An Invitation for 2097, Jeph, Thanuir...

13

Comments

  • (it might very well be described correctly as "illusionism" without being described as "Illusionism", may want to check what was actually meant there)
  • 100% certain Sandra is NOT saying that all non-blorb play is Illusionism.

    Also pretty sure she makes a 3-ways distinction between blorb, not-blorb, and anit-blorb.
    thank you jeph.

    blorb, non-blorb, unblorb and anti-blorb. Paul was referring to a symmetrical imagination situation as anti-blorb which was incorrect. He should’ve been mowing my lawn instead
    blorb
    blorb. example: blorby play
    non-blorb
    [blorb scalarly negated] a setup that don’t uses blorb. example: fiasco or something
    unblorb
    comprompised blorb. example: a scripted event happens in an otherwise blorby game.
    anti-blorb
    [blorb polarly negated] faked blorb. example: “no, guys, I promise we’re doing blorb” when you’re not doing blorb
  • @Aviatrix the rule I use is that you can set height & weight freely and if you haven't done that in time it becomes salient, out come the rando tables. The latter is what has happened to 100% of the characters in my game 100% of the time because people are laz people like rolling the dice
  • The sheer effrontery of arguing the conclusion that all non-blorb play is Illusionism is beyond the pale. Ugh...
    So that's what would've beyond the pale!? Pretty sure we're so deep into the pale zone already that it's hard to see the oh wait I think I can make it out yep it's my lawn!
  • @Aviatrix You had 66 hit points so a 2.78% chance of death
  • Ah, but she might have accepted a "worse fate", as well, right? In "Oh, Injury", there some latitude for a variety of things to happen, through mechanics but also the free judgement of both the player (who can say "I guess I can't avoid this fate") and the GM (who might say, "even though you spent the HP, you're still going to suffer a Lingering Wound..." or other, worse things).
  • (And my apologies for misusing "anti-blorb": this is the first time I've seen the terms defined so, after all. It would be an honour to mow your lawn all the same! Just say when.)
  • @Aviatrix the rule I use is that you can set height & weight freely and if you haven't done that in time it becomes salient, out come the rando tables. The latter is what has happened to 100% of the characters in my game 100% of the time because people are laz people like rolling the dice
    Yup! I like it here as an example of both Tiers of Truth in action and "Cat changes her own operations to work within the framework of high blorb play."
  • @Aviatrix You had 66 hit points so a 2.78% chance of death
    When your past clients include Dukes of Hell, you can't blame a poor Tiefling for trying to take all possible precautions about visiting them in their professional capabilities ;)
  • Here’s what’s beyond the pale to me and why I’m wasting my time with bitterness & regret rn

    Them: The off-screen canon game state doesn’t exist! Nothing is fact until it’s uttered!
    Me: Guys, it’s just a model, but a pretty cool model because it allo…
    Them: Nope! Can’t exist! Our overgod Lumpley says so!
    Lumpley: Well, actually….
    Them: Oh hi Lumpley we’re cool right? Whatcha think about us, we’re pals right?
    Lumpley: … I kinda wanted to ask 2097, @Vivificent, @Jon, @Thanuir, @Jeph all other game state theorists what they think of the BBQ game
    Me and others: ⚞shrug⚟ yeah it’s cool thumbs up
    Me: I especially like all that offscreen canon game state that’s in there
    Them: Lumpley thank you for coming in and agreeing with us that there’s an off-screen canon game state.
    Me: ⚞mutters⚟ I kinda already have told you…
    Them: Oh Lumpley you’re so fine
    Me:
    Them:
    Me:
    Them: It’s a good thing we both backed away from our extreme positions in time before Lumpley saw it
    Me:
    Me: That’s not really what happened…

    In fact I’m gonna double down on a ten times more extreme position!

