I was just chatting and a fun thing came to me...
That old game to pass the time, the word association game, can be interesting for a bit, but it has short legs. However, I do like to play it with children because it encourages the practice of intuitive associative thinking that is very much the stuff of metaphoric thinking, and thus poetry.
But when I was chatting, it came to me to lay a challenge not just of a free association between words, but rather, three things that describe a concept.
For example, I was asked, "Quick! Say three Pale things...", and the spontaneous answer was, "A ghost of a chance... the lightness of joy... the convictions of a coward...". Now we may argue just how apropos each is, or how and why they might or might not connect well, but it takes the old game a little farther. Done in a back and forth, with no time taken to break the rhythm and explain, it can become a back and forth that sounds like a weird sort of riddle game between Hobbit and Gollum (or dragon).
I like this.
23 November, 2016
14 November, 2016
Video Games are Boring
...according to THIS writer who has had a career in video game design. She has some interesting thoughts.
The things that stood out to me are these:
Common reasons people don't like video games because:
1) they are not interested in stimulation or conflict
2) because they lack depth (unlike books or films)
3) they don't identify with the characters or the setting
4) they just. Don't. Care. About. Realistic graphics, physics, or action.
What would entice non-gamers is:
1) taste (and preferred aesthetic)
2) depth
3) exploring who a character is in context to other characters and their situation
She talks about the idea of making games that reveal things about life and humanity. This may often be impossible if the behavior that the game rewards and punishes funnels choices toward simple adrenaline fueled action over and over.
The things that stood out to me are these:
Common reasons people don't like video games because:
1) they are not interested in stimulation or conflict
2) because they lack depth (unlike books or films)
3) they don't identify with the characters or the setting
4) they just. Don't. Care. About. Realistic graphics, physics, or action.
What would entice non-gamers is:
1) taste (and preferred aesthetic)
2) depth
3) exploring who a character is in context to other characters and their situation
She talks about the idea of making games that reveal things about life and humanity. This may often be impossible if the behavior that the game rewards and punishes funnels choices toward simple adrenaline fueled action over and over.
Kishotenketsu: Japanese Narrative Structure
So I have read about this narrative form before, in brief, but have not really dug into it. HERE is a really interesting article about the form.
In brief, the Western three act structure essentially has the following form (with many small variations):
Act I Act II Act III
Introduce the characters Protagonist tries to resolve conflict Protagonist confronts problem
Introduce the problem Complications ensue Climax - success or failure
Incite conflict Conflict escalates Resolution of story
Western narratives have for a couple centuries become more and more concerned with the motivation of the protagonist, and also the antagonist. The conflicting motivations between antagonist and protagonist - who is going to ultimately get what they want - is what drives the story.
Kishotenketsu, on the other hand, has a four act structure, and the story is not driven so much by motivation of antagonist and protagonist, but rather from cause and effect. It is not about what the characters want, but rather about what they do. This according to the article, is rooted in the influence of Buddhism, which is all about eschewing desire. The structure is thus:
Ki - introduction to characters and their situation
Sho - development of relationships between characters and events in the setting
Ten - the twist or complication which introduces new characters, events, or relationships to the story
Ketsu - the resolution in which the twist is explained in relation to the development and resolved
That shift in thinking about story - not what the characters want that conflicts, but what they do which leads to a consequence (good or bad). This may very well leave some strong ambiguity to the characters, but by this Japanese paradigm, that is perfectly OK. What is important, is the emphasis on the parable of the story. In this regard, they much more resemble one of Aesop's Fables. Why did the scorpion sting the fox who took it across the river? Because that is what scorpions do. The Ten is particularly interesting, as it takes the same story, but examines it from a different point of view. It may almost be as if a whole new story has begun, with little or no explanation, with a new protagonist or point of view character (there may not be a protagonist in the traditional Western literary sense, since the POV character might not even be moving the story forward so much as reacting to events). It is in the Ketsu that the connections are explained.
HERE is an interesting article talking about using this narrative form to provide structure to stories in games. It has me thinking about aspects in fate that are all explicitly things that the characters do rather than something that tells us about their motivations or wants.
In brief, the Western three act structure essentially has the following form (with many small variations):
Act I Act II Act III
Introduce the characters Protagonist tries to resolve conflict Protagonist confronts problem
Introduce the problem Complications ensue Climax - success or failure
Incite conflict Conflict escalates Resolution of story
Western narratives have for a couple centuries become more and more concerned with the motivation of the protagonist, and also the antagonist. The conflicting motivations between antagonist and protagonist - who is going to ultimately get what they want - is what drives the story.
Kishotenketsu, on the other hand, has a four act structure, and the story is not driven so much by motivation of antagonist and protagonist, but rather from cause and effect. It is not about what the characters want, but rather about what they do. This according to the article, is rooted in the influence of Buddhism, which is all about eschewing desire. The structure is thus:
Ki - introduction to characters and their situation
Sho - development of relationships between characters and events in the setting
Ten - the twist or complication which introduces new characters, events, or relationships to the story
Ketsu - the resolution in which the twist is explained in relation to the development and resolved
That shift in thinking about story - not what the characters want that conflicts, but what they do which leads to a consequence (good or bad). This may very well leave some strong ambiguity to the characters, but by this Japanese paradigm, that is perfectly OK. What is important, is the emphasis on the parable of the story. In this regard, they much more resemble one of Aesop's Fables. Why did the scorpion sting the fox who took it across the river? Because that is what scorpions do. The Ten is particularly interesting, as it takes the same story, but examines it from a different point of view. It may almost be as if a whole new story has begun, with little or no explanation, with a new protagonist or point of view character (there may not be a protagonist in the traditional Western literary sense, since the POV character might not even be moving the story forward so much as reacting to events). It is in the Ketsu that the connections are explained.
HERE is an interesting article talking about using this narrative form to provide structure to stories in games. It has me thinking about aspects in fate that are all explicitly things that the characters do rather than something that tells us about their motivations or wants.
09 November, 2016
Religion and Magic in Fate
I would agree wholeheartedly that in too many games (and the novels that they inspire) magic feels very mechanical and technological. I would argue that magic in games is most interesting when it is designed not according to a paradigm of physics and engineering, but from religion and symbolism... not the mechanistic but the anthropologic direction (as magical thinking actually did). This is certainly disputable by players of a more engineering bent who prefer a less ambiguous way of including magic in games, but each to their own.
So the designer questions for game magic commonly include
Design Questions
*1) why would I want to be anything but a magic user?*
*2) what can you do with magic?*
*3) what can you NOT do with magic?*
These are useful, but I think more engineering type questions for designing an RPG magic system. I'm going to swipe and modify a different list of questions (credit to Jared Sorenson as due) to take magic away from a mechanistic paradigm, and back into a more mythopoeic paradigm. The narrativist focus from indi games is certainly more at the front than the gamist approach from so many other games with ODD DNA.
Alternate Design Questions
*1) what is magic about?*
*2) how do I reflect that in this game?*
*3) what behavior does magic reward and punish?*
My aesthetic is largely influenced by texts older than a century and a half, or by modern studies of still existing pre-industrial cultures or practices kept discrete from the industrialized world. When I look at texts that describe magic uninformed by modern mechanistic thinking, a few things stand out to me:
Observations
*1) magic is highly related to religion, but is not the same*
*2) with magic, size is (mostly) irrelevant*
*3) the prime driver of magic is not energy but rather meaning*
*4) pursuant to 3, symbolic connections are what shape magic effects; principles of sympathy and contagion explain this*
*5) magic goes against the natural order, as defined by the powers of the world
So I am going to offer a very loose answer to your question of preferred flavors of magic and how it affects characters in the game world with those assumptions in mind.
Why would anyone be anything but a magic user in this game? I answer this by answering the question of what magic is about. I assume a world in which people are not ambivalent about the notion that they are but small things in a much larger and more powerful world with more powerful and willful agents behind that world (gods, spirits, devils, etc.). The forces are constrained by their natures, and are powerful, but not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. The priests who commit their lives to understanding these forces are most adept at interacting and negotiating with them. A priest invokes the gods through the legitimately proscribed rituals to get an expected result.
A magician however, may make use of the understanding of the nature and power of the gods, but without regard to the morally proscribed invocation of that power. In actual history, very often cultures would separate what they did locally as legitimate because it was locally appropriate to their gods, but what the other folk beyond the mountains did was magic. Even in their own societies, those who practiced something heterodox from normal ritual were considered sorcerers rather than priests. So here is my answer to question 1 from the first two lists above:
_1) Magic is about an individual (i.e. player characters) invoking a desired outcome through a transaction with the greater powers behind the world. As such, it is potentially more powerful than any outcome that a mortal could achieve alone. On the other hand, this is a power that requires a great investment in years of discipline, study, sacrifice, and service to acquire, and as such, precludes the participation in or acquisition of other kinds of knowledge, experience, or ability that other characters might have. Furthermore, there are obligations to the powers that be that other characters do not have to observe_
In Fate mechanical terms, I would say that means that a magician must commit aspects, stunts, and/or skills in order to have access to magic. The level of power determines how much investment of other mechanical elements it costs for access. This is of course mostly the assumption taken already.
My answer to question 2 from the first two lists above is this:
_2) Magic can potentially do anything, from innocuous charms to repel mosquitoes or light campfires, to awesome effects like summoning a plague to devour the crops in a village or raising a tempest against the enemy fleet in the channel. The cost depends on what is sacrificed in the magical transaction. Effects in the interest of the powers are more readily achieved.
Rituals using symbolic connections to the powers are performed in order to accomplish the invocation of the power. The more symbolic connections, and the more strongly symbolic they are, the more powerful the effect._
In Fate mechanical terms, the cost does _not_ have any specific limitation on number of uses per day, or slots, or cost in manna pool or fatigue as the common price for using magic; magic is not powered like a battery. The amount of energy to burn down a castle is of no more import than that to light a candle where the powers behind the world are concerned. What does matter is the _significance_ of the action. Lighting a candle is of little significance to anyone but the user of the candle. Burning down a city is highly significant to thousands. As such, while a magician may very well be able to burn down a city, the magician will bear the burden of finding a way to pay for the loss of property and lives of thousands. The cost may be a year of the magician's life for every life taken... or the blood sacrifice of no less than a king or queen to rain fire down on the city.
How to judge lesser effects? I would offer that rituals are performed to establish the strength or legitimacy of the invocation, and each symbolic connection between the effect, and the subject/object of the effect increases efficacy. Size or value of the components (material, verbal, somatic, focal) is only as significant as they are in the heart and mind of the magician. For example, if an aspect or stunt is dedicated to a magic staff, or the power of the magician's voice, that thing should be more potent (say a +3 when used). Otherwise performing rituals are essentially a challenge series of creating advantages to make significance of the objects used. You want to raise a storm to wreck a ship; your breath blown ritually over a bowl of sea water is two elements. Your breath might be of a basic similarity to wind, while sea water in the bowl is more powerfully symbolic of the sea itself. If you collected the spray of a breaching whale (the Breath of the Leviathan) that is in itself worth a bonus as both wind and the water of the sea, and thus worth more.
Need to work more on writing up the details, but there is the concept.
So the designer questions for game magic commonly include
Design Questions
*1) why would I want to be anything but a magic user?*
*2) what can you do with magic?*
*3) what can you NOT do with magic?*
These are useful, but I think more engineering type questions for designing an RPG magic system. I'm going to swipe and modify a different list of questions (credit to Jared Sorenson as due) to take magic away from a mechanistic paradigm, and back into a more mythopoeic paradigm. The narrativist focus from indi games is certainly more at the front than the gamist approach from so many other games with ODD DNA.
Alternate Design Questions
*1) what is magic about?*
*2) how do I reflect that in this game?*
*3) what behavior does magic reward and punish?*
My aesthetic is largely influenced by texts older than a century and a half, or by modern studies of still existing pre-industrial cultures or practices kept discrete from the industrialized world. When I look at texts that describe magic uninformed by modern mechanistic thinking, a few things stand out to me:
Observations
*1) magic is highly related to religion, but is not the same*
*2) with magic, size is (mostly) irrelevant*
*3) the prime driver of magic is not energy but rather meaning*
*4) pursuant to 3, symbolic connections are what shape magic effects; principles of sympathy and contagion explain this*
*5) magic goes against the natural order, as defined by the powers of the world
So I am going to offer a very loose answer to your question of preferred flavors of magic and how it affects characters in the game world with those assumptions in mind.
Why would anyone be anything but a magic user in this game? I answer this by answering the question of what magic is about. I assume a world in which people are not ambivalent about the notion that they are but small things in a much larger and more powerful world with more powerful and willful agents behind that world (gods, spirits, devils, etc.). The forces are constrained by their natures, and are powerful, but not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. The priests who commit their lives to understanding these forces are most adept at interacting and negotiating with them. A priest invokes the gods through the legitimately proscribed rituals to get an expected result.
A magician however, may make use of the understanding of the nature and power of the gods, but without regard to the morally proscribed invocation of that power. In actual history, very often cultures would separate what they did locally as legitimate because it was locally appropriate to their gods, but what the other folk beyond the mountains did was magic. Even in their own societies, those who practiced something heterodox from normal ritual were considered sorcerers rather than priests. So here is my answer to question 1 from the first two lists above:
_1) Magic is about an individual (i.e. player characters) invoking a desired outcome through a transaction with the greater powers behind the world. As such, it is potentially more powerful than any outcome that a mortal could achieve alone. On the other hand, this is a power that requires a great investment in years of discipline, study, sacrifice, and service to acquire, and as such, precludes the participation in or acquisition of other kinds of knowledge, experience, or ability that other characters might have. Furthermore, there are obligations to the powers that be that other characters do not have to observe_
In Fate mechanical terms, I would say that means that a magician must commit aspects, stunts, and/or skills in order to have access to magic. The level of power determines how much investment of other mechanical elements it costs for access. This is of course mostly the assumption taken already.
My answer to question 2 from the first two lists above is this:
_2) Magic can potentially do anything, from innocuous charms to repel mosquitoes or light campfires, to awesome effects like summoning a plague to devour the crops in a village or raising a tempest against the enemy fleet in the channel. The cost depends on what is sacrificed in the magical transaction. Effects in the interest of the powers are more readily achieved.
Rituals using symbolic connections to the powers are performed in order to accomplish the invocation of the power. The more symbolic connections, and the more strongly symbolic they are, the more powerful the effect._
In Fate mechanical terms, the cost does _not_ have any specific limitation on number of uses per day, or slots, or cost in manna pool or fatigue as the common price for using magic; magic is not powered like a battery. The amount of energy to burn down a castle is of no more import than that to light a candle where the powers behind the world are concerned. What does matter is the _significance_ of the action. Lighting a candle is of little significance to anyone but the user of the candle. Burning down a city is highly significant to thousands. As such, while a magician may very well be able to burn down a city, the magician will bear the burden of finding a way to pay for the loss of property and lives of thousands. The cost may be a year of the magician's life for every life taken... or the blood sacrifice of no less than a king or queen to rain fire down on the city.
