[cite] Claudia Cangini:[/cite]
[cite] Radagast:[/cite]
Per fare un esempio che non tiri in ballo il solito The Forge, le principali tecniche Jeep hanno quasi sempre un effetto positivo perché gli eventi Jeep sono inquadrati in un certo genere ben definito che normalmente si avvantaggia da queste tecniche, ma basta uscire un pochino dal seminato, come nel caso degli eventi di Frederik Berg Olsen/Østergaard, e già certe tecniche Jeep diventano a rischio di danneggiare l'evento.
Davvero? :shock:
Hai assistito a questa cosa? Riesci a ricordare qualche esempio di gioco?
Uh, non mi sembra così strano: in termini di Process Model, se una data tecnica ostacola un certo processo progettato dall'autore, in questo contesto è dannosa e va evitata, oppure va controbilanciata con altre tecniche; non importa se in un altro contesto la stessa tecnica è solo utile.
Faccio un esempio su "Le puerpere", visto che tu l'hai giocato pochi giorni fa ed è disponibile come scenario scaricabile (
http://jeepen.org/games/modregruppen), anche se io e Frederik dobbiamo ancora dare una limata alla versione italiana prima di pubblicarla (quindi lo scenario per ora c'è nell'originale danese e in uno strano inglese zeppo di errori di traduzione, in attesa che giunga la nuova traduzione inglese della Care Boss).
Come dice lo stesso autore in
http://vuxenspel.dk/?p=23 , "Le puerpere" fa largo uso di "intrigue" e "immersion" (che in termini di Process Model possiamo considerare corrispondenti il primo al processo di Sfida, e il secondo a quello di Immedesimazione oppure alla parte di Empatia di un processo di Esplorazione). Mentre molte tecniche Jeep vanno benissimo per favorire (o quantomeno non danneggiare) lo sviluppo di questi processi, altre no: per esempio la tecnica di Trasparenza (che solitamente nei jeepform è fondamentale) potrebbe essere estremamente dannosa a quella che Frederik chiama "immersion" se ammettiamo che intenda l'Immedesimazione, ma potrebbe essere un po' dannosa anche se ammettiamo che intenda l'Empatia. Proprio per questo in "Le puerpere" si specifica che la Trasparenza non va usata, cosa che come dicevo lo rende piuttosto borderline come jeepform (anzi, per essere rigorosi, è ancora un jeepform a pieno titolo perché corrisponde alla definizione di "freeform che piace ai Jeep", ma è anomalo rispetto agli altri jeepform nel suo evitare volutamente quella che forse è la tecnica Jeep impiegata più massicciamente).
Già che ci sono ne approfitto per far notare che "Le puerpere" è il tipico evento in cui risulta chiaro a tutti quelli che lo giocano che l'autore voleva andarci pesante con l'"immersion", ma in un certo contesto ludico-culturale (per esempio in Gran Bretagna) questa "immersion" sarebbe senz'altro interpretata come Empatia, mentre in un altro (per esempio in Finlandia) sarebbe senz'altro interpretata come Immedesimazione. Sarebbe interessante chiedere all'autore se gli vadano bene entrambe le interpretazioni, nonché studiare se il gioco funzioni in entrambi i casi.
Definizioni:
Sfida:
Challenge, the overcoming of adversity and the besting of challenges, is a Process closely associated with Tension. In contrast to Tension, however, the enjoyment gained from Challenge does not come from besting other players. It is enough to simply overcome the challenges put before you. This is evident for example in many forms of live-action role-playing, where the pursuit of character goals is seen as important, even though there is usually very little comparison going on between players.
The challenges put before players in the Process of Challenge need to be fair, ie. not so easy as to not really be challenging at all and not so hard as to halt progress. In role-playing games, this balancing or "fair challenge'' inherent in all of Competition, Tension and Challenge is most often seen as the responsibility of the gamemaster, who in traditional role-playing games is given way too much power to actually Compete with the players. Thus, mostly, the gaming systems suitable for Challenge are the same as for Tension.
Empatia:
These two last explorative processes are interesting also in that in them, the two sides of interacting with the Shared Imagined Space are more clearly separate. After the subject matter is injected into the Shared Imagined Space, it must somehow be experienced. Most often this takes the form of Empathy, an emotional connection with an element of the SIS. This experiencing the SIS is actually the part of exploration that brings on the Results - but it cannot stand on its own as a Process, as it always needs that some subject matter be brought in to the SIS to observe. Only in this combination is it whole.
Immedesimazione:
Immersion is the process of becoming another entity, thinking, feeling and acting as that entity. It is a process going beyond mere Empathy, the general method of relating to and experiencing the Shared Imagined Space. To Immerse is to be, to feel inside. It has few counterparts in other medias, method acting perhaps coming close, while for example feeling with the characters in a book or a film is Empathy, feeling from the outside. While Immersion is generally possible with only one target, Empathy can be felt for other players characters as well as for other entities in the SIS.
A fitting description and discussion of Immersion was given recently by Mike Pohjola, who defined it is as:
Immersion is the player assuming the identity of the character by pretending to believe her identity only consists of the diegetic [Imagined Space] roles
The article by Pohjola also contains a chapter on Inter-Immersion, describing what would in terms of the Process Model be multiple Processes of Immersion supporting each other, with some references also to supporting Methods.
(da
http://temppeli.org/rpg/process_model/KP2005-article/Process_Model_of_Roleplaying/node6.html#SECTION00062000000000000000)
Trasparenza:
In classical role-play, the task-resolving games, your goal was to earn XP's or equivalent. Thus, there was a competitive element among the players and therefore also a reason for keeping secrets, playing with split parties and other things that we have removed in Jeepform.
When games developed and the goals became story-telling, and actually role-playing, the idea of keeping secrets was kept for the intrigues. Some people like being surprised, some don't.
On the other hand, if all intrigue is dropped, told up-front, before a scene is played, then we have a situation of transparency, just like when actors prepare for shooting part of a movie.
Characteristics and possible effects of transparency:
The players are told what to expect in the scene, and where it is going, maybe even why it is there: This good-bye scene with Stellan as a boy and his mother, is a preparation for a later scene, in which Stellan comes back to the same place, as an old man. The players can prepare more detailed story hooks for future scenes. It should be noted that transparency won't necessary make the game less predictable or take away the possibility of being surprised during play. Just because the players know what to expect from a scene, or how to approach it, does not mean there won't be conflicts or different understandings of the scene).
Free Form games are usually transparent to some degree, and the authors of these pages would like to see it increase. A good general rule (in our humble opinion) is to never keep secrets unless absolutely necessary (or to make a point). It is our belief that game secrets are kept mostly for historical reasons and as a thoughless default action -- not as an active choice. Whether you agree to this or agree to disagree, at least bear that it mind and ask yourself why a lot more often than you already do.
Example: In his recent movie, Dogville, director Lars Von Trier displays a good example of transparency that's been used countless times over the years in free form role-play. The film is shot on a stage, there are no walls, instead the contours of houses etc. are just painted on the ground. We know they are there, and we know that the actors can see everything, but their characters cannot. In a particular scene, Stellan Skarsgård is having sex with Nicole Kidman at the same time as his wife is chatting away in another house. The camera shoots his wife in the discussion, and behind them, we see Stellan and Nicole carrying away. If this was a free form game, this would be a great use of transparency. The players know, but their characters don't.
Another reason for using transparency is to avoid the following situations (and derivates):
Example: Ada plays a human character on a larp dominated by elves. There are things that affect humans, but not elves and Ada plays according the the rules; she follows the feromone troll. (No, that is not figuratively speaking!) However it turns out that the organisers have a surprise for her, she is acually a half-elf, and thus should not have been affected by the troll, etc. at all. Ada finds out a fair bit into the game and wonders why the physics of the larp world was suspended until now.
The point is the following: just because the character doesn't know she is a half-elf, you don't necessarily have to conceal that from the player. Interestingly, Tobias had a conversation about immersion with Mike Pohjola fairly recently in which he presented Mike with the following scenario. You play (with total immersion) for two days in a larp. On the night of the third day, you realise that "Heck, my character sheet has a backside!" and find out a lot more about your character that forces you to reinterpret your previous actions. Is this not effectively the same as getting rid of character ownership; other people can play then play "your" character, you can experience "yourself" from the outside and this will add to the character, possibly forcing you to reinterpret its motivations/actions/etc. after the fact. Mike sais "In immersion, this is only allowed as the result of a mistake". So there you have it, make sure to spoil the spoilers first, if you are going for total immersion. But wait, totally immersed, you cannot access that information and will thus get the Ada treatment anyway... (I'm probably misunderstanding something here, possibly intentionally.)
(da
http://jeepen.org/dict)
