The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
David P.:
I've started through this thread before, and just read through the whole thing today. I decided I would give the whole thing a look before I made any comment. But the more I look at it, the more I feel that either people are missing an underlying point to the matter, or I'm imagining it.
That point would be that by saying that there should never be a time when fiction comes before rules is essentially saying that rules are infallible on strength of the fact that they are rules. It is saying that any given rule is always right, even if it doesn't 'make sense' despite the fact that the rules are there for the purpose of 'making sense.'
'Making Sense' is basically affirming structure of the narrative. Rules exist to give structure to a narrative. If a rule isn't affirming the structure of the narrative in a given instance, shouldn't a ruling that goes in line with said narrative supplant the rule?
Perhaps I'm not grasping the issue at hand though. I just fail to understand why "What makes sense" shouldn't be first priority.
Basically my viewpoint is that the assertion that Fiction should not determine Rule is flat out wrong. Rules exist as a service for Fiction, not the other way around.
Callan S.:
Gareth,
Well, I said from the start epweissengruber example seemingly to me wasn't a good one.
I think I've given you unabiguous examples already. The problem is this is discussing the persons intents and process of thought they go through before they act, but you judge the persons intent by their actions, and your sure your judgement is 100% correct. You judge by their actions and your sure their intent is blackmail or bullying, or you judge by their actions are are sure their intent is just using this or that rule.
And your not the only one - Ron before said the guys railroading - he looked at and judged the actions and is 100% sure he knows the intent from it.
I'll quote from the blog of an author I like
Quote
The primary problem, it seems, is that we judge ourselves according to our intentions, and others according to their actions. So everybody literally sees everybody else falling short of what they would do, were they in that situation. And of course, research has shown that we are rarely so generous, upstanding, what have you in act as we are in intention.
So are you seeing what the persons intent and process of thought really was, or just how they fall short of what you'd do?
I'm trying to suggest there's another possibility beyond the judgement you or Ron made, a possiblity to perhaps consider right next to your own prior conclusions if you'll humour it for awhile.
It's that the intent and process in the person is that they really believe their own reaction to the spoken fiction must come before written rules. Looking at this example.
Quote
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
Now, I don't know the intent and process here 100% certain myself, of course. But I hypothesise the process is that fiction, ie the 'tied to a stake a mile away' and more specifically that persons reaction to that spoken fiction comes before the rules which say you actually could contribute, from what I'm seeing in the text.
So as not to single out anyone with examples, here's something from the current text of blood red sands
Quote
You can’t control what actions your opponents choose to take, but you can require them to frame their actions firmly within the fiction. If they do so in a way that makes the action feel more appropriate and alleviates your concern, great, if not, Challenge the fiction until they come up with something the majority of the group can enjoy (or, if they can’t, until they decide to do something else.)
It's actually made the intent and process I've described into a hard coded, written rule.
There - either stick with your own certainty on what the persons intent is from you judging their actions alone, or stick with it but briefly humour this secondary hypothesis of what it might be. The BRS rule text gives a pretty explicit, unambiguous version of what I'm refering to.
Peoples intent and the processes they think by are largely a black box that can't be shown unabigously.
Callan S.:
Hi David,
Well, I'm thinking more you should dialog with Ron about his giant knocking away the character - I mean, a giant! Would it make sense to be hit, yet not budge an inch? And dialog with Gareth's(contracycle) notion something is bullying or blackmail, when the staff was just described right in the pincers of the creature, etc.
Maybe if you'll dialog with each other, you'll realise your working with different underlying intents and processes from each other when it comes to written rules texts.
Honestly, when I say a bunch of gamers seem to think what I'm saying - well, your post, coming out of the blue, is perfect evidence of it! I think there are tons of people who operate from what your post succinctly describes. You'd probably agree there are tons of people who do to.
And yet I try to describe the elephant in the room, and eyes scan all around it!?
Now, some clarifications
Quote
That point would be that by saying that there should never be a time when fiction comes before rules is essentially saying that rules are infallible on strength of the fact that they are rules.
I've not handed out any proclamation on what people 'should' do. I've said, consider as a second option, not putting 'what makes sense' ahead of rules. Just consider it as another valid option. Particularly if 'what makes sense' would make the game fail to meet your goals (like if your design goal was to not have someone sit there, doing nothing and bored, then if your 'making sense' is cutting them off from contributing, using the process of 'making sense' comes ahead of rules is failing to meet your design goal. That simple).
And there are some notes I'd give on personally taking responsiblity for the rule set one applies (much like taking responsiblity for the condition of a car one drives), but I'll leave that undescribed for now, unless asked, cause it takes up space.
Quote
'Making Sense' is basically affirming structure of the narrative. Rules exist to give structure to a narrative. If a rule isn't affirming the structure of the narrative in a given instance, shouldn't a ruling that goes in line with said narrative supplant the rule?
Quote
I just fail to understand why "What makes sense" shouldn't be first priority.
Quote
despite the fact that the rules are there for the purpose of 'making sense.'
Are they?
But there I go again when really I think you should chat with Ron and Gareth - they think as a practitioner of the process you describe (important caveat: assuming I'm understanding you correctly), you don't exist or something and that I'm ambigious on what I mean.
While you seem to have grasped what I've said quite clearly enough to throw a succinct counter point to me. Ironically you have a counter position to my own, yet you understood what I'm saying with far more clarity than others are. Thanks for your post :)
David P.:
To me it seems like this is basically just an argument of Form Follows Function, and different people have different ideas about which is form and which is function.
To some people, it's quite obvious that Rules are Function, as they determine how events unfold. So thus, Fiction should seek to follow the rules.
To others, it's quite obvious that the Function is the act of creating fiction. Thus, rules, are simply products of that function and are treated as form.
It's basically an argument such as this:
Did man begin to stand upright in order to reach higher things without climbing? Or did man begin standing upright, and as a result become to reach higher things without climbing?
Both are potentially valid interpretations (for sake of this hypothetical, as I don't want to get into an argument about the evolution of man,,, or lack thereof).
It's basically a chicken or egg argument.
Roger:
Upon further review, I don't think this has anything inherently to do with "the fiction" at all.
I would suggest it rests on two factors:
1. Responsibility for the quality of the play experience
2. Faith in System
Responsibility for the quality of the play experience: The classic approach is that this responsibility falls entirely upon the shoulders of the GM. It's written write into the job title: Game Master. If there is some failure in the quality of the play experience, it is necessarily a failure of the GM. One of those failures of quality can be a failure in the quality of the fiction, which is the scenario originally presented by Callan. However, any quality of the experience that is considered important by the play group can be subject to failure.
This is relevant insofar as the greater the responsibility and pressure here, the harder it becomes to have:
Faith in System: This lies at the heart of the problem. I don't use Faith lightly here -- this really is about a blind leap of trust based on little-to-no evidence. Does the group have Faith that a System like RoS' Spiritual Attributes will result in a successful play experience? Do they have Faith in PTA's narration mechanics? Do they have Faith in hit points?
Making the GM ultimately responsible for the quality of the play experience is asking him to make this leap of faith over a chasm. The consequences of misplaced Faith quickly become unacceptable for many people.
In my experience, this has been one of the unexpected joys of taking new games out for a test drive. Our group decides, hey, let's give Lady Blackbird a whirl, and there's no responsibility placed on anyone to ensure anything about the play experience. Maybe we have a great time, maybe we fail with spectacular misery. System becomes a safety net across the chasm -- it's not we who failed, but the rules. Faith becomes a virtue.
Cheers,
Roger
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page