needs to change.  Essentially, for design, this means "look, by
+offering a 'role-playing system' you are, in fact, offering an
+incomplete item which will be interfaced with by the role-playing group
+to create a whole system, which will in turn be used to manipulate the
+particulars of their shared imagined space."
+
+So, the question that I have is: What does it mean to include a certain
+system in a game text, in terms of effect on Actual Play?  What does it
+mean to leave it out?
+
+yrs--
+--Ben
+
+P.S.  The first one who gets the "23 years old" reference gets a prize.
+ PM me or stick in a P.S.  And, yes, Google is cheating.
+
+P.P.S.  Tip o' the hat to Mike Mearls for the "no complete RPG" bit.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+These are our Games <http://www.tao-games.com>
+This is my Blog <http://benlehman.blogspot.com/>
+
+*contracycle
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 2371
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109> Email
+<mailto:contracycle@blueyonder.co.uk> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=109>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128177#msg128177>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128177#msg128177>*
+
+« *Reply #1 on:* July 14, 2004, 10:51:03 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Erm, yes and no.
+
+Its true to say that I cannot create a complete system in the sense you
+appear to describe.  The actual physical game that actually happens is
+largely beyond my control.
+
+But this is a restriction that applies to many things and is IMO
+implicit in the creation of any device for use by anyone other than the
+designer.  IMO this is Not An Issue; it was resolved by the
+identifiication that textual rules are only contributory elements to the
+social contract, which is the real mechanism governing the human
+interactions.
+
+But being contributary elements, they do serve to inform the negotiation
+of that social contract and do bring the designer into the conversation
+at the table, as it were.  That is the purpose of system.  By analogy, I
+cannot perhaps construct a system that produces faultless justice; but I
+can propose a system of trial by jury if I think that this prior
+discussion of local social contract would be useful to the pursuit of
+justice.
+
+System matters in that respect.  System is an overt implementation of
+social contract.
+
+Now I have previously proposed that in essence, among players suitably
+familiar with the form and process of RPG, no real 'RPG product'
+purchase is necessary at all.  They could just pick up a book, and refer
+to that book as if it were the RPG world.  With any of a number of
+generic or favoured system, they could have some sort of game.
+
+So in that sense one might indeed say system is not very necessary at
+all.  But we do think system is necessary - and I believe we think this
+becuase it frames our interactions with the SIS.  We resolve conflicts,
+and thus determine what enters the SIS, for example.  And that is why
+IMO particular system matters even when system in abstract falls away
+into the nebulous social contract.  Any actual implementation of a
+particular system gives instructions to players: you do this after that
+after the other for such a goal.  Actual human behaviour - sure pretty
+unimportant, but still actual - is being governed to an extent by the
+designer and the design, exactly as it might be in a beauracracy or
+engineering system.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Impeach the bomber boys:
+www.impeachblair.org <http://www.impeachblair.org>
+www.impeachbush.org <http://www.impeachbush.org>
+
+"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship
+without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
+- Leonardo da Vinci
+
+*Paganini <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=284>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1046
+
+34492883 <http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=34492883>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=284> WWW
+<http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini> Email
+<mailto:paganini@madisontelco.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=284>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128184#msg128184>
+	*Re: Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128184#msg128184>*
+
+« *Reply #2 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:00:35 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I just want to point out one of those aspects of the lP that seems
+obvious, but that will be news to a lot of traditional-style RPG
+designers. Yeah, "mechanics" and "system" are not synonyms here.
+Mechanics may be a big part of system, but they're not the *entirity* of
+system.
+
+Turn that around, though, and think about this: *not all rules /
+mechanics are part of the system.* A lot of times, especially in
+home-brew games, you'll see mechanics tacked on that, maybe, the
+designer liked in some other game, but didn't really understand the
+point of - with the net effect that the mechanic actually does nothing
+at all in terms of System. It's just kind of *there,* fogging up the
+works, but when you really look at it, it doesn't go anywhere.
+
+But, to answer your question, what you're doing when you write a system
+is informing the players about your vision of play. What you leave out,
+they will be forced to make up on their own. If their personalities are
+incompatible with making up that particular stuff, then they will want
+to play a game.
