diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-GNS.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-GNS.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1411 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +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 + + +*198792* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) + (Read 1308 times) + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« * 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 <"">I: Core concept +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1087 <"">II: Whence +go the mechanics +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1080 <"">III: +Difference between players and GM +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1096 <"">IV: Sorting +out the nuts and bolts +And http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122 <"">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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*[Scattershot] About what it's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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). + + +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. + + +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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 +*. + +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 + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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! +* +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 + + +*Paul Czege * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 1845 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 and get +your hunch back. + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 9963 + + +View Profile + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 +-Get your indie game fix online. + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Who's it for? +* +« *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 + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Any Hope? +* +« *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 + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + +