Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by TonyLB, April 19, 2005, 09:33:42 AM
QuoteH'm ... or is it that simple? As you probably know, I usually turn to the reward system as the center of "system matters" when CA is being considered. So if the meaning you're talking about feeds into the reward system in an identifiable, consistent way, then I think how it's conducted is relevant to CA. That doesn't mean that any one of your categories lines up neatly with any one of the CAs, but it does mean that we can talk about how a given approach (e.g. Meaning in the Middle, especially) may, in tandem with other aspects of System, works well with a CA in a given instance.
QuoteSo, similar to IIEE, this is EAAE. Somewhere in there the legitimacy of the claim is Judged, which can consist of both debates about whether it's applicable and reinterpreting the SIS in light of the agreement that it is relevant.
QuoteA fighter in D&D is trying to get past a door, guarded by an Orc.Fighter: "I swing with my vorpal blade. I roll a twenty! Therefore the Orc is decapitated!" (MatB - "Vorpal + 20 = Head-lopping")GM: "The orc dies messily, his body slamming back against the door, which closes. There is the distinct sound of a lock clicking shut." (MitM - "Headless flailing Orc + Lockable door = Door locked")Fighter: "Okay, I go get that barrel of oil I saw earlier, use rope to make a fuse, set it against the door, retreat to the next room and light the fuse. It sizzles, burns, the barrel explodes. Kaboom!" (MatE - "Oil + flame = Kaboom!, but what does Kaboom! mean?"... maybe)GM: "The door is in burning flinders."
QuoteIt seems to me that most traditional RPGs are very much MatB oriented (obviously, we're talking about degrees here, as there is always some meaning that's made up on the fly).
QuoteNow, interestingly, almost all vetoes are instances of MitM, as such. They happen when the fact is Appealed to. The authority to veto, however, can be based on MatB, MitM or MitE. Examples:[list=a][*]MatB: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because your Charisma is still 6."[*]MitM: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because... uh... the enchanter's tower lends iron will to all servants."[*]MitE: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her. Which tells you something, if you stop to think about it...."[/list:o]
Quote from: TonyLBI think that we're all in agreement (there) that "meaning" is a construct placed onto events in the SIS by the perception of players. There is, in short, no such thing as "inherent meaning." Whether you have a Charisma of 6, or you did a great deed for the King, or any of that... at some point, some player (or players in consensus) are going to refer to that past fact as authority to shape present and future input to the SIS. That's "meaning."
QuoteAny fact which can be appealed to for authority goes through (at least) three stages. It is Established as a fact. It is Appealed to for Authority. The Authority is Applied to the SIS. This in turn Establishes new facts
QuoteDoes this seem like a sensible breakdown of the ways that social expectation can be applied to the ways that people appeal to SIS-features for authority?