Looking at the idea called 'system' again
Callan S.:
Hmm, how does that tie in with the million and one AP accounts out there (and this is even noted way back in T&T) that go something like
"Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?"
"No, your standing over there"
"If I'd known that I would have run way over here!"
"Well, your there and your burnt!"
I'd say that proves unshared imagination matters to play. Or are you saying if the player put his foot down and did not accept that he was standing over there/did not, along with everyone else, also imagine his PC was standing over there, are you saying he'd have no consequence. Ie he'd not be burnt by the dragon. And so your saying that unless everyone imagines it, it's not relevant to play?
Caldis:
Callan,
Can play continue if they never resolve where the character actually was? Somehow that has to happen or else the game falls apart. You cant have a player saying his character wasnt burnt by the dragon while the GM says he was. Either they resolve it in some manner, negotiation, ret-con, someone gives in or else the game has reached an impasse and can not continue. How they do that is the system in use.
Callan S.:
Well, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.
What's really interesting here is the very different emphasis - compare the following:
* Play can't continue because we did not resolve where the character is, fiction wise
Vs
* Play can't continue because someone is not following the rules. Playing with a fractured fiction is fine (say that five times fast!), but if people wont follow rules, play cannot continue.
It seems to be the fiction first/rules first divide. Which kind of was discussed here, once.
I think I do understand what your getting at with the sense that play can't continue until this thing on where the guy is, is resolved. I can see that as being the hurdle to get over. But I can also switch perspective and see it as nothing all that important and it's whether people are following rules, assuming there are any to follow, that matters and the fiction can stay fractured and that's no biggy - the show/play goes on regardless. I can mentally flick between the two emphasis...though my own preference is the latter.
I imagine that if your emphasis is on the former where play can't continue until that fiction is resolved, my half damage rule from above probably seems anathema, perhaps provoking a responce like "Who cares if you can keep following some darn procedure! Where is the guy!? Where is he...you can't go on like that!". Indeed it's probably seen by many as the feature of roleplay as a hobby, in that play can't go on without an intact fictional package.
Maybe it is, historically, I don't know. Certainly this discussion of system seems very much fiction first/play can't continue unless the fiction is resolved.
Caldis:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 05, 2009, 04:00:26 AM
Well, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.
This is resolving the events in the SIS. It may not answer where exactly the character was but it does resolve what happened, he was at least partially damaged by the fire. This is system and it works exactly as per definition and the same as your earlier example where you didnt agree with the gm's ruling but let it go. Even here you have both parties agreeing on what happened or the game breaks down. If one side doesnt agree with using your solution then the game still cant continue.
Marshall Burns:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 04, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Hmm, how does that tie in with the million and one AP accounts out there (and this is even noted way back in T&T) that go something like
"Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?"
"No, your standing over there"
"If I'd known that I would have run way over here!"
"Well, your there and your burnt!"
I'd say that proves unshared imagination matters to play. Or are you saying if the player put his foot down and did not accept that he was standing over there/did not, along with everyone else, also imagine his PC was standing over there, are you saying he'd have no consequence. Ie he'd not be burnt by the dragon. And so your saying that unless everyone imagines it, it's not relevant to play?
That proves that those people weren't communicating and/or listening to each other very well.
By the way, I don't there is a fiction first/rules first divide. "Fiction first" is a rule, and an element of System when it is used.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page