System Transforms Situation... And Situation Informs System?
jburneko:
Marshal,
I don't play with these people and I'd love to punch in the face. Baring that, I still want to have reasonable things to say about the phenomenon which I agree with you feels like the tip of something larger.
The phenomenon I don't think is much different from the that no one calls for "Climb Check" if there's no wall in the fiction. No one should reasonably pull Black Dice in "It Was a Mutual Decision" unless they feel the situation at had warrants it. But some would argue that the former is "objective." Some one (usually a GM) declares that wall is or isn't there to be climbed and that "feelings" are ephemeral and there can't be "counted on" for making game mechanics work.
It's that second notion I'm calling "bullshit" on but I don't know how to explain it.
Jesse
David Berg:
Jesse,
In your Dogs example, it sounds to me like the (potential) conflict you observed was between what the Lieutenant, as you imagined him, would do, and what he could do via the game's mechanics.
I emphasize "could", because it's not what he had to do. The mechanics weren't "trying to force you" to do any particular thing.
I would guess that this particular choice is constant in every game all the time. What's more important? Fidelity to an NPC's in-fiction concept, or competition via mechanics? I suspect that having a specific Creative Agenda shared among all the players in a group will cover this. It also strikes me as a great place to look for manifestations of CA Clash.
Narrative Wall, to me, just sounds like CA in action, unifying the usages of various techniques and ephemera (e.g. resolution, narration, and just plain talking) toward a common end. I mean, how could Situation not inform how we use System?
I do think Narrative Wall is a catchy phrase, though, and I might use it in the future when discussing player choices to not "game" the system.
I apologize if I'm missing your point re: how all this matters in play. It seems to me that a lot of your concerns here are more in the realm of labeling and talking about this than in playing it, and so I've responded in that spirit. If you can think of an instance of play where the group shared a creative agenda, played a game that supported it, and yet ran into real trouble with the dynamic you're discussing, that might clarify for me what exactly needs solving here.
I think the only games where I've run into "I think I'm supposed to roll these dice now, but if I do, the game could be ruined!" are games without clear agendas, or games with resolution systems not matched to their agendas. The design solutions to those problems would seem obvious (design for CA coherence), and the play solutions if you wanna play broken games are what roleplayers have traditionally come up with -- ignore the rules when they get in your way.
Hope this rambling was useful...
-David
Marshall Burns:
Jesse,
Yeah, I think I see what you're getting at. Thing is, none of it is really objective, is it? It's all subjective, at its root, and that's why we have rules to say who's got authority over what, and how we should treat their contributions. (And even those rules are subject to Social Contract)
Any mechanic that says, "THIS is how you treat this thing I'm contributing," is what I would call an Expression mechanic. The different ways of Expressing the thing tell us different ways to treat it.
In the Rustbelt, a Vice with Grip 10 is different from one with Grip 11. The mechanical effect of withdrawal is greater, for one thing. The other bit is that the Vice's impact on the character's behavior is greater as Grip increases, but this is left entirely in the hands of the player. It doesn't force him to do any particular thing, but he's supposed to look at his sheet and say, "Okay, I'm Gripped for 11, how can I convey that in my depiction of my character?" It doesn't get you any bonuses, or any penalties, or anything like that. So why should the players care to do it? Because it makes play richer.
And let's look at a "climb check" in the Rustbelt. I totally reject the idea that it's "objective" in this game. The GM sets the target number based not on "how difficult this wall would be to climb," but on how important it is to the character to get over the wall. Having decided on a target number, then the GM describes why it's so hard to get over the wall. If it's not hard, then the wall is sturdy, and there's plenty of handholds. If it's hard, then the GM decides that the bricks are loose, and some of them pull out when you touch them, and some are falling down on you from above, and over the lake comes that strong, icy wind (they call it The Hawk) that comes searing through your clothes, whipping your hair into your face, and bringing tears to your eyes.
In Super Action Now!, let's say that one guy has the trait "Fastest stapler in the West 1d20" and another guy has "Staples really fast 5d12." That second guy has the potential to roll 5 successes when using that trait, while the first guy can get 1 at most. Does this mean that the second guy is a faster stapler? NOPE. It says right there on the sheet that Guy1 is the fastest, so bygod he is. The issue of speed is Expressed entirely through the textual description of the traits. What the dice Express is actual Effectiveness -- they tell us that Guy2 is, while not faster, better able to solve problems by using his stapling skills.
I wish I could apply this line of thought to It Was a Mutual Decision, but I don't know enough about it. What, precisely, would you say that the black dice are supposed to express? Because it seems clear from here that they are tools for the players to use to express some particular thing. Which suggests to me that if they are used for any other purpose, that is breaking the rules.
But here's a cool thing where Vincent applies this principle to Dogs:
Quote
So we're playing Dogs, it's the first session, and there's an enormous bonfire in town and it's a problem (I forget the details why). It's my raise. I say "I put my hands into the fire and I say 'peace, be still,' to extinguish it."
Like all right Dogs players, we haven't talked about the supernatural up-front at all. Never, ever talk about the supernatural up-front, except for the GM to say only "hey, supernatural things might happen, we'll see."
So. Peace, be still, to extinguish a bonfire.
a) Is it a legit move on my part? YES. I am clearly within my rights to say that my character does that.
b) Is it a legit raise, though? YES. The GM rolled demonic influence against me; ritual is how you make raises against the demons.
c) Is it tacky? UP TO YOU. Ron thinks it is, probably. I think it's cool. I think, most importantly, that it's true to the stories of my childhood and respectful of my family's faith and mythology.
d) Does it work, though? HERE'S THE FUN. This is why you don't set the supernatural dial up-front, but through play.
What dice did I push forward? High dice? Then I'm making a bid at nudging the supernatural dial upward. Low dice? Then I'm making a bid at nudging it downward.
How does the GM see? Both the dice he uses and what he says matter a whole lot. A block like "you can't bring yourself to put your hands in the fire" is a whole different thing from a block like "the fire leaps away from your hands but burns up more brightly elsewhere." So here's the GM participating in nudging the supernatural dial one way or the other.
(complete thread on anyway)
-Marshall
Ron Edwards:
Hey there,
You guys are getting a litttttle bit extreme, I think. Because you've had bad experiences with system-first thinking, doesn't mean it can't play a positive role - and indeed, provide a way into a given SIS that would otherwise be unavailable, for a given person at a given time, through fiction-first inspiration alone.
This may operate at two rough levels: (1) as a corollary and reinforcing element of the kind of play you're talking about, and (2) as a primary mode of play which generates SIS, particularly impetus and the unexpected, from the other direction.
So consider before you punch anyone's face. I fully understand your desire to do that to someone specific you've played with, especially if they've indulged in the mind games described so far in this thread. But it's misplaced if you're talking about means and desires of SIS-valuing play.
Best, Ron
Marshall Burns:
Yeah, okay, Ron, okay. To clarify, I'm not sure what "system first" means in terms of actual rules-application in play, so I don't know if that makes me want to get the face-punching started or not. I just get mad at people who don't assume responsibility for the way they use a system (especially if they then blame the system for it).
-Marshall
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page