+
+A lot of people don't want to play freeform... but they will play "The
+Window," which is functionally equivalent to Freeform, AFAIAC.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+*http://www.livejournal.com/users/taiji_jian/*
+*http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/indie-netgaming/*
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1718
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org> Email <mailto:jagsgame@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=190>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128198#msg128198>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128198#msg128198>*
+
+« *Reply #3 on:* July 15, 2004, 01:33:29 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ben,
+
+If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of
+system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it)
+then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to
+the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other
+but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed.
+
+That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of
+coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and
+situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway.
+
+-Marco
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*Kesher <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3267>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 119
+
+ulfias@hotmail.com <http://members.msn.com/ulfias@hotmail.com>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3267>
+Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=3267>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128242#msg128242>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128242#msg128242>*
+
+« *Reply #4 on:* July 15, 2004, 04:21:27 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote
+Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some
+such) -- System
+Who ordered pizza?  -- most likely system.  I mean, you don't want to
+kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene.  That's just low.
+The emotional state of all the players?  -- System, definitely.  More
+important to System than mechanics, more'n likely.
+That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I
+think.  This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find.
+
+
+It seems to me that Vincent approaches some of this in the Theory
+section of the lumpley games website (Burning Down the Firewall):
+
+http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/hardcore.html
+
+I actually got really excited when I read this, because it seemed so
+(blindsidingly) commonsensical.  And Ben, I don't see the "lucky
+20-sider" as borderline in this consideration at all.  
+
+I think that explicitly addressing what goes on, realistically,
+dynamically when people are in-the-act-of-gaming, as part of the overall
+system is a powerful design question.  How does the game require players
+to /behave/ while playing?  What happens to the game if they /don't/
+behave that way, & should it then be considered drift?
+
+I never had any interest in playing Wraith (though a friend of mine was
+always bugging me to do so) because I didn't care to adopt the mindset
+or around-the-table-behaviors the "system" (in Ben's larger sense)
+seemed to demand.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Sometimes the sunset doesn't want to be photographed
+     --- Hood
+
+ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/indiemn/
+
+*John Kim
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1791
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105> WWW
+<http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/> Email
+<mailto:jhkim@darkshire.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1105>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128250#msg128250>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128250#msg128250>*
+
+« *Reply #5 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:27:56 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: Marco
+  If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of
+system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it)
+then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to
+the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other
+but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed.
+
+That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of
+coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and
+situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway.  
+
+Yeah.  I remember having touched on this before, but I can't remember
+the threads.  There are tons of games which specify setting.  I would
+say using Lord of the Rings or Skyrealms of Jorune for a different
+setting is a far more major change to system than, say, ignoring
+alignment rules.  There are a few games which specify character, like
+Timelord (1991) or Run Out the Guns (1998).  There are also a few which
+specify situation -- i.e. scenario-based games like the Sandman series
+(1985) or Pokemon Jr (1999).  
+
+So here's the big question.  So creating new characters in Timelord is a
+change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution
+mechanics.  But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The
+Pool is not a change to system.  But that seems to make them unequal.  A
+problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that
+you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+- John
+
+*lumpley <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119>*
+Acts of Evil Playtesters
+Member
+*
+Posts: 2053
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=119> WWW
+<http://www.lumpley.com/> Email <mailto:lumpley@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Online)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=119>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128255#msg128255>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128255#msg128255>*
+
+« *Reply #6 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:47:16 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ben, can I introduce something?  I think it may be helpful.
+
+There are three things your System has to coordinate.  ("System" in the
+full implications of the lumpy piddle sense: the on-the-fly
+fully-negotiated mercurial real-people's-moods-and-habits /process/ that
+you're using to negotiate what happens.)
+
+It has to coordinate:
+A) the wholly imaginary things and events in the "game world";
+B) real-world abstractions and representations of those things and
+events: maps, numbers, dice, "hit points," etc.
+C) the interactions of the actual human beings.