  • edited June 2019
    Like, zero acknowledgement or thanx! Zilch! It's making me feel embarrassed for your sake! Pretending to have face when you have none. I have to look away, it's making me feel empathetic shame-by-proxy to an extent that causes a knot in my stomach.
  • But as for me, my feet were almost gone;
    my feet had well-nigh slipped.
    For I was envious at the arrogant
    when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
  • Epistemic injustice. File a complaint as a forum discussion ?
  • A good walker leaves no tracks;
    A good speaker makes no slips;
    A good reckoner needs no tally.
    A good door need no lock,
    Yet no one can open it.
    Good binding requires no knots, Yet no one can loosen it.
  • CBS promoted The Clash,
    but not for revolution. Just for cash!
    And me, yes, I, do I want to burn?
    Is there something I can learn?
    Do I need a business man to promote my angle?
    Can I resist the carrots that fame and fortune dangle?
    Punk is dead;
    yes that's right—
    punk is dead!
  • edited June 2019
    It doesn´t matter, because next revolution is already knocking at your door.
  • mitt liv flimrar fort förbi på en status update :bawling:
  • edited June 2019
    Sandra,

    I understand why you’re feeling frustrated! I can answer your questions, if it would help. Is that something you’d like?

    I’ve been avoiding that, because we’d be rehashing the same tired arguments again, and I’m more interested in moving forward. But we can do it if it would help! Just let me know. I could try a summary! (I’m not sure this is the thread for it, though.)

    The main reason I’m excited about this thread, by the way, is I kept saying, “hey, cool, models are fun and all, but what’s something we can actually do with this?” - and here we finally have something practical and playable that we can chat about. That makes me happy and excited! That’s where I hoped we’d get to long ago. I’ll always respond more positively to practical application than I will to a theory debate. (For the same reason, I’m trying not to restart the other one again.)
  • here we finally have something practical and playable that we can chat about
    it's going to be so difficult to forgive you, if ever, for these kinds of statements

  • Just my two cents on the "real" thing.

    1. Treating imaginary things as "real" is a fun, healthy activity which is a major part of our hobby.

    2. Treating imaginary things as real is an issue that might require medication or hospitalization.

    I don't think anyone here is discussing or claiming anything like 2. However, some statements that have been made in some threads could be construed (from a certain POV that holds a particular view of how rules interact with fiction in RPGs) as something that sounds a lot like 2, (despite being meant as 1.)

    In those cases, I don't think anybody has accused anyone of 2, only expressed an inability to parse a statement as 1 due to miscommunication, and thus continued to ask for clarification.

    Everything in an RPG's fiction is "fake real".

    Doubling down on "No! It's real! Not fake-real" just ends up making it sound like you're doubling down on 2.

    Some of us live in places where 2 is now common behavior amongst our friends, family, and leaders.

    The fact that we now need to take the time to clarify which version of "real" we're discussing is an unfortunate symptom of our times.
  • 2. Treating imaginary things as real is an issue that might require medication or hospitalization.
    oh do we need to be worried, lumps?
  • Well put, Neurotrash. It's sadly rather topical to a lot of us.
  • here we finally have something practical and playable that we can chat about
    it's going to be so difficult to forgive you, if ever, for these kinds of statements

    Oh boy! Are you taking that as a way to discredit all your design efforts? As you know, I love all the things you've been working in, and consider them absolutely fabulous. That's not at all what I meant by that.

    What I was trying to say - apparently very poorly, I apologize for that! - was that Vincent's post here was the first actual example of a design someone brought forward to challenge our assumptions in a practical way (in the context of this discussion, I mean), as opposed to just theoretical posturing. That's what I was hoping for all along! That makes me happy.
  • What I was trying to say - apparently very poorly, I apologize for that! - was that Vincent's post here was the first actual example of a design someone brought forward to challenge our assumptions in a practical way
    !?!??!?!?! the entirety of my game…! for the last five years...!?!!?!?!?!? and thanuir & jeph & jon & viv
    as opposed to just theoretical posturing.
    POSTURING!? you can stop digging at any point you know
    stop digging & start mowing
  • I'm gonna stop replying. It's only tearing me apart
  • Sandra,

    I'm referring to the whole philosophical "gamestate" debate, not D&D and blorb play (which are awesome, and I've been doing for, literally, decades). None of my comments here have anything to do with 2097e (which is awesome), or any of the other things you've been posting. I'm sorry, I don't know how to make that any clearer, and I'm sorry I've upset you.