How to judge lesser effects? I would offer that rituals are performed to establish the strength or legitimacy of the invocation, and each symbolic connection between the effect, and the subject/object of the effect increases efficacy. Size or value of the components (material, verbal, somatic, focal) is only as significant as they are in the heart and mind of the magician. For example, if an aspect or stunt is dedicated to a magic staff, or the power of the magician's voice, that thing should be more potent (say a +3 when used). Otherwise performing rituals are essentially a challenge series of creating advantages to make significance of the objects used. You want to raise a storm to wreck a ship; your breath blown ritually over a bowl of sea water is two elements. Your breath might be of a basic similarity to wind, while sea water in the bowl is more powerfully symbolic of the sea itself. If you collected the spray of a breaching whale (the Breath of the Leviathan) that is in itself worth a bonus as both wind and the water of the sea, and thus worth more.
Need to work more on writing up the details, but there is the concept.
Yes, No, Black, or Blue (a game)
A little word game invented by my friend, the Finn...
This is a conversation game. The idea is that you and your friend or friends gather for dinner, or while on a walk, and as you do so, you try to trick the other person or persons into saying one of the forbidden words, while avoiding their subterfuges. Or their overt schemes.
The rules are simple.
You must answer questions you are asked.
You cannot win without asking questions of your own.
You can't say "Yes", "No", "Black", or "Blue".
You can't say variations of "Yes" or "No", nor use gestures or nods for these.
You can say synonyms of "Black" or "Blue".
You can't say "Forbidden Words".
People who are out are allowed to still talk, but not ask questions.
When someone speaks an unmentionable word, you laugh at them, and point... and then move on to the next. Be the last one standing.
This is a conversation game. The idea is that you and your friend or friends gather for dinner, or while on a walk, and as you do so, you try to trick the other person or persons into saying one of the forbidden words, while avoiding their subterfuges. Or their overt schemes.
The rules are simple.
You must answer questions you are asked.
You cannot win without asking questions of your own.
You can't say "Yes", "No", "Black", or "Blue".
You can't say variations of "Yes" or "No", nor use gestures or nods for these.
You can say synonyms of "Black" or "Blue".
You can't say "Forbidden Words".
People who are out are allowed to still talk, but not ask questions.
When someone speaks an unmentionable word, you laugh at them, and point... and then move on to the next. Be the last one standing.
02 November, 2016
Different Ways to use Dice Mechanics to Support Story
HERE is an interesting article about Jason Morningstar's evolution of dice mechanics in support of different games.
1) conflict resolution
2) uncertainty resolution
3) scene resolution (positive or negative)
4) provoke new events
5) track scenes/limit time
6) reinforce game's themes (by die type) with mechanical benefit
7) incorporate character elements (by die type) with mechanical benefit
8) limit choices
9) guide story ends
10) track change in character
11) make change in character
1) conflict resolution
2) uncertainty resolution
3) scene resolution (positive or negative)
4) provoke new events
5) track scenes/limit time
6) reinforce game's themes (by die type) with mechanical benefit
7) incorporate character elements (by die type) with mechanical benefit
8) limit choices
9) guide story ends
10) track change in character
11) make change in character
D&D Behind Bars (or Do All Rogues Play Rogues?)
HERE is an interesting article about inmates in maximum security prison who play D&D. It seems that it has a good record of getting people who have made anti-social choices in life to practice cooperation, empathy, and self sacrifice in ways that they did not before prison. I thought this little bit was curious:
Which kind of escapism the inmates at Sterling gravitate to is perhaps best illustrated by the moral alignment they choose for their characters. In D&D, a character's moral compass is known as their 'alignment' and is determined by two axes: good/evil and lawful/chaotic. On one extreme are the lawful good characters, defined by their sense of compassion and affinity for the rules. On the other, chaotic evil—callous rule-breakers driven by self-interest. Despite their often erratic real life behavior, Klug noted that his players gravitate towards lawful good characters. Sometimes, this role involves self-sacrifice—a trait not usually associated with prison life. Yet these inmates are game to try. After all, everyone likes to think of him or herself as a good person, and the best way to get there could be through a little practice and a daily dose of game therapy.
Good on them.
Which kind of escapism the inmates at Sterling gravitate to is perhaps best illustrated by the moral alignment they choose for their characters. In D&D, a character's moral compass is known as their 'alignment' and is determined by two axes: good/evil and lawful/chaotic. On one extreme are the lawful good characters, defined by their sense of compassion and affinity for the rules. On the other, chaotic evil—callous rule-breakers driven by self-interest. Despite their often erratic real life behavior, Klug noted that his players gravitate towards lawful good characters. Sometimes, this role involves self-sacrifice—a trait not usually associated with prison life. Yet these inmates are game to try. After all, everyone likes to think of him or herself as a good person, and the best way to get there could be through a little practice and a daily dose of game therapy.
Good on them.
27 October, 2016
More Thoughts on Pagan Religion in Games
One of the things that becomes very clear reading accounts of actual pagan religion, is the fuzzy distinction, if not lack of distinction between pagan gods and the idols that represent them. In traditional OSR games informed by Gygax's aesthetic, clerics and paladins might on paper be worshipers of any number of pagan deities, usually in some henotheistic fashion that still was virtually indistinguishable from Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox structure, hierarchy, and praxis (with little regard for theology). Given that it was rooted in war gaming, and the role of cleric or paladin mechanically was to provide a different way to win at murder hoboing, this is understandable.
Be that as it may, looking at the way actual pagans treated their idea of gods was different. The idea of a god that actually inhabits a sacred grove, or spring, or tree feeds into the idea that an idol set in a temple can also be the literal inhabited body of the god. This has a few interesting implications for gaming priests.
1) The god is present where their idol is. Unlike the Judeo-Christian understanding of God who is spirit and to whom idols are anathema, pagans would carry their shrines and idols with them where they traveled, be these the deified ancestor shrines, or the more general national god shrines. A properly kitted out pagan priest should likely have variable levels of luggage with commensurate degrees of value to performing ritual petitions; a pocket idol for day travel and small petitions, a coffer sized shrine for short journeys for moderate petitions, and a cart sized shrine useful for longer journeys or semi-permanent establishment and more serious petitions.
Mechanically, this should probably be reflected in the power or scope of miracles available to be petitioned by the pagan priest, with larger shrines making for either easier petition, or greater powered miracles, or both.
2) Defeating your enemies in battle makes taking their gods (the idols in their shrines) as booty a particularly prestigious trophy. The logic is that if the enemy lost, then their gods were less powerful than your gods, and thus just as the enemy can be captured (if not killed) their gods too can be enslaved. For instance, in Samuel I and II, and Kings I and II, there are many examples of pagan peoples carrying away the gods of those whom they had vanquished in order to display them as servants at the feet of their larger and more prestigious home idols.
Mechanically, this should probably mean that captured gods (idols) reduce the power or likelihood of petitioned miracles. That is exactly why the cleric has reason to adventure with the thief; somebody has to go rescue those idols. The ramifications of this alone are grist for many possible side adventures if not main adventures.
3) Establishing shrines as nodes of power, and colonizing an area with more of your idols makes a region more potent for your god or gods. It may very well be that pagan priests could develop a sensitivity to the piety of a region, and the power level or the likelihood of petitions being granted, and this would provide a strategic value to the cleric in decision making that did not exist before. This could get especially thorny if the adventurers were in a land of foreign gods and their priests have the edge. The very real value in planning ways to corrupt their priests and desecrate their temples in order to tip the scales is a fantastic way to change the pacing and layers of story in a mission. Again, it makes a really compelling context for the priest to adventure in the company of the rogue who can grift the foreign priest into defiling themselves with drink, forbidden food, or other carnal infractions in order to block their access to the power of the idols, which in turn allows an opening to break the power of their temple.
Be that as it may, looking at the way actual pagans treated their idea of gods was different. The idea of a god that actually inhabits a sacred grove, or spring, or tree feeds into the idea that an idol set in a temple can also be the literal inhabited body of the god. This has a few interesting implications for gaming priests.
1) The god is present where their idol is. Unlike the Judeo-Christian understanding of God who is spirit and to whom idols are anathema, pagans would carry their shrines and idols with them where they traveled, be these the deified ancestor shrines, or the more general national god shrines. A properly kitted out pagan priest should likely have variable levels of luggage with commensurate degrees of value to performing ritual petitions; a pocket idol for day travel and small petitions, a coffer sized shrine for short journeys for moderate petitions, and a cart sized shrine useful for longer journeys or semi-permanent establishment and more serious petitions.
Mechanically, this should probably be reflected in the power or scope of miracles available to be petitioned by the pagan priest, with larger shrines making for either easier petition, or greater powered miracles, or both.
2) Defeating your enemies in battle makes taking their gods (the idols in their shrines) as booty a particularly prestigious trophy. The logic is that if the enemy lost, then their gods were less powerful than your gods, and thus just as the enemy can be captured (if not killed) their gods too can be enslaved. For instance, in Samuel I and II, and Kings I and II, there are many examples of pagan peoples carrying away the gods of those whom they had vanquished in order to display them as servants at the feet of their larger and more prestigious home idols.
Mechanically, this should probably mean that captured gods (idols) reduce the power or likelihood of petitioned miracles. That is exactly why the cleric has reason to adventure with the thief; somebody has to go rescue those idols. The ramifications of this alone are grist for many possible side adventures if not main adventures.
3) Establishing shrines as nodes of power, and colonizing an area with more of your idols makes a region more potent for your god or gods. It may very well be that pagan priests could develop a sensitivity to the piety of a region, and the power level or the likelihood of petitions being granted, and this would provide a strategic value to the cleric in decision making that did not exist before. This could get especially thorny if the adventurers were in a land of foreign gods and their priests have the edge. The very real value in planning ways to corrupt their priests and desecrate their temples in order to tip the scales is a fantastic way to change the pacing and layers of story in a mission. Again, it makes a really compelling context for the priest to adventure in the company of the rogue who can grift the foreign priest into defiling themselves with drink, forbidden food, or other carnal infractions in order to block their access to the power of the idols, which in turn allows an opening to break the power of their temple.
26 October, 2016
An Idea for Refresh with Flashbacks in Fate
I was thinking about a way to make mechanics support fiction with Refresh in Fate. The default position is that refresh is filled at the beginning of a session. I also want to make it a reward to the players to actively include flashbacks and backstory snippets that explain their histories and the world they have bumped up against.
Rather than giving refresh in the default fashion, I propose that when a player calls for a flashback, or has a backstory moment that explains one of their abilities, they get a fate point refresh. This can happen at any time in play, but is limited to the level of the character's refresh for that session.
A flashback should be about a learning experience involving the skill, stunt, or aspect the player wishes to use, but can be either an account of success or failure. Though not required, if it includes a shared experience with another PC, that PC also gets a point of refresh. If another PC is brought into the scene, they should give some input as to their part in the experience. The player of the flashback character should suggest something about the scene, the reason the other character was there, and something about a conflict or challenge presented either to them both, or between them. It is the job of the second player to use the "yes, and..." principle to add to the vignette. This is a good time to include things that the two characters can banter or bicker about.
Furthermore, the flashback need not be (should not be) long, but a vignette, and need not give a whole or complete resolution, so long as it shows a point that was pivotal or meaningful to the character.
So, for example in play, suppose a character is lining up a tough long range shot at an enemy, and the player needs a fate point. They may call for a flashback at that moment. In the flashback, they describe how they were out hunting with their friend (another PC) before their adventuring days. The deer is in the sights, but it is a hard shot, and the character mentions how they were both very tired, hungry, and annoyed with each other by that time. The other player, following the "yes, and..." principle, keys in on the annoyed bit and says in the flashback, "you'll never make the shot." The first player describes how they squeezed on the trigger, breathing out "damned if I don't...". The flashback ends. The GM passes over a fate point to each player.
This is good, since it allows an ambiguous ending to the flashback that gives both players something to work with. The second player can decide that the shot missed, using that moment for their character to say "it's too far. We can't afford for you to miss this one", which invites a response, tense, cocky, or otherwise. Or they may choose the generous route, and offer "good thing you finally learned how to shoot" which still invites a response, whether banter or bickering, such as "yeah... too bad you still haven't". Roll. Spend fate point. Be awesome.
Rather than giving refresh in the default fashion, I propose that when a player calls for a flashback, or has a backstory moment that explains one of their abilities, they get a fate point refresh. This can happen at any time in play, but is limited to the level of the character's refresh for that session.
A flashback should be about a learning experience involving the skill, stunt, or aspect the player wishes to use, but can be either an account of success or failure. Though not required, if it includes a shared experience with another PC, that PC also gets a point of refresh. If another PC is brought into the scene, they should give some input as to their part in the experience. The player of the flashback character should suggest something about the scene, the reason the other character was there, and something about a conflict or challenge presented either to them both, or between them. It is the job of the second player to use the "yes, and..." principle to add to the vignette. This is a good time to include things that the two characters can banter or bicker about.
Furthermore, the flashback need not be (should not be) long, but a vignette, and need not give a whole or complete resolution, so long as it shows a point that was pivotal or meaningful to the character.
So, for example in play, suppose a character is lining up a tough long range shot at an enemy, and the player needs a fate point. They may call for a flashback at that moment. In the flashback, they describe how they were out hunting with their friend (another PC) before their adventuring days. The deer is in the sights, but it is a hard shot, and the character mentions how they were both very tired, hungry, and annoyed with each other by that time. The other player, following the "yes, and..." principle, keys in on the annoyed bit and says in the flashback, "you'll never make the shot." The first player describes how they squeezed on the trigger, breathing out "damned if I don't...". The flashback ends. The GM passes over a fate point to each player.
This is good, since it allows an ambiguous ending to the flashback that gives both players something to work with. The second player can decide that the shot missed, using that moment for their character to say "it's too far. We can't afford for you to miss this one", which invites a response, tense, cocky, or otherwise. Or they may choose the generous route, and offer "good thing you finally learned how to shoot" which still invites a response, whether banter or bickering, such as "yeah... too bad you still haven't". Roll. Spend fate point. Be awesome.
21 October, 2016
Man Against Nature in Fate
In an interesting discussion on G+ Fate Core page, the question of how to "fight the environment" came up. The setting in question is a zombie apocalypse world, and after some discussion, here is my take on a man vs. nature (or un-nature) challenge.
I'm a fan of Zombie fiction like Dawn of the Dead, World War Z (book not movie_) or The Walking Dead not because the zombies are the villain (they are pretty boring for that) but because a zombie apocalypse strips us naked and forces us to confront inexorable death with grace and humanity, or with savagery and terror...
