Narrativism vs traditional techniques

18910111214»

Comments

  • For what it's worth, I just don't think the SIS / LBCBP way of looking at things and what Sandra is doing are contradictory. They seem kind of orthogonal to me. Some things may be subsets or supersets of each other, or whatever, but there's really no fundamental disagreement with what came before here.

    That orthogonality isn't trivial, though: Sandra's design efforts here are going in interesting directions. I disagree with Paul that she's just resurrecting the old "the rules are the physics of the world" model. There's at least the same level of self-awareness here as we see with any modern game text, for one thing, and a real understanding of semantics / linguistics / semiotics, for another.

    Also, Sandra's 5E modifications seem to be mindful of the realistic limitations of humans, compared with, e.g., GURPS or Champions. (2097e doesn't have square roots, does it? ;-) ) That is, much of the design work is about making the game playable, without sacrificing important principles. (I think the amount of dedication and time that 2097e requires is a bit daunting, but that's fine. Making a blorb design that is nevertheless relatively low-stress to GM is probably an important future design horizon.)

    I can also think of at least one really dramatic example from my own gaming past that can be meaningfully interpreted via either LBCBP or GameState. This was a failure, something that led to the complete collapse of a campaign. And it was basically my fault! And it involves blorb-related issues! I've been reluctant to share it because seriously, it makes me look like a total jerk. But it's just so relevant!

    Post incoming.
  • Ooh, cool stories! Excellent.

    That orthogonality isn't trivial, though: Sandra's design efforts here are going in interesting directions. I disagree with Paul that she's just resurrecting the old "the rules are the physics of the world" model.
    If I came across this way, I should clarify and apologize. I don't think that's Sandra's position at all, nor do her design efforts seem based on that at all. However, there have been a few comments in this thread (mainly from others, I think, not Sandra) which were leaning heavily in that direction, and the whole idea of "a REAL gamestate that really exists" suggests something along those lines. I was reacting those in the moment when they were being made. I want to caution anyone who wants to go in that direction, so they can consider past debates and put some thought into how their model might need to be formulated so that it doesn't recreate that kind of old-school "rules as physics of the game world" concept.

    I'm also trying to contribute some Actual Play content myself, on a related topic, over here:

    http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/22140/ap-prepping-for-dogs-in-the-vineyard-and-blorb-narrativism-and-game-state
  • So, Burning Wheel. I join a campaign in progress. 4 pre-existing players; I am the 5th. Two of the other players are well-known to me, and are experienced GMs, but the actual GM is someone new to me. Still, the other guys seem to be having fun, and of course I love BW, so I jump in.

    The campaign is this sort of weird fantasy post-apocalypse archipelago thing. The two guys who are experienced GMs also have characters that are powerful wizards; there's no way my incoming character could ever measure up. But, I find a way to carve out a niche for myself, or so I thought: given the constraints available to me, I managed to create a character who is both a doctor and a lawyer, and who has some scholarly skills to boot.

    So I end up doing things like treating wounds and advocating for the group with important NPCs. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, but it's basically fine.

    Then another player and I write a new Belief at the beginning of the session. They're worded differently, but both of us are interested in uncovering the true history of how the apocalypse came to this world. We read our new Beliefs out loud, and the GM doesn't object to them. (Cue ominous music.)

    During the session, we get a chance to work on this Belief. We make a series of rolls: first a Circles test, to find the noble who has the historical records from the time of the Fall in his archives. Success. Second, a Persuasion check to get him to give us access to those records. Success. Third, a roll on my History skill (supported by my Research skill; combining skills like that is a thing you can do in BW—people can try too hard and cheese it, but in this case it was super obviously relevant, or SO I THOUGHT [DUN DUN DUN]) to uncover the real truth about the apocalypse.

    Record scratch.

    The GM says, "No, you can't use History to establish that. You'd need [this very specific type of skill that I didn't have]" to do that. And I basically freak the fuck out.

    Aside: The thing I didn't have was what's called a -Wise skill in BW. Like, if you have Forest-Wise, you can roll to "know" things about forests, but since BW GMs don't tend to prep very much, you're mostly using the skill to declare facts about the setting. Consequences for failed rolls can vary, but the GM can basically twist whatever it is you're trying to establish in some dramatically appropriate way. Now, my thinking was that, while History as a skill may not be usable to create facts ex nihilo the way Wises can, surely in context History was appropriate, especially given that I also had (and was using) Research: I was literally, in-game doing Historical Research. And the prior rolls had established that the information was here, in *this* archive.

    But anyway, what ends up happening is that I bully the GM into letting me have my way. There's really no other word for it. I basically made every possible appeal to authority imaginable, complained, got a bit loud, etc. It was... not good.

    So, I get to make my roll, I succeed, and now officially we know (and in fact I was able to make up) how the Apocalypse happened. But then we wrapped up the session and never played again.

    Now, while I do feel bad about it, I've actually never been able to figure out exactly what would have been a better way to handle the situation. Since, even though I was the one who actually started arguing back, there was a pretty serious, and multifarious, failure on the GM's part here!

    1) Failure to pay attention to characters' Beliefs—remember, advocating for your characters' Beliefs is literally the entire point of play in BW.
    2) Failure to think through the consequences of the prior two rolls.
    3) Failure to think through what it meant to say "no" to someone rolling History combined with Research to... do historical research. (This is the part of the story I think is most salient to GameState theory!)
    4) Failure to properly blorb a reason for the apocalypse. (I just wanted to know what had happened, and for my character build decisions to matter, but I absolutely would not have cared if the GM had had hidden information rather than me needing to come up with the reason myself.)

    As I said before, I believe this incident can be analyzed in terms of both theoretical models under consideration here. But I'm going to leave that to others as just posting about it was tough.
  • edited June 2019
    Paul, I have no idea how you came formulate your beliefs about my stance.

    They just seem so... entirely divorced from anything that I actually think or believe.

    I really get Sandra's frustration with you. Someone makes a detailed argument. You say "Okay but what about X." Someone specifically refutes X, in detail. As I do here, the last time you claimed I was making an equivalence between the game state and a virtual world: http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/485734/#Comment_485734

    And then, a few days later, you're all, "But what about X", totally and completely ignoring all the effort that has gone into trying to address you in the past.

    It is really, incredibly, ridiculously frustrating.
  • edited June 2019
    Hi Jeff,
    Pretend TP's character has a special ability straight from the core book that says, "Once in your character's lifetime, your character may secrete a contact poison (Con save DC 15, effect: immediate death) under their fingernails. You don't have to tell anyone else at the table when you do so. However, you do have to hold a purple cat's eye marble in the closed fist of your left hand."

