The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?
David P.:
Roger, maybe I'm missing something from your post, but I don't understand what the responsibility for the quality of play experience has to do with the arguement between conforming fiction to suit a ruleset or conforming a ruleset to suit the fiction. Could you elaborate for me, because I'm not grasping the connection.
masqueradeball:
What I get from this, if there's any reason to throw another voice in this late in the game, is that Callan thinks its unfair for what I would call "in game content" (the shared understanding of what exists and what is happening within the SIS) to come before the rules. This is not to say that in game content should or should not determine how rules are applied.
Example: We were playing a D&D game set aboard a ship, and one of the PC's was playing a dwarf. The DM, in order to express the prowess of an NPC we were suppose to be scared of had this NPC push the dwarf over easily. Everyone thought, "okay" except for me. There are a hell of a lot of rules in D&D that say when and if someone can push someone else and how hard and how far, and some that specifically say that dwarves are harder to push than other people, but because the DM assumed/thought that having the PC be pushed down would make for better fiction, the rule was ignored. Now, I guess D&D has a 'rule 0' but this wasn't explicitly invoked...
So, Callan, is that play example one that was 'fiction first'?
Callan S.:
Quote from: David P. on August 09, 2010, 05:38:38 AM
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.
David, I'm not arguing one is true and one is false. I'm saying if for people who are into the latter one, perhaps consider trying out the former in terms of how you design. Just try it out, even if you go 'nah' and never try it again. Particularly if you don't want players to sit bored, but using the latter means they will. Try out the former.
Do I still seem to you like I'm arguing one is true and one is false, or do I seem to be simply describing the merits and faults of either approach? I'll grant I'm biased toward the former, but I'm not saying it's the true method. It's just a method I think is really great! My strong preference! Do we have an understanding on this? :)
I still think you should read and respond to Ron's, Gareth's and oculusverit's posts rather just talk to me. It's like they are all on one side, arguing with me they don't get the certain priorities I'm describing, then someone who practices those priorities is arguing with me about the other practice. Just turn and have a gander at each other. :)
Roger,
I think what you've tried to describe might be related to what I'm saying, but has a few degrees of seperation between it and the topic. I'll ask that your careful in how you describe it so as not to overload this thread (though start a new one if you wish, of course). Perhaps a good place to start is explaining why in one RPG the GM is responsible and why, in the actual written text of Lady Blackbird, no one is responsible like that. The textual distinction between the two. I hope I'm not being pushy in saying this.
Hi Nolan,
Quote
Example: We were playing a D&D game set aboard a ship, and one of the PC's was playing a dwarf. The DM, in order to express the prowess of an NPC we were suppose to be scared of had this NPC push the dwarf over easily. Everyone thought, "okay" except for me. There are a hell of a lot of rules in D&D that say when and if someone can push someone else and how hard and how far, and some that specifically say that dwarves are harder to push than other people, but because the DM assumed/thought that having the PC be pushed down would make for better fiction, the rule was ignored. Now, I guess D&D has a 'rule 0' but this wasn't explicitly invoked...
So, Callan, is that play example one that was 'fiction first'?
It seems a very high likelyhood of being 'fiction first', where the integrity of the fiction (to some individuals mind) comes ahead of the ruleset. Indeed, to that individual, that's the procedure of play - rules follow this function, as David put it in his latter example.
But I'm not arguing 'it's unfair!'. I'm saying instead, in terms of certain design goals, using this process may fail to meet them (on a regular basis, even).
For personal disclosure, rather than 'it's unfair!' I'm inclined to see a text that resorts to this, or play where someone has forced this in and is clearly adamant on keeping it, and go 'Really done this all before, not interested, not for me, see ya'. It's like BDSM - being flogged isn't unfair in it's practice. That doesn't mean it's something I want to do.
Ron Edwards:
No one is to post further to this thread until I moderate in my next post.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
All right, that was delayed and took longer than it should have. My apologies for inadvertently closing the discussion, which was not my goal.
Several things need moderating. Callan, they all have to do with you.
1. Quit whining about how you're so persecuted and misunderstood. You get plenty of attention and respect, in this thread and at this site.
2. You've invented enemies. According to your posts, other people explicitly advocate this whatever-it-is you're calling fiction-first. You've used the phrases "Some people around here" who apparently intensely support it, or that "people at the Ramshead forum would" fight irrationally to support it. This kind of phantom opponent talk is beneath you. You seem determined to call people out on a logical fallacy or at least some particular unacknowledged factor in their play and game design. Since they're so explicit, call them out, chapter and verse, names and claims. If I'm one of them, as you keep hinting, then that's OK.
3. You're dodging the call for some kind of understandable, specific example that really happened in your experience. None of your excuses hold any water and this lack is making people guess. Never mind what anyone else posted as possibilities. Freaking do us the respect of talking about your role-playing experiences.
The following isn't a moderation point, but an addition to the discussion if anyone is interested. After the traits discussion a year or so ago, I have kept an eye on the issue of how traits are "called in" during play across several groups and games. I decided the before/after distinction doesn't hold. Exactly how traits are "called in" in a logically-coherent fashion, I am currently not sure, or if it's logically-coherent at all. So the points raised by Markus remain open as far as I'm concerned.
The discussion is not being closed or even under threat of being closed. It's interesting stuff to read. But #1-3 are needed to make it actually valuable.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page