    Is it not the case that the whole "gamestate" debate was entirely theoretical until Vincent brought in this example? I might have missed something; I've stayed away from reading the whole ZONKING/VANKING conversation, for instance, so maybe I'm just not up to date. If so, I apologize for that, too!
  • edited June 2019
    Sandra ( @2097 ), I know that your model is dear to your heart. You're arguing patiently and passionately and have been very accomodating to boot (e.g. by changing the terminology). This is all to your great credit, as are many other things (e.g. Saliency/Wallpaper principle). But isn't it possible we just disagree on some points without being meanies?
    @Johann If you have some way to require consent for what I'm about to say before I say it (it might or mightn't rhyme with schmive schmobra) you can use that same mechanism to require consent for what I'm about to prep before I prep it.
    I'm not quite sure I understand, but I've already explained that I think it's technically impossible to consent a priori here.

    It's similar to free will, perhaps: I may philosophically believe there is no free will, but I still have to decide what to do after I finish this sentence. It's impossible for me to not decide on a course of action (or inaction) even if I am convinced my actions are ultimately predetermined. Similarly, it's impossible for something to enter the SIS without my consent/knowledge [edited to add:] in the moment. I can't switch off this feature.

    (This is why I'm okay with your definition of gamestate as "SIS plus X" but disagree with the claim that you can change the gamestate (i.e., any part of it, e.g. the SIS) without my consent/knowledge. If I understand things correctly, there is an off-screen canon gamestate (gamestate minus SIS, among other things, right?). I totally get that we can change that and benefit from a deeper understanding of the how and why.)

    Also, I can certainly promise, for instance, to accept your GM prep, or everything in Vincent's booklet. For practical purposes, this intent, whether implicit or explicit, will serve us well.

    If you know that I know that Vincent has written various edgy games with provocative and potentially offensive content (e.g. kill puppies for satan) and we think we can handle it, we should be fine -- and you or the game can introduce all sorts of off-screen canon which I will then duly accept into the SIS. On the off-chance I object to killing kittens for satan, I can just say "Please, fellow player, don't do that." as you suggest. That's not perfect (as your own trauma story shows) but good enough most of the time.

    I'll also disagree with Vincent ( @lumpley ) , sort of, so you're not being singled out!
    The GM was the author and arbiter of the true game state; everybody else was just imagining, guessing, making things up, waiting and hoping for the GM's affirmation. That's the model that the lumpley principle hates and defies.
    I always took the Lumpley principle as an (important) observation rather than a mission statement, i.e. everyone's agreement has been necessary all along. We just didn't realize it and deferred to the GM.

    Almost thirty years ago, I played in an AD&D campaign where a player flat-out refused to accept her character permanently losing 5 points of Intelligence, bringing the game to a screeching halt. I thought she was out of her mind! I couldn't even properly articulate my outrage (though lamentably I tried) in the face of such heresy. Rec.games.frp.advocacy and The Forge opened my eyes and articulate, passionate, and smart people like you, Sandra, and the other posters here on www.story-games.com continue to enrich my hobby and my life.
  • Here's another attempt to illustrate my point:

    I can grant consent a priori to a friend to play physical pranks on me. The friend could then secretly put a bucket of water above a partially open door to soak me. I could not withdraw my consent as the bucket drops and then splashes me, only afterwards.

    However, if my character gives consent to your character to play physical pranks on him, I, as a player, always have the option to veto a particular prank as it is proposed for integration into the SIS.
  • @Johann said:
    I always took the Lumpley principle as an (important) observation rather than a mission statement, i.e. everyone's agreement has been necessary all along. We just didn't realize it and deferred to the GM.
    Yeah. I never thought of it as a mission statement or a description of "how it should be"...it's a description of how it is and always has been.

    I'll go even further than it stating that agreement is required. It's an observation that the system of an RPG, despite whatever bells and whistles it contains, and despite anything else it does (and it might do a lot!), serves the function of codifying and structuring the process for obtaining this consent.

    @Paul_T said:
    I've stayed away from reading the whole ZONKING/VANKING conversation
    *kri*

    Nah, it's a bunch of me equivocating and navel-gazing. So much sound and fury to basically badly re-explain dice and clouds...
  • I think that certain trends in popular play culture of the earlier decades were leading toward an implied social contract of roleplaying that effectively involved surrendering the right to instance-by-instance consent in favor of rigid systems of who could introduce things and how.

    Assuming that's the case, perhaps the reason you were so outraged by the player's refusal to accept the INT loss was because it was a violation of that social contract.

    I hope it goes without saying that there are all sorts of terrible things about this model, and even if you say the lumpley principle "wasn't a mission statement", I think to some people it essentially became a kind of rallying cry (or at least, an eye-opener) in response to those problems.
  • edited June 2019
    Sandra,

    I'm referring to the whole philosophical "gamestate" debate, not D&D and blorb play (which are awesome, and I've been doing for, literally, decades). None of my comments here have anything to do with 2097e (which is awesome), or any of the other things you've been posting. I'm sorry, I don't know how to make that any clearer, and I'm sorry I've upset you.

    Is it not the case that the whole "gamestate" debate was entirely theoretical until Vincent brought in this example? I might have missed something; I've stayed away from reading the whole ZONKING/VANKING conversation, for instance, so maybe I'm just not up to date. If so, I apologize for that, too!
    The kind of OSR play that has been discussed extensively here, including by Eero and you for several years, tends to rely quite heavily on the non-shared parts of the game state. Using modules and random encounter tables and so on.

    Could you clarify why and how these are not concrete examples?
    Sandra ( @2097 ), I know that your model is dear to your heart. You're arguing patiently and passionately and have been very accomodating to boot (e.g. by changing the terminology). This is all to your great credit, as are many other things (e.g. Saliency/Wallpaper principle). But isn't it possible we just disagree on some points without being meanies?
    I am not Sandra and do not write for her, but, in general, in order to come to the conclusion that you actually disagree about something, it you first need to believe the other party understands you. (General "you" here, not Johann in particular.)

    A good way of doing this is stating what the other is claiming in your own words and asking if that is correct, or trying to apply the theory developed by the other party to some other scenario and verifying that you have done it correctly. Yet another way is presenting possible interpretations of what the other party is saying and asking if they mean one of those.

    It's similar to free will, perhaps: I may philosophically believe there is no free will, but I still have to decide what to do after I finish this sentence. It's impossible for me to not decide on a course of action (or inaction) even if I am convinced my actions are ultimately predetermined. Similarly, it's impossible for something to enter the SIS without my consent/knowledge [edited to add:] in the moment. I can't switch off this feature.
    This is true.

    It is worth noticing that one can, in many practical situations, effectively consent to what the other will do. I think you are referring to the possibility, which always exists, that you (for whatever reason) do disagree with the other's contributions; yes, that does always exist.

    (This is why I'm okay with your definition of gamestate as "SIS plus X" but disagree with the claim that you can change the gamestate (i.e., any part of it, e.g. the SIS) without my consent/knowledge. If I understand things correctly, there is an off-screen canon gamestate (gamestate minus SIS, among other things, right?). I totally get that we can change that and benefit from a deeper understanding of the how and why.)
    I do not think anyone has claimed that the SIS, in particular, can be changed unilaterally without consensus. That is against the definition.

    However, the game state, in general, can certainly be.

    That is: There exist games in which parts of the game state can be changed without consensus and communication.

    It is not true that every part of the game state can be changed without consensus and communication.
    The previous sentence is equivalent to saying: It is true that in every game state there exist some parts that can not be changed without consensus and communication.
  • edited June 2019
    That's a good question, Thanuir.

    I've been a little lost by the whole "gamestate" debate, because it feels like each participant is making slightly different claims. Sometimes it feels like what is being suggested is ludicrous (along the lines of an imaginary thing being *actually, literally real*!) and sometimes it feels like what is being suggested is entirely common sense (e.g. we take notes and prep content for our games).

    Certainly OSR-style gaming (and, in fact, most RPGs!) have some prepared material, and many assume a strong commitment to honouring that prep. That's not anything new, I hope, to anyone. (Although I can understand how it could be a revelation to someone like Sandra, who managed to avoid that style of play for a long, long time! Of course. That would be quite a surprise/shock, I'm sure.)

    So, does OSR-style game prep constitute an example of "gamestate"? Yes, sure, I think (again, depending on what "gamestate" actually means).

    However, if there are stronger claims to be made (such as that we're discovering new principles or techniques!*), I'm likely to hold off on being convinced until I see some new techniques or principles emerging from that understanding. I, generally, don't trust a theory until it can be put into practice and produce something.

