Something about 'height advantage' and it's kin
Roger:
Hi Callan,
I'm glad I stuck with this thread, because I think I finally see where you're coming from. It's part of a big huge question, maybe the biggest question there is. So I need to start at the big huge level, but I promise you that I'll bring it back to your specific discussion by the end of it.
The big question is: what is real? What is reality? What makes something real? More specifically, what are the properties of something that is real?
One important property is, as you've already brought up, an objective measurable continuity. This anvil really weighs 50 pounds; anyone with access to it can weigh it themselves at any time, and they'll all come up with the same answer.
On the other hand, there are a number of things that many people would describe as real, as really existing, that don't have that property. Abstract concepts like love, subjective concepts like beauty. Even something like mathematics, which has laboured so diligently in the pursuit of objective truth, doesn't seem to be real in the same sense an anvil is.
However, those things tend to exhibit a subjective continuity, and so people often treat them as being as real as any other real thing. Everyone agrees, more or less, on the meaning of the abstract concept "3". Its properties are the same for everyone, at every time.
Similarly, a fiction can have this subjective continuity. In Shakespeare's story of Macbeth, Macbeth kills King Duncan. Everyone who has read the story will agree that that occurs in the fiction. There can still be a lack of consensus on some properties of the fiction, of course -- not everyone agrees on the motivation behind the regicide, for example.
Is it possible to go through life rejecting all such abstract concepts as being unreal? It's probably possible. I present to you my good friend Literal Larry:
Roger: Hi, Larry. Say, I've been envisioning my ideal dream house. My ideal dream house would be red. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Larry: Yes, I understand.
Roger: Okay. So, Larry -- what colour is my ideal dream house?
Larry: Bzzt! Does not compute! Your ideal dream house does not exist and therefore cannot have a colour.
Roger: Thanks, Larry.
But I think we might all agree that Larry is a little strange in this.
So, coming around circuitously to RPGs: our old friend the Shared Imagined Space typically has this sort of fictional subjective continuity. And it also has areas in which there is a lack of consensus.
As you have so ably pointed out, sometimes this lack of consensus can result in a crisis. "Hey, I shot you!" "No you didn't! I dodged!" "No way, I totally shot you!" So what happens then?
What happens is that a conversation of some sort takes place. Molding and mediating that conversation is essentially the only thing that RPG rules do.
Is this an arbitrary process? Yes, in the sense that it is a process that consists of arbitration. There is one or more arbitrators, and they arbitrate a resolution to the conflicting visions of the SIS.
Is this unusual to RPGs? Not at all. Many sports have rules which define a penalty named something like "Unsportsmanlike Conduct." There's no definitive list or definition of exactly what constitutes it. But referees call that penalty every day, and by and large people are happy with the results. Even in very big and very important games where millions of dollars are at stake.
Alright, that's been a pretty long slog without any examples, so let me bust some out. They'll all share the same basic setup: The guys are sitting around playing D&D -- the characters are (within the established fiction) travelling through a forest, and the DM has just announced that a landshark has burst from the ground and attacked Jenkins -- something that the player of Jenkins is not too happy about. "J" refers to that player, "DM" to the DM, and other letters indicate other players.
Scene 1: An appeal to real props
J: What? It's attacking me? That sucks. Wait a minute -- he doesn't have 3 squares of reach, does he? I'm out of range; he can't attack me.
DM: Hunh? Oh, whoops. Alright, I guess it just bursts out of the ground and stands there, eyeing you hungrily.
J: CHARGE!
(This one doesn't really reference the SIS at all, so it's pretty straightforward.)
Scene 2: An appeal to real props, take 2
J: What? It's attacking me? That sucks. Wait a minute -- he doesn't have 3 squares of reach, does he? I'm out of range; he can't attack me.
DM: Hunh? Oh, whoops. I mean he bursts out OVER HERE (moves the miniature) and attacks you.
J: Dude that's sorta bogus, but whatever.
(This one displays the DM's mindset that the props are merely reflections of the SIS, not elements which define it, and so it's simply a matter of updating an incorrect prop so that it correctly reflects the fictional reality of the SIS.)
Scene 3: An appeal to role authority
J: Why is it attacking me?
DM: Because I'm the DM and I say it's attacking you.
J: Yep, guess it is.
(This occurs so often that I think many people don't even notice it occuring. I don't think it's inherently dysfunctional, but some people probably disagree.)
Scene 4: An appeal to 'the rules'
J: Why is it attacking me? Gutboy is a lot closer to it.
