The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
Roger:
Vincent Baker has written a bit about this:
In my imagination, a rule is like if you take a nail and scratch a line in dry dirt, and what people actually do is like where the water actually runs. Some water will run down the line you scratched, because you scratched it. Other water will run down the line you scratched but would have run there even if you hadn't. Other water will go wherever it goes. And (and here this picture breaks down, now I'm talking about bizarro-world water) some water will respond perversely to your line, bouncing off of it or testing its limits or sliding around it or flowing in the opposite direction out of plain orneriness.
So, yeah -- there's rules, and there's people, and some people will use some rules, and some people won't.
Is this inherently problematic? I'm not so sure.
It's been years now since I've played a game in which we used the encumbrance rules, even though I've played lots of games with those rules. I don't recall thinking to myself, Dang, if only we'd been using those encumbrance rules, our experience would have been better.
Can disregarding rules be used for evil? Sure. Just like everything else.
In light of all that, does rules design matter at all in a strong Fiction First group? I would suggest it does -- some rules are going to come into the conflict with Fiction First more than others. If a rule states that horses are really good at climbing ropes (which at least one popular ruleset does) then that will tend to introduce more dissonance than a rule stating that ungulates are really bad at climbing ropes.
Cheers,
Roger
Erik Weissengruber:
Here is an actual play report of someone who is trying a "fiction first" approach on a hacked 4E game:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/278034-d-d-4th-edition-hack-fiction-first-playtest.html
I am one of the players ("E").
I whiffed an attack roll and the GM narrated the result. He described how my staff was caught up in the facial pincers of the Ankheg, it really helped me imagine the situation. Then when my turn came, I picked up that bit of fictional detail to justify a +2 to my next attack.
I used the publicly articulated fiction to justify a bonus. I don't remember anything in the rules about Ankheg jaws and exactly how wide they are.
Callan S.:
Jim and Roger,
You seem to be raising the same idea as each other. Let me say your idea that 'it depends' or 'some people use rules and some people don't' - this is like you saying you have a pyromaniac at the gaming table who in real life sets fire to things. And your saying, hey roleplay is sometimes about the drapes catching on fire. Because sometimes the drapes do just catch on fire.
No, the drapes don't just catch on fire - you invited the pyro. Or you invited the person who is the 'water' that ignores the line. You are the origin of why the drapes catch on fire or why rules are ignored. It's not what roleplay is, it is just your own doing for inviting this guy.
I'll give an example I remember Ron gave (using him as he's probably taken more credibly than myself), where he had a potential player, as I recall, who kinda had a wishywashy character concept for the upcoming game and indeed was kind of trying to leave it up to Ron to make the character. Ron politely said not to turn up, IIRC.
What you guys and the Lumpley quote are effectively saying to me is instead that roleplay is sometimes about making your players character for them. Because you'd still invite this guy along, and the guys who only want to work from their expectations, and the guys who ignore rules, and the little dog with a black spot who was snuffling around outside.
And cool, whatever is cool for you. But that you do that doesn't mean roleplay is about that or that all designs and design discussions must revolve around all the people you'd invite. Your treating what you do out of habit as not something of your own doing, but 'how roleplay is'.
I don't know what to say in terms of inviting anyone, no matter what they do or wont do - I think it's another subject entirely, really?
On that side topic, probably worth reading this as well. And as a happy ending towards not inviting people if they aren't going to do the required tasks, IIRC, the guy rung Ron back a week latter with a character he'd really thought out and put alot effort into. Being uninvited drove him to put his nose to the grindstone a bit. Sound good?
epweissengruber,
Coincidence on the parralel use of the words 'fiction first', it seems.
On top of that odd coincidence - your specific example does not seem to be the fiction determining rules use ignoring the rules at all?? There is a rule in the texts, IIRC, for the GM assigning a +2 if in his reflection upon the spoken fiction so far, he thinks it should apply. Whether the GM gives you +2 or not, he is still following the rule in either case as that is exactly what it says to do. Or so I would think - are you trying to say you all didn't care about rules at all and only by chance what you did happen to match the rules? That's getting rather complicated - are you trying to say that?
Because otherwise your describing mechanics first play, as I'd call it, not fiction first. You mechanically failed to hit and...you missed. The GM did spoken narration - maybe hinting through it to you, I dunno. Then following the mechanical procedure on turns, he follows the mechanics on +2 and whether it is mechanically assigned or not. The mechanic is that he listens to the spoken fiction, and he decides.
Sorry, this all appears to be following the rules utterly, rather than the procedure being consulting 'the fiction' to decide if a rule is used or ignored? Indeed to me it's system mattering - mechanics are followed utterly, and the imagination sits itself around those mechanics - so the mechanics are worthwhile in the way they will help you imagine something you otherwise would not have. You might never have imagined the staff tangled in the Ankheg pincers without the mechanics, thus the mechanics assisted your imagination to go to a new place - by simply following rules (rules that are quite followable as much as 1+1 is quite followable) and fitting ones imagination around them.
Sorry, I'm just talking up the possitives of mechanics first now.
I do have a hypothesis that alot of gamers...their imagination hates the idea of conforming and shaping itself around mechanics and instead exults instead in mechanical things being shaped around it. Usually so much so it eventually has the group perhaps rolling one die a session, if that, and calling it great roleplay. Having shaped mechanics so much around itself, it's destroyed them all. Having run out of mechanics to exult in the deformation of, it turns towards pe...nm, it's mainly a hypothesis right now.
Back to earth, you seem to be describing a mechanics first situation, as I would name it? Do I make sense in saying that? Do you have any examples of where your GM said 'Well, the rules say this would apply, but it just doesn't make sense because of (insert fiction here), so I'm tossing it for now"? Not that I like that play, but this thread is looking at it technically. Though it's great to have what I call mechanics first examples to contrast it with.
Jim D.:
Callan, you make a valid (and profound) point regarding the presence of, for lack of a better term, undesirable players at the table, who attempt to shift the table dynamic, and by extension, the "rules" of the game. Thinking about the example you mention in passing about disinviting a disruptive player, your point on that count is absolutely right -- if you have a player who tries to turn the game into something it isn't, and the group as a whole doesn't want that, there's no reason to placate the guy. Finding someone else to play with in that instance is the right choice, I believe.
However, I want to make sure we're not confusing my application of the term "expectations" with another -- in short, what's more important, the desires of the individual or the desires of the group? The disinvited player example makes clear that we both believe the group comes first. I do not intend to suggest, however, that this also means a GM and roleplaying group should naively allow anyone's desires to change the game. Fire does just happen, but it only happens when you let it.
Referencing the same convention from earlier, I also attempted GMing a Dogs in the Vineyard session. All things considered, it went quite well -- I had three players who were spot on, loved roleplaying and really dug the conflict system. Unfortunately, I was saddled with a fourth who had the attention span of a gnat, latched on to each and every distraction available, and disrupted the game repeatedly. We were lucky to play one complete minute without having the flow broken. Seeing this wasn't going anywhere, and not wanting to be a jerk and call the guy out, I dissolved the session and we played again in private, the three other players and me, and loved it.
I dare say the link you provides to Ron's post illustrates both of our points. His 1-3 there do well to explain your idea that in the best case, the players should convene, utilize an established ruleset, and learn to play the game, even if it doesn't come naturally. However, the following passage, I think, illustrates GM versus player (in the context of "player character") expectation:
Quote
I recommend thinking about something that you wrote: your goal to convert the other players. That makes me less confident about the whole endeavor. It's not the same as the more positive situation of people gathering to do what they want even if some of them aren't sure about how to do it exactly. It doesn't lend itself well to the points listed above.
As far as I can tell, the GM in this case has a desire to shift a group's dynamic entirely in his favor by playing another system, when the group wants something else. It's a more extreme version of the disruptive player situation above. The party could try to convince him of the desires of his party, or failing that, simply find a new GM.
To bring this back to the main point: I believe the goal in a roleplaying session is to play within a world and ruleset adjusted to meet the collective expectations of the group, players and GM both (not blindly folding everyone's desires into an incoherent mess). If one player thinks differently, the group (as a whole, including the "offender") should evaluate it and make one of three adjustments:
Explain the ruleset and world they're operating with, and convince the loner of their opinionsEject the offending player if he patently refuses to play the game the group has convened to playPreferably, I think, adjust their expectations as a group so that a compromise is struck
Where the real difference lies in our points is whether the group should deviate from the written rules as they choose, or not. And that choice does strike me, at least, as subjective. If you want to play by the rules as written, and give the designers the benefit of the doubt in all cases, by all means do so. If I sat down at your table and played, you'd expect me to go with that, and I would. But for my groups, I remain open to suggestions on adjustments, as long as my opinion is given time. In either case, the crucial element is consistency. As long as everyone knows the rules in play and is on an equal footing, at least in terms of understanding, then I think we're both right.
contracycle:
Well, this emphasis on "use of rules" is new, I think, and I have not had that perception that this was what Callan was arguing against before, and I'm frankly surprised to see Callan accept the idea that a public statement (narration) turns fiction into sufficiently concrete material that rules can be activated or affected by it.
But now I also don't know what it is that Callan is objecting to. I thought the ankheg face-barb example was precisely the sort of thing to which he was opposed. So I'd like to second the call for a clear play example, whether real or made up, but an example of play and not an analogy to some other aspect of life.
At present it looks to me that "murk + railroading" serves as a description of what Callan is objecting to, but then "fiction first" is probably an unfortunate way of describing it as it includes the ankheg example as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page