    A theory that is somehow revolutionary (or even evolutionary) should be able to be expressed in game design (or play technique) in some fashion. Certainly ideas like the BCB Principle, for example, can be seen to have directly inspired or influenced some new and revolutionary games and techniques.

    Have we yet seen anything new from these ideas? Not in the context of these threads, at least, I feel. (Though I did really like AsIf's poisoned nails example! That's a very interesting one.)

    I should clarify that I'm NOT saying "the participants have had no good ideas and no intelligent discussion". No, not at all! I think there's been some great discussion and insights. I just mean that no one has yet taken the theory into a practical/design realm, within those threads/discussions. (Again, maybe I've missed some threads or posts, though! Feel free to point to some, if I have.)

    (And it's not fair of me to *expect* any such thing, either: these things take time, and that's quite natural and to be expected. I'm not accusing anyone of anything!)

    Vincent pointing to his design is the first example offered in this discussion so far (again, unless I'm missing something). It's interesting and novel, because it uses some sort of "offscreen gamestate" information in a new way: not only is it unknown to all the players, but we can even have the players switch over, while that content remains. That's new, I think!

    (I say "I think" because I'm not yet sure if that's different from an old-fashioned adventure module or a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or not. I could see arguments either way, and it's why I asked Vincent that question earlier in that thread. I still hope he'll tell us what he thinks on that topic!)

    So, if having prepped content for a game and honouring it is all the "gamestate" is, then, yes, absolutely, OSR-style adventure design is strong evidence of a "gamestate". If, on the other hand, we are claiming to be exploring new territory, I'd like to see that expressed in concrete examples of design or play - it's the ultimate testing ground for theory!


    * Which would be awesome, and is my hope.
  • edited June 2019
    Nobody's disputing that in rpgs, the moment of communication is a moment of communication . . . The question is, what else?
    I've always been fascinated by how much a given player's experience of play (beyond just hidden info on their sheet or other unshared knowledge) can depend so highly on unshared stuff in their head. The communication may be the glue that keeps the group working together, but I think it could be argued that the glue is a small percentage of the total imagined material. The dungeon I imagine and the dungeon you imagine do meaningfully overlap at times, but beyond that we may parse them in very different ways.

    I agree that there's no need for design to address only the overlap.

    I'd venture to guess that design often has targeted the overlap because it has seemed both important and in need of help to pull off successfully. I'm not sure if that last part is as true elsewhere.
  • However, if there are stronger claims to be made (such as that we're discovering new principles or techniques!*), I'm likely to hold off on being convinced until I see some new techniques or principles emerging from that understanding.

    [...]

    Have we yet seen anything new from these ideas? Not in the context of these threads

    [...]

    Vincent pointing to his design is the first example offered in this discussion so far (again, unless I'm missing something). It's interesting and novel, because it uses some sort of "offscreen gamestate" information in a new way: not only is it unknown to all the players, but we can even have the players switch over, while that content remains. That's new, I think!
    Wait, that's ridic, Paul. There's nothing new in Gromoire at all; Vincent's just more explicit about it. The new bit is the presentation, not the substance. (Sorry @lumpley :blush: )

    It's 1979. You buy Keep on the Borderlands. You haven't read it thoroughly yet. Scheduling a game with your middle school friends is tough. On Friday, you run a session for Alice and Bob, reading the relevant bits of the adventure as the PCs explore. On Saturday, you run a session for Carol and Duncan, keeping the continuity from the first session, and reading more of the adventure as the PCs explore a different avenue.

    Exactly the same thing, 40 years ago!

    And how is all the design & praxis that Sandra's done for her game over the last 5 years not new? The clarification and application of No Paper Before Rock? That's major!
  • @Jeph,

    Yeah, that's exactly what I'm asking Vincent: is it new, or not? I think that, at least, the new presentation is an interesting thing, even if that's all it is. I could see arguments for either side, really.

