I do not often talk about Forge theory as directly as I plan to today. Hopefully you can bear with me, I think this one’s important.
Ron Edwards, in his Provisional Glossary of Forge theory jargon defines the term “color” (which we will discuss today” as:
Imagined details about any or all of System, Character, Setting, or Situation, added in such a way that does not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.
In this definition System, Character, and Setting mean roughly what you would expect. System is (roughly) the procedures of play; character is, well, character; and setting is the English 101 definition of the time and place the action happens at. That leaves us with Situation, which is defined as:
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes.
This is stuff like “The six fingered man killed my father”. Situation is a fairly macro concern, really.
This is all preamble to my primary point which is: there is some element of play at the mirco level that provides the real meat of play. I have been calling it “color”, but it does not mesh completely with the Forge definition.
The element I am talking about is the one that provides context to the narrative. Does a character undertake an action eagerly, reluctantly, sadly, in anger? This is an important question. In fact, it is key to the way we interpret the narratives we tell when roleplaying.
But remember that the Forge definition includes the clause that color “does not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene”. In Dogs in the Vineyard, whether you gun a man down in anger or in cold calculation matters. In Nine Worlds whether you struggle to win, or win without serious effort matters.
What I call “color”, those contextualizing little bits of the narrative, is important for a number of reasons, but primary among them is that players need context. If there is not a shared context provided the players will simply provide their own, not-so-shared context. My post suggesting that Play is Chaos? This is precisely what I was talking about there.
If you fail to point out that your Batman-esque character is a reluctant hero, then in my head I will make him some kind of hero. It is possible that I will pick the same motivations that you do, but it is by no means certain. Maybe I will assign more sinister motivations to him. This is not necessarily bad, though it can result in me misapprehending the sorts of challenges that you want to engage with, This, in turn, likely means you will not have quite as much fun as you might if I were on top of things.
One example of different interpretations that really sticks with me is something that Ralph Mazza posted way back at the end of 2003. While I happen to consider Tolkein’s Fellowship of the Ring to be chock full of good stuff, Ralph has other thoughts. And, really, I think this is a matter of pickup up on different bits of color. Ralph is noticing and remembering certain things while I am noticing and remembering other ones.
And those first bits of contextualization matter. Once you have it in your head that a character is fundamentally evil (or good, or amoral, or whatever) then every action they take from there on out is going to be interpreted in that light. And color provides that contextualization.
I fully acknowledge that “color” may be the wrong term for what I am talking about here, but whatever the term is, it is a fundamental aspect of what we do, not only when we roleplay, but when we interpret any bit of narrative. In fact, without this color stuff, there is not a story.
Consider the fact that most television news channels are not telling stories. There is not anything to grab onto to contextualize what is going on. Instead, what they are providing you with is data. And data is not the same thing as a story.
Color matters because it is what makes stories meaningful, and not just bits of data.
Next week: The long-awaited (by someone I’m sure) discussion of roleplaying via various mediums.
Tags: Applied, Publishing, Theory
I fully acknowledge that “color†may be the wrong term for what I am talking about here, but whatever the term is, it is a fundamental aspect of what we do, not only when we roleplay, but when we interpret any bit of narrative. In fact, without this color stuff, there is not a story.
Instead of “color” how about “context”?
Hmm… ‘context’ might very well work, actually. The problem is that it very well might be a jargonization of the word. I’m not sure that what I’m talking about is context in the general sense, but then again it might be. This bears some serious thought. Thanks, Fred.
Thomas
I thought Ben Lehman made a nice explanation of what he thought colour was.
He basically says the same you and the provisional glossary do: colour is what is used to present the crude facts.
It definetly is on the micro level, the moment to moment context. It hardly changes resolution (see Ben’s examples). It definetly could change how other players react to you (as you say) in the following scenes and it probably doesn’t clash with the provisional definition, when we keep in mind that Ron is very interested in transform[ing] the Color into System through play (bottom of the post).
Basically, Colour itself does not change resolution. When it does, it has become System, and the very precise transformation is maybe what you’re trying to get at.
Does that work for you?
Christoph,
Well, yes and no. That is, I’m pretty sure that we’re all talking about the same general thing when we talk about color. However, I am beginning to suspect that there is something that either is color or is closely related to it that is what we really care about in play. Whatever this thing is, and I think it’s color, it is at the core of why we play.
At this stage I don’t know what more I can say. I’ve only just started to edge around this idea and I don’t yet know what I think about it. However, I can say that it’s exciting. To me anyway.
Thomas
Thomas, I haven’t yet read your articles on medium so I might be missing something, but I really fail to see where you would be talking about something else than a combination of Color and System.
Your post does a good job in bringing the concepts together, the way I read it, and since it is a bit of a grey space I think that’s great!
Maybe what you’re talking about is meaning?
Good stories have meanings, at least that’s how I tend to remember them (actually I also remember stories which really give off a really strong aesthetic aura).
If System is what makes things happen in the SIS and Colour is what makes all the difference between structurally similar Situations, then the moment to moment combination of all this stuff could be meaning, to me at least.
I definetly use small scale Colour to attach meaning, as long term creation is more an emergent property of the narrative and the group, in RPGs.
And there certainly are feedback loops between the micro and the macro scales, but this makes it all much more complicated :)
Am I rambling or getting at something?
Do you have any examples of play (especially those HQ sessions we played together) which could illustrate this stuff?
Christoph,
Yes, I think I’m talking about meaning. The way I’ve been saying it in my head, which I’m not sure makes sense, is that color allows us to “contextualize” the fictional material. And that “contextualization” is how we derive meaning from it.
I think that color and contextualization are tied up in aesthetic appreciation too, but I’m not sure about that part.
Thomas
Cool, looks like I got onto the train!
Do you think this could go anywhere mechanics-wise, or is this contextualisation procedure dependant on each participant’s experiences, thus not easily shared and workable in play?
It also looks to me like a lot of this meaning is realized after the game, making it difficult to “edit” and insert, except for the next session eventually.
Actually, a good old discussion between sessions often works that way already and character progression often derives from that (that’s what happened to Artanis in HQ anyway).
I think that a lot of meaning is fully realized after a play session, but I think that some meaning is realized right now. I think we react to that right-now realization, which is part of what makes roleplaying special, maybe.
As to mechanics, it’s a tough question. I do think that contextualization is pretty idiosynchcratic, but I think that it’s also likely that there are some broad similarities or categories that hold. That implies that there is some way to set up mechanics, even if they’re mechanics that help you make other mechanics. But I’m not sure…
Thomas