Fred Wolke

The manuscript is now bigger than can be posted here. I've put it on a Google Documents page, which I will share with interested parties if you're interested, just email me.

At the end of character creation, the players will have jokers that they haven't used yet.

This mechanic is intended to foster conflicts between PC's, and to give people goals to strive for, to create a tapestry of conflict in which the players can define their characters.

Here's what the jokers are for:

The players take turns, stating a scene that they want to see happen in the game.  They can name PC's or not.  Ideally, they should be fairly general in nature.

"Someone discovers a fourth pattern, associated with the sun rather than the moon."

"Deirdre and Corwin get married."  (Yeah, I know.)

"Blackburn emerges from the ruins of Garnath sworn to vengeance."

"One of the towers of Castle Amber collapses."

"One of us invades Rebma."

"A new king is crowned in Amber."

After stating the scene, the other players have an opportunity to second the scene.  A player seconds the scene by paying a joker to the game moderator (AKA "The Pattern").  The Pattern writes down the cool scene on a 3x5 card and paperclips the joker to it.  It is now a "Pivotal Scene"

Players may also veto a scene.  This is also done by paying a joker to the Pattern; the scene is removed, any jokers clipped to it are returned to their owners, and the player who suggested it goes to the end of the line.  The joker that was handed to the Pattern is added to the Pattern's pool of free jokers.  (free jokers are used elsewhere).

If the scene isn't seconded, then the player goes to the back of the line for another chance.

After everyone has had one scene seconded, then the Pattern reads off all the pivotal scenes, and the players vote for them with their remaining jokers (average one per player).  To vote for a scene, a player pays a joker to the Pattern, who clips it to the scene that received the vote.

Once all votes are cast, the Pattern ranks the scenes in order of number of votes.

Seconding or voting for a Pivotal Scene is a statement; "I care about what happens in that scene."

<<there's another few steps in here which I am skipping>>

Once play has started, if the event described in one of the Cool Scenes comes up as the subject of (or part of) a conflict between PC's, then the winner of that conflict is awarded the joker(s) that are clipped to that cool scene... but only if there are no other cool scenes that have FEWER jokers clipped to them.

This means that all the pivotal scenes with one joker must be played before all the pivotal scenes with two jokers; all the pivotal scenes with three jokers must be awarded before the pivotal scenes with four jokers can be awarded.

You can play a to a pivotal scene before its time comes... for example, if "One of us invades Rebma" has four jokers, that doesn't mean you can't invade Rebma before the lesser-ranked scenes are awarded; it just means that you won't get the award for it.  You'll have to invade AGAIN after it becomes eligible.

It's the Pattern's job to keep people aware of the scene level, and what has been awarded.

Jokers that are awarded by this mechanic become part of the character advancement mechanic.  This is not the only way to receive jokers.

As I've been working on this project (mostly headwork for the past couple weeks) I have slowly been coming to realize what it is that I'm making.

This is a game about self-actualization, about breaking free of the definitions imposed on the self by parents, siblings, school, job, etc. and really becoming a self-made person.

That's what happens to Corwin.

He starts off the book doing things because he knows (even in his amnesiac state) that that's how his kind do things.  He is defined by his family.  His father tells him to take the throne, and by gum he goes and tries it.

As the series goes on, Corwin starts doing things differently... playing the game by HIS rules, defying the family traditions, defining himself.

That's what this game is about.

During the trading period, your character is defined by the other players.  They offer you bits of history and personality, which you (the player) can accept or refuse but they're the only source of background you have at the beginning of the game.    Then, as the game goes on... you make that bundle of snips and snails and sugar and spice into a person.

Individuation.  That's what the books are about, and that's what the game is about.

Current Mood: energetic

Okay, I've got a first draft of the character creation section.  It wouldn't really fit in a post, so I put it in its own webpage.

You can find it here:

http://www.thesmerf.com/vaxalon/AmberS1.html

I held a micro-playtest with my friend Brenna last night.  We were trying out the conflict resolution rules.

Here's the short version of the rules.  They cover only 1-1 conflicts.  I have rules in my head for handling multi-character conflicts but that's not what we were trying out.

It's assumed that the two characters will not have exactly the same cards in their decks.

1>Someone starts the conflict.  He has initiative.  If noone wants to start and take initiative, then it's not a conflict yet.

2> The person with Initiative plays a card.  If the two characters are starting out at a distance, use psyche (diamonds).  Closer, use warfare (spades).  Touching, use strength (clubs).  Number cards only (2-10).  Cards that are in your deck backwards may not be used for any purpose.  You can't go from strength to psyche or psyche to strength in a single round.  This is an attack.  It is directed at one person.  He holds the card up and shows it to his target.

3> The character who is attacked must respond in the same suit, or else he is wounded.  Cards that are in your deck backwards may not be used.  He holds up a card indicating his response.

4> If the defender's card is higher than the attacker's, this is a REVERSAL.  The defender gains initiative and becomes the attacker.  Skip down to 9.

5> If the defender's card is equal to the attacker's, this is a PARRY.  The attacker retains initiative.  Skip down to 9.

6> If the defender's card is less than the attacker's, this is a PARTIAL DEFEAT.  The attacker retains initiative.  The defender is wounded, and must put flip a heart card (endurance) upside-down in his deck equal or greater than the difference between the two cards.  Skip down to 9.

7> If the defender has no more cards in his deck of the same suit, this is a MAJOR DEFEAT.  The attacker retains initiative.  The defender is wounded, and must put flip a heart card upside-down in his deck equal or greater than the attacker's card, and IN ADDITION must take one card of his choice from his pocket and put it in his deck backwards.  Skip down to 9.

8> If the defender has no more cards in his deck of the same suit and no more hearts, this is a COMPLETE DEFEAT.  The conflict is over, and the attacker wins.

9> Both players put the card they played (if any) in their pockets.

10> The player with initiative may call for a pause.  The opponent may veto the pause if he has a card he can play.  If the opponent agrees, then all cards in pockets are put back in their players respective decks.   If the opponent does not agree, then he gains initiative.  Exchange witty banter.  After the pause, if the player with initiative wishes to resume the fight, then go up to step 2.  If the player with intiative does not wish to fight, then the opponent may take initiative and resume the fight, go up to step 2.  If neither wishes to continue, then the combat is over with no winner.

I'm probably going to tweak psyche slightly, so that it covers both magic and technology.  It doesn't matter whether you're shooting someone with a spell or a cannon or a rifle, anything beyond a certain distance is a psyche battle.  Canon example: Corwin vs. Brand, Corwin wielding the JoJ and Brand with a crossbow.

The playtest went well.  The rules were grasped very quickly by Brenna, and we were able to discern a number of strategies.  The system was fast, and I can easily imagine a long conflict, a fight to the death, being played out in just a few minutes.  Players with a flair for the dramatic can mime swordplay with their cards, or narrate their actions.

The introductions have been made. I've started gathering information about what people think makes ADRP cool (because I want to preserve as much of that as possible) and what makes it suck.

My primary goal is to get rid of two things; GM fiat and the attribute auction. As far as I know, few if any people use the auction, and the 'judicial' conflict resolution system depends so heavily on the skill and fairness of the gamemaster that it is, in my opinion, a liability.  One of the design philosophies of this game is that 'system does matter'.  You can learn the basics of that philosophy here.  If you don't agree with it, we probably won't have much else to agree on. I've seen it in action and I'm impressed with the results.

One of the tools used to set out design goals and define what a game will look like is the "Power Nineteen."   These are a set of questions designed to make the designer think about important questions.  So here they are:

1.) What is your game about?**

Amber by the Cards is about the conflicts surrounding the most powerful family in the universe.

2.) What do the characters do?**

The characters struggle against each other and against mysterious forces from beyond their understanding, to define themselves, their relationships with each other, and defend those definitions.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

All but one of the players control the actions of one character, and possibly that character's friends and allies.  The remaining player, named "Chaos", presents challenges to those characters, in the form of characters, monsters, organizations, and forces that oppose them.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

It's more that the game reinforces what the setting is about.  This game takes one theme from the Amber novels (there are many) and places it center stage.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

In the process of creating characters, the players earn the right to describe the world that surrounds their characters.  They give them backgrounds, homes, loves and hates.  They define what the character cares about.  The character creation process is both cooperative and competitive, because the players trade resources (in the form of cards out of a standard 54-card pack) with each other in order to create strengths and weaknesses, and to increase the uncertainty that other players have about the character's capabilities.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

