Quote from: Arminius;730908Adric, I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood practically everything I've written.

Sorry about that! I'm not sure what you were trying to say then...

That's okay. I haven't seen too many of your posts but I think you're a good guy. You just seem to come at things from a very different perspective and without much background in the great RPG debates. There are essays, particularly by Gleichman and Justin Alexander, that summarize the issues fairly well, but they also anger some people and attract trolls.

The key thing to grapple with is whether there's a distinction between abstraction and metagame (Justin's term: dissociated).

This might help on specifically why mechanics are more necessary for some activities than others, but you might need to back up for more context.

Quote from: Arminius;730916That's okay. I haven't seen too many of your posts but I think you're a good guy. You just seem to come at things from a very different perspective and without much background in the great RPG debates. There are essays, particularly by Gleichman and Justin Alexander, that summarize the issues fairly well, but they also anger some people and attract trolls.

The key thing to grapple with is whether there's a distinction between abstraction and metagame (Justin's term: dissociated).

This might help on specifically why mechanics are more necessary for some activities than others, but you might need to back up for more context.

I think we do have different backgrounds and priorities for our gaming, which is cool. I don't particularly have a dog in the race for either side of the fence on the debate or edition wars, though I prefer smaller, faster playing and sometimes "fruitier" games.

As a player, I don't really find viewing the action from an external point from my character disassociative or a disconnect from the shared imaginary space or the game itself. It's just another tool my friends and I use to share ideas and play.

Neither do I find maintaining in character tedious when talking about the imaginary space - addressing players by their character names, seeking the players' input by asking them "what have you heard about X?"

Both are fun ways to play.

By meta game, do you mean meta-knowledge in general, or characters acting on knowledge only the player would have? If the second, do you mean acting on knowledge of off-camera events the character would not be party to, the players' understanding of the rules, or both?  

I read through your other post regarding dogs in the vineyard, but I still think that mechanics can be used to abstractly represent and resolve conflicts of any nature, and how they do so can be used to evoke certain genres. Are emotional responses not as autonomic as physical muscle memory?

Quote from: Mistwell;730911Would you just fucking say what you mean already Vulmea? Jesus you and the dancing around overly polite mamby pamby bullshit.

I am Jack's raging bile duct.

Quote from: Adric;730941As a player, I don't really find viewing the action from an external point from my character disassociative or a disconnect from the shared imaginary space or the game itself. It's just another tool my friends and I use to share ideas and play.

See, "dissociative" has been proposed to mean exactly "from an external point of view from my character", so you can see the difficulty having a discussion when fundamental semantic or conceptual issues have to be revisited.

QuoteBy meta game, do you mean meta-knowledge in general, or characters acting on knowledge only the player would have? If the second, do you mean acting on knowledge of off-camera events the character would not be party to, the players' understanding of the rules, or both?

Here we're talking about rules. That could be included in a broader discussion with "off camera action" but it's easier to focus on rules and more pertinent to the immediate discussion.

The key thing that I want to get across is that even though all rules structures exist outside the game world, visible only to players and GM, some of them have straightforward mappings to the game-world in a manner that makes the player-mechanic relationship (within the medium of thought, speech, and manipulation of tokens such as dice) analogous to the character-physics relationship (within a physical world). For example if I try to hit a target with an arrow, I just announce my intention and have a go by rolling dice; the character forms the intention and shoots. The calculation of my target number or whatever, addition of modifiers, counting pips, etc., are purely procedural, and don't involve any decisions that are different from what the character thinks. To a very large extent, the player could just "say what they're doing" and the GM would be able to translate that unambiguously into mechanics.

On the other hand there are rules structures that can't be mapped between the real world and the game world while maintaining the same interaction between player POV and character POV. Suppose we have a rule that says I can declare a relationship with an NPC I meet, once per day. Over the course of a day I might meet a number of people, but while the player has to consciously decide when to invoke the rule, the character has no way of doing so. If the player was simply describing what their character does, the GM would not be able to determine when the rule should be invoked except if the player specifically refers to the rule. The rule is both abstract and metagame.

QuoteI read through your other post regarding dogs in the vineyard, but I still think that mechanics can be used to abstractly represent and resolve conflicts of any nature, and how they do so can be used to evoke certain genres. Are emotional responses not as autonomic as physical muscle memory?

Rules can be used to abstractly represent all kinds of conflict, but they must be used for situations that don't cross media--like representing a fight through a conversation. In a sense, they're a necessary evil. They do have some payoffs beyond just allowing translation, such as allowing players to have characters with abilities different from theirs, but there is a cost in terms of immediacy that many participants are aware of if they compare the alternatives.

