The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
Anders Gabrielsson:
Callan,
I'm not sure I understand your position so I'll try rephrasing it. This isn't meant as an attack or a barb or anything other than an attempt to figure out what you mean, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.
"Murk is when you change the rules without that being explicitly permitted by the rules."
Callan S.:
Hi Anders,
Not really, as the process isn't changing rules, it's putting one control rule ahead of them all, which turns them on and off like a lightswitch (it's as much changing rules as turning a lightbulb on is changing a lightbulb) - were looking at an additional rule being added, essentially, like I spoke with oculusverit about - the rule being something like if the GM thinks another rule 'doesn't make sense' to use, he does not use it. He switches it off.
With the addition of this rule, 'what makes sense' can pretty much veto every other single rule that exists. Because it's placed before all other rules.
The thing is, 'what makes sense' is just in the persons head, and there is no guarantee what's in their head will get the game going anywhere, like in my mollases example. Rules can get the game rolling, but if they are vetoed by 'what makes sense' well then they are vetoed and wont.
Do you get what I mean - say rule X would make your game great, but you have a rule that says if it doesn't 'make sense' to use rule X, you don't. With the corresponding result that 'making sense', if it so determines rule X is not to be used, makes your game not great. It would make your game miss out on the great rules.
oculusverit:
So Callan, how does this Rule "X" that says "You may ignore any rule that does not 'make sense', or at your whim" compare to the earlier mentioned "Rule Zero" which is found in nearly all mainstream games that states "If your particular gaming group finds that any of these rules don't work for them, you can ignore those rules for the purposes of the fun of your group"? Or are they the same rule?
Callan S.:
Quote from: oculusverit on August 06, 2010, 04:55:05 PM
So Callan, how does this Rule "X" that says "You may ignore any rule that does not 'make sense', or at your whim" compare to the earlier mentioned "Rule Zero" which is found in nearly all mainstream games that states "If your particular gaming group finds that any of these rules don't work for them, you can ignore those rules for the purposes of the fun of your group"? Or are they the same rule?
Yeah, good question.
The thing is someone who ceases to use rule zero(of which there are many words, I'll note) or ceases to put it in games they design , even if they've stopped using rule zero they haven't stop using 'fiction/what makes sense decides what rules can be used'.
Indeed your very point that they are similar adds weight to this - what's the point of giving up rule zero when your still implimenting another process which is practically the same thing?
But to describe a difference, I guess the main difference is conciously recognising what process one is applying. I haven't heard many people actually apply rule zero in game (even though the possibility hangs in the air, I grant). And when they do, everyones abundantly aware of rule zero being clubbed about.
But people thinking you can't use rule X because certain sound waves were made at the table, even though by the text its procedurally valid, it's rampant, yet seemingly invisible for how I point at the elephant and eyes scan all around it.
I'll grant, once you can see it, it's practically the same as rule zero.
But if you can't see it - well, rule zero is a big, clumsy and obvious process, while this 'fiction decides what rules can be used' is seemingly an invisible process to folks?
Does that describe an adequate difference?
I'll disclose that I thought it was rule zero application, same as you might be doing - till I realised they seem to genuinely believe that certain spoken words/sound waves mean that certain rules can't be invoked or applied. Walking through a desert is the spoken fiction/sound waves, apply a swimming check or drown? Impossible to do they say. While to me it just seems a bit boring to do but well within the rules of many a traditional RPG's.
contracycle:
I'm not going to get distracted by other issues, metaphoirs, or anaologies. So:
Quote from: Callan S. on August 05, 2010, 03:54:38 PM
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.[/quote]
Fine. However, I don't see how the difference between these two constitutes "putting the fiction first". One is attempted blackmail or bullying, the other is not. I think we can all agree agree that this is A Bad Thing. But in both cases, it is what is imagined in the fiction that inspires either the attempted blackmail or the polite request. Decision arose from the game fiction.
So whatever distinction you see between these too, describing that difference as "putting the fiction first" doesn't seem to really illustrate the issue.
Quote
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).
Look, you wrote us an essay, and I am telling you that you didn't get your point across becuase I have no idea what it is that you are criticising. If you give us a clear and unambiguous example of the problem, instead of trying to tell us why it is a problem, that would be useful. Indeed, it would be useful to you, because you're the one who wants to communicate this thing, right? Now, I've read your OP, and I've read the post in which you first raised the issue (which contained no actual AP so I still don't what this thing is), so it's not as if I've made no effort. But this whole exercise is pointless if you don't in fact care whether you are understood .
Again, you discuss the TROS "not-using-SA" thing and this only confuses matters. You're describing a thing that happened before play began, but if I use the term "fiction" on this board I'm specifically referring to the narration-established contents of the shared imaginary space. Some guy deciding to use this or that rule is irrelevant to fiction in this sense, because there is no game being played, and hence no fiction has been created.
So perhaps the label you have applied to this thing is actually an impediment, because it seems to have nothing to do with the game fiction at all, as far as I can see. And therefore, I really don't know what you meant by "fiction first" - so can you provide an illustration of the actual happening of the problem as you see it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page