[Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show
Callan S.:
My hypothesis is that the liquid/PTA difference is to do with what I'm talking about. So I'd say I'm on topic, but I understand it may be too blue sky theory/it isn't practical for some reason to include it here.
Quote from: lumpley on February 23, 2009, 09:25:03 AM
It happened, same as looking down at the 6 showing on the die. Or, to put it another way, the group decided, back when it happened, in play; nobody has to decide it anew.
Well the human imagination/agreement matrix isn't like the six showing on the physical die. With physical dice, if a 6 is showing on the top then a 1 is showing on the bottom - nobody has to agree to that, for it to actually be the case. But in the imagined space, if in the past your character watched the wolf king go by in a parade, the GM (or whatever player) who described the parade certainly agreed a parade went by. But that doesn't mean at the time he agreed to the additional ramification that your character was in the presence of the wolf king.
Just because something would seem to be a logical ramification of a described fiction, doesn't mean that person agreed to that ramification. The group may indeed have decided something, but that doesn't mean they decided/agreed to every possible ramification of it.
To make it even clearer, taking the dice example but lets say it's an imagined die now. The player narrates that it rolls and shows a six at the top. That player certainly agrees that a six is showing. Does that mean, by logical ramification, a one is showing at the bottom? The answer is no - because he hasn't agreed to that. The only thing agreed to is that a six is at the top. That's the only thing agreed to. It makes sense there is a one showing at the bottom. It may seem clear cut. But you have no agreement on that piece of fiction at all. And without that agreement...well, you know.
While with a real six sider, yes, if you see a six at the top, yeah, there is a one showing on the bottom. It happened. It really did. But in the imagined space it did not happen. Only the six was agreed to.
So what happens when you have logical ramifications but no agreement in terms of them? AND someone wont at this moment agree to the apparent ramification? Ie, when describing the passing parade they didn't agree you were in the presence of the wolf king and even when you state it now, they wont agree a passing parade means you were in the presence of the wolf king?
Well, either you have a safety net or have a group really, really invested in the SIS.
Quote
If it didn't happen in play, but might have happened anyway, then you just write your rules to account for that case. For instance: only things that happen in play count, mechanically. Or: the GM decides based on what she considers most likely. Or: the player in question decides, because we should give her the benefit of the doubt. Or: the group votes. It's not hard, there are a zillion possible solutions, it's just a matter of deciding which suits your game.
These are all designing in safety nets, as I put it. Now imagine deliberately leaving them out, because that means people will really have to invest in the SIS because they literally have nothing else to turn to in the face of disagreement.
So as to avoid play which pretty much stays in the safety net the whole time, ie mechanics-only, rushed, blurry, play-in-summary mode.
That's what I'd say is contrast between the liquid actual play and the PTA actual play. And I leave that for reflection and potential use. I'm happy to try and clarify any of the details/evidence that don't make sense, but basically it's all just so I can leave it at that description of what the difference between the liquid and PTA play might be. If those clarifications are too messy, it could go to PM instead. Though I do really like my imaginary die example I made up, hehe.
lumpley:
Aha.
These two rules are very different in their effect on play:
1. The player rolls 1d6 and adds her character's weapon damage bonus, from her character sheet. Furthermore, the group votes: should she add 2 or no? That's how much damage she does.
2. The player rolls 1d6 and adds her character's weapon damage bonus, from her character sheet. Furthermore, if her character's been in the presence of the King Wolf within the past 24 fictional hours (with a vote to resolve ambiguous cases), she adds 2. That's how much damage she does.
They're very different all by themselves, in their small ways. Then, place them appropriately within coherent systems and they're very different, pervasively, throughout play.
-Vincent
Frank Tarcikowski:
The whole notion that anything can be valid just because "the buck stopped" with someone and they "decided" it was so puzzles me. Or rather, it doesn't work for me. That's exactly my problem with these narration right type mechanics. In traditional role-playing where I play my character and the GM plays everything else and rules are task resolution based on some notion of causality or probability, you don't just say something is so. Even if you are the GM you don't. You have to respect the SIS that is already there. As it will be complex and detailed, you have a lot of context to pay attention to. Or, put in a positive way, you have a strong foundation to build on. And then you as a group have a shared understanding of how the SIS works, often promoted by the rules that say what a character can and can't do. So you know what can and can't happen. And that's how you establish stuff.
The presence of the wolf king thing, then, is a matter of interpretation. Everybody is clear about what happened, now you need to interpret that in the light of the resolution mechanic. And this very interpretation means further investment. It means further validating the SIS. Sometimes you fail. But that's just a sign that you as a group don't have as firm a grip on the SIS as I'd like you to if you were my group. This is the very thing I'm talking about. To continue play even though the content and/or meaning of the SIS is not actually shared, or even there, that's what I meant by "neglecting the SIS". That's what may happen if someone just gets to "decide" how it is because the rules say the "buck stops" with them.
- Frank
oliof:
I imagine a line that goes from investing in the SIS heavily, using the game mechanics as creative constraints, and neglecting the SIS and using the rules as something to twiddle mechanically "because they're there". My sweet spot is in the second to third fifth from the left of that line.
Callan S.:
Hi Frank,
Just for contrasting purposes, how I'd describe that for myself is that that isn't failure. What I'd describe it as is people not agreeing. Perhaps it's a glass half full/half empty thing, but I don't see people politely disagreeing as a failure. I mean, it's nice when everyone agrees - really nice! But disagreement/no immediate consensus is like situation normal/the average and agreeing is like good. Rather than disagreeing being failure and I don't know, agreeing being what is considered as standard?
Quote
But that's just a sign that you as a group don't have as firm a grip on the SIS as I'd like you to if you were my group.
When you refer to the group, do you mean including yourself? Or looking at the group without you in it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page