thread: 2011-05-18 : Ben Lehman: Rules and their Functions
On 2011-05-24, Emily wrote:
What a great discussion!
Josh W. wrote:
Continuous rules; principles, turn structures and so on, are more learnt than referred to (ie it's about learning to do it right rather than checking a table). Wheras mechanics are more referred to than learnt, except that part of them that sticks in your mental model as "This class of situations will lead to this kind of thing via that mechanic", or however detailed you make it.
The distinction of internalized vs. referred to is right on. They form a background that informs play. It's this that makes folks who focus on the "flow" of play get so uptight about mechanical procedures. But! Principles, turn structures etc. are immediate rules, rather than continuous, I think. (Check me on that.) They are however, not deterministic, (or mediated—we should check our terminology here, are talking about the same aspects of the rules?)
Jay W wrote:
Mixed-method games are hard to talk about in simple terms, no doubt.
I think we mostly have mixed method games, though. The use here is to be able to say more clearly how the games are functioning. "Freeform" is a thing, but it's misleading, since there are all kinds of structures in them that provide guidance, create tension, help form concensus etc.
Part of the issue is that freeform is never really applied to games that are without structured. The divide the term describes is that between games which rely on deterministic/mediated mechanics as their core mechanic*, and games that either primarily (as Polaris) or in whole reject deterministic mechanics.
Simon C wrote:
If you know how resolution is going to turn out before you commit to it, it leads to negotiation and positioning and description, so that you get to an advantageous position. But without some uncertainty, there's never that impetus to throw yourself into the conflict, to commit.
Uncertainty, yes! How you get that uncertainty is the controversial thing. And what you consider to be uncertain: is it just outcomes that count? Or interpretations of character? Player experience? Consequences and prices paid?
If one looks at dice as the only path to uncertainty, that's a narrow, narrow road.
*rules of play, anyone? I haven't read that section yet, but it seems right. :)
