Started by Ron Edwards, October 28, 2008, 07:43:08 PM
QuoteYeah, that concept is about the same as Incoherence, in reference both to the text and to subsequent play, rather than Drift. Drift might be a response to that situation, though.
QuoteNot much to say here. I asked Dan and Chris what they wanted, and they told me. Granted, I articulated the Narrativist option clearly rather than decreeing "This be Gamist, yarrr, let's go!" The reason I did that at all is because I know that the pure color and cultural mind-share of D&D often spark interest in Narrativist play, and I suspected that might be the case for these two.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 15, 2008, 05:55:30 AMI'm also interested in whether and how Zilchplay is involved in the cross-group or no-group phenomenon, basically people who self-identify as gamers, participate in no consistent group, and who play briefly and occasionally in public meet-ups and as a guest presence in other groups.
QuotePlayer: "I want to pass this guard." (Player's intention, probably the character's as well, we usually hardly describe anything before rolling.)GM: "Okay, roll for it, what Trait?"Player: "Killer instinct"Roll proceeds, narrator includes "Killer instinct" in IEE, after the mechanical resolution. (...), "Killer Instinct" could be seen as not yet expressed but obvious once mentioned: the history and definition of my character makes it obvious that he's going to kill yet again (at least try, as my choice for the Trait implies). If the GM ends up as the narrator, he could decide, since we don't even do Initiation before the roll, that just as my character was about to draw his dagger, he sees into the guard's eyes and suddenly takes pity on him, and asks the guard if he can get in: "Why yes of course!"However, this would be "after" in the sense that the mechanical choice of involving the Trait "Killer instinct" entails a constraint on the fiction that will essentially be produced after that choice, (...)
Quote]Basically, our Monologues of Victory granted Narrational and Content Authority (perhaps even Situation, I can't recall clearly enough to tell), whereas Ron leaves Content Authority in the GM's hands at all times (see Silent Railroading and the Intersection of Scenario Prep & Player Authorship) and as far as I can recall, we used to put resolution just after Intention (see Vincent Baker's explanation of Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect). I'm not quite sure where Ron puts it.
QuoteOk, so that's one point I wanted to raise: is Content Authority "safer" depending on when in the IIEE process resolution is invoked?
QuoteHowever, this would be "after" in the sense that the mechanical choice of involving the Trait "Killer instinct" entails a constraint on the fiction that will essentially be produced after that choice, (...)(BTW, if either Misha or Ron can show me how "Partial Invocation" could beneficially replace "before", I'd be grateful, I don't think I get it yet.)
QuoteI'm wondering if the Pool would similarly crash if played with resolution after Execution (I think Vincent used to abbreviate that IIE*E) and an "after" interpretation of rules. I'm thinking yes, because it'd be much harder to integrate the trait into the fiction in just the execution (and even then, it would be so much smoother to just mention the Trait in the Execution so as to make a nice introduction for the Execution narration).