Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by TonyLB, April 19, 2005, 09:33:42 AM
QuoteSo the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"
Quote from: TonyLBIn Task Resolution, the relevance of a single roll to a player's goal (absent "hit-point" effects) is judged MitM, whereas in Conflict Resolution that relevance is judged MatB. I'm honestly not sure that there's any other difference between Task and Conflict resolution.
Quote from: Simon MarksSo the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"
Quote from: Simon MarksIn MatB, we have an Cause and Stated Effect link that has more credibility due to past precident including the rules. (Natural 20 + Vorpal weapon = Chopped off head).In MitM we have a cause and an stated effect, which needs to be negotiated as there is no precident (I am trying to Pick a lock with this dagger).In MatE, we have a cause and no stated effect - and so there is no precedent either. (I am throwing water over the lighting elemental)In each case there is a cause - but what it means is in flux.
Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, Lightning-Man and EAAE. I'll take one possibility:"Lightning man was defeated by water": Established when said defeat happens. Appealed to when somebody hits him with a fire-hose and says "Remember how water defeated him last time?" The authority is Applied to the SIS, and water once again short-circuits him. This Establishes his second defeat as a Fact.Somewhere in there, people (or a person) decide whether the first defeat is relevant to the second conflict. When they decide that is what the Meaning structures are all about.MatB: The negotiation about when it can apply happens right after the fact is established. "So Lightning Man is vulnerable to water! Cool!" "Yeah, unless he gets some sort of special grounding footgear." "But he has to work to get that... until then this fact will always be applicable." (EjAAE)MitM: The negotiation about when it can apply happens after the fact is appealed to. "Hey, Lightning Man was defeated by water last time... that should still work!" "I don't know... wouldn't he have tried to overcome that weakness in the intervening time?" "Nah... he's electricity. It's just part of his schtick." (EAjAE)MatE: Feedback is given after the authority has been applied to the SIS. "Lightning Man is vulnerable to water, and we just soaked him. He's toast! KzzzaP!" "Sure, I guess. So he's toast. Sort of a lame fight though. The news outlets start going on about theories that you set up these fights to look good... after all, they never see you really being challenged." (EAAjE)
Quote from: TonyLBI don't think, by the terminology I'm using, that every event which is established as having happened in the SIS has meaning. They are given meaning when someone appeals to that event for authority i some later instance, and the legitimacy of that appeal is judged.And the things being referred to for authority can be both events in the SIS and rules. But that doesn't give either of them any "inherent" authority. It's the players who have the authority. The rules and events of the game are just tools that they try to use to support their own authority.
Quote from: Simon MarksSo, Kell hates his father (a fact)In this hypothetical system, we can look at what this translates into.It will lead to certain 'predefined' effects - So, it will grant +2 to any attempt to harm his Father. This is MatB, as it is Judged once the fact is created.If I then say "Kell's hatred of his father helps me jump the river" then thats an attempt to add to the SIS that this is true. It is judged when I try to use it.If I then say ""Okay, so Kell's hatred of his father helped him shoot this man dead. My God... all of his fighting is a sublimation of his desire to kill the man he hates and loves. Which I didn't know until we insisted that the trait was relevant here." is where you rationalise why you got +2 to killing this man.
Quote from: TonyLBCallan: Appealing to a fact for authority is, actually, using that fact to appeal to other players for authority. Therefore the attitude of the other players toward that fact is key to how successful the appeal is. Does that sound (to you) like what you're saying too? I think we're on the same page, but I'm not sure.