+
+For instance, a rule like "whoever rolls higher on the attack roll
+inflicts damage on the defender" operates only on B and C: it expects
+the human beings to interact to manipulate some "attack roll" and "hit
+points" at the representation level.  Add to the rule "... and describe
+the change in the fighters' circumstances" and you bring in A: now it
+expects the human beings to make changes to the imaginary stuff, not
+just the abstractions.  Or add to the rule "... but first give the
+fighters bonuses to their attack rolls depending on their circumstances"
+brings A in too, in a slightly different way.  The former: changes to A
+(the fictional circumstances) depend on what happens with B (the
+representations).  The latter: what happens with B changes depending on
+details of A.  Both together: A informs B, B informs A.  In all cases:
+...according to the direct and active attention of C, the players.
+
+You can imagine rules where A's informing of B is left to the subjective
+interpretation of C ("... but first the GM gives the fighters whatever
+bonuses seem called for").  You can imagine rules where A's informing of
+B is cut and dried ("... and any fighter whose lover is watching the
+fight gets +3 to the attack roll").  You can imagine rules where,
+instead, /B/ informs B ("... and the fighter with the higher number
+written next to 'Fighting' gets +3 to the attack roll").
+
+You can imagine rules that coordinate only A and C ("only Bob is allowed
+to introduce NPCs," "give Bob's character something to do so he doesn't
+go play video games") or act only at C ("go along with Bob, he's had a
+rough day") as well.  Lots of play happens like this.  Freeform play is
+easy to understand in this light.
+
+So: now we ought to be able to talk about the real differences between
+1) creating a town, 2) the town itself, 3) getting your group's assent
+to the town, 4) creating a critical hits table, 5) the critical hits
+table itself, and 6) getting your group's assent to the table, plus 7)
+proposing a change to the in-game Sitch (like "I hit him"), 8) the
+change itself, and 9) getting your group's assent to /it/.
+
+We ought to be able to look critically at a particular set of rules'
+coordination of the three levels.  Are there holes?  Contradictions?
+ Unsupported assertions?  Wrong guesses?  Backfires? According to the
+rules, /who gets to say what about what?/ and /what are the group's
+interests when they do so?/
+
+And then we ought to be able to look critically at the rules in actual
+play.  Are they easy to follow?  (Did we even follow them?)  Are they
+fun, satisfying, challenging, surprising?  How do they flex under
+pressure from various social dynamics?  How do they divert or transform
+various social dynamics?  As it actually happened, /who got to say what
+about what?/ and /did it serve the group's interests when they did so?/
+and /was it what the game text promised?/
+
+(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules
+customization.  Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for
+instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting
+for the Pool, is customization, not Drift.  The vast majority of making
+towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff,
+similarly.  What's Drift and what's customization will vary
+/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset.  It seems so basic to me that I
+wonder why it's even a question.)
+
+-Vincent
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*Bankuei <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=218>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1876
+
+bankuei <aim:goim?screenname=bankuei&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=218> Email
+<mailto:yeloson@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=218>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128289#msg128289>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128289#msg128289>*
+
+« *Reply #7 on:* July 15, 2004, 07:55:33 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hi Ben,
+
+I with you all the way except "System defines out of game situations"...
+ Try, Social Contract defines everything, including System.  System is
+everything specific to the game, and Social Contract is everything with
+everybody, including the game.
+
+The lumpley Principle defines System by going /above/ it.
+
+thoughts?
+
+Chris
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*efindel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 141
+
+89087518
+<http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=89087518>
+targaroth <aim:goim?screenname=targaroth&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+efindel <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=efindel>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290> WWW
+<http://home.earthlink.net/~efindel/> Email
+<mailto:efindel@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=290>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128301#msg128301>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128301#msg128301>*
+
+« *Reply #8 on:* July 15, 2004, 08:53:13 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I have to disagree with Setting coming under System here.  The lP states
+that "System is the /means/ by which players /negotiate/ the contents of
+their shared imagined space."
+
+Setting is part of the contents -- but Setting in and of itself is not a
+/means/.  It is among the objects being manipulated.  Statements about
+the shared imaginative space are also not System -- they are not
+/negotiating/ anything, they are simply stating a point of view about
+what's there.
