diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/WhatsSystemIs.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/WhatsSystemIs.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1151 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Edit Profile +Logout + +Hey, *fabien*, you have 0 messages +, 0 are new. +Total time logged in: 20 minutes. +Show unread posts since last visit. + +Show new replies to your posts. + +February 14, 2006, 02:50:32 AM +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*195768* Posts in *18371* Topics by *5864* Members Latest Member: * - +sunshine8up +* Most +online today: *83* - most online ever: *143* (January 24, 2006, 05:56:13 +AM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *RPG Theory * +| | |-+ *Wait, What Matters Again? +* Ť previous + +next ť + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + 4 + Mark unread + +Send this topic + +Print + + +Author Topic: Wait, What Matters Again? (Read 2499 times) + +*Ben Lehman +* +Member + +Posts: 1400 + +splendidquetzl + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť * on:* July 14, 2004, 09:54:05 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wait, what Matters again? +Or +The Extent of Sys +Or +"If you have a D&D game without orc-killing, is it Drift?" +Or +"No complete RPG will ever be made." + +Jargon Alert: If you are not familiar with these terms as they are used +in Forge discourse, go and look them up before reading this: +1) The lumpley Principle (I call it lP sometimes), which I wield like a +fucking club all over this post. +2) Shared Imagined Space (which is my favoritest term ever) +3) Exploration +4) Exploration, components of (Situation, Setting, Color, blah, blah) +5) Credibility +6) Drift + +Curse Alert: For some reason, I am particularly vulgar in this essay. + +System does Matter. + +What? + +What matters? + +Good question. + +What the hell is this "System" anyway? + +Well, for a lot of people, this is like art and porn -- they know it +when they see it. This is not a satisfactory definition to me and, I +venture, should not be a satisfactory definition for anyone who gives a +damn about discussing the theory of RPGs which is probably everyone +reading this post since the god-damn forum is called "RPG Theory." I +mean fuck, people. If you're not interested in RPG theory I can't +exactly hold your fucking hand through this thing, can I? Just go read +your pansy "Actual Play" or suck it up, stay here with the theory wonks, +and quitcherbitchin. + +That intro was actually a little misleading -- I'm going to take my +definition from the lumpley Principle (the only piece of role-playing +theory so low-budget it can only afford one capital letter), so I +already have a definition in hand. But what I'm going to do is take a +look at that and go "holy fuck, that's a hell of a lot bigger than I +thought. Like, fuck, man! I gotta design all that shit?" Or +something. Basically, what I am saying here is "the System" covers a +huge range of stuff, only a small subset of which is ever talked about +or even acknowledged by game texts. + +So, okay. Let's look at the l.P. +"The System is the means by which players negotiate the contents of +their shared imagined space." + +Right. + +So what is it? What's in there? To find this, I'm going to "run the +statement backwards" and say that "The means by which the players +negotiate the contents of the shared imagined space is the System." I +realize that this is a different statement. Call it the "lumpley +Principle adjunct" or the "Little Timmy Principle" or, perhaps, the +"'kiss my ass, you 'systemless rpg' players' principle." + +Well, let's start with the obvious thing: Mechanics. + +What are mechanics? Mechanics are things which say "If your roll of +17d7 is greater than or equal to the target number correlated from +charts 2.5 to 6.4.1 inclusive, your character succeeds." Or, "The +character with the higher Warfare will, all things being equal, win any +strategic or tactical situation." Or, "when Virgo is ascendant, the +leftmost player takes on the role of High Priestess, which means that +she speaks for the Mother in all things, particularly to combat with +axes, maces, and tangerines." Essentially, mechanics are anything which +resolves situations in the RPG through deliberate, particular means, +often mathematical. There's a hell of a lot of analysis of mechanics +out there. To some people, actually a lot of people, mechanics is all +there is to system. System and mechanics are the same thing. This +people are poorly informed assholes, fuckwits, and malcontents, not +worthy to lick the dirt out of my toenails. Or perhaps we just have +different definitions of system. Either/or. + +Are mechanics a part of system? Well, duh. Are they the whole shebang? + Not even fucking close. + +How about setting? A lot of gamers (including me) have this whole +hang-up about setting/system differences. A lot of people say that an +RPG text is comprised of setting and system. "So they're totally +different, right?" asks Little Timmy. + +Well, Little Timmy ("Don't call my little I am twenty-three") let's look +at the lumpley Principle. Hrm... Can setting effect the contents of +the shared imagined space? Fuck yes! Setting is the background of the +shared imagined space. In fact, I would