    And instead of revealing his note, TP had just opened his left hand to reveal a purple cat's eye marble.
    That showing of the marble is the player's act of communication seeking to establish the proposition that his character "can secrete a contact poison" as credible. That the eye references back to a textual rule in the book is an effort to boost his bid for credibility.

    The hypothetical rule cannot force and enforce itself into the minds of the players. They either agree to give the proposition credibility or they refuse it. If at least one player calls BS then the one proposing (the poisoner) either has the option to either fight for it and try and convince the other players to give him credibility or the poisoner has accept that his proposition was not given credibility. The poisoner can't force the players to accept his proposition nor can the dissenting player force the proposing player (the poisoner) to accept his refusal as the actual outcome. All parties have to agree - or play stops while players argue over the Rules or someone votes with their feet and stomps off. Nobody can be forced into accepting a proposition the don't want to. Doesn't matter if the Textural Rules say this or that everyone has to agree. It doesn't have to be overt as silent consent works just fine.

    Credibility is oil by which the gears of the game turn. No credibility, no turning gears, no change.

    Best,

    Jay
  • Hey @AsIf,

    What I find interesting today is the fact that we all accepted the logic of the answers given above without even blinking. It's interesting because that's how well-formed our shared understanding of the rules of the space was. The reason he needed to have shared the note with at least one other person prior to the beginning of the fight was to prevent me from being able to accuse him of having written it during the fight. And we all knew that without even discussing it.
    That type of smooth understanding of the game/world and rolling with the consequences is something we value very highly at our table. That vampire moment I posted that you referenced up thread was a Very Cool Moment not just in the fiction sense but that everyone grokked what was going on and was able to let the situation flow with such subtle effort. That we can all be in such tight sync is very, very cool and highly valued.

    Best,

    Jay
  • edited June 2019
    Jay, yes, we agree on all that stuff about credibility. 100%.

    But it's not the point of this discussion.

    The point of the discussion is that information that has not yet been shared, or indeed information that is not yet known to any player, can be just as relevant and important to play as anything that is shared, communicated, manifest, in the common ground.

    The point is, PT's character secretes the poison when he takes the marble in hand.

    Not when he opens his hand and reveals the marble to the other players.

    BTW I think you'd have an awesome time studying Pragmatics in more depth, it seems to be something you're interested in and have a knack for. I think you'd particularly get a kick out of speech acts and the maxims of conversation, if you're not already familiar with them.

    EDIT: And I'm actually really interested in talking about the interaction between credibility and unshared changes to the game state. But in order to do that, I need to convince you that the game state can actually be altered without those changes being shared!
  • @Jeph,

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was portraying your views in a certain way. I think you and I moved past the whole "rules as the physics of the game world" analogy several pages back (or, well, I'm taking your word for it, anyway). I was just responding to Deliverator's post, to clarify that was NOT what I was doing. It was not intended as any kind of remark aimed at you.

    I DO want to caution anyone involved in this discussion, whoever they may be, to keep an eye out for slipping into that kind of thinking, though. (It seems to me to be very easy to do, in this line of thought, and I catch hints of it here and there all the time.)

    Frankly, I'm not sure I'm really following the developments at this point, so, if I'm frustrating people, I should probably drop out of the conversation. My apologies to everyone!

    The point of the discussion is that information that has not yet been shared, or indeed information that is not yet known to any player, can be just as relevant and important to play as anything that is shared, communicated, manifest, in the common ground.
    This seems fairly uncontroversial to me.

  • "The point is, PT's character secretes the poison when he takes the marble in hand."
    This is so simple and strong I can't help hammering the nail. Imagine another character interjects into the duel. Chances are that the wrong person is poisoned. An assassin player with the right agenda will find a way to allow for an adjudication of this. Along the lines of "what are the odds that I scratch my interjecting loved one ?" A player who burries the envelope in their pockets, how is it not cheating ?
  • Paul, let's say the DM misreads "green goblin" as "green dragon" and there's a green dragon running around and the mistake was never discovered. Now there's a green dragon running around.

    Same as if you accidentally mishear "you get 15 xp" when I say "you get 50 xp" and it's never discovered by anyone at the table. Now you have 15 xp.

    Same if there's any undiscovered inconsistency in an AW game about the hardhold being on the west or east side of the cliff.

    Follow up questions?
  • "I went to the poison store and bought poison for 300GP"
    We have rules for level 9 assassins to make these kinds of secret purchases but they're very specific, so we don't get into the whole Blades in the Dark "retro-planning" or the whole Adventuring Gear DW style thing.

    This thread is making me want to make more such rules but again keep them very specific and some sort of pre-commitment (rather than pre-announcement) necessary.
    For what it's worth, I just don't think the SIS / LBCBP way of looking at things and what Sandra is doing are contradictory. They seem kind of orthogonal to me. Some things may be subsets or supersets of each other, or whatever, but there's really no fundamental disagreement with what came before here.
    Right, but, like, when we stopped clinging to the Yahtzee principle we started making great design. You could still say that the Yahtzee principle applies to very very many roleplaying games (and in a "Yahtzee principle–ruled world" games like Amber, Microscope etc might not've been called roleplaying games) but us shedding the Yahtzee principle tunnel vision was still an important development.

    Any diced roleplaying game could be described in terms of the Yahtzee prinicple and then there's some principles about fiction that you also need to apply in order to get to all the juicy dice-rolling.


  • edited June 2019
    I said I'd back out of the conversation, but it seems rude not to answer a question, so I'll do so and then back away:

    I have no follow-up questions.

    "The defense rests," as they say in those terrible procedural court drama TV shows.

    (I don't watch them much, so I might be misquoting! ;) )

    ...

    If that doesn't make sense, I can explain a touch:

    To me, that observation seems to blow any kind of "gamestate" model entirely out of the water.

    It shows the absolute primacy of shared communication and group agreement over any kind of "underlying gamestate", "real" facts, and so on.

    If your "real" fictional material was analogous to your friend shopping for groceries at the store, it's like discovering that you can name made-up, nonexistent products over the phone and she still shows up at the door with those products: it shows that whatever's actually going on, it's not what you thought it was.

    (In the same way that someone claiming that "the poisoning of the nails happens when the note is written" has to explain what happens if the note is written to say, "I poisoned my nails two days ago, before the events of our previous session".)

    Whatever theory you want to build, it has to be able to address that somehow.

    It's also possible I'm just totally misunderstanding everything, at a more fundamental level. It wouldn't be the first time! All the more reason to back and let you all hash it out. I wish you luck!
  • A player who burries the envelope in their pockets, how is it not cheating ?
    That would've been cheating yes. There are plenty of ways to cheat in these games. Always working to develop techniques to increase accountability.
  • If your "real" fictional material was analogous to your friend shopping for groceries at the store, it's like discovering that you can name made-up, nonexistent products over the phone and she still shows up at the door with those products: it shows that whatever's actually going on, it's not what you thought it was.
    Or I say "get me some gum" and she says "what flave" and I say "orange" and she buys orange gum then the gum falls out of her bag and I forgot that I asked for gum and she forgets that she bought gum so none of us ever know that the gum existed. That blows any kind of grocery store model entirely out of the water. Me and my friends shared communication and agreement has absolute primacy over any kind of "grocery store inventory", "real" gum and so on.
  • I am just going to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

    1. The game mechanical state, i.e. which game mechanical claims are true. (My character has 16 strength. You have four tokens.)
    2. The state of the fiction, i.e. which claims about the fiction are true. (The dragon is angry at Kalervo. The city is 17 kilometres from the dungeon.)
    3. Other claims that are true, but not part of the previous categories, supposing they exist. (???)

    a. Things shared among and known by all the participants.
    b. Things known by only a single participant.
    c. Things not known to any participant.

    All combinations of 1-2 and a-c are meaningful.

    1a: The game master has declared that the giant is wearing a maille and has armour class 16. We can all see that you have a deeds artha, since the red token in front of you means that.
    1b: The giant has 54 hit points. We just started playing and everyone has made their character separately. Only you know that your character has lockpicking skill 65.
    1c: We use an online random character generation. Your character is there, you have copied it, but nobody has read it yet. The game master has placed a module in their sandbox but has not read through (all of) it, yet, and so does not know the stats of various creatures therein. (I have done the latter. There is one such module in my sandbox right now.)
    2a: My character is hiding under the bed. I have said so.
    2b: I have decided that my character has a tattoo on their back, but this has not come up in play yet.
    2c: The adventure module the GM has not entirely read through contains many examples.

    No myth play is saying that 1a and 2a (and possibly 1b or 1c, but certainly not 2b or 2c) are relevant for play. Blorb/klokkverk is saying that all the combinations of 1-2, a-c, are relevant.
    It would be interesting to see if Jay, Bill White and Paul agree that all of the above are meaningful and can be used in game design. As is, I am not sure if you believe that 2b and 2c are possible, which seems strange, since I have done them.
  • edited June 2019
    I would love to see how 2b and 2c have been used in game design. I would argue that neither is meaningful.

    2b. You can obviously decide in your head that your character has a tattoo. It can't have a meaningful effect on play until you communicate that fact to others and it becomes a 2a.

    2c. It's obviously possible for the DM to decide in their head that "if the character explore the Eastern Mountains, they'll find the module, White Plume Mountain, which I've never read". This has absolutely no effect on the game until the the PCs go to the Eastern Mountains, the DM opens White Plume Mountain, reads the parts of the module that the PCs are interacting with, and communicates those facts to the players, making it 2a.

    I would also even argue 1b. and 1c. aren't meaningful, until they become 1a. Their only significance is how they affect play. If you never roll your 65% lockpicking skill, your character's ability to pick locks in the fiction is as undefined as what color underwear they're wearing (assuming that hasn't been discussed and decided in play at some point.)

    EDIT: That first line isn't meant to be taken as sarcastic or antagonistic. If I saw examples where 1b, 1c, 2b, 2c, can be used to have a meaningful impact on play before their existence becomes public knowledge or at least their effects are felt, and therefore becomes 1a or 2a., I would definitely change my thinking.
  • Furthermore, I would even argue that if your character sheet says, "Lockpicking 95%," but every time you attempt to pick a lock you manage to fail your roll, assuming this ends up narrated as you just not being able to do it (instead of being justified with some kind of "the guards interrupt you" or retroactively narrating it as "this lock was actually enchanted") as far as the fiction is concerned, your character is bad at picking locks. The things written down on your sheet, in the module, or anywhere else are only true in so far as they affect the fiction and the group accepts (implicitly or explicitly) that they occurred.
  • @Jeph,

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was portraying your views in a certain way. I think you and I moved past the whole "rules as the physics of the game world" analogy several pages back (or, well, I'm taking your word for it, anyway). I was just responding to Deliverator's post, to clarify that was NOT what I was doing. It was not intended as any kind of remark aimed at you.
    Then I apologize! Sorry, Paul :smile:

    To explain my reaction: I couldn't find anyone who'd actually expressed the "game state is the virtual world" opinion; the closest was when you'd ascribed that opinion to me in the post I linked above.
  • I ask what's going on. TP reaches into his pocket and pulls out a piece of paper he had written the previous night and had already shared with the other Players. He hands it to me. It reads: "POISON UNDER NAILS."

    I'm required to make a saving throw. I fail. My favorite NPC is dead.
    That was not okay on multiple levels.

    First of all, you guys were trying to resolve out-of-game problems (animosity between you and TP) in-game, which is generally a bad idea and the original sin here: You weren't going to resolve anything; instead, you were going to hurt one another, jockey for social dominance etc.

    Secondly, TP unfairly expanded the arena of competition to include pre-duel preparations. Either he or the interim DM should have suggested that you play out your NPC's days prior to the duel to give you that option, too (or to prepare a last will of whatever). The important thing is that you seem to have had different expectations ("Let's settle this with a single - implied: kinda isolated from the rest of the game - duel.").

    Finally, using the other players for independet verification of his ploy was a no-go because it meant that you were socially isolated. Being the unwitting butt of a joke is not a very comfortable position to be in at the best of times, but we usually try to be good sports. But when a person you have issues with (e.g. a rival) is in on the joke, that's not cool at all. The other players should have shut this down when informed of the secret ploy because going along with it isolated you socially. Not cool.

    So that's my take -- and it contains quite a few assumptions, so please correct me if I am wrong.
  • edited June 2019

    2b. You can obviously decide in your head that your character has a tattoo. It can't have a meaningful effect on play until you communicate that fact to others and it becomes a 2a.

    2c. It's obviously possible for the DM to decide in their head that "if the character explore the Eastern Mountains, they'll find the module, White Plume Mountain, which I've never read". This has absolutely no effect on the game until the the PCs go to the Eastern Mountains, the DM opens White Plume Mountain, reads the parts of the module that the PCs are interacting with, and communicates those facts to the players, making it 2a.

