Submitted w/out meaningful comment

[+1 Hat]

http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/normality

So I'm forced to admitted that I 'read' through this beast and have no fucking clue what's going on.
Maybe that's the point? I'm not familiar with Dada beyond mustaches on the Mona Lisa and urinals as sculpture, but damn.

I mean, fuckin' damn.

If Dada is about ignoring social norms, then how can you have a Dada RPG? The Forge people are a pretentious load of twats as far as I've seen,
but all that social contract bidness ain't just whistlin' Dixie, neither. So if Dada is about breaking down social contracts, more or less, but an RPG starts with a contract, then what is a Dada RPG? Is it the bit that suggests the GM explicitly lie to the players about what happens in the game, et al? Is a Dada RPG an RPG at all?
C'eci nest pas une D&D? Graaaaaaaaaargh...

Ia! Normality ftaghn ftaghn!

Seriously, I'm thinking I could make a DRYH character that went insomniac just from reading this!
Failing that, a CoC cultist that takes this book as holy writ.

Ross, Patrick, anything literary to help me out here?
Can you explain this?
Can you explain life?

[ArtfulShrapnel]

So, I scanned the book itself and was totally confused. I read the GM guide, and I now think I see a glimmer of sense and usefulness in this otherwise meaningless pile of forced "randomness".

The idea of constructing an RPG to completely tear down a player's boundaries between their world and the RPG world is an interesting one. Immersion is something I strive for in my own games, using somewhat similar methods. I can actually see running a game of this with some particularly resistant metagaming players to help them break down d20/palladium inspired ideas of what an RPG "is". Granted... a well-run session of DRYH could have about the same effect.

I like the concept of having players randomly select inspiration from books. Could be a good way to generate ideas and help break people out of their usual comfort zones, without robbing them of control.

My method for running a game and creating a story is similar. I tend to leave my game plan behind when I run the game itself. I allow the story to evolve from the interactions between my NPCs (whose plans I know) and the players (whose actions I cannot control). The resulting story is as much a surprise to me as to the players.

The idea of playing with perception by outright lying to the players... is interesting. Isn't something like this the core of Paranoia? (Friend Computer says you like this idea.)

The breaking of the social contract bothers me. Do you think one could eliminate this problem by telling the players ahead of time "I will lie to you, I will twist your perceptions of what's going on, there really isn't a way to win, and this is part of the game". It might destroy some of the effectiveness of the mindfuckery going on, but it would avoid frustration on the part of the players who thought they were going on a dungeon-crawl.

I don't know though... by finding it useful and analyzing it, am I missing the point? Perhaps trying to run this game with a goal is contrary to the goals of the game?

Normality ftagn ftagn, indeed.

[clockworkjoe]

Ugh.

Indie RPGs.

Ugh.

[Boyos]

I dont even wanna try to read it, but by the comments I can tell its no, "the world of synnibarr."

[Tadanori Oyama]

I don't know though... by finding it useful and analyzing it, am I missing the point? Perhaps trying to run this game with a goal is contrary to the goals of the game?

I think you've cracked the code. I think playing the game breaks it.

[+1 Hat]

Ugh.

Indie RPGs.

Ugh.

That's at least part of my reaction, but I'm trying, and I do mean trying, to take something meaningful away from it. Some of the other stuff on the website in question seems interesting, has potential, whatev. There's a Commedia dell'Arte RPG up there that has some interesting ideas, depsite seeming a little lacking in follow through.
Link-fu: http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/the-penguin-harlequinade

I've got this slow-dawning realization that this may be Who I Am as a gamer - I'm fine with conventional, d20/CoC/otherwise mainstream gaming as a player, but as a GM my likes/talents/whatever lean to the tap-dancing-on-a-landslide, control the chaos (but not too much) flavor of DRYH, rules-light versions of ORE, hopefully DItV.

Maybe it's just that gaming is inherently improv theater, and it's just deciding whether that's metagame/OOC dickjokes ala D&D, or whether it's the thrust of the game?
Maybe this is just the snow crash hidden in Normality slowly eating my conciousness?
Maybe I'll end each post in this thread with questions, or at least question marks?

[Setherick]

I haven't read the document posted so I cannot comment directly on it at this time. But, I will respond to this:

If Dada is about ignoring social norms, then how can you have a Dada RPG? The Forge people are a pretentious load of twats as far as I've seen,
but all that social contract bidness ain't just whistlin' Dixie, neither. So if Dada is about breaking down social contracts, more or less, but an RPG starts with a contract, then what is a Dada RPG? Is it the bit that suggests the GM explicitly lie to the players about what happens in the game, et al? Is a Dada RPG an RPG at all?

Most RPG's do not start with a social contract or, when they do, it's an implied social contract. We should consider the PCs in an RPG as actually examples of hyper-individualism that exist completely outside the social contract and that can in fact bend the social contract to their own personal whims (even at extremely low levels). This is probably why player logic is often schizophrenic to the sociocultural logic of the game world whether created by the GM/ST/DM or the game itself.

Starting with an actual contract or direct explication of the social contract of the game world is actually something I'll have to ponder.