The game strongly encourages characters caring about things.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

The more a character cares about a person, place, or shadow, the more powerful it becomes, the more 'real'.  A shadow or person that has only been described in passing can be picked up and remolded again by any player character, whereas those that have a long association with a character are more firmly under its control.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

The right to narrate is distributed to those who have control over a particular shadow, or who is taking action in a conflict, or who wins it.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

Amber by the Cards asks players to create their character's world, at least in the small details.  Where he lives, who he is, what he does, is all under the player's control.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

Each player (except Chaos) has a single deck of cards that represent that character's resources, in terms of attributes (warfare, psyche, endurance, strength) allies (sisters, parentage, etc.) and in terms of powers (pattern, sorcery, artifacts).  In the course of resolving a conflict, they play those cards, in an attempt to force their opponent to choose between spending more resources than they are willing to spend, or admitting the stakes of the conflict.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

Players engage in conflicts in order to defend the people, places and things they care about, to create or acquire more, or to threaten those of others.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters advance by seeking out challenges posed by the Chaos player.  When such a challenge is defeated, the character earns another card for his deck.  These challenges can be quick and easy, or they can be long-term and highly rewarding.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Players engage in conflicts in order to defend the people, places and things they care about, to create or acquire more, or to threaten those of others.  (This one's easy, since the advancement mechanic is tied to the conflict mechanic)

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

I want Amber by the Cards to produce powerful statements about the nature of reality, the importance of family,

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Relationships play a big part of Amber by the Cards. 

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

It may very well be that this game is ideally suited to LARP play, possibly even a coordinated LARP community.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

Hey, GMless, competitive Amber.  That's untrodden ground.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

My goals are incremental.  First, I wish to distribute the game informally, via PDF.  I hope to get enough attention going to be able to swing a deal with Erick for the rights to publish.

19.) Who is your target audience?

Indie gamers dissatisfied with ADRP, and Amber fans who wish to break out of the GM-moderated mode.

My next post will be an outline.

I'm throwing this out there for you Game Designers to feed off of. I'm taking some half-formed ideas taken from other sites, combining them, rearranging them, and adding a few bits of my own. Feel free to steal it, pick bits off of it, whatever. I'm sure some of you will recognize where bits come from, but I'll mention "Universalis," "Nine Worlds," "Web of Shadows" and "Conquer the Horizon" as they're all clear antecedents.

This is a roleplaying game. It can be GMless or not, depending on how play goes. It has a bidding-based phase and a dice-based phase that could become intertwined.

Setup:
Put a large (legal sized or bigger) tablet of paper in the middle of the table. This is the "theme-web". Get a set of poker chips (the red, blue, white kind) and give three blue, six white, and three red chips to each player. Have a stack of 3x5 cards handy. Everyone needs a writing implement.

Phase 1: Setting-building

For this phase, the red chips are worth two, the white chips are worth three, and the blue chips are worth four. Players bid for the right to go first, starting at five. Maximum bid (because of the chip total) is thirty-six. Whoever wins the bid writes a single word in the center of the pad, puts his initials next to it, and puts his bid on top of that word.

Play passes to the left. For a player's turn, he may do one of the following things:

A: Validate an unvalidated word on the theme-web. Pick up the chips on that word. Circle it, it is now validated. Discard one of the chips. Divide the chips into two piles. The originator chooses one pile to take for himself, and the validator takes the rest.

B: Invalidate a word on the theme-web. Pick up the chips on a word. Cross it out, it is now invalidated. Hand the tokens from it to the player on your right, unless that player was the originator of that word, in which case hand the chips to the person on your left. If the only word in the game has been invalidated, rip up your first page, go back to the beginning of the phase and do the bidding over, with the chips as they stand.

C: Add an unvalidated word to the theme-web. Write a word on the page, with lines drawn to one or more validated words that inspired your addition, and put your initials next to it. Put at least three chips on it.

D: Request opening the Codex. This may only be done if there are at least four validated words on the theme-web per player. If any player wants to prevent the opening of phase 2, then he must pay you one chip. You then choose to either validate or invalidate (as per options A and B) each word in the theme-web immediately. You may validate some and invalidate others. Rip off the theme-web and put it where everyone can see it. The pad of paper now becomes the Map.

