The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
Callan S.:
Not really much to say - I was commenting in another thread that if 'fiction' decides what rules can be used/deployed, then it doesn't matter how awesomely you design. If fiction says your rules don't get used, then those rules don't get used. Precisely because they come first. So fiction can, and perhaps if 'it' decides, always will throw all structure to the wind.
And it struck me perhaps this is what Ron's called murk, or what I've called molasses?
That there is no structure, unless this 'fiction' decides it's okay to use. And this 'fiction decides' is as bullshit as the planchette is moved by spirits on the ouja board.
Okay, before I lay too heavily into that, let me say this. I think, like watching a magic show and humouring the little feeling in oneself that maybe it's real magic, one can humour the idea that the 'fiction' decides something. Of course it doesn't - were back to the point where in the past people would say 'What do the characters want' and we'd tell them the characters don't exist to want anything. Here, the 'fiction' doesn't exist to decide anything. There's just people. Okay, BUT we can enjoy humouring the idea that the 'fiction' decides things, like we enjoy humouring the idea 'magic' makes that rabbit appear out of the hat.
But oh boy, are some of you serious about 'the fiction' actually deciding.
Anyway, how do you get anywhere when there is no structure? Exactly - well, to me that sounds like murk (which makes me think of swamp mud and walking through it) or mollases (again, wading through it).
Of course in the old days you could write a standard rant and that was a pass. So for a token actual play example - I've played in many games where the GM called on skill rolls because it 'sounded right'. Oh wait, that doesn't sound specific enough because pretty much everyone does that, right? Well it is specific, but I'll try some more.
Okay, I've played in games where the GM had some notion of a plot or something, where bad guy had done X, perhaps left remnants (read: clues) behind of that. But what did we engage - well, it'd go from 'okay, a guy is hiring you' to whatever we did, then a roll that 'makes sense' based on what we did, then we'd do something else and that'd get a roll that 'makes sense' to the GM, or the GM would start to get a slightly constipated look as the very skism between what structure he had in mind and what happened at the table divided not so much directly to our actions as players, but divided instead to how HE was determining what rules happened next. Ie, he was letting 'the fiction' determine what happened next, and the fiction pretty much let things disapear up their own arse because it HAS NO STRUCTURE (worth a damn). Letting the 'fiction' decide is a bit like narrativistically playing a nut job and letting the actual character decide what rule is used next/letting the psycho run the asylum.
Actually that's a bit of a generalisation, but hey, it basically puttered - waddled - waded through molasses to get anywhere, many, many a time. I'll dare to say - every time. I wont say it didn't get places at times in the session - sweet memories. But it was like a raft on the open sea.
So, fiction first? Take it out the back and shoot it in the head?
Well, as I said in another thread, there is no binary state on the matter that I'm aware of. Like a board game is allllll mechanics first. But then roleplayers try and make it alllll fiction first. And weve had threads about before and after traits (STILL hate the name, btw, even if I get the idea). You could quite possibly define some rules as coming before fiction, being rules first, and yet also define some rules of the same game as being fiction first - the 'fiction' decides if they can be applied. Clearly define which is which, and your dandy. It doesn't have to be all fiction fetish or all boardgame steel and oil.
And hopefully we leave the age of roleplay myth, and get past where the fiction gets to practically faux religion levels. Whoa, did I say that - I'll use the 'did I sound scary' get out from Spiones text to excuse myself...hehe.
But basically here's the big idea - if 'fiction' decides what rules will or wont be used, if any, it DOES NOT MATTER how well you design them (or for that matter, how badly you design them...perhaps). If the 'fiction' decides (for ALL rules) if they get used, you may well go whole sessions (plural!) without using them. What was the point of writing any rules in that case?
Gah, and now I know I'll get a counter point that they 'work' as suggestions. And I'd agree in that if you were on the titanic and paddled furiously on one side, you could affect the titanics course...to a degree.
I'm almost outta booze, so I'm done :)
dugfromthearth:
just about every game I know of has rules for making a perception test. you don't normally use it when the character's walk down the street to see if they notice the cars or step in front of traffic.
in every game I've played the GM decided when to use tests and when not to. They don't apply the mechanics to every action and every situation.
greyorm:
Callan, ranting while drunk isn't exactly the best way to post responsibly here, nor is flippantly flaunting board rules about discussing topics grounded from Actual Play and carelessly making up a scenario that fits your assertion or half-assedly posting AP just so you can post two cents about whatever crusade you're on this week.
And here's why all that is a problem: if you have ever played any RPG ever in the history of RPGs you realize that fiction does indeed decide things and comes first. "I'm in a room with monsters" is fiction, as compared to the fiction "I'm in an empty field." The fiction does indeed decide what rules can be used. You can't use combat rules in an empty field, just like you can't swim when not in the water. (I think if you had posted a moment of actual play, this would have been shockingly and immediately apparent.)
There is, in fact, a balance or a position you're willfully ignoring in order to rant about the evils of "fiction", which is exactly why I ignored your attempt to drag my thread off-topic with posts about it. Because if your character in my game is a mile away tied to a stake buck-naked, then the fiction says you can't contribute dice even though the rule says you can, and you can't for what should be obvious reasons, And "OMG! FICTION! BLARGH!" was a pointless response that did nothing to help or contribute to my design.
What it comes down to is that the problem you're describing isn't even with "fiction first", not if you have ever played and enjoyed any RPG ever. It's with something else entirely that you are choosing not to try and identify, instead you're focusing on a convenient-but-transparent scapegoat in the form of "fiction decides".
Ron Edwards:
Sigh.
1. Raven, you're out of line. I ask that you not participate in the thread at least until some substantial back-and-forth occurs, if it does. Your post makes it about a hundred times harder to deal with the various minor faults in Callan's.
2. Callan, please do not reply to Raven's post. It will be remotely possible to have a discussion based on your post, but you're going to have to deal with some moderator comments.
3. I'm trying to get ready for GenCon, and this is not helping. I'll get to the moderator comments later.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Stepping over wreckage and moving on
Quote from: dugfromthearth on August 01, 2010, 07:01:12 AM
just about every game I know of has rules for making a perception test. you don't normally use it when the character's walk down the street to see if they notice the cars or step in front of traffic.
in every game I've played the GM decided when to use tests and when not to. They don't apply the mechanics to every action and every situation.
I'm not sure, but I think your making the arguement that not applying the mechanics to every action and situation makes sense, and thus there's no problem here.
But as you've said yourself, making sense doesn't mean making a game.
Quote from: dugfromearth
1. determining what is likely or "realistic". We often think something like "a corporation would have a security camera in an area like that". But being fiction, the GM often has to have the enemies doing dumb things to make a game possible.
Does making sense == having fun, always? I remember a review of the riddle of steel on rpg.net where the guy said he didn't think much of it at all. Turns out, in the comments section, he didn't use spirtitual attributes. They didn't make sense to him.
Now imagine if he didn't put his sense of fiction first and played them through and just for examples sake, lets say he and his group actually have alot of fun with the spiritual attribute rules (as many have).
Well in that case putting 'what makes sense'/fiction in charge of what rules can be deployed made the game considerably less fun. It's 'fiction decides' to blame here.
I'm trying to work up a set of evidence here, like if I were trying to prove some scientific point - I'm not trying to assert it by sheer personality or such. So I'd appreciate people looking at the evidence I've presented and trying to find holes in that evidence and destroy it, rather than just try to ignore it and argue the point directly. If my evidence collapses I agree my point does as well. Attack the evidence!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page