Of course the zombies of the apocalypse are part of the environment, as often as they are directly an opponent, properly done.
Consequences are a mechanic that supports us understanding what the cost of our choices successful or not, is in the fiction. As such, I would argue that the zombies themselves, as a practically endless horde, make consequences a moot issue.
Stress is about the near misses or the things that could have cost us but didn't. It's alternatively a way to pace conflicts, but as a pacing mechanism without consequences or the ability to take out the opposition, is no different than scoring successes in a challenge or a contest. So mechanically, again I would say stress for the zombie horde itself is a moot issue.
It makes more sense to address the horde part of the apocalyptic environment as an obstacle to be overcome, and that you can create advantages on. An advantage you create mechanically may be "Hacking the Horde to Bits" with your chainsaw in the fiction; your Zombies! approach vs. the player's Fight skill. Likewise, PCs can create an advantage like "rickety barricades" with the Twinkie shelf and the ice cream freezer mechanically, which in the fiction prevents you from using your Zombies! approach till you have overcome their barricade. That all works out neatly mechanically with little fuss, and reflects the fiction perfectly. The Brick can still do all the fighty stuff while the Brainiac does the crafty stuff, and it would just be as created advantages mechanically even though in the fiction it would be hacking the zombies to bits with garden tools while the other is fixing the car.
MURRAY'S FULL SERVICE AUTO STATION
Aspects:
Decrepit Zombie-Infested Gas Station
Broken Glass And Debris
Collapsing Veranda Roof
Scene Goal/Murray's: Hinder and Devour the Living
Scene Goal/PCs (Pick One):
Scavenge fuel (3 victories) - Applicable Skills: Notice, Investigate, Survival, Crafts, Drive. Tasks: Find gas can and siphon; find a vehicle with fuel, siphon fuel.
Scavenge a working vehicle (5 victories) - Applicable Skills: Notice, Investigate, Survival, Drive. Tasks: Find vehicle keys; Find matching vehicle; Scavenge Fuel (as above).
Scavenge a part to fix a vehicle (7 victories) - Notice, Investigate, Survival, Crafts, Drive. Tasks: Find needed part; remove broken part; replace part; scavenge fuel (as above).
Zones: Behind the Service Station; In the Service Bays; In the Convenience Store; In Front of The Service Station
Skills/Approaches:
- Zombies! (+4): Can Overcome, Create advantages, Attack, and Defend. The behave like Romero Zombies, slow, mindless, tireless, hungry.
- Hazards (+3): can attack and defend. This is strictly reactive, and cannot create advantages or overcome, but can harm or hinder direct actions by characters who move through, or interact with the environment (other than zombies).
- Notice (+2): Can overcome, discover (CAA), or defend. This assumes the area has active agents to notice things - e.g. the endless hordes of Zombies. You use this to make active agents (zombies) become aware of characters.
- Scarcity (+2): Can create advantages, and overcome. This represents the lack of, or requirement to have to improvise for characters to find the resources they need. You use this defend against character's attempts to find things they need.
Stunts:
- No Straight Paths: Murray's gains a +2 to Defend with Hazards when Heroes move from one Zone to another to Attack.
- Wake The Dead: adds +1 to Zombie! for one scene on a successful create an advantage roll with Notice when and if loud noise, bright lights, or recklessly obvious movement draws attention in Murray's. Yes it starts small, but is open ended as a zombie horde grows. Reckless parties could find themselves in a sea of hungry dead...
- That's Not The Item You're Looking For: Murray's has a +2 to Scarcity when creating the advantage That's Not The Item You're Looking For after the Heroes think they have found the item they were searching for.
Game of Death - an October Challenge Game, Mostly About Punching
http://dcugames.blogspot.com/2016/10/game-of-death-first-draft.html
This is the first completed game for my October challenge. The month is two thirds done, and I have learned that it is very hard business to try to create a game a day. I might try again in a more modest form with a game idea seed a day next time... we'll see.
But here it is, a complete, but simple game. It uses a decreasing resource management mechanic, with two different die resolution mechanics used in a hybrid tandem; a die pool for gaining successes, and a die target number mechanic for determining binary pass/fail success.
Having put it out unplaytested, it is sure to have problems that need to be addressed, but it should be fun (though brutal).
I have about half a dozen other half done ideas to choose from next. Hopefully, I can get the rest out by the end of month!
This is the first completed game for my October challenge. The month is two thirds done, and I have learned that it is very hard business to try to create a game a day. I might try again in a more modest form with a game idea seed a day next time... we'll see.
But here it is, a complete, but simple game. It uses a decreasing resource management mechanic, with two different die resolution mechanics used in a hybrid tandem; a die pool for gaining successes, and a die target number mechanic for determining binary pass/fail success.
Having put it out unplaytested, it is sure to have problems that need to be addressed, but it should be fun (though brutal).
I have about half a dozen other half done ideas to choose from next. Hopefully, I can get the rest out by the end of month!
05 October, 2016
When Consensus Is Wrong...
There are times that a wave of consensus demands that you comply with the latest invented ideology of the day... and in those times it is necessary to refuse to comply.
Truth is not a thing defined by particular men in particular times and places... Truth is that which does not change with time, and defined by something higher than mortal men. Stand with that.
04 October, 2016
Rewards Schemes In Game Psychology
Was reading about a study that measured results of performance based on intrinsic and extrinsic reward schemes HERE.
The short of it is this...
People were relatively happy to solve puzzles for free because of intrinsic motivators.
Adding an external motivator (cash payments) increased how many puzzles they solved. Yay!
Subsequently taking that extrinsic motivator away tanked their motivation and reduced their performance to less than it was originally. Boo!
Offering an external reward and then taking it away is sometimes worse than never offering it in the fist place. It’s something psychologists call “the overjustification effect” and it has been found in various other studies as well.
Whether an external reward will trigger the overjustification effect depends on a few things. The person must be intrinsically motivated to start with, then she must start receiving an external reward that gradually takes center stage in her mind. It also helps if the external reward comes at first as a surprise.
Another factor that’s important is whether the external motivator is seen as controlling and even manipulative rather than simply informational. It matters if a game tells you “Hey you aren’t playing right if you don’t aim for this achievement.” That’s controlling and hurts intrinsic motivation. But if it tells you “Hey, you’ve been doing your thing and that earned you this achievement” that’s informational and should increase intrinsic motivation.
The short of it is this...
People were relatively happy to solve puzzles for free because of intrinsic motivators.
Adding an external motivator (cash payments) increased how many puzzles they solved. Yay!
Subsequently taking that extrinsic motivator away tanked their motivation and reduced their performance to less than it was originally. Boo!
Offering an external reward and then taking it away is sometimes worse than never offering it in the fist place. It’s something psychologists call “the overjustification effect” and it has been found in various other studies as well.
Whether an external reward will trigger the overjustification effect depends on a few things. The person must be intrinsically motivated to start with, then she must start receiving an external reward that gradually takes center stage in her mind. It also helps if the external reward comes at first as a surprise.
Another factor that’s important is whether the external motivator is seen as controlling and even manipulative rather than simply informational. It matters if a game tells you “Hey you aren’t playing right if you don’t aim for this achievement.” That’s controlling and hurts intrinsic motivation. But if it tells you “Hey, you’ve been doing your thing and that earned you this achievement” that’s informational and should increase intrinsic motivation.
October Challenge... Harder Than I Thought
SO, I set a challenge for myself on the 1st to write a game a day just as a brute force method of priming the creative pump.
It used to be so easy... alas!
But as I look at it, I have had the second thought that there are 24 hour RPG challenges (like THIS for instance) that are described as a designer's triathlon meant to push the limits of creativity in design, fiction, and layout, and these only happen once a year.
And I blithely thought I would do 31 in a row.
SO I have decided to be a bit more modest in my plans, as one of the designs I spent some hours with this weekend past kept bogging me down with the perfection monster. As such, I will strive not to be concerned if there is a complete game per se every day, so much as a vignette of a game. I suppose that much of what I will expect would count as a subsystem of a game.
But, there it is... Art and Fear... quality comes out of quantity.
It used to be so easy... alas!
But as I look at it, I have had the second thought that there are 24 hour RPG challenges (like THIS for instance) that are described as a designer's triathlon meant to push the limits of creativity in design, fiction, and layout, and these only happen once a year.
And I blithely thought I would do 31 in a row.
SO I have decided to be a bit more modest in my plans, as one of the designs I spent some hours with this weekend past kept bogging me down with the perfection monster. As such, I will strive not to be concerned if there is a complete game per se every day, so much as a vignette of a game. I suppose that much of what I will expect would count as a subsystem of a game.
But, there it is... Art and Fear... quality comes out of quantity.
01 October, 2016
Art And Fear
Some years back, I read the book The Artist's Way, which is a program for creativity through writing discipline. It was useful to me a couple run throughs, and one of the key points is that creativity comes from the discipline of just writing... good or bad... every day.
I read Art and Fear more recently, and the authors related a story about a college art class in which the professor split the students into two groups. The first he would grade on one project alone for the whole semester, but it had to be completely perfect in every way. The other group he graded solely on quantity; they had to produce something every day, even if it turned out terrible. What the professor found is that even though the second group produced a lot of crap, they also produced as a group, the best work by the end of the semester, even though the other group was expected to.
That is something that I find helpful if I can hold on to it.
I am going to try to set a challenge for myself with that idea in mind.
It is October.
For this month, my goal is to try to write a mini game every day. I will give myself the leeway to go back to previous games or previous ideas and re-skin them, or re-imagine them if something really interesting comes to mind, but the point is to try by virtue of quantity, to find something good in the lot... to capture creative inspiration hiding in the clutter.
We'll see how this goes!
I read Art and Fear more recently, and the authors related a story about a college art class in which the professor split the students into two groups. The first he would grade on one project alone for the whole semester, but it had to be completely perfect in every way. The other group he graded solely on quantity; they had to produce something every day, even if it turned out terrible. What the professor found is that even though the second group produced a lot of crap, they also produced as a group, the best work by the end of the semester, even though the other group was expected to.
That is something that I find helpful if I can hold on to it.
I am going to try to set a challenge for myself with that idea in mind.
It is October.
For this month, my goal is to try to write a mini game every day. I will give myself the leeway to go back to previous games or previous ideas and re-skin them, or re-imagine them if something really interesting comes to mind, but the point is to try by virtue of quantity, to find something good in the lot... to capture creative inspiration hiding in the clutter.
We'll see how this goes!
28 September, 2016
Action Pacing In Play
I really find long action scenes in play, to be tedious. By which I mean, against a real clock by a real table in real life, and where a play session may only allow as much time playing as the time to watch a movie or two or a few binge episodes of some TV show... I don't want action to take more than the same five or ten minutes (at most) of those action scenes.
OK, so give a little extra room for verbal description, but really, the days in which a set-piece action scene takes two hours is just too long.
Gen Y and Millenials do a lot more gaming online in whatever, and lots of indie gamers do youtube play sessions to which they refer in discussion posts. I really have only watched Wil Wheaton's Table Top episodes before, and they are genuinely entertaining, largely because of the magic of editing. I decided to look at a youtube play session by one of the big names associated with Fate the other day. I really like this guy's thoughtful essays on game play and game design, but I couldn't get through more than 10 minutes of his action scene, due to the pacing.
Now much like golf or tennis, playing is more interesting than watching. But from that, I have several thoughts.
One of the attractive things is the open, free-form narrative nature of action. I love that. Codified formally as overcome or create advantage actions (and attack and defend), you can do everything that is otherwise made in really crunchy lists in, for instance, traditional D&D. But I don't want to have to memorize lists, I just want to do whatever I can think of in context of the moment, and then want to forget it mechanically. My favorite action scene in a game ever, was a fight in which I was mechanically outclassed by two opponents, and alone. I had to think of creative ways to use my environment to tip the scales in my favor, which the rules did not explicitly address, but the GM was flexible and we made a great Jackie Chan kind of action scene. Fate, with create advantage actions and aspects has this baked into the mechanics.
The problem arises when the rules are stated naked on top of the narrative. Looking at the video play session, I see the thing that I want to avoid. I think that he was doing this partly to demo and explain the mechanics, but I want a more seamless way to get past having to state "that sounds like you are being Forceful", or "that sounds like a a create an advantage". Furthermore, it occurs to me that one thing that seems to be done in Fate games, is overtly making a logistical issue of writing out the aspects on a card, when in more traditional games such things are stated and otherwise just tracked and forgotten as required. This is related to the same problem I have with the whole multiple die rolling resolution in whatever game, which is to say that it breaks rhythm and thus drags out pacing.
I don't know how any of the core designers of Fate play at their tables, but other designers have put forward other alternatives like Jadepunk's quick duels method which is essentially a contest rather than a conflict mechanic. However, Lenny Balsera did make this observation on the Fate G+ forum:
The most important of those is, having the GM roll dice actively increases the swinginess of a conflict scene, which a lot of people perceive as a feature. Having your opponent always present a static difficulty reduces a lot of the variability from round to round, makes outcomes and fate point spending more predictable, etc. So that's basically the trade you make there, added chaos and added handling time vs. less chaos and less handling time. My preference is, if we're gonna agree to engage a system specific to having conflicts, to push in the direction of more chaos.
Also, having the GM roll actively engages the GM in the same kind of economy management stuff as the players, and forces some of the same prioritization, and I think that tension is an important one in Fate play. There's more of a sense of being an equal participant—as the GM, you also have a limited number of FPs, and depending on how your rolls go, you're gonna have to make some decisions. How important is that opponent, really? Should I concede now and take my licks to build resources for the next scene? Etc.
The most important of those is, having the GM roll dice actively increases the swinginess of a conflict scene, which a lot of people perceive as a feature. Having your opponent always present a static difficulty reduces a lot of the variability from round to round, makes outcomes and fate point spending more predictable, etc. So that's basically the trade you make there, added chaos and added handling time vs. less chaos and less handling time. My preference is, if we're gonna agree to engage a system specific to having conflicts, to push in the direction of more chaos.
Also, having the GM roll actively engages the GM in the same kind of economy management stuff as the players, and forces some of the same prioritization, and I think that tension is an important one in Fate play. There's more of a sense of being an equal participant—as the GM, you also have a limited number of FPs, and depending on how your rolls go, you're gonna have to make some decisions. How important is that opponent, really? Should I concede now and take my licks to build resources for the next scene? Etc.
Which is interesting. The important elements are 1) the swingy uncertainty of contested die rolls vs. a less swingy single roll bell curve; 2) the chaos of more rolls and thus more chances for a missed success; 3) the more active competition of the fate point economy on both the GM and player side. The cost of doing business this way, is more time on the play session clock.
So this equation is essentially: Uncertainty + Chaos + Balanced Competition = Fun (vis a vis Fate conflicts).