The following options are only available after the Codex opens. For his turn, the player may do one of the following things:

E: Add an entry to the Codex. Take a 3x5 card. Write a title on the top, and a sentence of no more than fifteen words on the body. Along the bottom, write one or more valid words from the theme-web which inspired it, and the titles of any related Codex entries. Put your initials on it. Put at least three tokens on it. Set it in the middle of the table.

F: Add a graphic element to the Map. Select a validated card from the Codex, and draw it onto the Map. If you don't feel like a competent gaming cartographer, ask someone else at the table to draw what you want. Put a number/letter/whatever on the Codex card and on the map to key the two items together. If the way the item is drawn on the map creates new relationships between Codex entries, note them on the appropriate Codex cards.

G: Validate an unvalidated Codex entry. Pick up the chips on that card. Put a star on it, it is now validated. Discard one of the chips. Divide the chips into two piles. The originator chooses one pile to take for himself, and the validator takes the rest.

H: Invalidate a word on the theme-web. Pick up the chips on a card. Throw it out, it is now invalidated. Hand the tokens from it to the player on your right, unless that player was the originator of that entry, in which case hand the chips to the person on your left.

I: Request opening phase 2. This may only be done if there are at least three validated elements on the Map per player. If any player wants to prevent the opening of phase 2, then he must pay you one chip. Do not close out the Codex and the Map the way the Theme-web was closed out; play can continue on these elements for as long as the players want to spend chips.

Phase 2: Conflict-building

Once phase 2 has started, players may choose from among actions E-H in the phase 1 list, or from the following actions:

J: Name a new character. The character can be a person, an organization, a god, a monster, or even a place (frex: Caradhras) or a thing (frex: the One Ring). Whatever it is, it should be something that can take actions and participate meaningfully in conflicts. Take a sheet of paper and write an archetype in the upper right corner. The archetype should be the answer to "What is this character?" Write "4d6" next to this archetype. Write the character's name in the upper left corner. At the bottom, write any Theme-Web or Codex items that are related to the character, and put your initials. You are the "primary owner" of that character.

K: Add a trait to a character. The character must either be unvalidated, or the player must be the primary owner of the character. Spend red chips to add a d4 trait to a character, or increase a d4 trait by one die. Likewise, spend white chips to create d6 traits, and blue chips to raise d8 traits. Spend any number of chips of the same kind on one trait. Choosing to use d4, d6, or d8 for traits depends on how "clean" that trait is. Traits that tend to cause problems when they're used get d4's; traits that tend to solve them get d8's. A trait can be anything from a single word to a sentence of up to 15 words. Traits may not mention people, places, or things which are not at least Codex entries, if not Characters. You can't put "I learned how to ride in New Umbriel" unless "New Umbriel" is in the Codex. If the trait mentions an existing Character as the source, and that character has the same or similar trait, then the die size of the trait is bumped up one, i.e. d4's become d6's, d6's become d8's, and d8's become d10's.

L: Add a relationship to a character. The character must either be unvalidated, or the player must be the primary owner of the character. A relationship must be between the character and another character. Spend red chips to add a d4 relationship to a character, or increase a d4 relationship by one die. Likewise, spend white chips to create d6 relationships, and blue chips to raise d8 relationships. Spend any number of chips of the same kind on one relationship. Write a description of the relationship that is one sentence of up to fifteen words. If the relationship is with a character who has a reciprocal relationship, the die size is bumped up one, i.e. d4's become d6's, etc.

M: Add a goal to a character. The character must either be unvalidated, or the player must be the primary owner of the character. The goal must relate to one or more Codex items or Characters. Spend red chips to add a d4 goal to a character, or increase a d4 goal by one die. Likewise, spend white chips to create d6 goals, and blue chips to raise d8 goals. Spend any number of chips of the same kind on one relationship. Write a description of the goal that is one sentence of up to fifteen words. The goal must be achievable, not universal. "Protect the Big City" is not achievable; "Capture and incarcerate the Black Slug" is. If the goal that you play, in the course of resolving it, would cause any other trait, goal, or relationship meaningless, make a note of it on the character sheets of all characters with such goals and take one chip for each such goal from the bank. If the goal that you play explicitly talks about helping another character reach his goal, then the goal is bumped up by one die size; d4's become d6's, etc.

