--- a/draft/themes.txt	Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
+++ b/draft/themes.txt	Thu Feb 23 15:13:22 2006 -0500
@@ -1,20 +1,34 @@
 * Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours]
 
-** Définition du jeu de rôle:
+** Définition du jeu de rôle
+
+- Abbrev. JdR ou jdr. Pl. Jeux de rôle. Jeu de négociations entre
+  participants des évènements se passant dans un espace imaginaire
+  commun (rêvalité).
 
-- Abbrev. JdR ou jdr. Pl. Jeux de rôle. Jeu dans lequel les participants
-  décrivent les actions de personnages imaginaires dans un cadre
-  (décor) fixé d'avance et selon des règles de résolution déterminées
-  par le jeu.
+*** Objectifs
+
+Avoir du plaisir (jouer) en:
+
+- Rêvant;
+
+- Participant;
 
-*** Plusieurs composants:
+- Racontant quelque chose;
+
+Le modèle des jouets indique que ces trois objectifs sont tous
+nécessaires.  Le GNS ajoute qu'un seul objectif doit avoir la priorité
+sur les autres.  La définition de chacun des termes est vague.
+
+*** Manière
 
-- Le Jeu (Règles, objectifs)
-- Les Participants
-- Description des actions
-- Personnages imaginaires
-- Cadre fixé d'avance
-- Règles de résolution fixées par le jeu.
+- Le contrat social détermine comment la négociation se déroule.
+
+- Le système est l'ensemble des moyens techniques auquel les joueurs
+choisissent d'abdiquer pour régler certains aspects de la négociation
+défini par le contrat social.
+
+- Un moyen technique est une procédure permettant de transformer la rêvalité en 
 
 ** Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets
 
@@ -59,6 +73,63 @@
 
 * Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch]
 
+** Le Jeu
+
+**** GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt):
+
+- start and stop scenes;
+
+- truth regulation; what happens?
+
+- orchestrated conflicts;
+
+*** From HowRPGRulesWork.txt
+
+On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing:
+
+The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.
+
+When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people
+relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to
+force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular,
+possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative
+relationships.
+
+Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and
+/expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks
+of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human
+interactions at a deep level.
+
+So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is
+playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak,
+flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular
+play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A
+flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social
+dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to
+already be in place, or the game crashes.
+
+Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic?
+
+/*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams
+here.*/
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+** Le Jouet
+
+** L'Histoire
+
+*** Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt):
+
+  When a character dies in a novel or a movie, it's a) to establish
+  what's at stake, b) to escalate the conflict, or c) to make a final
+  statement.  Or perhaps some combination. It's never by accident or
+  for no good reason, unlike in real life.
+
+
 ** Les types psychologiques
 
 *** Type 0: le décrocheur
@@ -120,6 +191,139 @@
 
 * Système de résolution [cf. Résolution]
 
+** Meta-gaming elements in Resolution
+
+[From Burning Down the Firewall in lumpley.txt:]
+
+*** Out-of-scene characters
+
+Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you can't
+participate.*
+
+Text from Dogs in the Vineyard:
+
+    The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow
+    players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one
+    another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your
+    character's off the stage.
+
+*** Metagame knowledge
+
+Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you
+shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions.*
+
+Text from Dogs:
+
+    The game works *even better* when you bring your own metagame
+    knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between
+    two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't
+    limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose
+    the one that *you* prefer!
+
+*** Immersive Surprise
+
+Conventional wisdom: *when your character's surprised, you should be
+surprised.*
+
+I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on
+the Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=114267#114267>, but
+here's a quote:
+
+    I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus
+    on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic
+    problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally
+    a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight.
+    Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to
+    "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how.
+    OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it
+    Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right?
+
+    Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the
+    encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins
+    are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group.
+
+*** Out-of-scene Participation
+
+Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.*
+
+Text from Dogs:
+
+    Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on
+    constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says
+    something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you
+    have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only
+    mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know,
+    do things like that.)
+
+    Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your
+    regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before
+    and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat
+    about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can
+    think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social
+    rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the
+    game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in.
+    Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be
+    pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and
+    giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about
+    digressions.
+
+    ...
+
+    Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven
+    individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and
+    engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job.
+
+** Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution
+
+*** From lumpley.txt:
+
+In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the
+safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at
+stake is: do you crack the safe?
+
+In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I
+crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
+What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?
+
+Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You
+can succeed but lose, fail but win.
+
+In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided
+the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe
+contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's
+possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning
+a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a
+win anyway.
+
+Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.
+
+"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
+It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
+"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of
+in-order papers."
+
+"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
+It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
+"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a
+piece of paper in the wastebasket..."
+
+(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break
+success=winning, failure=losing.)
+
+That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you
+succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict.
+The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and
+your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are
+supposed to even out.
+
+Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged
+authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.
+
+(later, in Practical Conflict Resolution Advice):
+
+In Conflicts Resolution, Success/Failure give you a bonus/malus on
+accessing what's at stake.
+
 ** Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt]
 
 *** Corrélation entre Action et Compétence
@@ -215,6 +419,12 @@
 
 à quelle vitesse les évènements se déroulent
 
+About suspense, from lumpley.txt:
+
+==> Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable.
+
+Put complications to inevitable outcomes and you get suspense.
+
 *** la quantité descriptive
 
 y'a-t-il beaucoup d'éléments à explorer, connaître