The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Callan S. on August 04, 2010, 04:49:15 PM
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??
Yes, it might just have been parallel phrasing. That said, folks might want to use that AP discussion in further discussions on this thread. I don't have much to add on this score, just offering a possible point of reference for those folks who want to work on this definition. Heck, even if everybody looks at this AP and says "right, that's what we DON'T mean" it will have been a useful point of departure.
oculusverit:
It seems that we're arguing two different types of scenarios here.
In one scenario, the GM decides before the game starts that he "doesn't like those rules". This goes with Callan's earlier example of the GM that doesn't like the spiritual rules in Riddle of Steel. He decides they have no place in his "fiction" so decides to ignore them. However, I'm sure that either before play or during character creation, such a GM would have to state to the players, "We're not using those rules. They don't make any sense." Thereby, he's "house ruling"--we're playing a game that's like Riddle of Steel, but without the spiritual rules.
In the other scenarios, the GM creates "fiction" on the fly. "Well, let's see here, the ogre's pretty powerful. It would make sense that a hit from him would send this warrior character flying." So when the players says, "I attack," the GM rules, "No, you can't, you got knocked too far away." The GM did not make this decision before play with this rule set began, he did not announce to the players that ogre attacks would be ruled as capable of knocking characters too far. So here, he's created a house rule on the spot that wasn't included in the original game. The only way for play to continue and still "make sense", however, would be that the players accept this rule and play consistently like this from here on--ogre attacks will always knock you too far away to strike back immediately.
If the GM is creating this house rule for actual purposes of the logic in his head, then we can at least ascribe to him noble purposes. If, as often happens, however, the GM is creating this house rule in order to "increase the drama" (which is code for 'let's make this scene more interesting so that the warrior doesn't just plow through this thing and we can extend the conflict a little longer") then that's railroading.
Jim D.:
"oculusverit": (Sorry, did you ever provide a real name? That seems to be what we go by around here. You can change your display name or have it appear in your signature.)
Yeah, that's absolutely true. Although I think your situations aren't as dissimilar as you think. I argue that the quality of play in a roleplaying session is directly proportional to how clear and consistent a picture the participants have in mind of both the fictional situation at hand, and the rules in play at any given time.
In the ogre scenario, I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that the GM should've explained his ruling at the time it would've naturally occurred ("The ogre hits you so hard it knocks you flying!", immediately upon the successful attack roll, so that the player and his party knew it and could react to it), but if the GM can explain his reasoning and the player characters buy it, it's okay, as long as now the ruling does remain consistent.
In the other scenario, the players, by necessity, have it in their mind that the spirit rules are not in play -- of course, if the GM didn't announce this, and he simply never called for spirit combat or related checks, there would be fundamental ambiguity and lack of clarity, and the player who built a spiritual powerhouse would be (rightly) peeved!
Callan S.:
Jim,
Quote
The disinvited player example makes clear that we both believe the group comes first.
It may be disappointing, but no, the group doesn't come first. My expectations, as originator of the game come first as in following these (presumably easy to follow) rules. Let me be clear, I'm not lining up for a bait and switch where I act like I'm all for whatever the overall group wants, but then try and train them my way. I don't try to train, I just wouldn't invite, much as I imagine Ron wasn't trying to train when he disinvited that guy. Though as much as I know most of the people I come across in Australia just follow the line, as best they can.
I actually dislike the 'it's that one guy who done wrong' idea - why, because it's that one other guy making an accusation of it, if you follow the pointing finger not toward it's target, but towards the pointer.
Quote
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.
I mean, who would be calling this one player disruptive? The group or...you, as a single player yourself?
But I'm going off topic - I don't use this method or the 'what the group wants' method.
Now I'll admit there are plenty of times I've caved in on my own principles - like one time a player in D20 modern was jumping between buildings and made a nat 20 on his skill check. IIRC, nat twenties don't do anything special. But the player said 'Aww, come on' and everyone else looked and it'd save time and look up on the jump rules for what would likely be a pass anyway...so I caved. No, I don't think this is a good thing - it drives me to work out rules I'll actually stick to rather than something like have this extreme end of the random spectrum result and still not actually know if that's a pass or not right away (I had table location and look up to do).