    I would also even argue 1b. and 1c. aren't meaningful, until they become 1a. Their only significance is how the affect play. If you never roll your 65% lockpicking skill, your character's ability to pick locks in the fiction is as undefined as what color underwear they're wearing (assuming that hasn't been discussed and decided in play at some point.)
    Things known only to a single person can and will affect that person's decision making, so they certainly can and will have an effect on play. Maybe I go for the scenarios where lockpicking seems more likely due to the skill.

    (That there are unknown things also affects decision making, if we know of their presence, even if it their nature is unknown.)

    The two more relevant factors are that things in the game state need not have any effect on gameplay, and that the set of people who knows a given fact is a function of time.

    An example of something in game state not affecting gameplay, outside roleplaying for clarity: Consider a multiplayer strategy game with map exploration. None of the players happens to find the resources that were in a corner, simply because nobody happened to explore there. Yet the resources still were part of the game state, I would say. This can happen in most games of imperfect information. Or the "topmost card of my Magic deck" - a well-defined object in M:tG that can be interacted with. It was part of the game state even if the deck was shuffled or the game ended before I had a chance to draw it.

    The other matter is that "what is known" changes as the game is played. When preparing things, or making a character, I can not be certain which things will appear in play (in most roleplaying games). Yet, preparing things ahead of time gives me time to think and execute complicated processes, whereas doing things during play places heavy limits on how long the activity can take, to give an easy example. Hence, different kinds of rules mechanics are viable during preparation and during play. This certainly has game design implications.

    Being under less pressure also leads to different decisions.
  • edited June 2019
    It’s obviously possible for the DM to decide in their head that “if the character explore the Eastern Mountains, they’ll find the module, White Plume Mountain, which I’ve never read”. This has absolutely no effect on the game until the the PCs go to the Eastern Mountains, the DM opens White Plume Mountain, reads the parts of the module that the PCs are interacting with, and communicates those facts to the players
    There are plenty of different ways the fact that S2 is canon can affect what’s being said, but, our larger point is that we have a model where we view it as part of the “game” much earlier than it’s shared-p.

    Just as you have a model where you see the game as not just the dice rolling part, i.e. you do not limit yourself according to the Yahtzee principle. And we’ve “widened the tunnel vision” even more and include things beyond just what’s being shared-p.

  • I've read several stories over the years of a game breaking up and one of the participants (usually an abusive DM) declaring: "I'll continue without you. And in my world, your PC will be captured and enslaved forever. Hahaha!"

    What's the game state here?

    And if that sort of DM also declared that your PC had been drugged every night by a demon who then did unspeakable things to him, and if the DM had the sealed and dated envelopes deposited with another player to prove it .... was all of that part of the game state?

    I simply do not see a way around the SIS concept and the Lumpley Principle. Discussing intent, goals, promises, principled prep etc. is fruitful. I wish we focused on that.
  • Having the PC drugged every night by a demon who did unspeakable things to him isn't more OK just because it goes via the SIS. It's still awful af.

    There are plenty of awesome game designs that use hidden information. For me that's my favorite type of game. The ghosts in (Alex Randolph's) Ghosts, the encounter card in Cosmic Encounter, and of course soooo many things in D&D.
  • I've read several stories over the years of a game breaking up and one of the participants (usually an abusive DM) declaring: "I'll continue without you. And in my world, your PC will be captured and enslaved forever. Hahaha!"

    What's the game state here?
    The game is broken. You can think that the (former) participants disagree about the game state, that there is no game state, or you can think that the game master has his own private game with its own private game state.

    And if that sort of DM also declared that your PC had been drugged every night by a demon who then did unspeakable things to him, and if the DM had the sealed and dated envelopes deposited with another player to prove it .... was all of that part of the game state?

    I simply do not see a way around the SIS concept and the Lumpley Principle. Discussing intent, goals, promises, principled prep etc. is fruitful. I wish we focused on that.
    As far as I have read, nobody has said that authority, credibility etc. are suddenly no longer relevant. Rather, we can choose to design a game where non-shared things are also relevant.

    As for the example, that depends on the particular rules in play. If the rules allow the game master to make such decisions, then it was in the game state before being announced. If the participants accept the statement, then certainly it is in the game state after the announcement, too. However, the participants might also choose to discuss the matter, leave the game, dispute the decision, or do any other similar thing, much like they can to any other input to play. Maybe it will be ret-conned.

    This is essentially the same question as the error correction question, right? The game master might have made a mistake in assuming what kind of content they can add to play and where their authority extends to.

  • The game is broken. You can think that the (former) participants disagree about the game state, that there is no game state, or you can think that the game master has his own private game with its own private game state.

    ...

    As for the example, that depends on the particular rules in play. If the rules allow the game master to make such decisions, then it was in the game state before being announced. If the participants accept the statement, then certainly it is in the game state after the announcement, too. However, the participants might also choose to discuss the matter, leave the game, dispute the decision, or do any other similar thing, much like they can to any other input to play. Maybe it will be ret-conned.

    This is essentially the same question as the error correction question, right? The game master might have made a mistake in assuming what kind of content they can add to play and where their authority extends to.
    This is exactly the sort of thing my story is meant to address.

    Important to note: the GM wasn't ill-intentioned. He wasn't trying to get one over on me, per se. But I am curious how the GameState theory addresses this kind of social breakdown, since I think it sort of can, if not as directly as Forge theory (including the Social Layer as the outermost and most important one).
  • I would love to see how 2b and 2c have been used in game design. I would argue that neither is meaningful.
    2b can be meaningful indirectly, if you are the GM. A villain has been terrorizing the villagers and threatens to kill anyone who speaks of him. Thus, when the PCs ask certain types of questions or make certain types of statements, the NPCs get all weird but won't say what's going on.
  • I love that AsIf

    a. gets it
    b. is on board♥

  • This is exactly the sort of thing my story is meant to address.

    Important to note: the GM wasn't ill-intentioned. He wasn't trying to get one over on me, per se. But I am curious how the GameState theory addresses this kind of social breakdown, since I think it sort of can, if not as directly as Forge theory (including the Social Layer as the outermost and most important one).
    Game state is essentially a collection of statements that are true of the rules-defined entities, and in Burning wheel, also of the fiction (since much of Burning wheel resolution relies on the fiction).