It seems to me that perhaps if the thrill of uncertainty, and the illusion of chaos (or a different kind of chaos), and the balanced competitive element can be mixed, perhaps by reducing the second, time on the clock can be reduced by simplifying mechanics.
...hmmm... how then to change the chaos, and yet reduce the mechanics?...
More precisely, how to shift the mechanics to some kind that does not actually require stopping in real time to manage the mechanical transaction in order to preserve the conversational narrative pace?
How can you get the chaos and pacing of say, the card game War, or Pit, or at very least Mau?
So this equation is essentially: Uncertainty + Chaos + Balanced Competition = Fun (vis a vis Fate conflicts).
It seems to me that perhaps if the thrill of uncertainty, and the illusion of chaos (or a different kind of chaos), and the balanced competitive element can be mixed, perhaps by reducing the second, time on the clock can be reduced by simplifying mechanics.
...hmmm... how then to change the chaos, and yet reduce the mechanics?...
More precisely, how to shift the mechanics to some kind that does not actually require stopping in real time to manage the mechanical transaction in order to preserve the conversational narrative pace?
How can you get the chaos and pacing of say, the card game War, or Pit, or at very least Mau?
25 September, 2016
Is An Unexamined Thought Worth Endorsing?
I have a very conflicted view on the value of social media for a number of reasons, but one is that so much of human communication is only apprehended through non-verbal means making about 70% of the message lost when received by text alone. Another, is that there is so much more of it, that such communication becomes careless either by the sender or the receiver, or both. The quantity of data consumed by social media users had further become as much about sifting signal from noise, and thus actually thinking critically about a message is often lost on knee-jerk reactions, categorizing the message, and thus for expedience also all further messages from that sender, and then the sender themselves as noise. We discard thought and people for convenience. So while I see the value of not embracing Ludite conservatism, I also am continuously reminded of how poor so much social media communication can be.
Case in point... I discovered recently the page of a game designer who makes some of the coolest games in my collection. I love his stuff. But I made the mistake of commenting on one of his posts that had nothing to do with his games and was instead about an issue that he felt very sincere about, with which I happened to disagree. Being neither rude or aggressive, I merely questioned his assumptions in a polite and reasoned fashion, asking what his criteria were for his point of view. I was rebuffed instead with the statement that that was not an issue he wished to address.
The next post on his page was about this exchange with what I think he believes to be adequate evidence to prove his point. Here is what he said (italic) and my thoughts on his follow-up:
Today someone told me that they didn't believe in privilege.
What I actually did was question his assumptions about what it means vis a vis an assertion of offense he made about a game design. "Privilage" as it was used by him is a term with particular meaning in intersectional social/political theory. I know very well what intersectionalism states to be true, I have studied the philosophy underlying it, I frequently read intersectional media for insight, and I still happen to think that it is philosophically flawed at the very foundation. More on this below...
He continues:
Today, on a day when an unarmed black man waiting by his broken-down car was gunned down, murdered by police who were supposed to help him, to protect him.
This is a statement of some of the facts, and a misstatement of others in the Terence Crutcher shooting in Tulsa. Before addressing them in turn, the first big problem is that this poster quickly judged the situation without all the facts or context, and demonstrated a prejudicial preference that privileges the intersectional narrative over all others. Further facts not mentioned are these:
1) Officer Betty Shelby was en route responding to a domestic violence call when she happened upon Crutcher, not in his vehicle which was stopped in the middle of the two lane road.
2) There were some number of 911 calls just before that by people reporting Crutcher's erratic behavior, shouting that among other things his SUV was going to explode.
3) His behavior was assessed by officer Shelby as being consistent with the erratic behavior of someone on PCP (she did not know a the time but a vial was found in the SUV).
4) Crutcher was non-compliant with the demands of the officer, who then called in backup.
5) When Crutcher approached his SUV while refusing to comply with several officers, Shelby claimed she shot because he was attempting to reach inside the vehicle after having been reaching in his pockets before.
6) Video footage appears to show that at least the driver's window was closed, and possibly the rear window as well.
So without prejudiced conclusions, we can judge in light of the facts that the officer did have reason to be more suspicious of the motorist based on his behavior than usual, prompting a reasonable amount of caution which merely continued to escalate, based still on his behavior. We can also conclude that there was insufficient evidence to warrant deadly force, especially in light of the fact that one of the other officers had drawn a taser rather than a firearm, which she could have also done.
The poster also failed to note that the officer has been suspended from duty, and charged with the felony of first degree manslaughter. He also did not note that this was in the same town that a deputy that was allegedly insufficiently trained for the job was also convicted with felony manslaughter for the shooting of Eric Harris. These facts suggest if anything, that the overall tone of law enforcement in Tulsa is not institutionally racially biased against black men in Tulsa, is not protecting wicked officers, but is actually pro justice in their actions. We may speculate that there are some training issues that need addressed. The poster used the term murder rather than manslaughter, I suspect in haste. It does not prove that he is willfully deceptive, but suggests at least a moment of lazy research in his attempt to offer support for the intersectional view that he feels passionately about; but it is not excusable if his goal really is justice rather than self serving political outrage. More on this below...
Today, the day after the Republican candidate's son tweeted out a white supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee meme.
This has nothing to do with Tulsa, or with police issues in general and the questionable intersectional assertion that there is an institutional oppressive bias by police (especially white police) against black men in America. It does not bring any actual salient facts on the Tulsa issue he used as an example, it ignores or is oblivious to such facts as the research that shows statistically, white police are far less likely to shoot black suspects than Hispanic or black officers are.
But if we assume this is an attempt to provide another piece of anecdotal evidence to bolster the assertion of validity of his intersectional view, I would have to point out that the meme in question is the Skittles meme, which mostly does not support what the poster asserts it does. The meme text states, "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem." The poster asserts that this is white supremacist. There is no evidence of this. While the color of the Skittles in the bowl invite a snarky response, there is in fact no assertion in the meme of a preference of any kind to any race. The poster further asserts that the meme is anti-immigrant. Again, there is no statement whatsoever about immigrants in the meme, and if we reasonably assume that it is supposed to follow Trump's stated policy view on immigration, he has generally stated that he supports immigration from anywhere as long as the immigrants are vetted for security, and do so legally. Trump does say a lot of other wacky things (oh, so many!), some of which he has changed his mind on, but this is a pretty consistent policy position in a pretty sparse field of stated policy positions. The poster finally states that this is anti-refugee. To some degree it is. However, in context with everything else Trump has actually said, he has further noted that he wants all refugees to be vetted before being allowed to come onto our soil. This position is predicated on the fact that:
1) there are a good many documented posts by terrorist organizations that they are actively seeking to insert agents onto American soil under guise of refugees from Syria, and
2) it is well known that there are multiple terrorist organizations who actively seek to harm Americans, and American interests that have received support from incompetent administration channels operating in Syria.
There is a credible threat from Syria to America, even if the choice of metaphor by Trump Jr. was grossly clumsy (and it was). But a clumsy meme does not actually prove any institutional oppression or privilege vis a vis intersectional theory... only that the analysis was clumsy, or that it was dumbed down into a straw man argument, and that some people took it seriously anyway.
I read articles like this one and I think, "How can anyone living today be paying the least bit of attention to the world and believe that privilege is imaginary?"
Because articles cited as such are very poor evidence of the validity of intersectional theory. One can believe that prejudice does occur in America (I certainly do), that oppression happens among humans (it most definitely does), and privilege exists in human societies (without doubt). One can well believe these things and still not believe that intersectional theory accurately understands any of them (I assert it does not) even if I am actually willing to respect the people who hold the views as I challenge the idea to be discussed. I just happen to find that my invitations, no matter how humble or polite, are dismissed. My experience has been either that the supporters of intersectional thinking actually want to avoid genuine discussion in favor of incredulity or outrage that fits their view, or (sadly) unproductive agreement that intersectionalism is just liberal whining, which may or may not be true, but is ultimately ad hominem and not helpful.
Football players taking a knee during the playing of a song are raked through the coals, vilified and lambasted, while police murder black men and routinely get away with it. That's privilege at work.
In the first case, while I might think Kaepernik is a twit for doing what he is (I do) I and his critics
1) also have a right to freedom of expression every bit as much as he does, and
2) predicate the opinion on the proposition that he is applying his expression with poorly thought out assumptions, and
3) am not advocating that he and members of his organization or race should be killed.
Furthermore, the poster seems to again be lazy in
1) his understanding or his use of the assertion of murder (vs. manslaughter), and
2) his misunderstanding or prevarication of the fact that officers who actually did commit a criminal breach of trust and authority have been punished.
It's time to start fixing our broken country, friends. And we can't do it with our eyes closed.
I respectfully agree with the poster on this. I likewise respectfully disagree with his diagnosis of the problem, because I question who actually has their eyes more open to the situation. Furthermore, while I am fully persuaded that he is sincere in his feelings that something is wrong, I am disturbed by what appears to be a disinterest in admitting that perhaps, just maybe, he might possibly have not grasped the situation as fully as he seems to assume, nor does he seem to feel that anyone with a challenging opinion could possibly have anything legitimate to offer to the discussion. He suggests that he has his eyes open, and that those who challenge his view do not. Where is his evidence though? I see a pretty thin thread to hang his assertion on, which I to date, have found overwhelmingly typical of intersectional doctrine...
Edit: this subject is important to me, and I take it very seriously. If you want to chime in with a clever, pithy remark, consider that doing so isn't helpful. I will delete such comments. If you want to tell me how privilege isn't real and that all this social justice malarkey is overblown, know that I consider such remarks to be actively harmful and I do not feel an obligation to give you a space to say such things. I will delete these comments too.
...and there you go, my friends. Not only does he not want to critically examine the evidence he offers, but he does not want to examine any evidence anyone else offers that does not fit his view. He is so committed to the view, that any discussion is by default assumed to be harmful and will be summarily censored. I get the principle of not feeding trolls, but I was not trolling. I did bring up the question on his public space, which I could have predicted to end thus, but gave benefit of the doubt because he is otherwise an intelligent and creative fellow from the small window I've seen through his game design discussions. Politics make people often commit to lazy thinking and bad ideas though...
It does bother me that the intersectional assumption automatically demands that I either agree, or else prove myself actively committed to oppression, racism, sexism, bigotry, and phobia; that I cannot possibly take the issues of policing, or community violence seriously or reasonably; that I can summarily be judged to be wicked because I differ on the analysis of the problem. This is bothersome further because it seems to be a view held by so many of the designers that I think are really cool and creative, who I'd love to have thoughtful creative discussions with. But I suspect, based on a pattern of behavior from some of the most forward who adhere to that view, I likely won't be allowed the opportunity because I am in the "other" camp... that group that the intersectional community is quick to accuse of the sin of "othering" others based on biases and unreasonable prejudice, yet hypocritically is so quick to condemn without bothering to even listen.
The very framework, the foundation, the skeleton of intersectional thinking, is at the end of the day, nothing more than one big, often narcissistic genetic fallacy. It serves to exacerbate grievance against others, but offers little of value to critically examine a problem, bridge the gap, and certainly not offer forgiveness and reconciliation. Considering the godless roots, it is not surprising. The cause is always more valuable than people there. Facts and respect for persons are of little consequence under this worldview. How much is lost because of that?
Privilege in the dictionary sense obviously exists in the world. It is practiced in every way possible by every human on the planet. Privilege, oppression, phobia, bigot... all of these have actual meanings, and the actual meanings are at every turn ignored and twisted by intersectional theory. The problem we have is in determining the rational criteria by which we decide that a thing is actually fair or unfair, cruel and excessive, illogically pathologically fearful, or unfairly hateful. Asking this question is flipping on the light switch at threats of the bogey man... committed intersectionalists in my experience almost always prefer the bogey man, and all too often rejoin with ad hominem attacks on the person questioning without first understanding the questioner's assumptions. This does nothing productive to solving real problems of fairness or equality toward persons.
I have a problem with that too.
Case in point... I discovered recently the page of a game designer who makes some of the coolest games in my collection. I love his stuff. But I made the mistake of commenting on one of his posts that had nothing to do with his games and was instead about an issue that he felt very sincere about, with which I happened to disagree. Being neither rude or aggressive, I merely questioned his assumptions in a polite and reasoned fashion, asking what his criteria were for his point of view. I was rebuffed instead with the statement that that was not an issue he wished to address.
The next post on his page was about this exchange with what I think he believes to be adequate evidence to prove his point. Here is what he said (italic) and my thoughts on his follow-up:
Today someone told me that they didn't believe in privilege.
What I actually did was question his assumptions about what it means vis a vis an assertion of offense he made about a game design. "Privilage" as it was used by him is a term with particular meaning in intersectional social/political theory. I know very well what intersectionalism states to be true, I have studied the philosophy underlying it, I frequently read intersectional media for insight, and I still happen to think that it is philosophically flawed at the very foundation. More on this below...
He continues:
Today, on a day when an unarmed black man waiting by his broken-down car was gunned down, murdered by police who were supposed to help him, to protect him.
This is a statement of some of the facts, and a misstatement of others in the Terence Crutcher shooting in Tulsa. Before addressing them in turn, the first big problem is that this poster quickly judged the situation without all the facts or context, and demonstrated a prejudicial preference that privileges the intersectional narrative over all others. Further facts not mentioned are these:
1) Officer Betty Shelby was en route responding to a domestic violence call when she happened upon Crutcher, not in his vehicle which was stopped in the middle of the two lane road.
2) There were some number of 911 calls just before that by people reporting Crutcher's erratic behavior, shouting that among other things his SUV was going to explode.
3) His behavior was assessed by officer Shelby as being consistent with the erratic behavior of someone on PCP (she did not know a the time but a vial was found in the SUV).
4) Crutcher was non-compliant with the demands of the officer, who then called in backup.
5) When Crutcher approached his SUV while refusing to comply with several officers, Shelby claimed she shot because he was attempting to reach inside the vehicle after having been reaching in his pockets before.
6) Video footage appears to show that at least the driver's window was closed, and possibly the rear window as well.
So without prejudiced conclusions, we can judge in light of the facts that the officer did have reason to be more suspicious of the motorist based on his behavior than usual, prompting a reasonable amount of caution which merely continued to escalate, based still on his behavior. We can also conclude that there was insufficient evidence to warrant deadly force, especially in light of the fact that one of the other officers had drawn a taser rather than a firearm, which she could have also done.
The poster also failed to note that the officer has been suspended from duty, and charged with the felony of first degree manslaughter. He also did not note that this was in the same town that a deputy that was allegedly insufficiently trained for the job was also convicted with felony manslaughter for the shooting of Eric Harris. These facts suggest if anything, that the overall tone of law enforcement in Tulsa is not institutionally racially biased against black men in Tulsa, is not protecting wicked officers, but is actually pro justice in their actions. We may speculate that there are some training issues that need addressed. The poster used the term murder rather than manslaughter, I suspect in haste. It does not prove that he is willfully deceptive, but suggests at least a moment of lazy research in his attempt to offer support for the intersectional view that he feels passionately about; but it is not excusable if his goal really is justice rather than self serving political outrage. More on this below...
