Started by Callan S., August 01, 2010, 03:03:14 AM
Quote from: David P. on August 22, 2010, 10:12:46 AMWhat I'm taking away from that is if your move is challenged, you're not forced to use a different rule, but rather to change the fiction until it allows the rule to be 'successfully' embedded, which seems to be completely counter form what you're saying.However, if you were arguing that it was an example of the mechanics first, then we're on the same page, and I simply misunderstood what you were saying. Could you clarify which is your stance?
QuoteChallenge the FictionDuring the game there will be times when another player's actions just don't feel right. Maybe you think a particular tactic is dirty pool, or a particular action is a cheap shot. Most of the time when a move feels cheap or lame or uninspiring it's because it was not properly embedded in the fiction.When you have the right lead in, the right foreshadowing, the right justifications, then that very same move will feel right. It will feel like it belongs, like it's a natural next development in the story.When it doesn't feel right, Rise Up and Challenge it. You can't Challenge the move, after all it's a competitive game and your opponent can act as he likes within the rules. But you can Challenge the fiction surrounding the move. It's a rule of the game that every player is responsible for embedding their mechanical choices in the fiction according to the story aesthetic appropriate to your group. Failing to do so not only produces lame play, it's against the rules.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.)
Quotebut I think this definition of "fiction first" conflates Sim priorities with whatever metagame agenda (Positioning?) the players might have.
QuoteI don't think the question is about railroading or about CA, I think its about procedure, which has president, the RAW or the fiction. Its not the same as railroading because its not about GM limiting player authority, and its not about CA because it could be used to support or detract from any. It seems like its a basic social contract issue: How much do I have to "narrate" my use of the mechanics into the story before I'm allowed to use them and how much power does Player X's vision of the narrative allow them to override the mechanics (when interpretted in their most simple or direct way, that is to say, is the in game narrative that decides if the "spirit" trumps the letter of the law). If this isn't understood as part of the Social Contract, than its really hard to identify because where the fiction:mechanics split happens is entirely within a given players head.
QuoteCallan, cool, I think I understand, so whether or not Fiction First play is a good or bad thing goes into the big bag of player tastes and game-by-game priorities.
QuoteStrangely, my own game design actually addresses this a lot, where Fiction First is totally true (you just "free form" while modifying some point totals based on what happens in the narrative) until a player decides they want dice,
Quote from: Callan S. on August 25, 2010, 09:12:40 PMI think some people can play universalis without ignoring the rules, and others would ignore the rules of universalis on certain occasions 'because it makes sense' or whatever fiction reference they give. I don't think it's an agenda vs meta-game thing.
QuoteI mean, if you're talking about 'internal plausibility' and/or 'fidelity to genre convention' (WRT a particular 'genre') as the foremost priority of play, then go ahead and say so. What you'd have there, AFAICT, is straightforward simulationism, and I don't think you need new terms for it.
Quotebut the point I'm making is that the later example you agreed with- pushing over the Dwarf PC- has nothing to do with "making sense" in the way that your earlier examples would imply. Nor do I see what it has to do with a particular 'fiction reference'.
QuoteLook, here's the thing- what happens when two or more players agree that the rules should be broken, but disagree about what should happen in the absence of rule arbitration, either momentarily or in general? What guidelines or standards would you give to ease negotiation of this kind?
QuoteJEANNE No, but... he sent me so many signs! MAN What signs? JEANNE Like... like the wind... and the clouds... and... the bells... and what about that sword lying in the field... that was a sign...! MAN No. That was a sword in a field. JEANNE But... it didn't just get there by itself. MAN True -- every event has an infinite number of causes -- but why pick one rather than another? There are many ways a sword might find itself in a field...FLASH: A group of soldiers on horseback trot across thefield of Jeanne's childhood. The last soldier's sword iscoming loose, and ends up falling into the long grass... MAN Seems a perfectly valid explanation... but how about this one...FLASH: Two young children are hurrying with the swordwhen an old man calls them from far away -- OLD MAN Hey, you little devils -- come back!The two children drop the sword in the long grass (in thesame spot as before) and run off... MAN But then again, there are other possibilities...FLASH: A man is being chased across the field by a coupleof English soldiers out looting. His heavy sword isslowing him down -- he flings it into the long grass... MAN ... or even faster...FLASH: The same man running across the field is suddenlyhit by an arrow from nowhere. He drops the sword in thelong grass, but manages to stagger off into the forest... MAN ... and that's without counting the inexplicable...FLASH: A man crosses the field. For no apparent reasonwhatsoever, he drops the sword and keeps on walking... MAN Yet from an infinite number of possibilities, you had to pick this one...
Quote from: Callan S.If your ignoring the rules for the sake of 'maintaining' that fiction in some way, it's fiction first.
Quotethe idea that I'm trying to illustrate is that there are many different causes that could have a given effect, and that once a player says that X is happening, they must frame the situation so that X is plausible.
Quoteuntil they decide to do something else.)
QuoteMy question is this: If fiction first is ignoring a rule to maintain fiction (rather than fiction determining which rules are applicable in a given situation), then what's the point of having a mechanic that makes the mechanics first mandatory? Wouldn't a group that has adopted a fiction first mentality simply ignore that rule as well?
QuoteIt's a rule of the game that every player is responsible for embedding their mechanical choices in the fiction according to the story aesthetic appropriate to your group.
QuoteFor one, the "Well, what happens if someone keeps challenging and it keeps getting rejected?" could happen whether the fiction was being changed to suit the rule, or a new rule being used altogether, so I dont see anything inherently different between your interpretation of the rules and mine, in that regard.
QuoteEither way, the loop isn't an inherent flaw in the system. It's the flaw of a stubborn player, either one who is adamant about using a certain rule, or another player's continual filibustering. However, considering that the rules state that the group determine whether the new fiction is appropriate, it's more likely to result from a stubborn player trying exploit a mechanic that doesn't fit within the story aesthetic that the group wanted
QuoteAt any rate, a single player can't control the actions of another's character anyway, since at the end of the day, it comes down to group consensus. Further, even if it wasn't determined by a consensus, this rules is not allowing one player to control any actions, just bar actions that don't fit the aesthetic. It's not someone saying, "No, you do this instead." It's more like saying "That doesn't work quite that way. Try again."
QuoteThe way I see one of the loops going would be like this: