fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
Callan S.:
Hi David,
I think it's really great to have hashed out a procedural text like this that anyone can look at and think about. I think if this text had been in some RPG about 35 years ago, roleplaying today would be in alot better shape than it is today. Let me stress you haven't written advice (there has been plenty of advice through the last 35 years), you've written a procedure - explicit instructions for what everyone does to be doing the same thing, together, as a group.
Now I don't think it's done, in terms of designing it, as it still leaves questions on 'during each moment of play what are we all doing, together as a group?' like the ones Chris raised. Wherever questions are left, the group can splinter on those very questions. Indeed that's half of what murk is, as I've seen accounts of it. But even if it's not done in terms of not closing all procedural question marks, by writing it out you have still closed a hell of alot of question marks so far! That's alot accomplished!
Now the other half of murk, from looking at accounts, is that gamers think spoken fiction somehow covers procedural question marks. I was talking about this on RPG.net recently, where someone was adamant that if they have said the following spoken fiction "The orb of zot has been smashed into shards!" everyone at the table just knows it's over for using the orb of zot. I said to him, no they don't. There have been a million capaigns based on something like 'Gather the 7 pieces of the magic McGuffin and reforge them to fight great evil!'. The spoken fiction does not tell the group that as a real life gaming group, you can't use option Z anymore. He said you could...and then if they don't get it, just tell them (which is clunky but workable, so I let it go at that point).
So that's what I estimate the other half of murk is - people thinking that spoken fiction is suitable for telling the whole group what procedure they should all be doing in real life. It is not. Indeed, it just raises more and more questions in itself. Spoken fictions a generator of questions. Which can be good, but in terms of a group all doing the same thing at the same time, it's awful and set for different people to start doing things that have nothing to do with each other, at the one table.
On fiction first, as I've been saying it
Quote
In this case, that phrase could be used to mean, "we agree on the relevant details of the fiction first, and then resolve changes".
This isn't fiction first in itself. I'll pick out the key element in your written procedure.
Quote
For some attempts, everyone in the group is content to look at the most likely outcome and declare it so. "The effort to climb the fairly easy tree succeeds." For other attempts, the possibility of the unlikely must be modeled! "Climbing the easy tree will save the day! Roll! Pray you don't get double 1s!"
Here is where your procedure says someone decides (there are some question marks here, but moving on) whether the tree climbing rule is employed or not. Presumably based on their reaction to spoken fiction. This is, procedurally, where fiction comes first. Right here, in procedure, 'fiction' is empowered to decide if a rule is used or not.
An important thing to notice is how much more important your five step procedure is. Do you ever depart from the five rule steps? NEVER! Do you depart from the tree climbing rules? Perhaps ALOT! Your five steps are the UBER rules of the game! The real rules! Other rules that are like the tree climbing ones might never get used, but the big five will definately get used! The tree climbing rules, while they might have an impact, as much as they might just not get used, might not matter in the slightest! Yet what do I see game designers focusing their hardest on? The tree climbing rules! While leaving their own version of the big five generally unwritten and 'everybody just knows how to do that/what to do'. Which is why I said at the start it's really great you've hashed out this procedure!
There's probably something I've missed in your great post that I ment to add onto - my brain will no doubt remember it latter! So far this threads really moved on from my rough draft, scribbled on a napkin thread. But we all start with drafts...
Hi Nolan,
Quote
3) I don't know if this in response to Callan's thread, but I don't think this fits what he was talking about with Fiction First. In this case, a fairly defined system is used to determine how the rules and the fiction feed into one another, it isn't the fictional content determining whether or not a rule is used as intended or ignored based of the players/a players aesthetic judgement, but I guess I should let Callan speak for himself.
This is complicated and I thought someone might start getting a notion of it. It is fiction first - as in, see above where I point out the point where 'fiction' is granted control over whether the tree climbing rule is used or not. But see the different thing here is that fiction does not have control over whether all rules are used or not! Only some (the tree climbing rules, in this case)! As I said above, the ones it doesn't control I call UBER rules, as they are the rules that will definately occur. There is fiction first in it, but in a relative sense. Fiction is first relative to the tree climbing rules. But the big five is first relative to fiction first. 1. Big five 2. Fiction decides 3. Tree climbing rules. The former is the boss of the latter.
So it's still fiction first, as it comes before some rules. But in this case it does not come before ALL rules (for a change, thank goodness!). Make sense? Or seems contradictory?