Today, the day after the Republican candidate's son tweeted out a white supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee meme.
This has nothing to do with Tulsa, or with police issues in general and the questionable intersectional assertion that there is an institutional oppressive bias by police (especially white police) against black men in America. It does not bring any actual salient facts on the Tulsa issue he used as an example, it ignores or is oblivious to such facts as the research that shows statistically, white police are far less likely to shoot black suspects than Hispanic or black officers are.
But if we assume this is an attempt to provide another piece of anecdotal evidence to bolster the assertion of validity of his intersectional view, I would have to point out that the meme in question is the Skittles meme, which mostly does not support what the poster asserts it does. The meme text states, "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem." The poster asserts that this is white supremacist. There is no evidence of this. While the color of the Skittles in the bowl invite a snarky response, there is in fact no assertion in the meme of a preference of any kind to any race. The poster further asserts that the meme is anti-immigrant. Again, there is no statement whatsoever about immigrants in the meme, and if we reasonably assume that it is supposed to follow Trump's stated policy view on immigration, he has generally stated that he supports immigration from anywhere as long as the immigrants are vetted for security, and do so legally. Trump does say a lot of other wacky things (oh, so many!), some of which he has changed his mind on, but this is a pretty consistent policy position in a pretty sparse field of stated policy positions. The poster finally states that this is anti-refugee. To some degree it is. However, in context with everything else Trump has actually said, he has further noted that he wants all refugees to be vetted before being allowed to come onto our soil. This position is predicated on the fact that:
1) there are a good many documented posts by terrorist organizations that they are actively seeking to insert agents onto American soil under guise of refugees from Syria, and
2) it is well known that there are multiple terrorist organizations who actively seek to harm Americans, and American interests that have received support from incompetent administration channels operating in Syria.
There is a credible threat from Syria to America, even if the choice of metaphor by Trump Jr. was grossly clumsy (and it was). But a clumsy meme does not actually prove any institutional oppression or privilege vis a vis intersectional theory... only that the analysis was clumsy, or that it was dumbed down into a straw man argument, and that some people took it seriously anyway.
I read articles like this one and I think, "How can anyone living today be paying the least bit of attention to the world and believe that privilege is imaginary?"
Because articles cited as such are very poor evidence of the validity of intersectional theory. One can believe that prejudice does occur in America (I certainly do), that oppression happens among humans (it most definitely does), and privilege exists in human societies (without doubt). One can well believe these things and still not believe that intersectional theory accurately understands any of them (I assert it does not) even if I am actually willing to respect the people who hold the views as I challenge the idea to be discussed. I just happen to find that my invitations, no matter how humble or polite, are dismissed. My experience has been either that the supporters of intersectional thinking actually want to avoid genuine discussion in favor of incredulity or outrage that fits their view, or (sadly) unproductive agreement that intersectionalism is just liberal whining, which may or may not be true, but is ultimately ad hominem and not helpful.
Football players taking a knee during the playing of a song are raked through the coals, vilified and lambasted, while police murder black men and routinely get away with it. That's privilege at work.
In the first case, while I might think Kaepernik is a twit for doing what he is (I do) I and his critics
1) also have a right to freedom of expression every bit as much as he does, and
2) predicate the opinion on the proposition that he is applying his expression with poorly thought out assumptions, and
3) am not advocating that he and members of his organization or race should be killed.
Furthermore, the poster seems to again be lazy in
1) his understanding or his use of the assertion of murder (vs. manslaughter), and
2) his misunderstanding or prevarication of the fact that officers who actually did commit a criminal breach of trust and authority have been punished.
It's time to start fixing our broken country, friends. And we can't do it with our eyes closed.
I respectfully agree with the poster on this. I likewise respectfully disagree with his diagnosis of the problem, because I question who actually has their eyes more open to the situation. Furthermore, while I am fully persuaded that he is sincere in his feelings that something is wrong, I am disturbed by what appears to be a disinterest in admitting that perhaps, just maybe, he might possibly have not grasped the situation as fully as he seems to assume, nor does he seem to feel that anyone with a challenging opinion could possibly have anything legitimate to offer to the discussion. He suggests that he has his eyes open, and that those who challenge his view do not. Where is his evidence though? I see a pretty thin thread to hang his assertion on, which I to date, have found overwhelmingly typical of intersectional doctrine...
Edit: this subject is important to me, and I take it very seriously. If you want to chime in with a clever, pithy remark, consider that doing so isn't helpful. I will delete such comments. If you want to tell me how privilege isn't real and that all this social justice malarkey is overblown, know that I consider such remarks to be actively harmful and I do not feel an obligation to give you a space to say such things. I will delete these comments too.
...and there you go, my friends. Not only does he not want to critically examine the evidence he offers, but he does not want to examine any evidence anyone else offers that does not fit his view. He is so committed to the view, that any discussion is by default assumed to be harmful and will be summarily censored. I get the principle of not feeding trolls, but I was not trolling. I did bring up the question on his public space, which I could have predicted to end thus, but gave benefit of the doubt because he is otherwise an intelligent and creative fellow from the small window I've seen through his game design discussions. Politics make people often commit to lazy thinking and bad ideas though...
It does bother me that the intersectional assumption automatically demands that I either agree, or else prove myself actively committed to oppression, racism, sexism, bigotry, and phobia; that I cannot possibly take the issues of policing, or community violence seriously or reasonably; that I can summarily be judged to be wicked because I differ on the analysis of the problem. This is bothersome further because it seems to be a view held by so many of the designers that I think are really cool and creative, who I'd love to have thoughtful creative discussions with. But I suspect, based on a pattern of behavior from some of the most forward who adhere to that view, I likely won't be allowed the opportunity because I am in the "other" camp... that group that the intersectional community is quick to accuse of the sin of "othering" others based on biases and unreasonable prejudice, yet hypocritically is so quick to condemn without bothering to even listen.
The very framework, the foundation, the skeleton of intersectional thinking, is at the end of the day, nothing more than one big, often narcissistic genetic fallacy. It serves to exacerbate grievance against others, but offers little of value to critically examine a problem, bridge the gap, and certainly not offer forgiveness and reconciliation. Considering the godless roots, it is not surprising. The cause is always more valuable than people there. Facts and respect for persons are of little consequence under this worldview. How much is lost because of that?
Privilege in the dictionary sense obviously exists in the world. It is practiced in every way possible by every human on the planet. Privilege, oppression, phobia, bigot... all of these have actual meanings, and the actual meanings are at every turn ignored and twisted by intersectional theory. The problem we have is in determining the rational criteria by which we decide that a thing is actually fair or unfair, cruel and excessive, illogically pathologically fearful, or unfairly hateful. Asking this question is flipping on the light switch at threats of the bogey man... committed intersectionalists in my experience almost always prefer the bogey man, and all too often rejoin with ad hominem attacks on the person questioning without first understanding the questioner's assumptions. This does nothing productive to solving real problems of fairness or equality toward persons.
I have a problem with that too.
23 September, 2016
...fail foreward...
**sigh**
There are times that looking at progress on something makes one want to just say "that sucks", and toss it in the can, and move on to the next thing, whatever that is...
This is my five minutes of gripey, whiney bits looking at what I trying to do with this blog... the goal is to try to scrape rust off of writing, off of creativity, off of focus... putting it out in the open is an attempt at accountability.
Today it does not feel like it is doing anything useful.
But at least I wrote... right?
OK.
I am done.
There are times that looking at progress on something makes one want to just say "that sucks", and toss it in the can, and move on to the next thing, whatever that is...
This is my five minutes of gripey, whiney bits looking at what I trying to do with this blog... the goal is to try to scrape rust off of writing, off of creativity, off of focus... putting it out in the open is an attempt at accountability.
Today it does not feel like it is doing anything useful.
But at least I wrote... right?
OK.
I am done.
Flow Theory And Game Design Questions
Flow theory postulates three conditions that have to be met to achieve a flow state:
1) One must be involved in an activity with a clear set of goals and progress. This adds direction and structure to the task.
2) The task at hand must have clear and immediate feedback. This helps the person negotiate any changing demands and allows them to adjust their performance to maintain the flow state.
3) One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and their own perceived skills. One must have confidence in one's ability to complete the task at hand.
1) One must be involved in an activity with a clear set of goals and progress. This adds direction and structure to the task.
2) The task at hand must have clear and immediate feedback. This helps the person negotiate any changing demands and allows them to adjust their performance to maintain the flow state.
3) One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and their own perceived skills. One must have confidence in one's ability to complete the task at hand.
Jared Sorensen's three questions for design are:
1) What is my game about?
2) How does my game do that?
3) What behaviors does my game reward and punish?
I think Flow Theory really intersects with #3 a lot. That is the kicker.
There is an interesting essay on Flow HERE.
In it, is an interesting example of using Flow for a really innocuous purpose: picking shoes.
1) What is my game about?
2) How does my game do that?
3) What behaviors does my game reward and punish?
I think Flow Theory really intersects with #3 a lot. That is the kicker.
There is an interesting essay on Flow HERE.
In it, is an interesting example of using Flow for a really innocuous purpose: picking shoes.
So the loop goes from: challenge >> opportunity to act >> feedback >> new opportunity to act.
11 September, 2016
Golden Cobra 2016
http://www.goldencobra.org/
5 September to 5 October 2016.
5 September to 5 October 2016.
The goal of the 2016 contest is to generate elegant, expansive, uplifting games. Golden Cobras will be awarded in five categories:
- Best use of somatic elements
- Most culturally responsible design
- Best use of magical realism
- Funniest
- Most Convention Ready
- dinosaurs
- ghosts
- parasites
- stardust
In order to be considered for a Golden Cobra, your game must:
- Consist of one or both sides of an 8 ½ by 11 inch or A4 sheet of paper. (Minimum point size accepted is 8.)
- Games should be playable with zero to minimal prep.
Further rules:
- Be a new, unpublished freeform larp. It is neither a tabletop roleplaying game or a video game.
- Present your game in a readable, playable format (pdf preferred).
- Your name can only appear on one entry but teams are welcome.
- Submit your game by 5 October in .pdf format and in English to submissions@goldencobra.org. Parallel versions in other languages or other formats are encouraged.
- You retain all rights to your work but grant the judges permission to print out and play the game you submit, and for it to be included in a free anthology after the contest.
Freeform LARP?...:
What we call freeform larp occupies a middle space between tabletop and full-blown live action role playing. They come in all shapes and sizes, all along the spectrum and keep incorporating new things as they come along. As a rule of thumb if there are simple, clever game mechanics but you have to stand up and move around at some point, it's probably freeform larp!
08 September, 2016
The Sound Of One Hand Clapping: OR Thoughts On Writing An Adventure Without Writing It
So on of the problems that comes of being a gamer "of a certain age" is that there is so much more of life that demands my time, leaving so much less for being able to play. This is doubly so as I think of rpgs. The time and effort that I once had to plan, craft, write, and map careful game adventures simply costs too much compared to the fact that, 1) I'm not getting paid for it (though this is a point for some other discussion), and 2) I may never get a chance to fully use it. The last time I went all out writing, plotting, drawing out timelines, locations, maps, handouts to include faux news clippings (on newsprint paper), antique book pages, faux email printouts, and matchbooks for exclusive clubs... I only got about 1/3rd of the way through the campaign before it petered out due to player time commitments. I think that one hurt more than I am consciously aware of, as that was distinctly the last time I gave that much creative effort on a labor of love in a game.
But it was also one of the things that moved me ineluctably down the road toward indie games with more rules light and narrative design principles. As much as I still think that GURPS and Pathfinder for instance are well designed engines, I really just love Fate (and the host of Fudge-like games of a kind) for it's mechanical simplicity, bounding the mechanics by narrative statements. This kind of game is to be sure, one for players you trust, but I don't want to play with the other kind anyway. So the challenge is trying to find a way to get satisfactory story out of minimal prep.
Fate does this by making "Session 0" a critical feature, with issues, and games based on say, Apocalypse World have fronts, but otherwise "play to see what happens". I suppose that what I am thinking about then, is a way to kind of start with those sorts of things, and add just a little more structure so I can create and thereby provide a little more detail. So it seems that a good starter question for each session, is to have the players review the issues and their individual character goals, and considering context and continuity of what they did previously, ask the players the following question to start the game:
What are you doing?
Now the answer to this cannot be a weaksauce answer. No "chilling in the tavern", or "shopping for equipment upgrades". This has to be a clear, powerful answer that is an expression of what the character wants enough to fight for, perhaps kill for, and perhaps die for. In Fate, this is easy to do by examining aspects, and then figuring out how that action can go wrong... what can be worse, or what complications are expected. This should be detailed, and provide the specific picture for the starting scene of the game. This is also a good time to get fate points, and in a particularly gritty game, rather than refreshing automatically, give FP based only on this. But the players ought to do this, perhaps as a flashback, creating the starting scene.
Next, based on what trouble they have chosen to get themselves into, they need to suggest two or three steps, or sub goals, or objectives that they need to take in order to get themselves out of that jam. These can be a bit broader, leaving tags that the GM can plug into an overall scene planner to shape the game in a fashion that provides more build and story unity without a whole bunch of pre-loaded prep. The players get what they want in broad strokes, and the GM gets to make stone soup - letting much of the heavy lifting be done by others.
This is very close to what It's Not My Fault does, with just a little bit of customizing.
But it was also one of the things that moved me ineluctably down the road toward indie games with more rules light and narrative design principles. As much as I still think that GURPS and Pathfinder for instance are well designed engines, I really just love Fate (and the host of Fudge-like games of a kind) for it's mechanical simplicity, bounding the mechanics by narrative statements. This kind of game is to be sure, one for players you trust, but I don't want to play with the other kind anyway. So the challenge is trying to find a way to get satisfactory story out of minimal prep.
Fate does this by making "Session 0" a critical feature, with issues, and games based on say, Apocalypse World have fronts, but otherwise "play to see what happens". I suppose that what I am thinking about then, is a way to kind of start with those sorts of things, and add just a little more structure so I can create and thereby provide a little more detail. So it seems that a good starter question for each session, is to have the players review the issues and their individual character goals, and considering context and continuity of what they did previously, ask the players the following question to start the game:
What are you doing?
Now the answer to this cannot be a weaksauce answer. No "chilling in the tavern", or "shopping for equipment upgrades". This has to be a clear, powerful answer that is an expression of what the character wants enough to fight for, perhaps kill for, and perhaps die for. In Fate, this is easy to do by examining aspects, and then figuring out how that action can go wrong... what can be worse, or what complications are expected. This should be detailed, and provide the specific picture for the starting scene of the game. This is also a good time to get fate points, and in a particularly gritty game, rather than refreshing automatically, give FP based only on this. But the players ought to do this, perhaps as a flashback, creating the starting scene.
