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

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).

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

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?

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

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?

Thomas

Instead of “color” how about “context”?