Your point about emotional responses is well taken. Certainly, in games where you wish to strongly emphasize the struggle for self-control, where there's a sense of separation between intellect and emotion, a mechanic for representing that can be helpful. But emotional responses aren't as hard to translate as physical actions. Players get angry at NPCs, for example; they form emotional attachments to NPCs, objects, places in the game world. These emotions are often tied up with their own characters' emotions, so the analogous relationship exists.

Now, there are problems in practice. It's very hard to fast-talk a PC or have them succumb to seduction--gullibility and lust are things that people seem to be actively or passively resistant to, in the real-world social context of playing an RPG. Mechanics can help these things along--an NPC could roll to swindle or bed a PC, or you can bribe the player with bennies, and I think in terms of "narrative verisimilitude" there can be a payoff. But there's a cost that's often felt, too. Resistance to these mechanics is often diagnosed as "a reluctance to give up control of one's character", but I think it has more to do with the meta-game angle--"if I'm not interested in that NPC then I'm not interested in that NPC". (The first "I" is the player, the second "I" is the character.)

Quote from: Arminius;730971Rules can be used to abstractly represent all kinds of conflict, but they must be used for situations that don't cross media--like representing a fight through a conversation. In a sense, they're a necessary evil. They do have some payoffs beyond just allowing translation, such as allowing players to have characters with abilities different from theirs, but there is a cost in terms of immediacy that many participants are aware of if they compare the alternatives.

An argument is a conflict that uses sets of skills - reason, persuasion, intelligence, stubbornness, etc. The character's argumentative skills can, and often do, deviate from the player. You mentioned that when the character's abilities and resources deviate from the player's, rules can help smooth over that and resolve or advance the conflict.

If the game has no rules (or weak rules) for resolving an argument between two characters, the players will often 'roleplay it out' which can rely on their real world argumentative skill - either pretending to be the characters and arguing about the issue, or as the players, arguing about what your characters would do, or a combination of the two.

This can be fun, but you don't need the game to resolve it. If your game isn't interested in getting people to agree with you or advancing your agenda through winning arguments, and is more interested in, say, killing things and taking their stuff, then using either a quick rule or just roleplaying out parts where your character has to convince someone of their point of view is fine. If your game is about arguing, you need rules for your character's ability to argue, and they need to be satisfying to use.

Quote from: Arminius;730971Your point about emotional responses is well taken. Certainly, in games where you wish to strongly emphasize the struggle for self-control, where there's a sense of separation between intellect and emotion, a mechanic for representing that can be helpful. But emotional responses aren't as hard to translate as physical actions. Players get angry at NPCs, for example; they form emotional attachments to NPCs, objects, places in the game world. These emotions are often tied up with their own characters' emotions, so the analogous relationship exists.

Now, there are problems in practice. It's very hard to fast-talk a PC or have them succumb to seduction--gullibility and lust are things that people seem to be actively or passively resistant to, in the real-world social context of playing an RPG. Mechanics can help these things along--an NPC could roll to swindle or bed a PC, or you can bribe the player with bennies, and I think in terms of "narrative verisimilitude" there can be a payoff. But there's a cost that's often felt, too. Resistance to these mechanics is often diagnosed as "a reluctance to give up control of one's character", but I think it has more to do with the meta-game angle--"if I'm not interested in that NPC then I'm not interested in that NPC". (The first "I" is the player, the second "I" is the character.)

The character's emotions and intentions can run parallel to the player's, but there are games where the two can deviate, which is necessary, otherwise there's a lot of D&D players out there who would be murderous sociopaths if they were given enough power and freedom from negative consequence. You can play someone smarter than you, or less intelligent, more or less aggressive, more or less paranoid, more or less vulnerable, a different gender, a different species, something that has vastly divergent values, abilities, and goals from yourself. Roleplaying doesn't just have to be about exploring different worlds, it can be about exploring different people as well.

Quote from: Adric;731060This can be fun, but you don't need the game to resolve it. If your game isn't interested in getting people to agree with you or advancing your agenda through winning arguments, and is more interested in, say, killing things and taking their stuff, then using either a quick rule or just roleplaying out parts where your character has to convince someone of their point of view is fine. If your game is about arguing, you need rules for your character's ability to argue, and they need to be satisfying to use.

But...so what if you don't need a game (rules, I assume you mean) to resolve a conversation? It's done both as a leisure activity and as a training exercise. You're simply making a bunch of assertions about what's needed without reflecting on whether that's really true or simply a preference. The classic game of convincing people is Diplomacy. Ever played it?

QuoteThe character's emotions and intentions can run parallel to the player's, but there are games where the two can deviate, which is necessary, otherwise there's a lot of D&D players out there who would be murderous sociopaths if they were given enough power and freedom from negative consequence.

"Can" and "Can"--but not must. Again, you're imputing a preference as a necessity. Although frankly you need to expand on the second part of your sentence.