DM: Yeah, but Gutboy is a dwarf, and look, the Monster Manual says right here in the third paragraph that landsharks don't like the taste of dwarves.
J: Frickin' dwarves.
(Also relatively straightforward; 'the rules' really exist in an objective way.)
Scene 5: An appeal to 'the rules', take 2
J: Why is it attacking me? I'm an elf, and the Monster Manual says landsharks don't like to eat elves.
DM: Yes, but in my homebrewed campaign world of Elsuckia, the Elsuckian Landshark absolutely loves to eat elves.
J: Alright fine whatever.
(The relationship between 'the rules' and 'the houserules' can be a bit dicey, but they tend to have the same type of authority with respect to the SIS.)
Scene 6: An appeal to fortune
J: Why me?
DM: I gave each of you an equal chance of being attacked, rolled a die, and the dice say you get attacked.
J: Frickin dice.
(This often gets described as "more fair" by people who favour it, although I'm not particularly sold on that myself. Still, arbitration by fortune is pretty common.)
Scene 7: An appeal to the metagame
J: Why is a wandering monster yet again attacking me?
G: Because you're a 3rd-level fighter in plate, and the rest of us are 1st-level dweebs with 2 hitpoints each.
J: Heh, you guys suck.
(This isn't often the sort of thing you'd see so explicitly explained, but I think it's more common than some people would like to believe.)
Scene 8: An appeal to the metagame, take 2
J: Why is it attacking me?
G: Because all the rest of us are guys who have been playing D&D together for the last 8 years, and you're the new guy who just showed up an hour ago.
J: Sniffle.
(As above -- it's usually not this explicit. But such things occur, and it's keeping in line with some social contracts.)
Scene 9: An appeal to Spirit of the Century
J: It's attacking me? No way! Here's my FATE point -- I'm tagging my Aspect "I'm way too stringy -- you should eat Gutboy instead!".
DM: Ha, awesome. Okay, Gutboy, it's attacking you.
G: I hate that Aspect so much.
(I'm dropping out of pure D&D for a moment to demonstrate how different game systems arbitrate the conversation in different ways -- here, with a more direct influence on the SIS by a non-GM player.)
Scene 9: The thing that never happens
J: No it doesn't.
DM: What? Yeah, it does. The landshark is attacking you.
J: Nope. Is not.
DM: It bites you. Take 9 points of damage.
J: No.
(Seriously, this sort of thing just doesn't occur -- or doesn't occur for very long. In a very literal way, J is no longer playing the game at all if he flat out refuses to accept this version of the SIS. A crushing amount of social contract pressure is about to come down on poor J, and it's likely he'll back down or get exiled.)
Scene 10: The other thing that never happens
J: Dude, landsharks aren't real, you know.
DM: What the hell is your problem?
(It was hard enough for me to imagine Scene 9 occuring; I find this so intensely implausible that I include it only as a sort of logical extreme.)
So. It feels like it's been a long and winding road to get here to the end. In summary: People think all sorts of things which cannot be measured are really real. People often talk about the properties of fictional things in such a way that, void of all context, it may seem that they're talking about real things. People sometimes have disagreements about the properties of fictional things. Shaping the resolution of those disagreements is the only important thing that RPG rules do.
I'm glad you brought this subject up; it's so deep and fundamental that I think I've avoiding taking a good hard look at it.
Cheers,
Roger
Christian:
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on May 05, 2010, 07:06:24 AM
Christian,
This might be a bit off topic, or it might not, I'm not sure.
Hey !
I'll do my best to answer your questions. Be aware though that the ruleset is not finalized yet, and that it is certainly not 100% functional. That being said, your questions and my attempt to answer them can only lead to improvement, at least I hope so ! So here we go...
Quote
However, in your ruleset, is it fine for me to say: USS Enterprise appears and evaporates the goblin with photon torpedos (I use my "Raised in a tavern" trait and spend 1 Resolution point)?
You can't because 1) It doesn't show us or teach us anything about your character, 2) You essentially ask for narrative rights when it's not appropriate (during a conflict resolution)
Plus your "story" is unrelated to the Trait used. You can use any trait, but do your best to make it look good (at least look like you do!)
Quote
Or, is it fine for you to say "He calls his friends" every time you spend threat tokens for the goblin, over and over again?
I could, but as it would be boring, perhaps I should make a rule to prevent it. But as a conflict is played to resolve a whole scene, perhaps your question is irrelevant.