say that, given the definition +of system from the lP, setting is often a greater component of system +than mechanics. I mean, which has more weight on the actual play of the +game "We are using the D&D mechanics" or "We are playing in the +Forgotten Realms?" Yeah. Hard question, ain't it? + +So Setting goes in the box. Wait, does this mean that all setting-less +game texts are fundamentally incomplete with regards to system. Yes. + Fucking right. Precisely so, Little Timmy. Now take your medicine and +get out of my face. + +Okay, how about situation? Marco talked about this a little bit with me +recently, which is what set me off on this whole thing but, essentially, +does the basic situation of the game effect the shared imagined space? + Or, as he (roughly), put it, "is it still D&D if you aren't killing +orcs?" I used to be a big opponent of the idea that sitch could be a +part of system or, rather, I would talk about playing D&D *without +drift* (by which I meant Mechanical Drift). + +I was a fucking bonehead. *I'm* not even fit to lick to dirt out of my +own toenails. Look, can situation be used, by a player, to make a +statement about the shared imagined space? Yes. Of course. If it +can't, well, I don't know what it is. It's like the situation has +nothing to do with what's going on in the game? Whatever. It doesn't +happen. + +Okay, let's stop it with this piece-by-piece shit and just eat the whole +pie like the fucking fat pigs we are: What isn't System? What, in the +entire act of role-playing, is not a part of System, as it is defined by +my god and saviour, Vincent "lumpley" Baker (whose principle I'm sure +you are sick of hearing of, at this point)? + +Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some +such) -- System +Who ordered pizza? -- most likely system. I mean, you don't want to +kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene. That's just low. +The emotional state of all the players? -- System, definitely. More +important to System than mechanics, more'n likely. +That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I +think. This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find. + +I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not, +in some regard, a part of System. I can't even conceive of the +possibility of their being such an element. Please offer suggestions, +if you can. + +So, okay, what does that mean to designers? + +Well, it is pretty fucking obvious that no game text can, will, or +should present a totally complete system -- that is a game without +players. However, a lot of chunks of system (The GM-player +relationship, say, or the little social rules that game groups carry +with them) are carried from game to game totally unthinkingly, and that, +I think, needs to change. Essentially, for design, this means "look, by +offering a 'role-playing system' you are, in fact, offering an +incomplete item which will be interfaced with by the role-playing group +to create a whole system, which will in turn be used to manipulate the +particulars of their shared imagined space." + +So, the question that I have is: What does it mean to include a certain +system in a game text, in terms of effect on Actual Play? What does it +mean to leave it out? + +yrs-- +--Ben + +P.S. The first one who gets the "23 years old" reference gets a prize. + PM me or stick in a P.S. And, yes, Google is cheating. + +P.P.S. Tip o' the hat to Mike Mearls for the "no complete RPG" bit. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +These are our Games +This is my Blog + +*contracycle +* +Member + +Posts: 2371 + + +View Profile + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #1 on:* July 14, 2004, 10:51:03 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Erm, yes and no. + +Its true to say that I cannot create a complete system in the sense you +appear to describe. The actual physical game that actually happens is +largely beyond my control. + +But this is a restriction that applies to many things and is IMO +implicit in the creation of any device for use by anyone other than the +designer. IMO this is Not An Issue; it was resolved by the +identifiication that textual rules are only contributory elements to the +social contract, which is the real mechanism governing the human +interactions. + +But being contributary elements, they do serve to inform the negotiation +of that social contract and do bring the designer into the conversation +at the table, as it were. That is the purpose of system. By analogy, I +cannot perhaps construct a system that produces faultless justice; but I +can propose a system of trial by jury if I think that this prior +discussion of local social contract would be useful to the pursuit of +justice. + +System matters in that respect. System is an overt implementation of +social contract. + +Now I have previously proposed that in essence, among players suitably +familiar with the form and process of RPG, no real 'RPG product' +purchase is necessary at all. They could just pick up a book, and refer +to that book as if it were the RPG world. With any of a number of +generic or favoured system, they could have some sort of game. + +So in that sense one might indeed say system is not very necessary at +all. But we do think system is necessary - and I believe we think this +becuase it frames our interactions with the SIS. We resolve conflicts, +and thus determine what enters the SIS, for example. And that is why +IMO particular system matters even when system in abstract falls away +into the nebulous social contract. Any actual implementation of a +particular system gives instructions to players: you do this after that +after the other for such a goal. Actual human behaviour - sure pretty +unimportant, but still actual - is being governed to an extent by the +designer and the design, exactly as it might be in a beauracracy or +engineering system. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Impeach the bomber boys: +www.impeachblair.org +www.impeachbush.org + +"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship +without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." +- Leonardo da Vinci + +*Paganini * +Member + +Posts: 1046 + +34492883 +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Re: Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #2 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:00:35 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I just want to point out one of those aspects of the lP that seems +obvious, but that will be news to a lot of traditional-style RPG +designers. Yeah, "mechanics" and "system" are not synonyms here. +Mechanics may be a big part of system, but they're not the *entirity* of +system. + +Turn that around, though, and think about this: *not all rules / +mechanics are part of the system.* A lot of times, especially in +home-brew games, you'll see mechanics tacked on that, maybe, the +designer liked in some other game, but didn't really understand the +point of - with the net effect that the mechanic actually does nothing +at all in terms of System. It's just kind of *there,* fogging up the +works, but when you really look at it, it doesn't go anywhere. + +But, to answer your question, what you're doing when you write a system +is informing the players about your vision of play. What you leave out, +they will be forced to make up on their own. If their personalities are +incompatible with making up that particular stuff, then they will want +to play a game. + +A lot of people don't want to play freeform... but they will play "The +Window," which is functionally equivalent to Freeform, AFAIAC. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +*http://www.livejournal.com/users/taiji_jian/* +*http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/indie-netgaming/* + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1718 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #3 on:* July 15, 2004, 01:33:29 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, + +If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of +system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it) +then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to +the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other +but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed. + +That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of +coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and +situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway. + +-Marco + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*Kesher * +Member + +Posts: 119 + +ulfias@hotmail.com +View Profile + +Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #4 on:* July 15, 2004, 04:21:27 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Out of game relationships (players sleeping with each other, or some +such) -- System +Who ordered pizza? -- most likely system. I mean, you don't want to +kill the guy who ordered the pizza in the first scene. That's just low. +The emotional state of all the players? -- System, definitely. More +important to System than mechanics, more'n likely. +That "Lucky twenty-sider" and the rituals that surround it? -- System, I +think. This is probably the furthest borderline case I can find. + + +It seems to me that Vincent approaches some of this in the Theory +section of the lumpley games website (Burning Down the Firewall): + +http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/hardcore.html + +I actually got really excited when I read this, because it seemed so +(blindsidingly) commonsensical. And Ben, I don't see the "lucky +20-sider" as borderline in this consideration at all. + +I think that explicitly addressing what goes on, realistically, +dynamically when people are in-the-act-of-gaming, as part of the overall +system is a powerful design question. How does the game require players +to /behave/ while playing? What happens to the game if they /don't/ +behave that way, & should it then be considered drift? + +I never had any interest in playing Wraith (though a friend of mine was +always bugging me to do so) because I didn't care to adopt the mindset +or around-the-table-behaviors the "system" (in Ben's larger sense) +seemed to demand. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Sometimes the sunset doesn't want to be photographed + --- Hood + + http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/indiemn/ + +*John Kim +* +Member + +Posts: 1791 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #5 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:27:56 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Marco + If setting, situation, and mechanics are the same thing in terms of +system (and I'm not arguing they aren't--it's a fine way to look at it) +then making up a new town is the same thing as adding critical hits to +the damage system. You can argue that one's more effort than the other +but the harder one is probably the town if it's detailed. + +That would make drift as related to the utility of a game in terms of +coherence very shaky since in practice one must make characters and +situationa and setting in order to play (traditionally) anyway. + +Yeah. I remember having touched on this before, but I can't remember +the threads. There are tons of games which specify setting. I would +say using Lord of the Rings or Skyrealms of Jorune for a different +setting is a far more major change to system than, say, ignoring +alignment rules. There are a few games which specify character, like +Timelord (1991) or Run Out the Guns (1998). There are also a few which +specify situation -- i.e. scenario-based games like the Sandman series +(1985) or Pokemon Jr (1999). + +So here's the big question. So creating new characters in Timelord is a +change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution +mechanics. But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The +Pool is not a change to system. But that seems to make them unequal. A +problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that +you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +- John + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2053 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Online) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #6 on:* July 15, 2004, 05:47:16 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, can I introduce something? I think it may be helpful. + +There are three things your System has to coordinate. ("System" in the +full implications of the lumpy piddle sense: the on-the-fly +fully-negotiated mercurial real-people's-moods-and-habits /process/ that +you're using to negotiate what happens.) + +It has to coordinate: +A) the wholly imaginary things and events in the "game world"; +B) real-world abstractions and representations of those things and +events: maps, numbers, dice, "hit points," etc. +C) the interactions of the actual human beings. + +For instance, a rule like "whoever rolls higher on the attack roll +inflicts damage on the defender" operates only on B and C: it expects +the human beings to interact to manipulate some "attack roll" and "hit +points" at the representation level. Add to the rule "... and describe +the change in the fighters' circumstances" and you bring in A: now it +expects the human beings to make changes to the imaginary stuff, not +just the abstractions. Or add to the rule "... but first give the +fighters bonuses to their attack rolls depending on their circumstances" +brings A in too, in a slightly different way. The former: changes to A +(the fictional circumstances) depend on what happens with B (the +representations). The latter: what happens with B changes depending on +details of A. Both together: A informs B, B informs A. In all cases: +...according to the direct and active attention of C, the players. + +You can imagine rules where A's informing of B is left to the subjective +interpretation of C ("... but first the GM gives the fighters whatever +bonuses seem called for"). You can imagine rules where A's informing of +B is cut and dried ("... and any fighter whose lover is watching the +fight gets +3 to the attack roll"). You can imagine rules where, +instead, /B/ informs B ("... and the fighter with the higher number +written next to 'Fighting' gets +3 to the attack roll"). + +You can imagine rules that coordinate only A and C ("only Bob is allowed +to introduce NPCs," "give Bob's character something to do so he doesn't +go play video games") or act only at C ("go along with Bob, he's had a +rough day") as well. Lots of play happens like this. Freeform play is +easy to understand in this light. + +So: now we ought to be able to talk about the real differences between +1) creating a town, 2) the town itself, 3) getting your group's assent +to the town, 4) creating a critical hits table, 5) the critical hits +table itself, and 6) getting your group's assent to the table, plus 7) +proposing a change to the in-game Sitch (like "I hit him"), 8) the +change itself, and 9) getting your group's assent to /it/. + +We ought to be able to look critically at a particular set of rules' +coordination of the three levels. Are there holes? Contradictions? + Unsupported assertions? Wrong guesses? Backfires? According to the +rules, /who gets to say what about what?/ and /what are the group's +interests when they do so?/ + +And then we ought to be able to look critically at the rules in actual +play. Are they easy to follow? (Did we even follow them?) Are they +fun, satisfying, challenging, surprising? How do they flex under +pressure from various social dynamics? How do they divert or transform +various social dynamics? As it actually happened, /who got to say what +about what?/ and /did it serve the group's interests when they did so?/ +and /was it what the game text promised?