    How is No Paper Before Rock not new? Well, perhaps it's only not new to me; that's possible. But we've definitely had discussions about such principles plenty before (even here on Story Games), and I'd say many/most OSR circles take that kind of thing as a given. It's still great stuff, don't get me wrong! (And Sandra's presentation is particularly sharp. That's nothing to sneer at.)
  • haven't seen you in a long time David Berg! hi!
  • Wait, that's ridic, Paul. There's nothing new in Gromoire at all; Vincent's just more explicit about it. The new bit is the presentation, not the substance. (Sorry @lumpley :blush: )
    Also the one player multiple GMs is a difference (a difference with precedent but still an interesting one♥)
    And how is all the design & praxis that Sandra's done for her game over the last 5 years not new? The clarification and application of No Paper Before Rock? That's major!
    Love you so much Jeph & Thanuir
  • (And my apologies for misusing "anti-blorb": this is the first time I've seen the terms defined so, after all. It would be an honour to mow your lawn all the same! Just say when.)
    I'll acknowledge that the various ways of saying not blorb have been used somewhat fuzzily interchangeably in the distant past before they got lexicalized!
  • I've been a little lost by the whole "gamestate" debate, because it feels like each participant is making slightly different claims. Sometimes it feels like what is being suggested is ludicrous (along the lines of an imaginary thing being *actually, literally real*!) and sometimes it feels like what is being suggested is entirely common sense (e.g. we take notes and prep content for our games).
    If you are confused, please ask explicit questions about your points of confusion. If you feel the need to ask the same question again, please also point out why the previous answers have been inadequate. If you feel you are repeating yourself, the conversation is probably not proceeding very well.

    In particular, concerning the claim that "what is being suggested is ludicrous (along the lines of an imaginary thing being *actually, literally real*!)", I would suggest the following options:

    1. If you do not think it is fruitful to discuss who has said what about this matter, then do not refer to it.
    2. If you do think that discussion about who has said what about stuff being actually really real would be fruitful, then let us do it properly: Quote people and link to the sources so everyone can verify them, and also be explicit about what you think they mean by real, "real", literally real, actually real, and so on.

    I do not remember much about metaphysics, but maybe the three world of Popper might useful here: Summary at wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_three_worlds . My vague recollection is that Popper's theory might face problems as rigorous metaphysics, but maybe the notions of different levels of truth could be useful in the present discussion.

    In Popper's terms, I doubt anyone is saying that because I write "unicorn" on my random encounter table, then suddenly a unicorn appears in the physical reality, perhaps on my backyard. That is to say, world one in Popper's terms is probably not what anyone has claimed.

    So, if (and only if) you want to keep bringing up what other people have said about something being real, please be more specific about what you mean by real. Popper's metaphysics or some other theory might be helpful, or maybe not. Feel free to use your own words if that is easier.
    So, does OSR-style game prep constitute an example of "gamestate"? Yes, sure, I think (again, depending on what "gamestate" actually means).
    By my definition, much of OSR-style prep adds to the game state, but the game state also has lots of other stuff.

    I would guess that most others would agree with this. If someone disagrees, let us talk.
    However, if there are stronger claims to be made (such as that we're discovering new principles or techniques!*), I'm likely to hold off on being convinced until I see some new techniques or principles emerging from that understanding. I, generally, don't trust a theory until it can be put into practice and produce something.
    It can happen that someone figures out a concept, gives it a name, and then uses it in new productive ways.

    More usual is that people have an idea but they can not really articulate it very well, they use it in messy ways, and then at some point the idea may be sharpened in discussions and some related terms defined. The idea will probably continue to be used throughout the process.

    If you consider how OSR gaming of the type discussed at Story games has been formulated, then you might check out, in a very rough chronological order, Finch's quick primer, Raggi's guide to adventure writing, Raggi's referee book for Lamentations, Eero's writings here, Principia apocrypha https://lithyscaphe.blogspot.com/p/principia-apocrypha.html (Milton, Moreau, Lumpkin, Perry) and Sandra's writings here. There are various blog posts and such I could also list; the blog for Into the odd being an excellent one, but I do not have a good grasp of the timing and will not check now.

    The specific words "game state" have not really been used, but the idea of committing to preparation and seeing what happens in play has been around for quite some time. When explaining this to traditional gamers, some of the required concepts have been railroading and fudging as something to avoid, and then "rulings not rules" when talking to modern D&D people. "player skill" as opposed to "character skill", too, and combat as war vs sport. Many of those concepts are not terribly relevant for the hardcore story gamer (whatever it means), but it seems that the idea of game state was.

    This idea of theory vocabulary being a means of communication to say that we are doing something differently from what you are, and in pointing towards the particular difference, just occurred to me and seems useful.