N: Cross out a trait, relationship, or goal on an unvalidated character: The primary owner of a character may cross out a trait, relationship, or goal on that character. He must spend one chip for each die in the trait, relationship or goal, of the corresponding denomination, i.e. red for d4's, white for d6's, blue for d8's (or d10's). This means that a trait, relationship, or goal that was bumped may be more expensive to cross out than it was to write.

O: Mark a character "Validated." A character may only be marked "Validated" if it has the following characteristics: 1> at least one trait, relationship, or goal placed there by each of the other players, 2> has at least one trait, one relationship, and one goal, and 3> has the player as its primary owner.

P: Request opening phase 3. This may only be done if each player is the primary owner of a validated character. If any player wants to prevent the opening of phase 3, then he must pay you one chip. Characters may still be created during phase three.

Phase three: Scenes

Once phase three has started, players may choose from actions E-H and J-O on the phase 1 and 2 lists, plus the following:

Q: Frame a scene

...more to come...

Current Mood: hyper

Check out this link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nsa-redact.pdf

I think anyone who makes PDF's ought to give this a read.

Cheese and Rice.

What a load of dingo's kidneys.

Look. Everything you do, everything you listen to, everything you read, everything you experience... it has an impact on your brain. Sometimes it's minor, sometimes it's major. Habits become ingrained, and sometimes ingrained habits can become addictions. You can be addicted to chemicals, thoughts, behaviors, and some people are more prone to them than others.

Sometimes these habits and addictions cause us to harm ourselves. They get in the way of living a normal life, or make us damage our health, or our relationships, or our finances. You could call these "brain damage" because they point to real harm.

But to say that someone is brain damaged because someone doesn't play a game the way YOU want them to play... or even to say that YOU can't play the way you want to play because of your habits and addictions... that's bullshit, and the whole Forge Diaspora Blogosphere seems to be running around saying how profound it is.

I guess the Forgeites really are as elitist as folks have said they are.

Current Mood: disgusted

Autocracies: Nimble, Oppressive
Democracies: Clumsy, Free

I think this is a dichotomy many of us would be familiar with, and many of us would agree with, at least on general principles. Dictatorships tend to be able to act quickly, but tend to be dismissive of new ideas, whereas democracies tend to act slowly, but are more accepting of new ideas.

But I'm not here to discuss politics.

If a character is to a nation as a player is to a government, then perhaps these same principles apply to character 'ownership'.

When one player has a great deal of control over a character (autocracy) then there's little handling time in figuring out what that character does next, but the universe of possible actions are limited to one person's imagination.

When more than one player has control over a character, the handling time increases, but the universe of possible actions increases to encompass the imaginations of the participants in the decision.

So it's a pretty clear tradeoff.

I've decided to write a sonnet for my wife for Saint Valentine's day. For those of you who don't remember high school English class, a sonnet is a poem in iambic pentameter with a highly specific rhyme scheme. In my case, I'm going for what's called a "Spenserian sonnet" which has the scheme abab bcbc cdcd ee.

It's rough going. The limits are very restrictive. Do I _have_ to write a sonnet? No, clearly, I could just write a variation on "Roses are red..." and I'd have a love poem. But it wouldn't be as valuable to me, and it wouldn't be as valuable to her. The fact that I present myself with arbitrary restrictions, and work within them, makes my work more valuable.

As I was working on the sonnet today it struck me...

This is a lot like game narration.

I was playing Nine Worlds last night and my turn came to put in some narration. I had won with spades, so it was a "chaos" urge, which meant that something had to be destroyed. I had to hunt around a bit for the right bit of narration, but what I eventually came up with was that Fell was going to damage Aristo's reputation, by implying (in a bit of fast talk typical of a shady dealer like Fell) that he was recently released from an asylum.

In game narration, by conforming to social contract, game rules, etc. we have the opportunity to show off our creative prowess and create valuable contributions to the game.

Some of you are going to go, "Well, duh." I realize I'm not as far along in RPG theory as some of you are. But I've never seen this idea articulated quite this way before, so I'm sharing it. Nyah.

It was something of a realization to me.

Let's start by talking about games in general.

When you play a game, you play by means of one or more agents.

These agents may be shared and passed around (as in a card game) or exclusive (chess), or may have almost no exclusive ownership at all (billiard balls in snooker).

If you have no agents in a game... then you're not playing it. You're just watching.