Quote
With both, is it fine when the person saying that is genuinely convinced they are telling good story? With both, is it fine if they are just saying it, for reasons? What happens when other players don't think it fits the story?
Out of conflict, it is fine to ask for "permission" to the gm. If everybody thinks it's a good story (fits with the context approved by everyone before play) then yes, go ahead! If it clashes and is said just to be a joke then no way.
Quote
USS Enterprise aside, what if I object to your goblin's dagger glowing red?
Except for particular cases, I don't see why. The glowing dagger is either 1)mere color, or 2) a malus for you but I paid for it.
Quote
How does your ruleset process that? Does it at all?
I hope I answered your questions!
Paul T:
Isn't this thread the reason games like GURPS were written?
I'm referring, of course, to rulebooks with pages and pages of "tables" and "modifiers", which were presumably written so that people could point to a book to establish an objective standard.
For instance, the book might say:
"Higher ground: +2 to hit. Assign this modifier if the attacker is at least 2' above the target. Examples: On horseback; firing from higher elevation to lower elevation; standing on a table."
The idea being that we can all look at that last bit and go, "Ah ha! +2 it is."
In actual play, I think that when a player says, "I climb up on the table", he or she is implicitly asking permission to get that +2 bonus. And, even absent the detailed chart which mentions standing on a table, in the groups I've seen such a player would most definitely feel cheated if the GM withheld that +2 bonus from them after they'd made that request. It's definitely grounds for a serious argument or at least a little bit of hurt feelings.
Callan S.:
Hi Christian,
Again kinda off topic but probably the more productive part of the thread! Okay, yeah, your example works and it's engaging of imagination.
But imagine that there's more of a 'talking shit' stage before any goal is declared. Now I know in traditional RPG's people...can talk shit for hours and it go nowhere. So lets say it only lasts until ten RL minutes are up or until some assigned person thinks an interestingly tense situation has sprung up.
Now roughly the same things could be said duing the talking shit mode, like you could say there's a goblin and he has this cool sounding black red glowing dagger. But no mechanical resources have been assigned yet. So we build it up a bit - the assigned person either calls it, cause damn, there's a goblin here with a dagger! Or ten minutes goes by and weve really described everything in enough detail now.
Now the ten minutes up, now the rules instruct you to ask what is the players goal? Well maybe he instead wants the damn dagger rather than the treasure chest (it's probably looted anyway!)! So that's his goal - the talking shit phase might actually set off something in him that makes what would be his goal, shift. Or maybe he thinks 'damn, that dagger sounds kewl - Christian is sure to spend malus because of it and I'm just about out of points - I'm a gettin' outta here! Goal: Retreat' so he'll strategize because he's seconding guessing what points you'll use, like you second guess people in poker, but instead of looking for beads of sweat on faces, he's second guessing based on what fiction you've described.
Anyway, just an idea. I think a talking shit phase can lead to different goals or approaches than if you start with 'what is your goal'. Or maybe you meant that with your example.
But yeah, it's totally clear cut with the spending, and that is an entirely refreshing thing! Just doing something, bang!, here and now!, instantly instead of wading through molasses before you get a climax. Also that the points are structured, so some sort of overall session play is built into the game rather than people trying to play and get some sort of structure in place at the same time. Good on ya! :)
Hi Jim,
Good post! Thanks for that!
Quote
we, being human, expect consistency and some reliance on the rules of the real world, we expect that if the person(s) with credibility has established that there is a table in the scene, it provides height advantage, and height advantage adds 2 to your attack roll, that when I stand on that table, it ought to provide me that +2!
Yes, but does your expectation mean anything, in terms of rules? I could go into dodgeball expecting not to be hit in the head, yet if there is no rule against it - then it's just some expectation I've cooked up. The expectation isn't actually relevant to the written rule.
There are various board games like diplomacy where people can ally, but then break that alliance at the drop of a hat latter on. You could get upset over that or realise it's all part of the game. Here, someones imagination can break their alliance with what you expect, by normal rules use. Perhaps they are doing it from whim, or perhaps you forgot 'the table got hit by a shrink ray' earlier. The table is as 'established' as those alliances are established.
To me, your quote makes it sound like expectations are more important than actual written rules. What gameplay exists, rests on expectations rather than rules.
I'm not going to lay into that, but this returns me to much the same sort of question I started with. Which comes first for people at the forge - expectations, or written rules?
Height advantage and it's kin - from what you say in your post, have expectations getting first priority. Would you disagree - you just mentioned how important expectations are to you?