Next, based on what trouble they have chosen to get themselves into, they need to suggest two or three steps, or sub goals, or objectives that they need to take in order to get themselves out of that jam. These can be a bit broader, leaving tags that the GM can plug into an overall scene planner to shape the game in a fashion that provides more build and story unity without a whole bunch of pre-loaded prep. The players get what they want in broad strokes, and the GM gets to make stone soup - letting much of the heavy lifting be done by others.
This is very close to what It's Not My Fault does, with just a little bit of customizing.
06 September, 2016
Conflict Currencies In Game Design
So ultimately what separates a story from a documentary or some other kind of mere information media, is the narrative of a normalcy - conflict - normalcy cycle. The meat of the story, is the conflict and it's resolution. No big news there, but it does bring to mind a way to frame a design principle in my mind for story games of all kinds.
Going back to Jared Sorenson's three questions for game designers:
1) What is my game about?
2) How does my game do that?
3) What behaviors does my game reward and punish?
The first question is not about the setting, but rather the theme of the game. So D&D actually is (at least in most of it's older incarnations) about killing things and taking their stuff. Star Wars the rpg is not about a galaxy full of aliens and spaceships, but it does begin to tell us something meaningful when it gives us the fairy tale cues "A long time ago" and "a galaxy far, far away", and when we begin to understand it through the sub titles (A New Hope). Star Wars, is about not giving up living, breathing hope in in the face of an oppressive mechanistically ordered system. It is about the personal war between choosing Life vs. The Machine.
The second question is identifies the things that the mechanics need to address or ignore in more detail. D&D (old school) has lots of rules for combat, physically damaging things, surviving physical damage, and advancing with more and better equipment purchased with lots of treasure. Alternatively, Star Wars is a story centered on moral and spiritual choices, the rpg, to really capture the essence of that story, needs to have strong mechanics for the morality of choices, and mechanics that address temptation and corruption. Because it is not a piece of military techno-fiction, nor a story about the clever advances of scientists and engineers, any mechanics regarding the finer points of tactical advantages or power to thrust ratios of engines is actually superfluous to the game... Star Trek is the next game over on the shelf.
The third question digs deeper into how you actualize the types of important mechanics. D&D offers experience points for killing monsters, and for gathering treasure, which put into the player's hands, allow upgrades and bonuses to the character's abilities which make them more effective at fighting and surviving. Star Wars should have some measure of where the character stands in relation to the light side or dark side of the Force, as well as some kind of way to measure in play changes in status depending on actions taken in the story.
This gets me to my refinement on the second and third questions (is that 2.5? or 3.5?...). My question is:
??) What is the Conflict Currency?
Whether the kind of conflicts that are important are sword fights, star ship battles, social brinksmanship, or pitching woo in hopes of enduring love, the meat of any story is about those basic literary questions:
1) What does (character X) want?
2) Why can't they have it now? = CONFLICT!!!
3) What is at stake if they don't get it?
The Conflict Currency then, is what mechanically represents the things that are important to the kind of conflict in the story the game is telling. It is safe to say that most rpg's include some king of physical combat. This is one of the common kinds of conflict then, and needs some kind of conflict currency. This is often represented by accumulated hit points in some way that are paid as the price for being hit, and weapons with some kind of rating in how many hit points they can cause to be spent. Another kind of conflict currency is used for the use of magic. Whether there is a budget of magic points (a.k.a. a "mana" system) or a budget of slots for pre-packaged spell effects (e.g. a "Vancian" magic system, a la D&D), these get spent and are recovered in some cyclic fashion like hit points, in order to get effects in the game.
To be sure, virtually every rpg has multiple conflict currencies, as there are multiple kinds of conflicts that are available, or at least multiple strategies for confronting and overcoming the arch conflict. It gets to be problematic if you are playing a game for which there is not any conflict currency, or for which you have some currency that feels undervalued in that economy. This can be a way to focus a game of course, but it can also make some kinds of play feel short changed.
Not to bully D&D, but I will use it as a case in point (and it is not by any means the only one, and in fact provided the foundation economies by which many game designs have been built). D&D has a varied and interesting economy for conflicts that are at their core, about killing creatures that you wish to pillage. There is the basic attack action with weapons that costs the opponent hit points. There is also a host of magical and magical-like effects that likewise either improve your likelihood of making a successful attack action, or increases the amount of hit points that are expended for a hit. There is a multi-stage cycle of die rolls that shape the outcome. However, if the players should instead want to play a battle of wits and cunning, there is a much more simplified pass/fail mechanic for that kind of conflict, generally resolved with a single die roll. Should the player want to play out the advancement of a romance that sparks, smolders, and ultimately blazes into a bonfire, there are no mechanics whatsoever. D&D is really not a game for rom-com conflicts then, which is neither here nor there, as that is not the stories that it is designed to tell.
But it does demonstrate why thinking about conflict currency matters to game design. So if I am designing a game of grand, sweeping, dynastic conflict, I need to ask myself, what kind of Conflict Currency I need for that game. Fate is a really great toolbox for this as the same basic mechanical blocks can very easily be re-skinned or re-named to match the themes of the story in question. Does a dynastic political game need rules for the common procedural elements of adventure games like sword fighting and sneaking? Not really, or not in the normal sense. But there does need to be some kind of conflict currency for diplomatic treaty resolution, the wax and wane of public opinion, and the strength or weakness of succession faces and factions. This phrasing makes it a little sharper when deciding how to answer or refine the answers to Sorenson's questions 2 and 3.
Going back to Jared Sorenson's three questions for game designers:
1) What is my game about?
2) How does my game do that?
3) What behaviors does my game reward and punish?
The first question is not about the setting, but rather the theme of the game. So D&D actually is (at least in most of it's older incarnations) about killing things and taking their stuff. Star Wars the rpg is not about a galaxy full of aliens and spaceships, but it does begin to tell us something meaningful when it gives us the fairy tale cues "A long time ago" and "a galaxy far, far away", and when we begin to understand it through the sub titles (A New Hope). Star Wars, is about not giving up living, breathing hope in in the face of an oppressive mechanistically ordered system. It is about the personal war between choosing Life vs. The Machine.
The second question is identifies the things that the mechanics need to address or ignore in more detail. D&D (old school) has lots of rules for combat, physically damaging things, surviving physical damage, and advancing with more and better equipment purchased with lots of treasure. Alternatively, Star Wars is a story centered on moral and spiritual choices, the rpg, to really capture the essence of that story, needs to have strong mechanics for the morality of choices, and mechanics that address temptation and corruption. Because it is not a piece of military techno-fiction, nor a story about the clever advances of scientists and engineers, any mechanics regarding the finer points of tactical advantages or power to thrust ratios of engines is actually superfluous to the game... Star Trek is the next game over on the shelf.
The third question digs deeper into how you actualize the types of important mechanics. D&D offers experience points for killing monsters, and for gathering treasure, which put into the player's hands, allow upgrades and bonuses to the character's abilities which make them more effective at fighting and surviving. Star Wars should have some measure of where the character stands in relation to the light side or dark side of the Force, as well as some kind of way to measure in play changes in status depending on actions taken in the story.
This gets me to my refinement on the second and third questions (is that 2.5? or 3.5?...). My question is:
??) What is the Conflict Currency?
Whether the kind of conflicts that are important are sword fights, star ship battles, social brinksmanship, or pitching woo in hopes of enduring love, the meat of any story is about those basic literary questions:
1) What does (character X) want?
2) Why can't they have it now? = CONFLICT!!!
3) What is at stake if they don't get it?
The Conflict Currency then, is what mechanically represents the things that are important to the kind of conflict in the story the game is telling. It is safe to say that most rpg's include some king of physical combat. This is one of the common kinds of conflict then, and needs some kind of conflict currency. This is often represented by accumulated hit points in some way that are paid as the price for being hit, and weapons with some kind of rating in how many hit points they can cause to be spent. Another kind of conflict currency is used for the use of magic. Whether there is a budget of magic points (a.k.a. a "mana" system) or a budget of slots for pre-packaged spell effects (e.g. a "Vancian" magic system, a la D&D), these get spent and are recovered in some cyclic fashion like hit points, in order to get effects in the game.
To be sure, virtually every rpg has multiple conflict currencies, as there are multiple kinds of conflicts that are available, or at least multiple strategies for confronting and overcoming the arch conflict. It gets to be problematic if you are playing a game for which there is not any conflict currency, or for which you have some currency that feels undervalued in that economy. This can be a way to focus a game of course, but it can also make some kinds of play feel short changed.
Not to bully D&D, but I will use it as a case in point (and it is not by any means the only one, and in fact provided the foundation economies by which many game designs have been built). D&D has a varied and interesting economy for conflicts that are at their core, about killing creatures that you wish to pillage. There is the basic attack action with weapons that costs the opponent hit points. There is also a host of magical and magical-like effects that likewise either improve your likelihood of making a successful attack action, or increases the amount of hit points that are expended for a hit. There is a multi-stage cycle of die rolls that shape the outcome. However, if the players should instead want to play a battle of wits and cunning, there is a much more simplified pass/fail mechanic for that kind of conflict, generally resolved with a single die roll. Should the player want to play out the advancement of a romance that sparks, smolders, and ultimately blazes into a bonfire, there are no mechanics whatsoever. D&D is really not a game for rom-com conflicts then, which is neither here nor there, as that is not the stories that it is designed to tell.
But it does demonstrate why thinking about conflict currency matters to game design. So if I am designing a game of grand, sweeping, dynastic conflict, I need to ask myself, what kind of Conflict Currency I need for that game. Fate is a really great toolbox for this as the same basic mechanical blocks can very easily be re-skinned or re-named to match the themes of the story in question. Does a dynastic political game need rules for the common procedural elements of adventure games like sword fighting and sneaking? Not really, or not in the normal sense. But there does need to be some kind of conflict currency for diplomatic treaty resolution, the wax and wane of public opinion, and the strength or weakness of succession faces and factions. This phrasing makes it a little sharper when deciding how to answer or refine the answers to Sorenson's questions 2 and 3.
01 September, 2016
Prestige: The Game of Terrible Compliments
The Crown has called a great feast to determine who will be appointed to rule new land on the marches. All the best have come to seek the honor. You, however, are the one that will win this. This is a feast of pomp, and manners, and fine beverages... an event of great boasts... and compliments for all contenders that will with florid politeness grind them all beneath your heel...
THE GAME
All players will see that their cups are filled with a tasty beverage to enhance loquacity and perspicacity. The host shall sit in role of The Crown, and the rest of the players as peers.
Next, players will in rounds regale the company with a boast, one each in turn, outlining each of the following in such a fashion as will bring amazement to the heart of The Crown:
- First, a claim against your most noble pedigree. What is the single greatest fact of your most noble birth that sets you above the peasants, and apart from your less worthy peers?
- Second, the fact of your greatest virtue. What aspect of your character shows you to be more than worthy in heart and mind from churls and villains?
- Third, a deed of great merit. What is your single greatest accomplishment, showing you fit not only in word but in action, to hold stewardship of the cantankerous marches for The Crown?
When these meritorious boasts have been laid before The Crown, and for all to see, everyone will then take turns giving a compliment to the peer of choice, extolling the greatness of the claimed boast, for it is just, and right, and proper that the peers hold unity before The Crown for only a churl, or villain, or rabble-rousing insurrectionist would not stand firm in the unity of the state. HOWEVER, let us not forget, that should The Crown be more impressed with your rivals than you, you will gain nothing!
Thus, you must give a compliment of splendid form, that nonetheless shows the truth of the matter such that, in the end there can be no doubt that whatever boasts your rivals claim, they are in fact weak, shabby, and silly accomplishments indeed... proving the boaster unfit to rule the marches.
After everyone has had a chance to lay a compliment, a moment to savor the fine beverage will be observed before another round is taken to address a compliment to another of your peers. Should the company wish, as many rounds as it takes to compliment each player can be taken, but should brevity be required, two rounds is sufficient.
After the rounds have been completed, the crown will choose who is most worthy based on their accomplishments. Glory upon their house and their name!
THE GAME
All players will see that their cups are filled with a tasty beverage to enhance loquacity and perspicacity. The host shall sit in role of The Crown, and the rest of the players as peers.
Next, players will in rounds regale the company with a boast, one each in turn, outlining each of the following in such a fashion as will bring amazement to the heart of The Crown:
- First, a claim against your most noble pedigree. What is the single greatest fact of your most noble birth that sets you above the peasants, and apart from your less worthy peers?
- Second, the fact of your greatest virtue. What aspect of your character shows you to be more than worthy in heart and mind from churls and villains?
- Third, a deed of great merit. What is your single greatest accomplishment, showing you fit not only in word but in action, to hold stewardship of the cantankerous marches for The Crown?
When these meritorious boasts have been laid before The Crown, and for all to see, everyone will then take turns giving a compliment to the peer of choice, extolling the greatness of the claimed boast, for it is just, and right, and proper that the peers hold unity before The Crown for only a churl, or villain, or rabble-rousing insurrectionist would not stand firm in the unity of the state. HOWEVER, let us not forget, that should The Crown be more impressed with your rivals than you, you will gain nothing!
Thus, you must give a compliment of splendid form, that nonetheless shows the truth of the matter such that, in the end there can be no doubt that whatever boasts your rivals claim, they are in fact weak, shabby, and silly accomplishments indeed... proving the boaster unfit to rule the marches.
After everyone has had a chance to lay a compliment, a moment to savor the fine beverage will be observed before another round is taken to address a compliment to another of your peers. Should the company wish, as many rounds as it takes to compliment each player can be taken, but should brevity be required, two rounds is sufficient.
After the rounds have been completed, the crown will choose who is most worthy based on their accomplishments. Glory upon their house and their name!
30 August, 2016
Imaginary Pagan Religions
I have a problem with conventional fantasy games which take only a superficial effort to resemble the society they are meant to resemble. Gary Gygax at least began with war games which grew out of historian's interest in imaginatively speculating on how things might have been different had battles in history ended differently. It gets worse though when the people who play rpgs stop looking at history and just take whatever they see in a game book as good as history, and then others follow taking what they wrote till there is the current Pathfinder anything and kitchen sink approach to fantasy gaming. You find Vikings sailing along side 17th century pirate ships as if there is no influence between them.