+
+So, going by this... the situation is a part of the shared imaginative
+space -- but it is not System.  The methods by which situation is
+decided, and the methods by which it affects other things -- those are
+System, but the situation itself is not.
+
+The fact that, say, a town exists in the setting is not System -- but
+the general social contract rule of "we do not contradict established
+fact about the setting" -- that /is/ System.  (Note, though, that it is
+by no means required -- e.g., in a game which takes place in dreams,
+contradicting established fact may be explicitly allowed.  It's nothing
+unusual to have a dream which starts in one place, but that suddenly
+turns into a completely different place halfway through, or to start
+with one person there with you, then have that turn into someone else,
+or disappear.)
+
+Finally, to bring in an analogy (bad idea, I know...), System is a set
+of functions.  The inputs to those functions are not necessarily System,
+and the outputs are not necessarily System (though they may form objects
+for other System functions to work on)... System is the things that are
+done with those inputs to produce those outputs.  Something like the
+players' current emtional state, to me, is an input -- it is not System
+in and of itself, but it is something which may affect what the System does.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*John Harper
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 612
+
+flip you for real
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205> WWW
+<http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1205>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128304#msg128304>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128304#msg128304>*
+
+« *Reply #9 on:* July 15, 2004, 09:16:26 AM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I gotta agree with efindel. Ben's first conclusion just doesn't work for
+me. I mean this bit:
+Quote
+I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not,
+in some regard, a part of System.
+
+This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the term
+to zero as far as I can tell.
+
+Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the
+lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate
+the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two
+parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and
+Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is
+established... that's system.
+
+Attempting to converge these two into one big uber-definition of
+"system" seems to reduce the LP to this: "The System is the means by
+which players negotiate the contents of their System." Wha?
+System-as-process makes sense to me. System-as-entire-act-of-roleplaying
+does not.
+
+My lucky 20-sider is not process. The gaming table is not process. My
+emotional state is not process. All of those things can /affect/ the
+process, to be sure, but they are not the process itself. Let's not
+confuse the hammer and the boards for the act of nailing the boards
+together.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The Mighty Atom <http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> -- My design blog for
+Danger Patrol, Stranger Things
+<http://www.onesevendesign.com/strangerthings> and other projects
+
+*John Kim
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1791
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1105> WWW
+<http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/> Email
+<mailto:jhkim@darkshire.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1105>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128332#msg128332>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128332#msg128332>*
+
+« *Reply #10 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:27:23 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: John Harper
+  This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the
+term to zero as far as I can tell.
+
+Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the
+lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate
+the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two
+parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and
+Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is
+established... that's system.  
+
+In practice, though, this is a very fuzzy line to draw.  Most written
+RPG rules generally include things in the Shared Imaginary Space.  i.e.
+A rule might be "Fire Giants are immune to fire".  This is a written
+game rule, and it can be used to arbitrate disputes, but it is also a
+part of the Shared Imaginary Space.  As another example, try to separate
+out the Amber DRPG magic rules from magic in the Amber setting.
+
+So let's take an action.  i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the
+giant."  OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook.
+ He sees the sentence which says they are immune.  The GM says "It has
+no effect."  Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and
+says "What the heck?  It should damage him."  The GM then cites the
+rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on.  
+
+Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules at
+all.  It is the process.  i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk and
+agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is just
+part of the Setting.  But this means that all or nearly all of system
+just reduces down to the participants agreeing.  
+
+Quote from: lumpley
+  (Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules
+customization.  Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for
+instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting
+for the Pool, is customization, not Drift.  The vast majority of making
+towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff,
+similarly.  What's Drift and what's customization will vary
+/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset.  It seems so basic to me that I
+wonder why it's even a question.)  
+
+Right, that's what I was trying to say (although apparently not well).
+ The exact same thing (i.e. designing a setting, for example), which is
+"Drift" for one system, is "customization" for another system.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+- John
+
+*John Harper
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 612
+
+flip you for real
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1205> WWW
+<http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1205>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128334#msg128334>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128334#msg128334>*
+
+« *Reply #11 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:45:09 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, John. Based on the way I
+understand the term "System", this is what I make of your example.