Hi Frank,
I disagree. Every time someone doesn't know how to proceed with play procedurally, it doesn't indicate an agenda problem. As a simple example if I don't know what sized die to use and can't find it anywhere in a text, it doesn't mean I don't share the same agenda with others at the table. Nor does it mean that social skills and common sense should determine what die size I use - the text has just failed to provide this information. It's procedure has a hole in it. And yes indeed, if people want to continue playing anyway, play pours out of the hole and contacts onto SC, who might then go and make up a patch for that hole on what die to use. I suspect you don't see this as an error in the game being patched up, but instead how play is supposed to work by your measure, with this going through to SC on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure I've grasped your position on this. You take the questions still left in David's procedure, the ones I note still exist, and you take that as evidence you don't organise play by something like this - and so you say it's a common sense and social skills and an agenda thing. I disagree. The questions in procedure can be answered.
David Berg:
Chris,
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on September 13, 2010, 02:16:06 PM
people often have to hack together something based on really vague, non-procedures, "Be Tough" "Be Fair", "Be Challenging", "Be Realistic", "Be Cinematic" all poured together at the same time.
It always boggles my mind when folks sit down to play together without getting on the same page about this. Until I have an answer on which trumps which, "Be Realistic" or "Be Cinematic", I really feel like I don't know how to play the game. It's like Callan said: "roll a die; we won't tell you what kind."
Not that I want every new game to have a long meta-chat. Sometimes the point is obvious from the game's subtitle or concept: The Agency: A Cinematic Action Game is pretty clear on its priorities, and then the rule where you get extra points if you describe something cool-looking confirms those priorities.
In playing PtA, I was amazed at how often, "Would that make a good moment in a TV show?" was invaluable as a measure of what should get played.
So, yeah, agreed 100% -- functional play based on "who cares" is predicated on a shared notion of what's worth caring about in this game for this group.
Frank,
I hear your words of caution. Did this address your concerns?
Ps,
-David
David Berg:
Quote from: masqueradeball on September 13, 2010, 03:10:47 PM
1) When talking about "who cares" does this mean that if I am playing the game and another character is performing an action I have the right to ask that the rules be used with more precision to resolve his action, even if it doesn't effect me directly. I don't think it would be a problem if I could, I just haven't ever played or heard of anyone playing this way.
Delve game at Dreamation 2010. Rebecca's character went to bandage Frank's character. Both Rebecca and Frank were already thinking ahead to what to do with the monster they'd just killed. I (as the introducer of the game) was about to say, "roll a die to treat the wound." But Matt, caught up in the fun of the visceral combat, said, "No, let's do this in detail!" So we went through Rebecca's character's diagnosis, and a few of the concerns about treating the wound, and it was quite fun. (I can't remember how many actual rolls were made; Delve's healing system isn't fully finished.)
Quote from: masqueradeball on September 13, 2010, 03:10:47 PM
2) Subsystem, like combat, seem to demand that you care instead of giving you the option of caring or not. It seems like there would have to be various combat systems based on levels of interest to fully facilitate this style of play. Once again, not a problem in theory, just something I've almost never seen done in practice (with the exception of Burning Wheel).
Sure, BW's a good example. But even without separate systems, there's always ways to add or subtract from one system -- subtracting the average armor value rom a hit rather than rolling armor soak, for instance.
You're right: if the only way to figure out what happens in a combat is to use a combat system with a hard-coded scale of resolution, then yeah, you're being forced to care. However, I view that as an assertion in the game's design -- "If you're playing this game, you care about combat. If you don't care about combat, play something else."
David Berg:
Roger,
I disagree with Vincent, and think that rules for establishing and communicating an "overwhelming unity of interest" among the players are vital. I dunno, maybe he uses a different term for that.
As for whether my approach sustains in-game conflict, well, the group's level of caring determines that. If they care a lot, the conflict will receive more detailed coverage, as well as formal resolution that tends to take longer.
Ps,
-David
David Berg:
Callan,
Great example with the smashed orb! I agree that narration doesn't cover the procedural issue. Hopefully, a larger agreement about whether we're playing realistically, or cinematically, etc., might cover it. I guess it depends on how such general principles are turned into actionable uber-rules, rules of thumb, or specific systems.
I also agree that tree-climb-modeling games with no higher level procedural guidance leave me unimpressed. It was "Say yes or roll the dice" that got me to try Dogs, not the give/see/raise rules.
Ps,
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page