Looking at the idea called 'system' again
Callan S.:
Quote from: Caldis on November 05, 2009, 07:03:54 AM
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.
There are two things in terms of fiction - where the guy is standing, and whether he gets fire on him. Only the latter is resolved. The former is unresolved, the two people do not agree and are not imagining the same thing at all. Play goes on regardless, as the procedure handles this. They both agree to that procedure, but fiction wise they do not both agree to where the PC was standing.
And with my own example, your starting to tell me what I agreed to. Your obviously not the one to tell me that. I didn't 'let it go' - I didn't agree with his fiction. I agreed with the golden rule invocation.
But I'm thinking your going to keep ascribing my agreement to the golden rule with some sort of fictional connection, and thus linking my agreement with fiction. But this is just you deciding what I agreed to.
Can you give me a short AP example of you playing any old boardgame - I'll point out you following the procedure in it, without getting some agreements on fiction. Then you'll know I was doing exactly what you did in the boardgame, at that point.
Quote
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.
Boardgames continue all the time without anyone agreeing on some fiction. That's exactly what I'm describing, but you keep wanting to say the game went on because we patched over the fiction together. We didn't. It was a boardgame moment. And I'll note how a number of indie games coming out are kind of boardgamey - it's indicative that total dedication to fiction perhaps isn't the be all and end all.
Caldis:
So once you agreed to the golden rule interpretation what happened with the fiction? Your character wasnt able to shoot his gun at the same time as he loaded the weapon. You may not have agreed with the ruling but you accepted it. There is no your version of events that happened and the version the gm used there is only the version you both accepted, you werent able to shoot and load. Likewise in the Dragon example you've both accepted the character was close enough to be damaged by the flames, we may not agree on where exactly the character was but if it doesnt affect the resolution or the action it's a disagreement about color not system.
Callan S.:
Jeez man, you really are explicitly telling me what I've agreed with!
If some tribe had a law that said I had to wear a red sash upon first visiting their village, because otherwise bad spirits come, and I wear the red sash, does that mean I agree that their bad spirit exists? Or that I just agree to abide by their laws?
Your projecting spirits onto procedure, then telling me that as I've agreed to the procedure and it's resolutions, I've agreed to the spirits.
I agreed to the golden rule procedure outcome - I did not agree to some fictional level that anyone else projected onto it or it's outcome, or that you are projecting onto it right now. And the guys in my dragon example, they are doing the same - they do not agree on fiction, they just agree to the procedure to continue with. Your just blatantly making stuff up now when you say they agree 'he was close enough'. They did not. I should know as it's my example, but your actually telling me what the guys in it have agreed to.
Or are you gunna keep saying "You put on the sash! You've agreed there are spirits!"?
And your first questions a loaded one - "what happened with the fiction?". The questions asserting that one single 'the fiction' existed. It's like asking me "Where were you on the night of the murder you commited?"...bit hard to answer that one without simply admitting something that isn't true. Similarly I can't answer your question without admitting your premise that there was one single fiction, because the question is rigged that way.
Caldis:
I cant add anything else here. All I can say is what did happen in the game. Was your character able to shoot and load at the same time like you wanted? Did that happen? Did you get to move on to the next step that would happen in a game if your character was allowed to fire his gun? Did you roll to hit? There is no multiple fictions here, I'm sorry but you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Only one thing happened you loaded the rifle and continued with the game as the gm ruled.
Callan S.:
If X = 0, spend one Y to put the value of X at the value of Z.
X is given the tag 'ammo', Y is given the tag 'attack' and Z is the maximum value of X.
It's quite easy to follow that procedure without agreeing to any fiction anyone else has in their pretty little head. Just like it's possible to play the card game 'lunch money', following the instructions without any fictional level at all, or follow the instructions, studiously ignoring any fiction that pops into anyone elses head. Eg, the 'big combo' card in lunch money, which does X amount of points, the instructions encourage you to describe the move. Does that mean the other person simply must have agreed with the description as being the one and only fiction? Or are they just nodding through and humouring how your imagination goes, as they follow the instructions?
But ultimately I'll put it this way - if I knew someone else was going to be absolutely certain I'm agreeing with their fiction when I'm not and I'm actually telling them I don't agree? I don't want to give that impression - so I'd pack up and leave. That simple. Take the 'reloading' thing - if the other people involved wont accept at that very point when it came up I don't agree with their fiction and there are two seperate, disparate fictions, I'd just pack up and leave. Not because anyones done anything bad, I just don't want to give the impression, by hanging around, that I agreed to something I didn't agree to. If you can't see I don't agree with your fiction, but if I stick around you'll have the impression I do agree? Then I'll leave. As soon as the GM says actually it still takes an attack to reload, I'll just say bye and leave then. I wont stick around and humour or support what is a false and deluded impression. To be honest, if I knew, I wouldn't play with such people to begin with. Not because they are bad, just because I don't want to humour their deluded impression of what I have agreed to.
I'm really dreading that somehow someone will take this to a pythonesque "Oh, even if you leave, you agreed to the fiction". Which brings all sorts of absurd comedy skits to mind "What if I pulled a gun and shot them all?" "Still agreed!" "Nuke?" "Still agreed!". Which would basically mean LP and 'system' are hotel california. But hopefully this is just a probability of what someone will say and one that just isn't the RL case.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page