+
+"Fire Giants are immune to fire" is a quality that Fire Giants have.
+Therefore, it's part of the Setting, which in turn is part of the SIS
+that the group is negotiating from moment to moment.
+
+The player says "I cast a fire bolt at the giant." Now System steps in.
+How do we determine what happens in the SIS now? According to your
+example, the system in place seems to be "The GM should look at the
+qualities of the target and see if it is immune to the attack. If so,
+the attack has no effect." In the example, the GM exercises this bit of
+system, and adjusts the SIS accordingly: "The bolt has no effect."
+
+System is the /process/ by which the GM made the judgement about
+immunities and their effects in play. If the player complains, simply
+pointing at the entry in the rulebook isn't quite sufficient. The book
+says Fire Giants are immune to fire. So what? The book isn't playing the
+game. The GM has to engage System in order to get this element of
+Setting into the SIS.
+
+Now, this example is less than ideal, becase the bit of System that gets
+used is something that is almost always unspoken in play and is almost
+never mentioned in the rules. D&D3E is the only game I can think of
+off-hand that bothers to actually have a written rule explaining what an
+immunity is and how it impacts play. For most groups this would just be
+"common sense."
+
+Nevertheless, choosing to apply a bit of Setting to a particular moment
+of play and /how/ to apply it and /why/ and who gets to say what...
+that's System. The Fire Giant's quality is used by the System but it is
+not the System itself.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The Mighty Atom <http://mightyatom.blogspot.com> -- My design blog for
+Danger Patrol, Stranger Things
+<http://www.onesevendesign.com/strangerthings> and other projects
+
+*Marco <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1718
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=190> WWW
+<http://www.jagsrpg.org> Email <mailto:jagsgame@yahoo.com> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=190>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128336#msg128336>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128336#msg128336>*
+
+« *Reply #12 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:59:24 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: lumpley
+(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules
+customization.  Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for
+instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting
+for the Pool, is customization, not Drift.  The vast majority of making
+towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff,
+similarly.  What's Drift and what's customization will vary
+/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset.  It seems so basic to me that I
+wonder why it's even a question.)
+
+-Vincent
+
+
+I wouldn't consider choosing humanity Drift. That /is/ pretty basic. But
+if I construct a town so there's none of element 'X' in the game and
+element 'X' is something that's mentioned in the rules is that Drift? Is
+it Drift if I play TRoS without a lot of attention given to Flaws?
+
+Where does one draw the line?
+
+Recently Ron says:
+Quote
+
+Easy #1. Maybe your group did Drift some. Is that so hard to imagine? If
+you and your group are very good at CA-Y, then you can get there by
+maximizing what the game can offer along those lines, no matter how
+meager, even if you still apply the other (bulk) of the text.
+
+That seems like he's saying some types of "by-the-book play" are in fact
+drift if the book doesn't specifically say what to emphasize or lessen.
+
+-Marco
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------
+JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
+a free, high-quality, universal system at:
+http://www.jagsrpg.org
+*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland*
+
+*efindel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 141
+
+89087518
+<http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=89087518>
+targaroth <aim:goim?screenname=targaroth&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+efindel <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=efindel>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=290> WWW
+<http://home.earthlink.net/~efindel/> Email
+<mailto:efindel@earthlink.net> Personal Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=290>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128344#msg128344>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128344#msg128344>*
+
+« *Reply #13 on:* July 15, 2004, 02:06:43 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Quote from: John Kim
+
+So let's take an action. i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the
+giant." OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook. He
+sees the sentence which says they are immune. The GM says "It has no
+effect." Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and
+says "What the heck? It should damage him." The GM then cites the
+rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on.
+ 
+ Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules
+at all. It is the process. i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk
+and agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is
+just part of the Setting. But this means that all or nearly all of
+system just reduces down to the participants agreeing.
+
+
+A note here -- D&D 3 uses the phrase "immune to" many times... but
+doesn't really define what that means.  It's generally interpreted as
+meaning "is not affected by".