Let's also not equate Dada wholly with challenging social conventions. Many of the dadaist techniques, particularly photomontage, were taken and used for propaganda in World War II by Axis and Allied powers. In this way, the co-option of dada is pretty heinous.

I do believe that any avant garde movement is going to elucidate cultural norms in its art either for the purposes of consciousness raising or counter-conduct. While we can consider these purposes "revolutionary" in the sense of breaking social contracts - like the Situationalists did - is another story. Often the logic by which the purposes of the art work is the same as the logic by which the cultural norms work only the content changes.

[rayner23]

dadadadadadadadadadadadadqwdaefddaefaegfaseghregasgeagdgasdgadhbgqwrehab mustache pandersnatch pastiche jezzlebaum painter scaffold mazzy star flying car bumblecar rumble scar fishing fizzle skezzwick nutternam bandywich fillopian tubes.

[Tadanori Oyama]

dadadadadadadadadadadadadqwdaefddaefaegfaseghregasgeagdgasdgadhbgqwrehab mustache pandersnatch pastiche jezzlebaum painter scaffold mazzy star flying car bumblecar rumble scar fishing fizzle skezzwick nutternam bandywich fillopian tubes.

I finally downloaded the PDF and took a look. Cody's right on this one.

[malyss]

Most RPG's do not start with a social contract or, when they do, it's an implied social contract. We should consider the PCs in an RPG as actually examples of hyper-individualism that exist completely outside the social contract and that can in fact bend the social contract to their own personal whims (even at extremely low levels). This is probably why player logic is often schizophrenic to the sociocultural logic of the game world whether created by the GM/ST/DM or the game itself.

Starting with an actual contract or direct explication of the social contract of the game world is actually something I'll have to ponder.

This isn't to disagree with Setherick's post, but it brings up a thought of mine on the subject of gaming and how I feel it should be done.

I think the 'social contract' that is present is the one between the players and GM, and not the characters in the game world. The contract as I see it is a shared contribution, where all contributions are deemed of similar worth, for the mutual enjoyment of all parties at the table.

Granted, there are many examples of individual gamers who don't share this view, and game solely for their own enjoyment to the exclusion of others. I had to ask one guy who played in a game of mine to leave because he was disruptive to the environment at the table by the actions of his character.

This isn't to say that characters cannot have divergent motivations or interests, but that the players game with respect to all at the table first, and to their characters second. Setherick makes a good point about the hyper-individualism of characters, and I see this as stemming from an inability to become immersed in a world that is too alien for the player to understand. While an author has the benefit of being able to sit back and review and tweak theirs characters' interactions with the world, a player at a table is required to be more spontaneous. This is challenging at the best of times, but even more so when confronted with situations that significantly impact the players' perceived enjoyment of the game by impact on their character.

I have had some characters that I have been very attached to, and others that I could care less what happens to them. Which one do I role-play better? I don't know. I just try to temper my actions at the table with the other players in mind, so that I don't 'ruin' the game for them, and ultimately myself.

[Setherick]

Most RPG's do not start with a social contract or, when they do, it's an implied social contract. We should consider the PCs in an RPG as actually examples of hyper-individualism that exist completely outside the social contract and that can in fact bend the social contract to their own personal whims (even at extremely low levels). This is probably why player logic is often schizophrenic to the sociocultural logic of the game world whether created by the GM/ST/DM or the game itself.

Starting with an actual contract or direct explication of the social contract of the game world is actually something I'll have to ponder.

I think the 'social contract' that is present is the one between the players and GM, and not the characters in the game world. The contract as I see it is a shared contribution, where all contributions are deemed of similar worth, for the mutual enjoyment of all parties at the table.

Granted, there are many examples of individual gamers who don't share this view, and game solely for their own enjoyment to the exclusion of others. I had to ask one guy who played in a game of mine to leave because he was disruptive to the environment at the table by the actions of his character.

This is an excellent point. It may be a matter of working through definitions. Are there multiple social contracts that happen at a game table? For instance, is there one social contract in the form of the "rules" of the game's universe/society and another social contract in the form of the relationship between PCs both in and out of character? Should we perhaps consider the relationship between the PCs as a type of meta-social contract? And does this meta- position allow the players to simultaneous critique the social contract of the game's universe/society and the social contract of the player's own society?

These are types of questions I'm interested in when it comes to critical game theory.

[Sean-o-tron]

You dirty Story-Game/Indie-RPG-loving hippie.  Next you're going to tell all of the players the core mechanic is "Hugging It Out."

[ShotgunSurgeon]

This thread makes my bowels hurt.

[Setherick]

You dirty Story-Game/Indie-RPG-loving hippie.  Next you're going to tell all of the players the core mechanic is "Hugging It Out."

What the hell are you talking about? I'm going to put my kid to sleep with Hobbes and Machiavelli.

[malyss]

You dirty Story-Game/Indie-RPG-loving hippie.  Next you're going to tell all of the players the core mechanic is "Hugging It Out."

What the hell are you talking about? I'm going to put my kid to sleep with Hobbes and Machiavelli.

Calvin and Hobbes right?