diff -r be57f0035c67 -r fca7a1e98027 draft/themes.txt --- a/draft/themes.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 +++ b/draft/themes.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:22 2006 -0500 @@ -1,20 +1,34 @@ * Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours] -** Définition du jeu de rôle: +** Définition du jeu de rôle + +- Abbrev. JdR ou jdr. Pl. Jeux de rôle. Jeu de négociations entre + participants des évènements se passant dans un espace imaginaire + commun (rêvalité). -- Abbrev. JdR ou jdr. Pl. Jeux de rôle. Jeu dans lequel les participants - décrivent les actions de personnages imaginaires dans un cadre - (décor) fixé d'avance et selon des règles de résolution déterminées - par le jeu. +*** Objectifs + +Avoir du plaisir (jouer) en: + +- Rêvant; + +- Participant; -*** Plusieurs composants: +- Racontant quelque chose; + +Le modèle des jouets indique que ces trois objectifs sont tous +nécessaires. Le GNS ajoute qu'un seul objectif doit avoir la priorité +sur les autres. La définition de chacun des termes est vague. + +*** Manière -- Le Jeu (Règles, objectifs) -- Les Participants -- Description des actions -- Personnages imaginaires -- Cadre fixé d'avance -- Règles de résolution fixées par le jeu. +- Le contrat social détermine comment la négociation se déroule. + +- Le système est l'ensemble des moyens techniques auquel les joueurs +choisissent d'abdiquer pour régler certains aspects de la négociation +défini par le contrat social. + +- Un moyen technique est une procédure permettant de transformer la rêvalité en ** Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets @@ -59,6 +73,63 @@ * Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch] +** Le Jeu + +**** GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt): + +- start and stop scenes; + +- truth regulation; what happens? + +- orchestrated conflicts; + +*** From HowRPGRulesWork.txt + +On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing: + +The goal of designing rules is to change social contract. + +When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people +relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to +force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular, +possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative +relationships. + +Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and +/expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks +of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human +interactions at a deep level. + +So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is +playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak, +flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular +play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A +flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social +dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to +already be in place, or the game crashes. + +Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic? + +/*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams +here.*/ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +** Le Jouet + +** L'Histoire + +*** Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt): + + When a character dies in a novel or a movie, it's a) to establish + what's at stake, b) to escalate the conflict, or c) to make a final + statement. Or perhaps some combination. It's never by accident or + for no good reason, unlike in real life. + + ** Les types psychologiques *** Type 0: le décrocheur @@ -120,6 +191,139 @@ * Système de résolution [cf. Résolution] +** Meta-gaming elements in Resolution + +[From Burning Down the Firewall in lumpley.txt:] + +*** Out-of-scene characters + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you can't +participate.* + +Text from Dogs in the Vineyard: + + The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow + players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one + another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your + character's off the stage. + +*** Metagame knowledge + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you +shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions.* + +Text from Dogs: + + The game works *even better* when you bring your own metagame + knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between + two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't + limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose + the one that *you* prefer! + +*** Immersive Surprise + +Conventional wisdom: *when your character's surprised, you should be +surprised.* + +I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on +the Forge , but +here's a quote: + + I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus + on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic + problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally + a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight. + Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to + "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how. + OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it + Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right? + + Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the + encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins + are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group. + +*** Out-of-scene Participation + +Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.* + +Text from Dogs: + + Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on + constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says + something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you + have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only + mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know, + do things like that.) + + Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your + regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before + and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat + about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can + think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social + rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the + game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. + Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be + pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and + giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about + digressions. + + ... + + Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven + individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and + engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job. + +** Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution + +*** From lumpley.txt: + +In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the +safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at +stake is: do you crack the safe? + +In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I +crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? + +Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You +can succeed but lose, fail but win. + +In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided +the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe +contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's +possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning +a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a +win anyway. + +Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe. + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Success! +"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of +in-order papers." + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Failure! +"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a +piece of paper in the wastebasket..." + +(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break +success=winning, failure=losing.) + +That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you +succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. +The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and +your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are +supposed to even out. + +Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged +authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration. + +(later, in Practical Conflict Resolution Advice): + +In Conflicts Resolution, Success/Failure give you a bonus/malus on +accessing what's at stake. + ** Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt] *** Corrélation entre Action et Compétence @@ -215,6 +419,12 @@ à quelle vitesse les évènements se déroulent +About suspense, from lumpley.txt: + +==> Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable. + +Put complications to inevitable outcomes and you get suspense. + *** la quantité descriptive y'a-t-il beaucoup d'éléments à explorer, connaître