The particular gripe I have (being the topic of this post) is that Gary was interested in many things and offered a whole bunch of ideas, and many who had less interest in history than Gygax took it up, including issues of fantasy religion. SO originally D&D introduced clerics as a character modeled on western medieval fighting clergy and martial orders like the Templars and Hospitalars. They were clearly modeled on the Roman Catholic Church with the spells and prohibitions that one would expect of such cinematic versions of those fighting priests. But with the advent of Deities and Demigods, bunches of pagan pantheons come into play, only the gods of those religions are merely treated the same as saints in the Catholic scheme, while the worldview does not cross over. Furthermore, there is no game mechanic for encouraging anything theologic for the cleric's motives, so religion is pretty squishy in D&D and most fantasy games of that kind.
I contend that the problem, is that Christianity is a huge anomaly in it's view of God, sin, origins, teleology, and ethics compared to anything that came before. Buddhism is the only thing that comes close, and it is problematic for other reasons. If you are going to make a fantasy religion for a game, it should have something that it answers about spiritual life, not merely what temporal powers it can give you to smite others. It should answer one or more of the following questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What has gone wrong and why?
What do we do to live with that?
What happens to us after we die?
Not all real world religions handle all of these, but they should only believably exist when they answer some. They should also, in general, provide some useful benefit to society in general, including moral, ethical, and social grounding and unity. Anything that does not serve long term social value is unlikely to survive. Cthulhu mythos cults may crop up here and there, but such nihilistic stuff does not build, but destroys.
This all in mind, here is an idea that comes to me for a pagan religion that is both very alien in flavor from the Roman Catholic model, but does both offer a social benefit, as well as answering some of the spiritual questions. There is even a schismatic, heretical sub-cult.
Here is a sample of a realistic pagan religion, rooted in actual real world sects. They are very different in worldview from the modern west, but they are heavily modeled on real religion nonetheless.
Beliefs and Practices
A soul in fear, anger, hatred, greed, and obsession ("The Five Follies" at death will not find rest and will become a devil spirit.
To insure peace at death, one must learn to become free of The Five Follies.
This is done through a process of increasing asceticism, and confrontation with and embrace of taboo practices.
- They begin by living in cemataries, with initiates assuming the duties of grave diggers, and pall bearers, and those who accept and handle offerings for the dead
- Novices assist with mortuary duties - cleaning the corpses, preparing food offerings for the sect, excarnation (defleshing) of cadavers, and preparing ritual meals for the priests
- Priests perform ceremonies of pacification, inscribe the prayers on cadavers before defleshing, inscribe and bind the bones for burial, and burn what parts remain in order to collect the ash which they bless for ritual use
- High Priests spend most of their time in meditation, but do perform the rituals of pacification for the whole of the cemataries, and occasionally venture out to perform the binding of unquiet ghosts which they keep in spirit jars which they prepare and keep in the center of the communities
Initiates to the order are distinguished by their brown robes and shawls, their shaved heads, and the ceremonial shovels which they keep. This is the last time they will ever cut their hair.
Novices take gray robes, and begin to learn the inscriptions which they practice scribing with ink made of grave ash, lime, and resin onto their fellow novice's skin.
Priests receive their white robe - the last article of clothing they will ever wear. It will never be repaired or replaced. They begin to confront taboos more aggressively. They begin to practice ritual cannibalism, sleep a night with corpses before final processing, and begin to live more and more removed from daily affairs. They craft the skull bowls from which the order eats, drinks, and receives alms. They may be called out to do healings when other medicine fails, acting as "sin eaters" who take the wounds ritually upon themselves.
High priests have little contact outside the sect, and largely live in meditation, naked, covered in grave ash. They seek to destroy any fear and break every taboo to free their souls for the passage into death. The final barrier is denial of even food and water, sustaining themselves only on the flesh and blood of their own bodies in a ritual fashion. They prepare a final meal of their own flesh for those Priests that they choose to replace them. Their bodies are not defleshed or cremated, but are buried in ash pits to mummify. The new High Priests will eventually exhume the mummies, and place them in the Halls of Memory - catacombs below cemataries where the living priests may from time to time consult the dead through the mummies.
Schismatic Sect
A heretical branch practices more proactive rituals. They may actively go out at ritual high holy days to find those they have been observing as exemplary of individuals bound to the Five Follies, and ritualistically murder them. They perform ritual cannibalism, and then bind the ghosts into spirit jars in order to proactively prevent them from doing mischief in the future. They may also actively seek out haunted communities to perform exorcisms (spirit binding) for money, and possibly use captive spirits from previous victims to create haunted places. They also offer curses for money, and proactively seek to practice unspeakable rites, breaking taboos to speed their own ways to release from the Five Follies.
----------
Some other seeds of ideas:
A goddess of fertility, motherhood, and a tutelary household deity (surely a primary goddess for that society) calls all new brides to receive blessings by serving for a day as temple prostitutes (inspiration: Ishtar/Astarte)
A grain and harvest god of fertility and the fields, who also serves as a tutelary god protecting territory in a defensive war capacity calls for a spring sacrifice to consecrate the fields before planting by raising a chosen young man on a stake over the field who will serve as the vessel for the god to protect the field from ravage by beast or man; a bride is offered after harvest in thanks to the god for abundance (inspiration: several pagan religions, though not like any particular one)
-----------
Now these are not particularly savory notions to those who enjoy the ripples of Roman Catholic virtues, but they are more realistic in that they offer a perceived service to the continuation of the society, and imply some ideas about the relationships between god and man, god and land. Perhaps I will write more on this.
The particular gripe I have (being the topic of this post) is that Gary was interested in many things and offered a whole bunch of ideas, and many who had less interest in history than Gygax took it up, including issues of fantasy religion. SO originally D&D introduced clerics as a character modeled on western medieval fighting clergy and martial orders like the Templars and Hospitalars. They were clearly modeled on the Roman Catholic Church with the spells and prohibitions that one would expect of such cinematic versions of those fighting priests. But with the advent of Deities and Demigods, bunches of pagan pantheons come into play, only the gods of those religions are merely treated the same as saints in the Catholic scheme, while the worldview does not cross over. Furthermore, there is no game mechanic for encouraging anything theologic for the cleric's motives, so religion is pretty squishy in D&D and most fantasy games of that kind.
I contend that the problem, is that Christianity is a huge anomaly in it's view of God, sin, origins, teleology, and ethics compared to anything that came before. Buddhism is the only thing that comes close, and it is problematic for other reasons. If you are going to make a fantasy religion for a game, it should have something that it answers about spiritual life, not merely what temporal powers it can give you to smite others. It should answer one or more of the following questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What has gone wrong and why?
What do we do to live with that?
What happens to us after we die?
Not all real world religions handle all of these, but they should only believably exist when they answer some. They should also, in general, provide some useful benefit to society in general, including moral, ethical, and social grounding and unity. Anything that does not serve long term social value is unlikely to survive. Cthulhu mythos cults may crop up here and there, but such nihilistic stuff does not build, but destroys.
This all in mind, here is an idea that comes to me for a pagan religion that is both very alien in flavor from the Roman Catholic model, but does both offer a social benefit, as well as answering some of the spiritual questions. There is even a schismatic, heretical sub-cult.
Here is a sample of a realistic pagan religion, rooted in actual real world sects. They are very different in worldview from the modern west, but they are heavily modeled on real religion nonetheless.
Beliefs and Practices
A soul in fear, anger, hatred, greed, and obsession ("The Five Follies" at death will not find rest and will become a devil spirit.
To insure peace at death, one must learn to become free of The Five Follies.
This is done through a process of increasing asceticism, and confrontation with and embrace of taboo practices.
- They begin by living in cemataries, with initiates assuming the duties of grave diggers, and pall bearers, and those who accept and handle offerings for the dead
- Novices assist with mortuary duties - cleaning the corpses, preparing food offerings for the sect, excarnation (defleshing) of cadavers, and preparing ritual meals for the priests
- Priests perform ceremonies of pacification, inscribe the prayers on cadavers before defleshing, inscribe and bind the bones for burial, and burn what parts remain in order to collect the ash which they bless for ritual use
- High Priests spend most of their time in meditation, but do perform the rituals of pacification for the whole of the cemataries, and occasionally venture out to perform the binding of unquiet ghosts which they keep in spirit jars which they prepare and keep in the center of the communities
Initiates to the order are distinguished by their brown robes and shawls, their shaved heads, and the ceremonial shovels which they keep. This is the last time they will ever cut their hair.
Novices take gray robes, and begin to learn the inscriptions which they practice scribing with ink made of grave ash, lime, and resin onto their fellow novice's skin.
Priests receive their white robe - the last article of clothing they will ever wear. It will never be repaired or replaced. They begin to confront taboos more aggressively. They begin to practice ritual cannibalism, sleep a night with corpses before final processing, and begin to live more and more removed from daily affairs. They craft the skull bowls from which the order eats, drinks, and receives alms. They may be called out to do healings when other medicine fails, acting as "sin eaters" who take the wounds ritually upon themselves.
High priests have little contact outside the sect, and largely live in meditation, naked, covered in grave ash. They seek to destroy any fear and break every taboo to free their souls for the passage into death. The final barrier is denial of even food and water, sustaining themselves only on the flesh and blood of their own bodies in a ritual fashion. They prepare a final meal of their own flesh for those Priests that they choose to replace them. Their bodies are not defleshed or cremated, but are buried in ash pits to mummify. The new High Priests will eventually exhume the mummies, and place them in the Halls of Memory - catacombs below cemataries where the living priests may from time to time consult the dead through the mummies.
Schismatic Sect
A heretical branch practices more proactive rituals. They may actively go out at ritual high holy days to find those they have been observing as exemplary of individuals bound to the Five Follies, and ritualistically murder them. They perform ritual cannibalism, and then bind the ghosts into spirit jars in order to proactively prevent them from doing mischief in the future. They may also actively seek out haunted communities to perform exorcisms (spirit binding) for money, and possibly use captive spirits from previous victims to create haunted places. They also offer curses for money, and proactively seek to practice unspeakable rites, breaking taboos to speed their own ways to release from the Five Follies.
----------
Some other seeds of ideas:
A goddess of fertility, motherhood, and a tutelary household deity (surely a primary goddess for that society) calls all new brides to receive blessings by serving for a day as temple prostitutes (inspiration: Ishtar/Astarte)
A grain and harvest god of fertility and the fields, who also serves as a tutelary god protecting territory in a defensive war capacity calls for a spring sacrifice to consecrate the fields before planting by raising a chosen young man on a stake over the field who will serve as the vessel for the god to protect the field from ravage by beast or man; a bride is offered after harvest in thanks to the god for abundance (inspiration: several pagan religions, though not like any particular one)
-----------
Now these are not particularly savory notions to those who enjoy the ripples of Roman Catholic virtues, but they are more realistic in that they offer a perceived service to the continuation of the society, and imply some ideas about the relationships between god and man, god and land. Perhaps I will write more on this.
Hardcore History
THIS is a really cool podcast.
I have been listening to the World War I series, and he is both a thorough and engaging host. The material is both dense, and each show tops 3 HOURS, so I have only begun part II after listening and re-listening to part I three times over the past couple weeks.
I have done a lot of reading and studying about WWII in the last couple years, so I am looking forward to getting a better grasp of the details of WWI. WWII is a gigantic subject, and I first got really hooked on it watching Band of Brothers, and listening to the audio book of The War multiple times driving between Augusta and Montgomery. I have had arguments about the generation that fought and came out of that era, and whether they really deserve the appellation "The Greatest Generation" or not... I am still persuaded they do. I think that while that generation may not have been led by as concentrated a pool of talent, genius, and moral thought as the Revolutionary War generation, WW II was still perhaps THE most devastating war in the history of the world. The generation that fought it was still composed of people who were grouchy, selfish, isolationist, racist, and whatever else you want to call them, that crucible was unlike any other in scope and heat. The rough ore that went in came out refined in a remarkable way.
Perhaps I will change my mind after studying WW I. Perhaps not.
I am also reading (very slowly, I confess) A Distant Mirror, being the accounting of the calamity of Europe in the 14th century. This was a horrible, horrible quagmire of civilization through the serial wars, insurrections, plagues, and schisms religious and secular that colored that period in red. Even this period, I think was not as pivotal in history as WW II. But again, fascinating read.
Anyway, good stuff history. Like a gluttonous feast for the imagination!
I have been listening to the World War I series, and he is both a thorough and engaging host. The material is both dense, and each show tops 3 HOURS, so I have only begun part II after listening and re-listening to part I three times over the past couple weeks.
I have done a lot of reading and studying about WWII in the last couple years, so I am looking forward to getting a better grasp of the details of WWI. WWII is a gigantic subject, and I first got really hooked on it watching Band of Brothers, and listening to the audio book of The War multiple times driving between Augusta and Montgomery. I have had arguments about the generation that fought and came out of that era, and whether they really deserve the appellation "The Greatest Generation" or not... I am still persuaded they do. I think that while that generation may not have been led by as concentrated a pool of talent, genius, and moral thought as the Revolutionary War generation, WW II was still perhaps THE most devastating war in the history of the world. The generation that fought it was still composed of people who were grouchy, selfish, isolationist, racist, and whatever else you want to call them, that crucible was unlike any other in scope and heat. The rough ore that went in came out refined in a remarkable way.
Perhaps I will change my mind after studying WW I. Perhaps not.
I am also reading (very slowly, I confess) A Distant Mirror, being the accounting of the calamity of Europe in the 14th century. This was a horrible, horrible quagmire of civilization through the serial wars, insurrections, plagues, and schisms religious and secular that colored that period in red. Even this period, I think was not as pivotal in history as WW II. But again, fascinating read.
Anyway, good stuff history. Like a gluttonous feast for the imagination!
24 August, 2016
Infuriating Perfectionism...
Infuriating as it is, as much as I am aware of it, it is still perhaps my biggest creative hurdle...
Perfectionism is paralysis. I go through ever longer lengths of not writing, even though this blog project was started as an attempt to have a creative play-space. But what happens, is I find myself ever more wanting to wait till I know exactly what I want to say, and am satisfied with it.
And so I don't write anything.
It makes one want to scream... or weep... or sigh and forget...
Perfection is in production. That is something I know, but still have such a hard time trusting in. I know not why.
But at least here is something and not nothing for at least today.
Perfectionism is paralysis. I go through ever longer lengths of not writing, even though this blog project was started as an attempt to have a creative play-space. But what happens, is I find myself ever more wanting to wait till I know exactly what I want to say, and am satisfied with it.
And so I don't write anything.
It makes one want to scream... or weep... or sigh and forget...
Perfection is in production. That is something I know, but still have such a hard time trusting in. I know not why.
But at least here is something and not nothing for at least today.
12 August, 2016
What Value Fantasy?...
Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using escape in this way the critics have chosen the wrong word, and, what is more, they are confusing, not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter.