Gareth,
Quote
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.
Was that said by epweissengruber? For a start, he doesn't describe rules being activated or affected as far as I can tell - the rules were just being followed regardless of fiction or not. Or atleast as far as I can tell. The +2 isn't a rule activation if you get it - you might be confusing that. If you get dealt an ace in poker, the ace rules aren't suddenly activated, they were always there whether your delt an ace or not.
Quote
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 kind of meant to comment on this but forgot.
I don't know if epweissengruber meant 'justify a bonus' as in he should get the +2 or someones breaking the rules or breaking SC or breaking something or other, or whether he means justify as in made it sound like a good idea (and things being a good idea doesn't mean it's wong not to do that thing).
Quote
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.
HOW it's done is what I'm opposed to (on the principle of avoiding absurdity).
Someone trying to say "Look, my staff is totally in his face - your a big cheat or a big understanding breaker or something if you don't give me +2!" I'm opposed to for absurdity reasons and more.
Someone operating from the idea "Hey, my staff is in his face - sounds like +2 would be good! But obviously by the rules it's up to you to decide - you could flip a coin and give me +2 if it's heads, and that's valid by the rules and SC weve got between us. Whatever way you choose is valid" works and I think is the only way it works.
Perhaps I'm reading the latter into epweissengruber's example when it doesn't apply - I'll admit that's possible. But definately your reading an approval for something into my comments which is just your own invention. I described in fine detail the idea of rules telling the GM to listen to the spoken fiction, to contemplate it, but then it's up to him whether he hands out the +2. The GM could consult chicken bones or call his great aunt and it's valid by these rules. I don't know why your reading some concrete element into that idea? I described those rules in fine detail and your kind of ignoring the rules regardless - I have no real capacity to disinvite someone to a thread here, but if I could I would as I described above.
And I'm quite tired of this 'unspecified actual play account' from a number of people. Ask for something a bit more specific, like "were you ever in a game where the spoken fiction had you in a field and enemies far away" - that shouldn't be hard to do. This whole barked 'you put more effort in cause I judged you should...no, I'm not going to put in any effort, you do it all' is just a one sided talking at me affair (that even Ron participated in last time).
Callan S.:
oculusverit,
If I understand you, I think your reading something into it I used to read into it - ie, he's tacking on a new house rule.
A house rule is the pure mechanical assertion that we follow this rule because hey, we follow the mechanics.
This isn't what the riddle of steel guy is doing. His idea of 'what makes sense' gets first priority. That's the procedure he's running under. They aren't house rules, they are the decrees of 'the fiction', which is just that GM's own personal whim, whether he recognises its his own whim and not some galactic standard on 'sense' or not.
Imagine this - you flip a coin. If it's heads, you use the spiritual attributes. Tails you don't.
Is the coin making a house rule? No.
Now the GM has forced in the rule that 'what makes sense' decides what rules will or wont be used. As much as the coin flip decides. Is he making a house rule any more than the coin did? No.
Actually I'll kinda agree - if there is no rule in riddle of steel that says 'what makes sense' decides what rules are used, when he forces in the rule that 'what makes sense' does indeed decide, he is forcing in a house rule. But after that he's not making any more house rules when he effectively drops spirtiual attributes. It's interesting to note that the current playtesting document of blood red sands (not related to riddle of steel, though) does actually have this 'what makes sense (addition by me: to the supposed) group is what mechanics can be used' rule in its text.
Quote
If the GM is creating this house rule for actual purposes of the logic in his head, then we can at least ascribe to him noble purposes.
If I understand you, I used to think this. That people were designing. No, they are not - they are working from the principle of what makes sense determines what is done. This isn't designing, it's...exactly what's on the tin - what makes sense (to them) is what's done.
Anyone else thinking they are making house rules or designing, like I did for quite some time, is mistaken.
You might think they are making a house rule. But have you just assumed?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page