So now roleplaying games, specifically, roleplaying games where stories are important.

The narrative nature of roleplaying games means that many of the elements of story are potential agents for the player.

Character is the element we're all most familiar with, and one that's under attack from some quarters these days. So if we're going to reduce the importance of character, you need to replace it with something else. The nifty thing is, if we're getting rid of the gamemaster too, there are a bunch of them lying around that we can pick up.

The list of story elements is fairly short.

Setting is always fun to play with. Even after we've decided on things like time period, any new scene can potentially have new setting elements created for it, or can have familiar setting elements from before.

Plot consists of four main sub-elements; exposition, complications, denouement, and resolution. Exposition is closely related to setting and character, and as far as the SIS is concerned, is the gatekeeper to truth. Nothing truly exists until it has appeared in exposition. It's one thing to decide that the trees display the fall colors, but if it doesn't show up in the SIS it isn't true in any meaningful sense.

Complications (or conflicts) refers, in roleplaying games, to skillful scene framing. A well framed scene has one or more conflicts implicit in it; if it doesn't, the best thing to do is skip it and move on.

Denouement and resolution are represented by scene wrap-ups and story wrap-ups. Once a scene has been played out, there's room for people to decide what the long-term effects of the scene are, and when it comes time to end a story, choosing the ending is a powerful statement.

Characters aren't just protagonists. There are antagonists, of course, and foils are important. I don't think I need to explain how these work.

Other elements of story are more esoteric. Imagery, such as similes and metaphors, are usually elements of exposition and as such probably aren't worthy of agency in and of themselves. Symbols, however, provide an interesting agent; for example, if the moon were used as a symbol of secrets and mystery, then by introducing the moon into a scene, a player whose agency was invested in the moon might claim influence over secrets and/or mysteries in that scene, if the symbolism had been established ahead of time.

So if my agency isn't going to be placed in a protagonist, then it needs to be placed in something else. There are lots of choices. Which are the best choices? That's mostly a matter of taste, which varies from person to person, but the structure of the game itself probably has a lot to say about what choices are more attractive.

What this comes out looking a lot like, to me, is the "non-character characters" from Capes. I thought that was a brilliant idea when I saw it, and I hope to see more games that use that kind of agency in the future.

Current Mood: thoughtful

Any action in a roleplaying game that intends to make an impact on the game is a risk. The "win" side of the risk is that the participants in the game take that action and react to it. If it's a push, someone resists it. If it's a pull, someone fulfills it. The "loss" side of the risk is that it gets belittled, derided, or worst of all, ignored.

The odds on these risks start off (in a new group) unknown. People have to figure out what kinds of pushes and pulls will get positive attention, and which will engender blank stares. Most players are content to stick with "safe" bets that they know will pay off.

The problem with safe bets is that they don't pay well. You get back pretty much what you put in, and while that is all well and good, there's a level of play that goes beyond that.

There's a level where the rewards far outweigh the outlays. One doesn't start playing this way in a new group, with strangers. To do so is folly; you simply don't know the odds. You don't know what will work and what won't. As you get to know the people in the game, though, it becomes safer to open up, to share oneself (in the form of in-game creations) in a deeper sense. As the members of the group starts to understand the group dynamic better, higher stakes in the trust game become playable options.

In group play, this process is slow. This is because the number of relationships that the group needs to understand is high. When you add the Nth participant to the group, you add N-1 relationships. For a group of five people, there are ten reciprocal relationships to be managed, not counting meta-relationships (a meta-relationship is how person A feels about the relationship between B and C). For a group of six people it's fifteen, and for seven it's twenty-one! Each individual comes with his own set of emotional hurdles, and some of the relationships will have hurdles as well. That's a lot to keep track of.

In one-on-one play this process can (if the players want) proceed much faster. While the payoff is less than in a group, the ratio of effort-to-payoff is better. This is because the effort is proportional to the number of relationships in the group, whereas the payoff is related to the number of participants. This means that if you're after intimate, intense, meaningful play, it's hard to beat one-on-one play.

I've had some really intense play over the years. RP has left me emotionally devastated, brought to tears, collapsed in front of the monitor. I've been so happy that I leapt in the air and shouted for joy. I've been so turned on I could hardly type. Every one of these truly intense experiences has been the result of one-on-one play. Group play does it too, but the inherent inhibitions of group play mean that the experiences are always shallower, muted, less emotionally rewarding, so I don't go looking for those kinds of experiences in group play.