    In your example, I assume you thought or guessed that the game state already contained information about the apocalypse. The game master probably thought of seeking that as a long term campaign goal and had not made a decision, binding or otherwise; that is to say, the nature of the apocalypse was not in the game state.

    In Burning wheel, the game master is not supposed to have much secrets, but this does not mean they have to tell everything, so the game allows this kind of mismatch of expectations. Furthermore, the game is expected to contain both pre-defined content and improvised content.

    The wise rules are pretty interesting in that, when used, they query the game state (has this been defined, i.e. are there statements about this in the game state or not) and then work differently based on the answer. (Or this is the common folklore; I just quickly checked BWG and did not find where it discusses wises and player authoring of facts. It was not in the relevant parts of the skills chapter, at least. Replace "wises" with "circles", if necessary.)

    I am not sure there is much more to say, here, about the incident from the perspective of game state.
  • edited June 2019
    Hello,

    A little bg before addressing some questions.

    The big tripping point in the early Threefold Model was that it rested on the internal states of the players - goals. As a theory it might hold but it fails as a diagnostic model because self-disclosure of goals and actual observable behavior were very often at variance. It wasn't particularly useful for game design as the designer had no reliable data to work with. The other issue was defining what role-play actually was. Each group defined role-play in terms of their own techniques.

    The follow up theory was based on observed behaviors which made it much more useful as a diagnostic tool. It also employed a description of play that allowed for all three modes of play while explaining how they were all a form of role-play. Because it was focused on observable behaviors the model then defined play in the present progressive. Role-play is not a state but an activity. As this model of play was observation based it did not only look at Exploration but the interactions between the players on an interpersonal level during play. *hint - this is very important* Play floats on a Sea of Exploration "where Narrativist and Gamist priorities ... are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda." This "out-of-game" part implies the GameState idea that is currently being floated.

    @Jeph posted this upthread which I think is amazingly astute and extremely useful but got very little attention.
    In fact, there's absolutely nothing that appears in both the imagined reality and in the game state! They operate on different types of symbols.
    I couldn't agree more. The SIS is not a subset of MIS, but rather they are two completely different spaces, that function in completely ways and are utterly dependent on each other. I've been referring to the SIS as the "fact space" as I think it is conceptually useful. What is being called the GameState encompasses everything in the SIS but encompasses everything up to and including the Social Contract level as well as Creative Agenda's. This construct I am calling the "Concept Space". This "Concept Space" is what I think about the facts of the SIS, where I individually store knowledge about our Characters, Situation and Setting, where I consider propositions that I might share in an effort to get it included into the fact space (SIS), the notion that Bob is arachnophobia so I won't use my shapeshifting spell to turn into a spider, where I consider whether I am enjoying what is going in play or not, etc.

    The idea I'm trying to formulate is that the Concept Space is highly dynamic, ephemeral and subject to change all the time. However as the structure is strictly Conceptual, supremely individualistic (definitionally) IOW that which is in our minds (that includes physical objects that having meaning to the individual but have not been used in an act of communication) while necessary to play is not sufficient unto itself and can do nothing to the fact space until communicated.

    These two differently functioning and structured constructs cannot, cannot, cannot exist or function in isolation. These two constructs are and must be in constant communication with each other. One direction is passive and observational while the other is overt and highly ritualized.

    I will also offer that while the GameState/Concept Space can act upon itself it cannot directly act upon the Fact Space/SIS. The Concept Space can and does make itself relevant when a concept is formally and ritually communicated. FREX I as the player can be made angry by something a player says outside the Fact Space (out of game) but this anger belongs to the realm of the Concept Space. My anger does not affect the game unless I communicate my anger it some way.

    Neither construct is more important than the other but neither can operate in isolation. The GM prepping a game is not roleplaying. The GM is prepping. A GM prepping a game is no more roleplaying that an actor memorizing lines is considered acting.

    Yes I think the GameState is vital to role-playing. Without it the player has absolutely no game present in mind at all. I don't disagree with the idea of a GameState at all. I do take issue with the proposition that individual concepts by themselves never leaving the mind or being acted upon (like showing everyone the marble) have effect. I think that is a category error.
    @Jeph -
    The point is, PT's character secretes the poison when he takes the marble in hand.

    Not when he opens his hand and reveals the marble to the other players.
    Actually no. That fact has not been established. Conceptually the individual player in their individual GameState may conceive it be so but that does not make it fact. The GameState does not generate facts it only produces concepts. To generate a fact the proposition must be communicated and given credibility to be treated as a fact thus entering the proposition into the fact space.
    BTW I think you'd have an awesome time studying Pragmatics in more depth, it seems to be something you're interested in and have a knack for. I think you'd particularly get a kick out of speech acts and the maxims of conversation, if you're not already familiar with them.
    That's very generous of you to say that but this dog is too old and slow of mind to be learning new tricks. That's why I rely on young bucks like you posters to learn me new things! (I've never had any schooling in linguistics at all)

    Best,

    Jay
  • edited June 2019
    You can think that the (former) participants disagree about the game state, that there is no game state, or you can think that the game master has his own private game with its own private game state.
    That's what I was driving at: There is never just a single 'gamestate'. There is one 'gamestate' per participant. Functional play happens where these intersect, i.e. in the SIS.

    With this reasoning, the term 'gamestate' is a very poor choice of words as it implies some unified, objective existence. (At least the term 'real' has apparently been dropped as Sandra notes in another thread.)

    [Edited June 19th to add: I have since stopped trying to redefine the term and have accepted it. I regret my harsh choice of words.]

    Moreover, I think that it is not possible to a priori consent to future additions to the gamestate. Sure, I can promise that I'll grant absolute authority to the GM when it comes to, say, handling our grimdark fantasy setting, but that's a statement of intent, presumably by every participant. However, the agreement cannot be enforced once you introduce unicorns pooping rainbows, either because I just won't accept this and we both claim a breach of contract ("that's not grimdark fantasy" / "you must honor your promise") or because the unicorns wreck my suspension of disbelief to the point where I cannot really play anymore (I might try to humor you, but my buy-in is gone and my ability to feign interest may be limited).

    (Like the error correction question, the example is indeed about the right - or even the ability - to add content.)