Hi Filip,
Quote
Human-hardware does process words, though. You feed human-hardware with data and height advantage is either 0 or 1. When the computer would measure the amount of pixels or whatever, human-hardware can measure some other quality and proceed accordingly.
Take one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.
Will everyone do the same? Measure it on the graph paper down the millimetre and practically all of them will contradict the rest. Or so I say - run the test and we can find out!
Hell, take people from one gaming group, seperate them and do the same. They will produce results that contradict each other.
Now if they aren't all wrong somehow, what is the point of saying it's processing like hardware - no hardware does this (except for dice, I guess)?
Quote
This might be a bit off topic, or it might not, I'm not sure. However, in your ruleset, is it fine for me to say: USS Enterprise appears and evaporates the goblin with photon torpedos (I use my "Raised in a tavern" trait and spend 1 Resolution point)?
I'm not Christian, but it sounds fine to me. Oddball, but then I've seen manga where an old mans bed turns into a giant robot.
Do you have any AP accounts of people doing that? Would you do it? You wouldn't find it more fun to shape your words around 'Raised in a tavern'? And so be inclined to say something closer to 'Raised in a tavern' not because you have to, but because it's more fun to?
I'd say Christians design has 'fun gravity' and that gravity will attract you to say something closer to 'Raised in a Tavern'. Perhaps you still might say 'Well, one time we had this patron...his name was Kirk...I pick pocketed him and got this device that shoots and I now shoot the gobo with it!'. But to me, that sort of crazy high concept mash up makes me laugh and attracts me.
Christian, I can't quite describe why, but I've got a bad feeling on your list of 'you can't because'. It's relying on someone at the table 'knowing best'. Honestly that doesn't work amongst adults and also, amongst adults, is anyone going to really just call upon the USS enterprise?
And even if they did...so what? Is some god of RPG going to strike everyone down? Or is everyone going to go 'Oh, that player said it but it's up to something else to stop and limit him and nothing did - OMG! Nothing is tangible and that's the only important thing!' and then they all run screaming from the room?
I'd swear these are just superstitions your trying to address. But then again my original question kind of asked if people here are gripped by such.
Hi Roger,
It's not enough really. To say one isn't treating things as real, but then do the very same physical actions and say the very same things someone who does treat it as real would say and do. It doesn't really matter if you say it isn't real if the outcome of it all is exactly the same as the outcome you'd get with someone who does treat it as real.
Particularly when it comes to discussing design itself. Not even a break there. Still talking exactly like people who geniuinely believe it's real. The same outcome, even if you insist people aren't treating it as real.
Not the same topic but same idea, there was once a thread about storyteller games saying to young teens, in their formative years, that storyteller is sooo much about story, just pumping that idea while giving something not at all about story.
I mean, whitewolf weren't a school, they had no curriculum. So perhaps because of that it had no effect at all on anyone. And saying somethings real, to all sorts of new designers, to all sorts of people through books or blogs, like people in their formative teens, when really you don't believe it but the only things said say you do believe it. No effect at all, perhaps.
*Semi detached rant*
Or, given I was asking a question for myself at the very start, it's the same end result- even if all these other designers don't really believe it's real, everyone talking like it's real is is the same damn result. A never ending spew of mollases to wade through on anything collaborative. The same mollases as that actual play but in terms of design, because everyones so damn busy getting into how it's real (but don't believe it) it gets freakin' nowhere. Just cut to the combat in that AP? The actual meat? Hell no, that'd lose some sort of thing that's important! Cut past this 'your environement determines your combat advantage' double talk during design discussion? Hell no, that'd lose some sort of thing that's important!
Fuuuuuuuuck
*end rant*
Vincent, I outlined a contradiction in things you've written, but as far as I can tell your not even humouring the idea you could have made some error there, which is breaking one of the criteria for posting. So your post is in error/breaking our agreement. Please don't post in this thread again unless you can mull over the idea of an error.
Gareth, you seem to be telling me things as if your not considering you could be wrong on the matter. You need to add stuff like 'And this would be wrong if X'. Even Richard Dawkins said if a rabit skeleton is found in the wrong fossil record, it'd disprove the thing he passionately believes is true (evolution theory). Please don't post again unless you can mull over being wrong somehow.
lumpley:
I'm here in good faith. I wouldn't be posting in this thread if I hadn't considered the possibility that I'm mistaken -- them's the rules. In this case, though, you've misread me; I don't take the position you ascribe to me. There's serious problems in your understanding of what I've written.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page