+
+However... that's not the only possible interpretation, and other games
+have Systems which give other interpretations.  For example, the old
+Advanced Marvel Superheroes RPG stated that "immune to X" meant that the
+character/being/whatever had "class 1000" resistance to that thing...
+and thus, for example, something that was "immune to fire" could still
+be burnt -- it just took the heat of a sun's heart or something similar
+to do it.
+
+Mutants & Masterminds also formally defines "immune to",with its
+"Immunity" feat -- there, it's defined to mean that the thing in
+question cannot be harmed by the condition in question and automatically
+makes saving throws or ability checks against it... /but/ actual
+/attacks/ based on the thing in question still can hurt the thing, but
+can only cause Stun damage, not Lethal.
+
+Lastly, one complaint often leveled against the Hero System is that
+there is no simple, clean way to model "X is immune to fire" (or cold,
+or electricity...) in it.  Any "immunity to fire" would have to be
+defined in System terms as something like some large number of points of
+Energy Defense with a Limitation of "only versus fire" (or Damage
+Reduction only versus fire coupled with ED only versus fire, or there
+are other alternative builds).  The exact System effect of "immune to
+fire" would depend on how you built it.
+
+Thus, in each of these four games, the Setting fact "fire giants are
+immune to fire" would mean different things -- because of the three
+different Systems.
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+*M. J. Young
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 2121
+
+1735114 <http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=1735114>
+MarkJYoung <aim:goim?screenname=MarkJYoung&message=Hi.+Are+you+there?>
+tiras1 <http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=tiras1>
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712> WWW
+<http://www.mjyoung.net/> Email <mailto:mjyoung@mjyoung.net> Personal
+Message (Offline)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=712>
+	
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128350#msg128350>
+	*Wait, What Matters Again?
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.msg128350#msg128350>*
+
+« *Reply #14 on:* July 15, 2004, 03:35:57 PM »
+	
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Dang, Ben. To quote an excellent movie, "Now you walk into a bar, and
+sailors come running out."
+
+This idea seems to have popped up everywhere today. I'll call your
+attention to my reply to Sean's thread
+/http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12012 <"<a>">Setting as Part
+of System/, and say see that for why I think that's correct, and perhaps
+more helpfully /in what sense/ that is correct.
+Quote from: John Kim
+So here's the big question.  So creating new characters in Timelord is a
+change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution
+mechanics.  But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The
+Pool is not a change to system.  But that seems to make them unequal.  A
+problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that
+you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash.
+
+Sort of. That is, that is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the
+other side. At some point you create the potential for incoherence by
+failing to provide sufficient information to inform play.
+
+Incoherent design means design that fosters incoherent play. In complex
+design, this most commonly happens because rules prove to be
+contradictory in what they encourage, and players develop their groups'
+systems based on which rules fit their expectations for the game. If
+players in the same group have different expectations based on
+emphasizing and deemphasizing different rules in the text, incoherence
+results from the conflicts in those expectations.
+
+It is less common but just as plausible for incoherence to result from a
+failure to provide sufficient information to inform play. If after
+reading the rules I don't actually know what it is you expect of a game,
+and the rules as writ are insufficient to cause that to occur if I
+follow them, then I'm going to start "filling in the gaps" with what "I
+think" the designer intended. This, too, can create incoherence, if in
+the absence of sufficient directive we have different ideas of what the
+designer intended, and in structuring what we think was intended we
+create conflicting systems from the same minimalist rules.
+
+Rules heavy systems, detailed and expansive packages, don't necessarily
+lead to incoherence, as long as that which is provided works together
+correctly. Rules light systems and systems without setting don't
+necessarily lead to incoherence as long as there is sufficient guidance
+to point to the way the game is played. I hope Multiverser is an example
+of success in the former category; I think Universalis is a success in
+the latter.
+
+--M. J. Young
+	Logged
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip>
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Check out /Multiverser <http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/>/
+M. J. Young Net <http://www.mjyoung.net/>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] 2
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.15> 3
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.30> 4
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.45> 	Mark unread
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=12001.0>
+Send this topic
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=12001.0>
+Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12001.0> 
+
+« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001.0;prev_next=prev>
+next »
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12001;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>
+
jeuderologie