    [Edited to cross out "functional" and remove confusing brackets around "never" and to note this was crossposted with Jay.]
  • Having the PC drugged every night by a demon who did unspeakable things to him isn't more OK just because it goes via the SIS. It's still awful af.
    Well, it cannot become part of the SIS unless everyone consents, i.e. everyone would have to accept the proposal when it is introduced. By contrast, it seems that it could become part of the so-called 'gamestate' by various means. When that is revealed, it should surely be rejected and the gaming group would dissolve, but it would still be nominally considered 'canon'. This makes the proposed concept of 'gamestate' ... unsafe.
  • Great post, Jay. Concept Space makes a lot of sense to me.
  • edited June 2019
    Discussing safety tools with me is a giant can of worms and I know that this thread is drift city and semantics quagmire but even so I want to put the kibosh on the issue of safety tools in this thread.

    We can start a new thread. I'll make a final reply. If you want to discuss it further, hit quote but then copy & paste it into a new thread.
    Having the PC drugged every night by a demon who did unspeakable things to him isn't more OK just because it goes via the SIS. It's still awful af.
    Well, it cannot become part of the SIS unless everyone consents, i.e. everyone would have to accept the proposal when it is introduced.
    If you think that makes it safe, we already disagree fundamentally on how to create and use good safety tools.

    I.o.w. "And then the demon drugs you every night and does [followed by a list of unspeakable things] to you"
    "Ew, no we don't want that"
    "OK then it doesn't happen"

    is not a safe exchange.

    (Discussion on the recent UKGE game where this happened is off topic for this thread. Again, start a new thread as directed above.)
    By contrast, it seems that it could become part of the so-called 'gamestate' by various means. When that is revealed, it should surely be rejected and the gaming group would dissolve, but it would still be nominally considered 'canon'.
    I really love that you are so into your character that the nominal canon becomes the dividing line between safe & unsafe but that's not how I work. Things that have been proposed but rejected have at times still been just as triggering to me.

    "I really love that you are so into your character" ← I don't mean to come across as snarky. But it also goes to show the imaginative power of the off-screen canon and using secret information and how unsufficient the LBCBP is to cover this kind of stuff.
    This makes the proposed concept of 'gamestate' ... unsafe.
    Games with secret information do need a different set of safety tools. The X-card for example is utterly useless & insufficient, we need a much more comprehensive approach.

    But to bring this back into logic&reason: the game state can have contradictions that can be resolved if they are detected. Just like the tattoo/green-dragon thing. Similarly, the SIS / transcript can also have contradictions that can be resolved if they are detected [and go unresolved if they remain undetected]. You can create lines or X-card or whatever to be part of the game state (just like prep is part of the game state) ior you can create safety tools that are on a completely separate layer from the game state.

    Drug-demon can be such a contradiction if the prep says he does exist and some safety tool says he doesn't exist. One way to resolve that contradiction is to remove him, just as how an X-card could. But, again, without a time-machine there's no way to actually unsay him. And the LBCBP doesn't help you there, you have that problem in both models.


    Edit: Here's my safety tools thread but you can also start a new, more specific one if that's better.
  • edited June 2019
    Guys (Jay & Johann), you are doing pure, unsubstantiated semantics right now, just redefining terms:

    trying to turn “fact space” into a synonym of the SIS and trying to turn “game state” as something that is separate for each player and trying to turn “game state” into some sort of concept space.

    Redefining terms is not making reasoned arguments. Nor is it charitable & honest engagement.

    Please stop trying to redefine our model’s terms.
    @Jeph posted this upthread which I think is amazingly astute and extremely useful but got very little attention.
    In fact, there’s absolutely nothing that appears in both the imagined reality and in the game state! They operate on different types of symbols.
    Jeph later changed his mind on that if I understood it correctly, and if so, he and I are now in agreement that the SIS is a subset of the game state. @Jeph, please back me up here!
    I’ve been referring to the SIS as the “fact space” as I think it is conceptually useful.
    That is utterly confusing since
    1. your camp already has claimed the words “SIS”, “fiction” and “transcript” for that, and
    2. it sounds confusingly similar to our concept “game state”, and
    3. it implies that things that are in the SIS are more “factual” than things outside of it which is in direct opposition to how our model works.
    The idea I’m trying to formulate is that the Concept Space is highly dynamic, ephemeral and subject to change all the time. However as the structure is strictly Conceptual, supremely individualistic (definitionally) IOW that which is in our minds (that includes physical objects that having meaning to the individual but have not been used in an act of communication) while necessary to play is not sufficient unto itself and can do nothing to the fact space until communicated.
    You already have your own model where the SIS is supreme. Stick to that model instead of trying to mess up our model.
    I will also offer that while the GameState/Concept Space can act upon itself it cannot directly act upon the Fact Space/SIS. The Concept Space can and does make itself relevant when a concept is formally and ritually communicated.
    Well… In our model, the SIS is the subset of the game state that has been communicated. Opening the fridge and saying there’s a cake there makes the cake part of the SIS. No one in the entire thread is currently in disagreement about that.

    Calling the SIS the sacred “fact space” and the game state a mere “concept space” is just an extremely provocative yet still utterly pointless renaming of terms.
    Actually no. That fact has not been established. Conceptually the individual player in their individual GameState may conceive it be so but that does not make it fact. The GameState does not generate facts it only produces concepts.
    You are now redefining the words “fact” and “concept” too. But that doesn’t change a single thing about the underlying workings of either model. You’re only making new names for things.

    We’ve been using the word “fact” to mean our propositions in the game state. You changing that word to “concept” and then applying the word “fact” to only a subset of those “concepts” is meaningless when it comes to the semantic content of our model, you’re only working on the lexeme level. I could say that things in the game state are “birds” and things in the SIS are “seagulls” but that doesn’t mean that they will suddenly start eating fish.

    I’ve been pretty sloppy & generous with what things are called; “blorb / klockwerk / MIS / game state / offscreen canon / SIS / fiction / transcript” I generally try to hold the prinicple that I’m not married to any specific definition or usage of a particular word, as a way to avoid semantic swamps.

    But these terms “concept space” and “fact space” and this redefinition of “concepts” and “facts” do upset me.
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor is never ever factual since no one on actual Earth can hold it or see it.
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when you plunk down S2 on your campaign map
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated to at least one person (i.e. the DM reads that part of the module)
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between at least two people i.e. enters the SIS
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between every single participant which is what you were pushing for earlier, Jay.
    Tossing around these five completely incompatible usages of the word “fact” is only serving to drive our understandings further apart from one another, not closer. Me and Jeph are obv aware that words can be used to mean whatever the heck you want.

    You can come up with a definition of “fact” where the Blackrazor becomes factual when used to fight an elf for the third time in a week because you define “fact” as “something that’s been used to fight at least three elves in one week”.