/ + +(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +-Vincent + Logged + + + +*Bankuei * +Member + +Posts: 1876 + +bankuei +View Profile + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #7 on:* July 15, 2004, 07:55:33 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Ben, + +I with you all the way except "System defines out of game situations"... + Try, Social Contract defines everything, including System. System is +everything specific to the game, and Social Contract is everything with +everybody, including the game. + +The lumpley Principle defines System by going /above/ it. + +thoughts? + +Chris + Logged + + + +*efindel * +Member + +Posts: 141 + +89087518 + +targaroth +efindel +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #8 on:* July 15, 2004, 08:53:13 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I have to disagree with Setting coming under System here. The lP states +that "System is the /means/ by which players /negotiate/ the contents of +their shared imagined space." + +Setting is part of the contents -- but Setting in and of itself is not a +/means/. It is among the objects being manipulated. Statements about +the shared imaginative space are also not System -- they are not +/negotiating/ anything, they are simply stating a point of view about +what's there. + +So, going by this... the situation is a part of the shared imaginative +space -- but it is not System. The methods by which situation is +decided, and the methods by which it affects other things -- those are +System, but the situation itself is not. + +The fact that, say, a town exists in the setting is not System -- but +the general social contract rule of "we do not contradict established +fact about the setting" -- that /is/ System. (Note, though, that it is +by no means required -- e.g., in a game which takes place in dreams, +contradicting established fact may be explicitly allowed. It's nothing +unusual to have a dream which starts in one place, but that suddenly +turns into a completely different place halfway through, or to start +with one person there with you, then have that turn into someone else, +or disappear.) + +Finally, to bring in an analogy (bad idea, I know...), System is a set +of functions. The inputs to those functions are not necessarily System, +and the outputs are not necessarily System (though they may form objects +for other System functions to work on)... System is the things that are +done with those inputs to produce those outputs. Something like the +players' current emtional state, to me, is an input -- it is not System +in and of itself, but it is something which may affect what the System does. + Logged + + + +*John Harper +* +Member + +Posts: 612 + +flip you for real + + +View Profile + WWW + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #9 on:* July 15, 2004, 09:16:26 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I gotta agree with efindel. Ben's first conclusion just doesn't work for +me. I mean this bit: +Quote +I cannot imagine a single aspect of the act of role-playing that is not, +in some regard, a part of System. + +This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the term +to zero as far as I can tell. + +Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the +lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate +the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two +parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and +Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is +established... that's system. + +Attempting to converge these two into one big uber-definition of +"system" seems to reduce the LP to this: "The System is the means by +which players negotiate the contents of their System." Wha? +System-as-process makes sense to me. System-as-entire-act-of-roleplaying +does not. + +My lucky 20-sider is not process. The gaming table is not process. My +emotional state is not process. All of those things can /affect/ the +process, to be sure, but they are not the process itself. Let's not +confuse the hammer and the boards for the act of nailing the boards +together. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The Mighty Atom -- My design blog for +Danger Patrol, Stranger Things + and other projects + +*John Kim +* +Member + +Posts: 1791 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #10 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:27:23 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: John Harper + This makes "system" mean "everything" and reduces the value of the +term to zero as far as I can tell. + +Setting and Sitation are not part of System. There are two parts to the +lumpley principle: /The *System* is the means by which players negotiate +the contents of their *shared imagined space.*/ Emphasis mine. The two +parts are System and SIS. One is acting on the other. Setting and +Situation are part of the SIS. The /means/ by which the SIS is +established... that's system. + +In practice, though, this is a very fuzzy line to draw. Most written +RPG rules generally include things in the Shared Imaginary Space. i.e. +A rule might be "Fire Giants are immune to fire". This is a written +game rule, and it can be used to arbitrate disputes, but it is also a +part of the Shared Imaginary Space. As another example, try to separate +out the Amber DRPG magic rules from magic in the Amber setting. + +So let's take an action. i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the +giant." OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook. + He sees the sentence which says they are immune. The GM says "It has +no effect." Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and +says "What the heck? It should damage him." The GM then cites the +rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on. + +Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules at +all. It is the process. i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk and +agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is just +part of the Setting. But this means that all or nearly all of system +just reduces down to the participants agreeing. + +Quote from: lumpley + (Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +Right, that's what I was trying to say (although apparently not well). + The exact same thing (i.e. designing a setting, for example), which is +"Drift" for one system, is "customization" for another system. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +- John + +*John Harper +* +Member + +Posts: 612 + +flip you for real + + +View Profile + WWW + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #11 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:45:09 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, John. Based on the way I +understand the term "System", this is what I make of your example. + +"Fire Giants are immune to fire" is a quality that Fire Giants have. +Therefore, it's part of the Setting, which in turn is part of the SIS +that the group is negotiating from moment to moment. + +The player says "I cast a fire bolt at the giant." Now System steps in. +How do we determine what happens in the SIS now? According to your +example, the system in place seems to be "The GM should look at the +qualities of the target and see if it is immune to the attack. If so, +the attack has no effect." In the example, the GM exercises this bit of +system, and adjusts the SIS accordingly: "The bolt has no effect." + +System is the /process/ by which the GM made the judgement about +immunities and their effects in play. If the player complains, simply +pointing at the entry in the rulebook isn't quite sufficient. The book +says Fire Giants are immune to fire. So what? The book isn't playing the +game. The GM has to engage System in order to get this element of +Setting into the SIS. + +Now, this example is less than ideal, becase the bit of System that gets +used is something that is almost always unspoken in play and is almost +never mentioned in the rules. D&D3E is the only game I can think of +off-hand that bothers to actually have a written rule explaining what an +immunity is and how it impacts play. For most groups this would just be +"common sense." + +Nevertheless, choosing to apply a bit of Setting to a particular moment +of play and /how/ to apply it and /why/ and who gets to say what... +that's System. The Fire Giant's quality is used by the System but it is +not the System itself. + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The Mighty Atom -- My design blog for +Danger Patrol, Stranger Things + and other projects + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1718 + + +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #12 on:* July 15, 2004, 12:59:24 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: lumpley +(Marco, John, there's a difference between Drift and by-the-rules +customization. Establishing a definition of Humanity in Sorcerer, for +instance, or creating characters for most games, or choosing a Setting +for the Pool, is customization, not Drift. The vast majority of making +towns, establishing situations, not killing orcs, that kind of stuff, +similarly. What's Drift and what's customization will vary +/tremendously/ from ruleset to ruleset. It seems so basic to me that I +wonder why it's even a question.) + +-Vincent + + +I wouldn't consider choosing humanity Drift. That /is/ pretty basic. But +if I construct a town so there's none of element 'X' in the game and +element 'X' is something that's mentioned in the rules is that Drift? Is +it Drift if I play TRoS without a lot of attention given to Flaws? + +Where does one draw the line? + +Recently Ron says: +Quote + +Easy #1. Maybe your group did Drift some. Is that so hard to imagine? If +you and your group are very good at CA-Y, then you can get there by +maximizing what the game can offer along those lines, no matter how +meager, even if you still apply the other (bulk) of the text. + +That seems like he's saying some types of "by-the-book play" are in fact +drift if the book doesn't specifically say what to emphasize or lessen. + +-Marco + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*efindel * +Member + +Posts: 141 + +89087518 + +targaroth +efindel +View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #13 on:* July 15, 2004, 02:06:43 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: John Kim + +So let's take an action. i.e. A player says "I cast a fire bolt at the +giant." OK, so now the GM refers to the description in the rulebook. He +sees the sentence which says they are immune. The GM says "It has no +effect." Let's suppose the player is a little irritable that day and +says "What the heck? It should damage him." The GM then cites the +rulebook, the player agrees, and they move on. + + Now, on the one hand, you can say that the system is not in the rules +at all. It is the process. i.e. The system is "The GM and player talk +and agree on what happens" -- while "Fire Giants are immune to fire" is +just part of the Setting. But this means that all or nearly all of +system just reduces down to the participants agreeing. + + +A note here -- D&D 3 uses the phrase "immune to" many times... but +doesn't really define what that means. It's generally interpreted as +meaning "is not affected by". + +However... that's not the only possible interpretation, and other games +have Systems which give other interpretations. For example, the old +Advanced Marvel Superheroes RPG stated that "immune to X" meant that the +character/being/whatever had "class 1000" resistance to that thing... +and thus, for example, something that was "immune to fire" could still +be burnt -- it just took the heat of a sun's heart or something similar +to do it. + +Mutants & Masterminds also formally defines "immune to",with its +"Immunity" feat -- there, it's defined to mean that the thing in +question cannot be harmed by the condition in question and automatically +makes saving throws or ability checks against it... /but/ actual +/attacks/ based on the thing in question still can hurt the thing, but +can only cause Stun damage, not Lethal. + +Lastly, one complaint often leveled against the Hero System is that +there is no simple, clean way to model "X is immune to fire" (or cold, +or electricity...) in it. Any "immunity to fire" would have to be +defined in System terms as something like some large number of points of +Energy Defense with a Limitation of "only versus fire" (or Damage +Reduction only versus fire coupled with ED only versus fire, or there +are other alternative builds). The exact System effect of "immune to +fire" would depend on how you built it. + +Thus, in each of these four games, the Setting fact "fire giants are +immune to fire" would mean different things -- because of the three +different Systems. + Logged + + + +*M. J. Young +* +Member + +Posts: 2121 + +1735114 +MarkJYoung +tiras1 +View Profile + WWW + Email Personal +Message (Offline) + + + + *Wait, What Matters Again? +* + +Ť *Reply #14 on:* July 15, 2004, 03:35:57 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Dang, Ben. To quote an excellent movie, "Now you walk into a bar, and +sailors come running out." + +This idea seems to have popped up everywhere today. I'll call your +attention to my reply to Sean's thread +/http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12012 <"">Setting as Part +of System/, and say see that for why I think that's correct, and perhaps +more helpfully /in what sense/ that is correct. +Quote from: John Kim +So here's the big question. So creating new characters in Timelord is a +change to the system, just as much so as changing the resolution +mechanics. But we commonly think that, say, creating a setting for The +Pool is not a change to system. But that seems to make them unequal. A +problem with "incoherence" as a design criteria is that the less that +you specify with a game, the less likely that parts will clash. + +Sort of. That is, that is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the +other side. At some point you create the potential for incoherence by +failing to provide sufficient information to inform play. + +Incoherent design means design that fosters incoherent play. In complex +design, this most commonly happens because rules prove to be +contradictory in what they encourage, and players develop their groups' +systems based on which rules fit their expectations for the game. If +players in the same group have different expectations based on +emphasizing and deemphasizing different rules in the text, incoherence +results from the conflicts in those expectations. + +It is less common but just as plausible for incoherence to result from a +failure to provide sufficient information to inform play. If after +reading the rules I don't actually know what it is you expect of a game, +and the rules as writ are insufficient to cause that to occur if I +follow them, then I'm going to start "filling in the gaps" with what "I +think" the designer intended. This, too, can create incoherence, if in +the absence of sufficient directive we have different ideas of what the +designer intended, and in structuring what we think was intended we +create conflicting systems from the same minimalist rules. + +Rules heavy systems, detailed and expansive packages, don't necessarily +lead to incoherence, as long as that which is provided works together +correctly. Rules light systems and systems without setting don't +necessarily lead to incoherence as long as there is sufficient guidance +to point to the way the game is played. I hope Multiverser is an example +of success in the former category; I think Universalis is a success in +the latter. + +--M. J. Young + Logged + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Check out /Multiverser / +M. J. Young Net + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + 4 + Mark unread + +Send this topic + +Print + + +Ť previous + +next ť + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +Š 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + +