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>