    That doesn’t change a single thing about how things work. But words do matter for how we want to design games since they have connotations & provide affordances. In the game state model, we are obviously interested in that second event: plunking down S2 on your campaign map. To us that is an extremely fundamental predicate. You can call that “real”, “a fact”, “a concept”, “a bird”, “a horse”, “a hot guy in jeans”, “false”, “an unfact”, “a fish”, “a dream”, whatever!

    But if we want to get on the same page we need to respect each other’s terms & vocab. I’ve yielded on the strict 4-sense definition of the word “shared” giving rise to the much clumsier construction “MIS”. I’ve accepted that two actors don’t “share” a stage in your model and have adapted my use of terms to accommodate that. Same with the word “real” when that caused widespread panic. Please consider reciprocating this accommodating sensibility.

    The Blackrazor was constructed as a referent when S2 was written in the seventies. (I can say that more unambiguously since clehrich was explicitly referring to the semiotic model of referents.)
    That’s what I was driving at: There is never just a single ‘gamestate’. There is one ‘gamestate’ per participant. Functional play happens where these intersect, i.e. in the SIS.
    This is an attempt at redefining our concept of game state.

    We have defined the game state (singular) as a superset of the various player’s committed imagination [i.e. things they have decided on, not just holding lightly], the prep, the SIS etc.

    The game state can have contradictions (one player thinking Alice has tattoos, one player thinking Alice does not have tattoos, one player thinking there’s a green dragon, the text saying there’s a green goblin) and these contradictions can sometimes be resolved (in one way or the other), and sometimes go undetected.

  • edited June 2019
    Discussing safety tools with me is a giant can of worms and I know that this thread is drift city and semantics quagmire but even so I want to put the kibosh on the issue of safety tools in this thread.
    Gotcha. I apologized over in your new safety tools thread.
  • edited June 2019
    In fact, there’s absolutely nothing that appears in both the imagined reality and in the game state! They operate on different types of symbols.
    Jeph later changed his mind on that if I understood it correctly, and if so, he and I are now in agreement that the SIS is a subset of the game state. @Jeph, please back me up here!
    Pretty much, ya'll convinced me that "all the operands of the rules" is the most useful definition of game state. Which almost always includes the SIS.

    Though as @yukamichi pointed out, in Shinobigami, the SIS pretty much is NOT an operand of the rules. So, there's that.

    I'm not a fan of Jay's terms "concept space" and "fact space," but I think I AM a big fan of the idea I think he's driving at (@Silmenume let me know if I'm off base!)—

    Each player at the table has different beliefs, opinions, etc about imagined events and the other operands of the rules.

    Each possible combination of players has a common ground that embodies yet other beliefs, opinions, etc about imagined events & rules operands.

    Prep and mandates of the agreed-upon rules embody yet more, different propositions about those things.

    And an uninvolved observer of the game, like us watching recorded sessions on YouTube, yet others.

    And none of these perspectives is invalid. Each is a different modal frame.

    To say anything at all about imagined events or the state of the game, you have to take a perspective. You have to use SOME modal frame. And every single one of the frames above is valid and meaningful. Each one is useful to consider, think about, and design against.

    At least that's my takeaway.
  • edited June 2019
    You can think that the (former) participants disagree about the game state, that there is no game state, or you can think that the game master has his own private game with its own private game state.
    That's what I was driving at: There is never just a single 'gamestate'. There is one 'gamestate' per participant. Functional play happens where these intersect, i.e. in the SIS.
    Well, that was an example of broken play.

    With this reasoning, the term 'gamestate' is a very poor choice of words as it implies some unified, objective existence. (At least the term 'real' has apparently been dropped as Sandra notes in another thread.)

    Moreover, I think that it is not possible to a priori consent to future additions to the gamestate. Sure, I can promise that I'll grant absolute authority to the GM when it comes to, say, handling our grimdark fantasy setting, but that's a statement of intent, presumably by every participant. However, the agreement cannot be enforced once you introduce unicorns pooping rainbows, either because I just won't accept this and we both claim a breach of contract ("that's not grimdark fantasy" / "you must honor your promise") or because the unicorns wreck my suspension of disbelief to the point where I cannot really play anymore (I might try to humor you, but my buy-in is gone and my ability to feign interest may be limited).
    Gamestate is (I think) defined as the set of true claims (or propositions or whatever) required to adjudicate the rules of the game. This definition does not work for freeform play, but does work for most other roleplaying and many other games; not really useful for games of physical skill, I think.

    I am running a game. We are using a game which travel rules - the difficulty of a travel roll depends on the distance and the terrain, as well as how settled the area is. As soon as these things are determined, they become part of the game state. Thus, the rules for travel can be adjudicated. When they are not part of the game state, the rules can not yet be used.

    As far as I see, you are discussion a different question of what kinds of input into the fiction is acceptable. It can be that the game master has added unicorns to their encounter table, used them to restock a dungeon, etc., and thereby added unicorns to the game state. If the players later object to the unicorns and the group comes to the conclusion of removing them, then the game state is changed accordingly. There is no problem here.

    If you want a situation where the game state has split, you should consider either two separate groups playing in the same world, or maybe a group that has forgotten something and only later remembers it. This is a matter of error correction and has already been discussed several times.

    ...

    The concept also works with a more abstract ruleset; consider a game where players take turns to add a sentence to a story and it must not contradict the earlier contributions. Here, the game state includes the turn order and the previous contributions (I am ignoring safety issues and such for simplicity.): In order to continue play, we must consider what has been already said, and whose turn it is to contribute next.

    In order to make a move in chess, one must know the position of the pieces, whose turn it is, and the details about castling and repeated moves. Who is playing black and who is playing white, too.
  • Earlier, I said that what disturbed me about this line of thinking (although I'm getting less and less certain that I actually follow any of this conversation, frankly - it's starting to seem a lot like a "word salad" at this point, but maybe that's because I have no training in semiotics) - anyway, what disturbed me was this idea that we can categorize imaginary information as "facts" or "not facts", as "part of the gamestate" or not.

    I mentioned that this seems to create some really bizarre and mind-twisting things to consider, whereas my understanding of the Big Model (which could be wrong, too! I'm not an expert there, either) is clean and logical.