--J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories
04 August, 2016
Pollyanna And The Goblins (revised)
Once upon a time, there was a pleasant young girl named Pollyanna. She found herself in an orphanage one Christmas, and she was the last one to get a gift out of the charity barrel. Though she was hoping for a beautiful doll like the one she'd seen in the shop window, all she actually found was a pair of crutches. She was at first sad, because what did she need crutches for? But then she remembered what her wonderful Dad had taught her long ago... always find something good about every situation you are in. Then she cheered up, because the crutches reminded her how glad she was that she didn't need them.
And then the goblins came to burn down the orphanage...
* * * * * * * * *
This is a game in which players take turns as goblins putting Pollyanna into a jamb... until Pollyanna gets out. But being a sweet and positive child, she does not fight goblins with bloody violence... she fights back with optimism!
SETUP
Each player will have as many tokens as there are players. A stack of index cards will be shared by all.
The most disgruntled player will be the goblin chief the first round, and the player to their left will begin as Pollyanna.
Each player will take one turn playing Pollyanna while the other players play the goblins that turn. After each time that a player acts as Pollyanna, the role of Pollyanna passes to that player's left. After everyone has had one turn each as Pollyanna, the game will conclude. There is a little more to the structure, but this is the basic structure of the game.
The players, beginning with the first round Pollyanna, will ("Hope" at http://redreevgeorge.deviantart.com/)
frame the story, determining the stakes, the locations that
Pollyanna must traverse to deal with the goblins, and the first
hazard the goblins inflict upon Pollyanna and the orphanage.
FRAMING THE STORY
Pollyanna will begin by describing the scene, answering each of these questions briefly but colorfully:
1) What time is it? The time of year, and the hour included.
2) Where in the orphanage is Pollyanna? Write this on an index card with the time.
3) What is Pollyanna doing?
THE STAKES
Next, the player who begins as the chief goblin will begin listing the stakes - those things which Pollyanna must defend, or recover. The goblins will each list one stake, each of which Pollyanna may make a single modification to if she likes. The goblins will answer the following questions when naming the stakes:
1) What is at stake? This can be another orphan, a birthday cake, or any other concrete thing.
2) Where is that located in the orphanage? Write the location on an index card, with the stake noted beneath. The things at stake should be things that Pollyanna will really care about enough to go after.
3) How do you get there from where Pollyanna is? This path should include no more than three elements. For example, "down the hall, up the stairs to the attic, and in the wardrobe on the left". Briefly note this on the card, and place the card adjacent to Pollyanna's card in relation more or less to her location.
GOBLIN TROUBLE
The chief goblin will now describe the way in which goblin mischief begins. He can name one particular fact that will cause Pollyanna trouble, and will put a token on a location working from the point farthest from her. The troublesome fact can be anything that the devious goblin chooses relating to the location, or something that the Goblin has chosen to bring to the mayhem. For example, suppose the Goblin places a token on a location noted to be "The Kitchen". He may with his token declare that he is putting a dead coyote in the stove. The fact introduced by the token is the dead coyote, and it is in a kitchen so of course there is a stove which requires no token to declare.
AND WORSE GOBLIN TROUBLE
The next goblin to act continues in kind to declare mischief with a token, either making the previous trouble worse, or moving inward to a new location, placing a token on that card, and declaring a new fact. For example, the second goblin may place a second token in The Kitchen, declaring "...with your birthday cake..." which is a fact that aggravates the first fact. Alternatively, he may choose to place a token on the next card called, let's say, "The Dining Room", and declare that he has lit all the candles in the room.
After placing a token, the goblin notes the fact briefly on the card (e.g. "dead coyote").
Troubles should can be pretty much anything the goblin chooses from the merely annoying such as defacing the founder's portrait, to the dangerously malicious like knocking over the lit candles onto the table cloth. Narrative and creative freedom are encouraged. The only stipulation, is that whatever trouble the goblins create, they cannot harm either Pollyanna, or any of the stakes in an immediate, direct, or permanent fashion. Anything else goes.
Pollyanna may act as well at this time, if she chooses. If at any point while the goblins are making mischief, Pollyanna decides that she does not like the fact laid down by a goblin, she can give one of her own tokens to the offending goblin, and modify the troublesome fact with a "...yes, but..." statement. She cannot nullify the fact entirely, but she can add a condition to it. For example, if the goblin in the Dining Room knocked over all the lit candles onto the tablecloth, Pollyanna might put a token in and say "...yes, but the table cloth is still wet from spilling all the sun tea on it at lunch". The wax will surely ruin the table cloth, but it won't be catching fire.
GOBLINS AND STAKES
Goblins may choose to make mischief in a way that potentially threatens the stake, as long as they recall that they may not harm the stakes in an immediate, direct, or permanent fashion. If for instance, Pollyanna's birthday cake is in the oven, the dead coyote cannot be used to smash the cake directly, nor may they eat it (though licking the frosting with their nasty tongues is just fine), and the rotting coyote carcass inside with it will not immediately ruin the cake, but Pollyanna must certainly act fast or it soon will spoil the cake.
POLLYANNA'S TURN
After each goblin has had a chance to make mischief, Pollyanna gets her turn. With an indomitable optimism, Pollyanna now has the opportunity to observe and declare ways that any mischief the goblins make is actually helpful to her, and harmful to them.
She gets to make one optimistic declaration for every goblin in play on her turn. This declaration directly addresses any particular trouble of her choice. She may declare one optimistic fact for each goblin for free (that is, she does not have to give a token to that goblin). The new fact is noted on the card below the previous one. For example, she will begin by saying something like, "well even though the goblins put the dead coyote in the oven with my birthday cake, at least my cake was on the top rack". This is helpful to her, though not particularly harmful to the goblin cause.
However, just like the goblins, Pollyanna can add facts to facts that she has already declared. Unlike her initial declarations though, she must give a token to the goblin who made the mischief before she can add a second declaration to the first. For example, if she noted that her birthday cake was on the top rack, and then decided to add "...and I'm really lucky that the smell of warm chocolate cake is irresistible". Then she gives the goblin who put the dead coyote in the oven a token.
When Pollyanna makes a declaration that is both helpful to her, and bad for the goblins, she may take that trouble token. If Pollyanna had declared "...the luckiest part is that now, the goblins are fighting among themselves over who gets to eat the cake..." she will have made a declaration helpful to her ("top rack" because it keeps her cake safe), and harmful to the goblins ("fighting among themselves over cake"). She gets to take the trouble token for her own use, and then mark a line through cake on the card, which now makes it safe from further mischief.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS HAD A TURN
All tokens not in play on cards are now passed to the left, and the player to Pollyanna's left becomes the new Pollyanna. Play proceeds from the last point as described.
GETTING RID OF THE GOBLINS
On the last round, when the last player to play Pollyanna takes her turn, any tokens in hand can be used to add facts that may conclusively defeat goblins, by spending one token at a time per fact. The facts must all build on already established facts to be valid. For example, Pollyanna has previously declared that the goblins are fighting over the cake in the kitchen, so she might now spend a token to declare "...and I sure am glad that all that fighting made the littlest goblin decide to go home!" which effectively removes the goblin from play.
The only way the goblin may counter this at this point, is if he still has a token in hand, and decides to use it to make a "...yes, but..." declaration. For example, the littlest goblin player may have decided to go home, but spending that token could declare "...yes, I've decided this fighting makes me want to go home, but only after the chief goblin goes first...", or "yes, I've decided to go home in a huff, but not until I've gobbled the cake...".
WINNING
Pollyanna wins under the following conditions:
1) All of her stakes have been lined out of play
2) None of the goblins have any tokens left, and none are in play on cards (all are in Pollyanna's hand)
The goblins win under the following conditions:
1) Pollyanna fails to preserve any of her stakes before all tokens are in play
2) Pollyanna has no tokens in hand, and she has failed to protect all of her stakes
* * * * * * * * *
This is a game in which players take turns as goblins putting Pollyanna into a jamb... until Pollyanna gets out. But being a sweet and positive child, she does not fight goblins with bloody violence... she fights back with optimism!
SETUP
Each player will have as many tokens as there are players. A stack of index cards will be shared by all.
The most disgruntled player will be the goblin chief the first round, and the player to their left will begin as Pollyanna.
Each player will take one turn playing Pollyanna while the other players play the goblins that turn. After each time that a player acts as Pollyanna, the role of Pollyanna passes to that player's left. After everyone has had one turn each as Pollyanna, the game will conclude. There is a little more to the structure, but this is the basic structure of the game.
The players, beginning with the first round Pollyanna, will ("Hope" at http://redreevgeorge.deviantart.com/)
frame the story, determining the stakes, the locations that
Pollyanna must traverse to deal with the goblins, and the first
hazard the goblins inflict upon Pollyanna and the orphanage.
FRAMING THE STORY
Pollyanna will begin by describing the scene, answering each of these questions briefly but colorfully:
1) What time is it? The time of year, and the hour included.
2) Where in the orphanage is Pollyanna? Write this on an index card with the time.
3) What is Pollyanna doing?
THE STAKES
Next, the player who begins as the chief goblin will begin listing the stakes - those things which Pollyanna must defend, or recover. The goblins will each list one stake, each of which Pollyanna may make a single modification to if she likes. The goblins will answer the following questions when naming the stakes:
1) What is at stake? This can be another orphan, a birthday cake, or any other concrete thing.
2) Where is that located in the orphanage? Write the location on an index card, with the stake noted beneath. The things at stake should be things that Pollyanna will really care about enough to go after.
3) How do you get there from where Pollyanna is? This path should include no more than three elements. For example, "down the hall, up the stairs to the attic, and in the wardrobe on the left". Briefly note this on the card, and place the card adjacent to Pollyanna's card in relation more or less to her location.
GOBLIN TROUBLE
The chief goblin will now describe the way in which goblin mischief begins. He can name one particular fact that will cause Pollyanna trouble, and will put a token on a location working from the point farthest from her. The troublesome fact can be anything that the devious goblin chooses relating to the location, or something that the Goblin has chosen to bring to the mayhem. For example, suppose the Goblin places a token on a location noted to be "The Kitchen". He may with his token declare that he is putting a dead coyote in the stove. The fact introduced by the token is the dead coyote, and it is in a kitchen so of course there is a stove which requires no token to declare.
AND WORSE GOBLIN TROUBLE
The next goblin to act continues in kind to declare mischief with a token, either making the previous trouble worse, or moving inward to a new location, placing a token on that card, and declaring a new fact. For example, the second goblin may place a second token in The Kitchen, declaring "...with your birthday cake..." which is a fact that aggravates the first fact. Alternatively, he may choose to place a token on the next card called, let's say, "The Dining Room", and declare that he has lit all the candles in the room.
After placing a token, the goblin notes the fact briefly on the card (e.g. "dead coyote").
Troubles should can be pretty much anything the goblin chooses from the merely annoying such as defacing the founder's portrait, to the dangerously malicious like knocking over the lit candles onto the table cloth. Narrative and creative freedom are encouraged. The only stipulation, is that whatever trouble the goblins create, they cannot harm either Pollyanna, or any of the stakes in an immediate, direct, or permanent fashion. Anything else goes.
Pollyanna may act as well at this time, if she chooses. If at any point while the goblins are making mischief, Pollyanna decides that she does not like the fact laid down by a goblin, she can give one of her own tokens to the offending goblin, and modify the troublesome fact with a "...yes, but..." statement. She cannot nullify the fact entirely, but she can add a condition to it. For example, if the goblin in the Dining Room knocked over all the lit candles onto the tablecloth, Pollyanna might put a token in and say "...yes, but the table cloth is still wet from spilling all the sun tea on it at lunch". The wax will surely ruin the table cloth, but it won't be catching fire.
GOBLINS AND STAKES
Goblins may choose to make mischief in a way that potentially threatens the stake, as long as they recall that they may not harm the stakes in an immediate, direct, or permanent fashion. If for instance, Pollyanna's birthday cake is in the oven, the dead coyote cannot be used to smash the cake directly, nor may they eat it (though licking the frosting with their nasty tongues is just fine), and the rotting coyote carcass inside with it will not immediately ruin the cake, but Pollyanna must certainly act fast or it soon will spoil the cake.
POLLYANNA'S TURN
After each goblin has had a chance to make mischief, Pollyanna gets her turn. With an indomitable optimism, Pollyanna now has the opportunity to observe and declare ways that any mischief the goblins make is actually helpful to her, and harmful to them.
She gets to make one optimistic declaration for every goblin in play on her turn. This declaration directly addresses any particular trouble of her choice. She may declare one optimistic fact for each goblin for free (that is, she does not have to give a token to that goblin). The new fact is noted on the card below the previous one. For example, she will begin by saying something like, "well even though the goblins put the dead coyote in the oven with my birthday cake, at least my cake was on the top rack". This is helpful to her, though not particularly harmful to the goblin cause.
However, just like the goblins, Pollyanna can add facts to facts that she has already declared. Unlike her initial declarations though, she must give a token to the goblin who made the mischief before she can add a second declaration to the first. For example, if she noted that her birthday cake was on the top rack, and then decided to add "...and I'm really lucky that the smell of warm chocolate cake is irresistible". Then she gives the goblin who put the dead coyote in the oven a token.
When Pollyanna makes a declaration that is both helpful to her, and bad for the goblins, she may take that trouble token. If Pollyanna had declared "...the luckiest part is that now, the goblins are fighting among themselves over who gets to eat the cake..." she will have made a declaration helpful to her ("top rack" because it keeps her cake safe), and harmful to the goblins ("fighting among themselves over cake"). She gets to take the trouble token for her own use, and then mark a line through cake on the card, which now makes it safe from further mischief.
AFTER EVERYONE HAS HAD A TURN
All tokens not in play on cards are now passed to the left, and the player to Pollyanna's left becomes the new Pollyanna. Play proceeds from the last point as described.
GETTING RID OF THE GOBLINS
On the last round, when the last player to play Pollyanna takes her turn, any tokens in hand can be used to add facts that may conclusively defeat goblins, by spending one token at a time per fact. The facts must all build on already established facts to be valid. For example, Pollyanna has previously declared that the goblins are fighting over the cake in the kitchen, so she might now spend a token to declare "...and I sure am glad that all that fighting made the littlest goblin decide to go home!" which effectively removes the goblin from play.
The only way the goblin may counter this at this point, is if he still has a token in hand, and decides to use it to make a "...yes, but..." declaration. For example, the littlest goblin player may have decided to go home, but spending that token could declare "...yes, I've decided this fighting makes me want to go home, but only after the chief goblin goes first...", or "yes, I've decided to go home in a huff, but not until I've gobbled the cake...".
WINNING
Pollyanna wins under the following conditions:
1) All of her stakes have been lined out of play
2) None of the goblins have any tokens left, and none are in play on cards (all are in Pollyanna's hand)
The goblins win under the following conditions:
1) Pollyanna fails to preserve any of her stakes before all tokens are in play
2) Pollyanna has no tokens in hand, and she has failed to protect all of her stakes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)