QuoteYou can play someone smarter than you, or less intelligent, more or less aggressive, more or less paranoid, more or less vulnerable, a different gender, a different species, something that has vastly divergent values, abilities, and goals from yourself. Roleplaying doesn't just have to be about exploring different worlds, it can be about exploring different people as well.

"Doesn't have to be"--but can be. The fact is that making a PC subject to social mechanics requires thinking outside the character. Some people like that, some don't, some enjoy changing up. The fact that it offers certain benefits doesn't affect the stance it requires the player to take vis a vis character's mental state. Once you grasp that there's a difference you can see that people enjoy different things for quite good reasons.

Quote from: Adric;730941As a player, I don't really find viewing the action from an external point from my character disassociative or a disconnect from the shared imaginary space or the game itself. It's just another tool my friends and I use to share ideas and play.

Disassociative refers to a psychiatric condition. "Disassociative mechanics" is a phrase which really doesn't seem to mean much of anything. (At best it can be used to idiosyncratically refer to a personal mental reaction to a particular type of mechanic.)

Dissociated mechanics, OTOH, refers to mechanics which are separated from the game world.

"Disassociated" can, in some usages, be treated as a synonym for "dissociated", but I have noted that as soon as someone mistakes "dissociated mechanics" for disassociated mechanics it usually takes about three posts before people are talking about mechanics creative "dissassociation" for them (which is, at best, completely tangential to what the actual term is talking about).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;731101Disassociative refers to a psychiatric condition. "Disassociative mechanics" is a phrase which really doesn't seem to mean much of anything. (At best it can be used to idiosyncratically refer to a personal mental reaction to a particular type of mechanic.)

Dissociated mechanics, OTOH, refers to mechanics which are separated from the game world.

"Disassociated" can, in some usages, be treated as a synonym for "dissociated", but I have noted that as soon as someone mistakes "dissociated mechanics" for disassociated mechanics it usually takes about three posts before people are talking about mechanics creative "dissassociation" for them (which is, at best, completely tangential to what the actual term is talking about).

Thanks for the clarification! I definitely meant dissociated.

Quote from: Arminius;731069But...so what if you don't need a game (rules, I assume you mean) to resolve a conversation? It's done both as a leisure activity and as a training exercise. You're simply making a bunch of assertions about what's needed without reflecting on whether that's really true or simply a preference. The classic game of convincing people is Diplomacy. Ever played it?

My preferences aside, what I'm saying is that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules.

I read the Diplomacy phase of Diplomacy, and it sounds a lot like the basics of Game Theory. Diplomacy sounds more like a board game where the players are using their own wits to compete with each other, as opposed to playing characters with their own personalities. A lot of the social dynamics in these sorts of game can be seen in the extremely entertaining korean reality game show The Genius: Rules of the Game.

Quote from: Arminius;731069"Can" and "Can"--but not must. Again, you're imputing a preference as a necessity. Although frankly you need to expand on the second part of your sentence.

Hmm, I was more suggesting that both were viable approaches to creating and relating to characters. I'd say I'm just an average person, so how do I convincingly portray someone more intelligent or more persuasive than I am if the system tells me to 'roleplay it out'?

The second sentence was more commentary that many characters in games will do some pretty horrific things within the game. I hope that the players of those sorts of sociopathic characters don't describe their character as "Pretty much they're me but super strong / a wizard" I'm being pretty facetious when I say that.

Quote from: Arminius;731069"Doesn't have to be"--but can be. The fact is that making a PC subject to social mechanics requires thinking outside the character. Some people like that, some don't, some enjoy changing up. The fact that it offers certain benefits doesn't affect the stance it requires the player to take vis a vis character's mental state. Once you grasp that there's a difference you can see that people enjoy different things for quite good reasons.

I thin I see the point you're making about how talking about taking a physical action, and talking about talking are different. And so long as a player's capabilities lie alongside their character's in a somewhat analogous fashion, it is easier to talk as your character and roleplay it out.  

If your character is less competent than you, you could 'dumb down' your roleplay to match their capabilities. When the character is more competent, though, then mechanics can be used to bridge the gap, whatever the disparity is. Whether it's an intellectual check, or some social mechanism.

within all this, of course is players' preference for what level of abstraction they enjoy. I'm definitely not stating that things 'must' be done a certain way, just pointing out alternative methods that are also viable.

"Must" martial conflict and social conflict be resolved using vastly different rules and levels of complexity within one system?

Quote from: Adric;731140My preferences aside, what I'm saying is that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules.

Right, like the bluffing rules in poker.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;731152Right, like the bluffing rules in poker.

There's some truth there, but I don't see it as absolute.

Yeah, there's no bluffing rules in poker, but bluffing is emergent from the rules that *are* there.  There's a lot of stuff in older D&D that isn't in "the rules" but emerges naturally from them.