    Well, here is a good example, perhaps:
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor is never ever factual since no one on actual Earth can hold it or see it.
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when you plunk down S2 on your campaign map
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated to at least one person (i.e. the DM reads that part of the module)
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between at least two people i.e. enters the SIS
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between every single participant which is what you were pushing for earlier, Jay.
    Tossing around these five completely incompatible usages of the word “fact” is only serving to drive our understandings further apart from one another, not closer. Me and Jeph are obv aware that words can be used to mean whatever the heck you want.
    A lot of you are trying to nail down when something becomes a "fact" or "enters the gamestate", and of course you're going to have all these different criteria, weird corner cases, and so forth. It seems very complex and very prone to error.

    "How many players have to communicate and be aware of a piece of information before it enters the gamestate?" That kind of thing is... painful. Oof.

    In this model, don't we have to come up with *some* definition of when something "becomes fact", in order to use it? But how can you pick one of those five uses (above), or ever stick to it consistently?

    By comparison, as I understand it, in BCBP/SIS terms, this kind of thing is much easier to conceptualize. Each player has some mental image/model of the game we're playing, and none of them coincide perfectly. Maybe the GM knows there's a cake in the fridge, and I know it, too, because she slipped me a note saying so, but Alice doesn't know. And maybe I also know that I'm under a "mind bending" spell, so the GM's note could be a lie.

    Each player can be aware or unaware of a fact, and each player has to accept or reject each such fact.

    Whenever and wherever any fact or piece of information is given legitimacy by the players interacting with that fact, it enters their Shared Imagined Space. You say "look, a pink elephant over there!", I accept your statement and imagine it, too, saying, "ooh!", and now we've created a SIS, which has a pink elephant. Credibility and assent.

    In a group playing a roleplaying game, all the facts or statements that are given credibility by all the participants are part of the group's SIS, and that's what we use to play: that becomes our game's "board" and "pieces".

    So, there are no "facts"; nothing is real or not real or part of the game state or not part of the game state - just bits of information that each of us knows or doesn't know and assents to or not.

    Every time we start to establish something as "being fact" or "not being fact", it seems to me we're bound to head down an interminable rabbit hole of neverending confusion. That's my concern with this whole discussion.
  • Earlier, I said that what disturbed me about this line of thinking (although I'm getting less and less certain that I actually follow any of this conversation, frankly - it's starting to seem a lot like a "word salad" at this point, but maybe that's because I have no training in semiotics) - anyway, what disturbed me was this idea that we can categorize imaginary information as "facts" or "not facts", as "part of the gamestate" or not.
    Yes, we are doing our best to not use the word "fact".

    A lot of you are trying to nail down when something becomes a "fact" or "enters the gamestate", and of course you're going to have all these different criteria, weird corner cases, and so forth. It seems very complex and very prone to error.

    "How many players have to communicate and be aware of a piece of information before it enters the gamestate?" That kind of thing is... painful. Oof.

    In this model, don't we have to come up with *some* definition of when something "becomes fact", in order to use it? But how can you pick one of those five uses (above), or ever stick to it consistently?
    Something becomes part of the game state when it is available for use in resolving what happens next in game.
    This fundamentally does not require communication in a traditional roleplaying game. A game master adds a unicorn to the game world. It is now part of the game state, since it is available for use in resolving actions, for example casting the "locate unicorn" spell and tracking rolls to find horse tracks.

    By comparison, as I understand it, in BCBP/SIS terms, this kind of thing is much easier to conceptualize. Each player has some mental image/model of the game we're playing, and none of them coincide perfectly. Maybe the GM knows there's a cake in the fridge, and I know it, too, because she slipped me a note saying so, but Alice doesn't know. And maybe I also know that I'm under a "mind bending" spell, so the GM's note could be a lie.
    Baker-Care-Boss principle, shared imagined space and so on are theories about power, credibility and communication. It is useful to think about them when thinking about such issues.

    Game state is the propositions you use to determine what happens or can happen next in the fiction, when you use Baker-Care-Boss system to do so. System tells that the game master has authority to add unicorns. Game state contains the information about who is the game master and where have they added unicorns.
  • Good post Jeph, both on the "set of operands" and the modal frame stuff. I wanted even more enthusiasm against the limitation of "fact space" to only shared-p but I'm glad for what I got♥
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor is never ever factual since no one on actual Earth can hold it or see it.
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when you plunk down S2 on your campaign map
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated to at least one person (i.e. the DM reads that part of the module)
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between at least two people i.e. enters the SIS
    • In some sense of the word “fact”, the Blackrazor becomes factual when it is communicated between every single participant which is what you were pushing for earlier, Jay.
    Tossing around these five completely incompatible usages of the word “fact” is only serving to drive our understandings further apart from one another, not closer. Me and Jeph are obv aware that words can be used to mean whatever the heck you want.
    A lot of you are trying to nail down when something becomes a "fact" or "enters the gamestate", and of course you're going to have all these different criteria, weird corner cases, and so forth. It seems very complex and very prone to error.

    "How many players have to communicate and be aware of a piece of information before it enters the gamestate?" That kind of thing is... painful. Oof.

    In this model, don't we have to come up with *some* definition of when something "becomes fact", in order to use it? But how can you pick one of those five uses (above), or ever stick to it consistently?
    Well, the game state model nerds (or at least yours truly) have been using use 2 and Jay started using use 5 (and then maybe switched to use 4).

    As Thanuir says, we also often try to avoid the word altogether because our usage of the word has been so upsetting to you but it's really impractical to do so consistently because it's a fact that there is a Blackrazor over those mountains see I almost did it again. It's similarly upsetting to me that there's no reciprocity around this whole vocabulary eggshell stepping you're having us do.
  • edited June 2019
    You took the word "real", you took the word "shared", you tryna take the word "fact", you want to take all our words until we have to use words like "Blorb" or "Vank". And then you make fun of those words

    We want to talk about the model, not the vocab
  • You want to teach the model, make it visible. You've got to do it by hand, going against assumptions and "what's already there". For this, you've got to let words find slightly deplace partners : what you want to name had no name before.
    @Johann Great job ! How do you think your model departs from the SIS ?
    Right now, challenging the theory keeps it strong, but I think people need more than "social dynamics" to make it yield results. A bit of focused, private work.
    This bubbling of words is not a bad thing, but there should be more games, techniques or alternative models before taking it seriously.
  • @Thanuir, I actually really like that unicorn example. That illustrates something in a very clear and clean way! Nice. I can get on board with that.
  • For future historians, sifting through the precious sands of S-G (and you are probably sentient algae, apologies for fucking up the climate but hey, paved the way for you guys, right?), the new model is pretty awesome. We were ahead on the curve, that's all… :bawling: :heartbreak:
Sign In or Register to comment.