Someday, maybe, I'll find a group where I can have the same level of intimacy and intensity that I've found in my one-on-one play. That, I think, would be gaming nirvana for me. But I'm not holding my breath.

Current Mood: restless

It was a good idea while it lasted... I mean IRC conversations are so ephemeral. I'll probably keep posting anything good that shows up here, but the purpose of this LJ is going to broaden. It'll still be a gaming blog, though, it's not going to broaden THAT much.

You won't see me blogging what I had for lunch or who I'm snogging (those are boring things for me to post anyways, the answer is almost always the same).

One of the topics that's going around a lot of the blogs I read is this whole "character ownership" thing. Another one is the Gaming::Sex metaphor. Another is push/pull dynamics.

I'm going to kind of bring these things together in a mishmash. They're connected... I think.

(More often than not, when I post stuff like this, I turn out to be talking out of my butt. Don't think I don't know that I'm entirely capable of being way wrong.)

So here goes:

According to immlass aka Ginger Stampley http://www.livejournal.com/users/immlass/tag/gaming%3Dsex "pull" is like what a sub in a D/S relationship uses to get what he/she wants. I can totally see that. I don't even have to have personal experience with the D/S "thing" to understand it. I can even use "pull" in a game without being into D/S. While there's a metaphorical relationship between gaming and sex, it doesn't mean that my preferences in one bleed over into the other.

Now, to pull in "character ownership" a bit... there are two modes of thinking when it comes to sex and pleasure. On the one hand, there's the people who say, "You have to be responsible for your own pleasure. Your partner isn't a mindreader." On the other hand, there's the people who say, "You have to be totally focused on your partner's pleasure. If you put your own first, you might as well be masturbating." These are two sides of the same coin, and they're actually both right... it's only at its best if both (all?) participants are working toward mutual enjoyment.

The same thing is true in roleplaying games. The only way for a game group to achieve the most satisfying experience is if everyone at the table is invested in the enjoyment of everyone at the table, including themselves. This is why the smaller the group is, the easier it is to achieve a satisfying experience; there's fewer people to consider. (I'll make another post about 1-1 roleplaying that develops this idea further)

Character ownership fits into this idea. On the one hand, I have to own my character... I have to be responsible for part of my interaction. Just like a person in a sexual relationship has to "own" his own body in order to get the most out of it, a player in a game has to "own" his character. It may not be totally his; I accept the argument that when we join a game we accept certain restrictions on our play. Accepting restrictions and accepting suggestions isn't the same thing as giving up ownership or responsibility, though.

Current Music: Air handlers

I've had this LJ account for some time, without really having anything to do with it.

I'm going to try using it to record great conversations that have come out of the #indierpgs IRC channel on Magicstar. Too much of that stuff gets lost.

[JB] If I may, it seems to me that in a group that is at a . . . relatively socially starved level, shall we say. If such a group gets some really hyper-focussed Nar game that pushes the conflicts and all that, we can just about guarantee they will sabotage its aims because while their lower-level needs are unmet, they are not up to that challenge.
[Vaxalon] Right.
[Vaxalon] It threatens the thin, delicate social environment
[Vaxalon] Because they haven't got the skills to build a stronger one yet
[JB] Conversely, a group with a better social contract is going to ignore B.S. in a system and trundle along, possibly having plenty of fun anyway. That doesn't mean system doesn't matter; it means that how socially healthy the group is, is decisive.
[Vaxalon] Exactly!
[Raystonatwork] okay, I can agree with that
[JB] Whoo!
* JB takes a bow
[Raystonatwork] that does make a lot of sense and is blindingly obvious once someone says it :P
[JB] This is cool, though. It clarifies for me why people who it seems most ought to get that system matters will be the ones who staunchly deny that it does.
[Raystonatwork] the System Matters, because people sometimes have a hard time agreeing to a social contract, the rules can facilitate that, in some groups it can be absoloutely central (as in my experiences) but with some people and some groups, they already have such a strong social contract, that systems that facilitiate it are essentially unneccasery

I've always felt that the rules part of system doesn't matter as much as the social part. I made a post on the forge about it here.

Current Mood: hopeful
Current Music: Don't I wish