On the other hand, it'd be a bit weird to claim that poker is really about the funny costumes that you have to wear to play, because that's not only not a rule, but it doesn't stem from any of the rules *at all*.  Sure, you could decide everybody's starting stake based on voting on their costumes, and call that "poker", and that might be how you play or how you get your fun from poker, but to claim that the costumes are an inherent part of poker would be pretty weird.

Quote from: Adric;731140My preferences aside, what I'm saying is that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules.

Rules are just one of the many options a designer has to "evoke" an experience. The designer will devote most of his word count to "evoke an experience. Sometimes that rules and mechanics and sometimes it isn't.

I share Black Vulmea's sentiment. Bluffing in Poker is not in the rules because it is a tactic that players discovered that can work.

I can design a combat system, and a system of managing armies and estates. Then write the rest of product is a long spiel about what the Ice of Song and Fire is about, the types of characters that inhabit it, their goals, their motivations, and the opportunities for adventure without a mechanic in sight.

Quote from: Adric;731140Diplomacy sounds more like a board game where the players are using their own wits to compete with each other, as opposed to playing characters with their own personalities.

What Jon Peterson has uncovered through newsletters, papers, and anecdotes is that players of Diplomacy were adopting characters with personalities different than own.

A lot of was just posturing and boasting. But as Diplomacy campaigns spread the same player would play differently depending on who he wanted to be for that particular campaign. One campaign he would keep his work and uphold agreements. In another campaign a character that was a dirty rat bastard.

And it just not anecdotes, Jon quoted from the newsletters themselves.

I will add that when it occurred my impression it was done not for the sake of the roleplaying itself like in RPG. It was done because the player picked a particular country with a particular leader and decided to act like the leader historically did during the campaign.
 

Quote from: Adric;731140Hmm, I was more suggesting that both were viable approaches to creating and relating to characters. I'd say I'm just an average person, so how do I convincingly portray someone more intelligent or more persuasive than I am if the system tells me to 'roleplay it out'?

If that the sum of the advice it would be a poorly designed system.

The gist of what I would be writing is that roleplaying characters with capabilities vastly different from the character requires the cooperation of the player and referee. That for best results the referee should judge the success of an action based on how well the player roleplays relative to himself. When I talk about this with people,

I give an example of a person who stutters and plays a urbane and smooth fast talker. In that particular case I listen to what he is saying more than how he is saying. With great intelligence, I pass notes and hints that give the player an edge over the other players with less intelligence.

I try to avoid rollplaying. If I use the dice it is to judge how exactly a bit of roleplaying comes across to the NPCs. For example I feel that the player persuaded the guy to sell him the horse at a good price but I have the player roll to see how the good price actually is. I.e. is REALLY good, just good, or just barely good.

Quote from: robiswrong;731201Yeah, there's no bluffing rules in poker, but bluffing is emergent from the rules that *are* there.  There's a lot of stuff in older D&D that isn't in "the rules" but emerges naturally from them.

Emergent strategies directly contradict the notion "that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;731281Emergent strategies directly contradict the notion "that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules."

Bluffing isn't something that emerges despite the rules, it emerges because of the rules (specifically the ones about hiding cards and revealing cards).  The whole point of vying games (a type of card game where you place wagers based on not knowing the value of cards) is that there are rules about when you get to find out what those cards are and what those cards are not.

Another reason not to use the example of bluffing rules not being in poker rules is that they were in the earliest publications of poker rules.  In a 1845 Hoyle publication, the game is even called "Bluff" and pretending to have cards you don't is spelled out right in the text.

EDIT:  Also, Vincent Baker agreed with your current position as early as 2005:

http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/119

My take on the Forge is that it was largely derailed by internet identity politics, just like the negative reaction to it.  It's 2014 and here we have a 60 page thread about it.  Some people are so invested in the fight that nothing anyone from the Forge has ever said or done can be [good/bad].  They'll deny that the rules can have an impact on play until they pass out from not breathing all because Ron Edwards once said something about that.

My take is that those at the Forge largely concentrated on focusing play on examining moral issues in play.  And I'm just not that interested in that.  It's not my thing.  All this focused mechanics and rules matter stuff may seem like the real ideas of the Forge, but I think they were just a means to an end, the exalt play about moral themes over other approaches.

Games designed by the better known Forge participants do what they intend to do.  Dogs In the Vineyard really does produce play about the things Baker wanted it to.  I just happen to not want to play games about that stuff.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;731281Emergent strategies directly contradict the notion "that whatever experiences a game is designed to evoke, those experiences will have the most robust rules."

You'd have to be pretty thick to not get how dumb that idea between quotation marks sounds right off the box when talking about games.