    Consider how "system does matter" has been widely misunderstood as a slogan, but has still been fairly effective in saying that in these/some games, we actually take the written rules seriously and do not mess with them, even though that is not what the theoretical meaning is at all.

    Sorry for the digression.
  • edited June 2019
    It is worth noticing that one can, in many practical situations, effectively consent to what the other will do. I think you are referring to the possibility, which always exists, that you (for whatever reason) do disagree with the other's contributions; yes, that does always exist.

    [...]

    I do not think anyone has claimed that the SIS, in particular, can be changed unilaterally without consensus. That is against the definition.

    However, the game state, in general, can certainly be.
    Thank you! This does clear things up. I may indeed have been arguing against a position nobody held, though it sure seemed that way to me.

    With the SIS safely intact for another day I've got me some mowin' to do: ;-)

    "The Gamestate Song" for Sandra 2097

    (based on "The Lawnmower Song" by Clayton Grogan)

    ♫ Sandra's theory's made for mowing ♫ big lawns
    It's a four-plus posters ♫ forum mowing machine
    When it's time for new designing ♫ I start that sucker going
    Throw the handle ♫ and off-screen canon starts a-whirling.
  • Great implementation.
  • Agreed!

    @Thanuir, you seem to be assuming that I'm entirely unfamiliar with a bunch of things that I actually know quite well. (For example, several of the things you're referring me to are things that I was a central/major participant in, or even instigated myself!)

    Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say!

    It feels like the whole "gamestate"/blorb discussion's claims are becoming less and less radical, and as they do so, I find myself agreeing with them more and more. My objections, all along, were to the rather more incredible claims it seemed that some people were making; the current discussion seems pretty reasonable, in comparison! Like Johann (in his post, above), I'm happy to see us meeting in the middle. :)

    I'm still hoping Vincent will say more about whether and how some of these ideas may have implications for both theory and design: it sounds like it's made some light bulbs go off in his head, and he may have a very different way of presenting the same realizations.
  • It feels like the whole "gamestate"/blorb discussion's claims are becoming less and less radical, and as they do so, I find myself agreeing with them more and more. My objections, all along, were to the rather more incredible claims it seemed that some people were making; the current discussion seems pretty reasonable, in comparison! Like Johann (in his post, above), I'm happy to see us meeting in the middle. :)
    If you believe they're becoming less radical you are misunderstanding them.
    It's absolutely radical.
    I'm not nearing any kind of "middle" at all.
    I'm sticking with full blorb.
  • Sandra,

    Quite right!

    Like I said earlier:

    My impression is that you and I both misread the other's position on this to be far more extreme than the other person actually intended. Now that we're understanding each other better (which could be seen as back-pedaling from those more extreme positions), I don't think there's too much to contend over. (Although I still maintain that Narrativist roleplay in a traditional format - like Apocalypse World - can be functional and super fun; I'm not backing down on that one! ;) )
  • I intend a perfectly extreme position.
  • The three big tools I’ve taken away from this are:

    A) Prep is a demand not a suggestion: When the entities are in prep, they are in the game, I don’t get to not use them or change them based on whim.

    B ) Session 0: Either pre-play or at designated points, there will be a session 0 where I’m allowed to interject entities that break the rock/paper principle. I’m not allowed to interject entities when not in the session 0 state.

    C) When A or B don’t work for some reason, create a tier of truth mechanic to introduce entities.

    This whole debate has really clarified my thinking.
  • @AlexanderWhite I really needed to hear that! I'm having a pretty bad day♥
  • I'm personally trying to nuance your rule B. I still want to be careful about the, uh, "challenge element" of the entities ("chasm width"–problem). The believability / buy-in issue ("what's my aunt doing in the dungeon") I can address by making it clear to the players to what extent I've injected custom entities.
  • It was you talking about the chasm width problem that was the big light bulb moment for me. It was like running your tongue over the roof of your mouth and noticing a splinter that had been there for so long you’d kind of forgotten about it.

    That being said, I’m not doing challenge based play with Finchian resolution, so a lot of the solutions are probably easier for me. For instance, I think I can embrace wallpaper into saliency far more easily because it’s less likely to mess stuff up.

    With salient npc’s I can just put them where they would be ‘by going into identification stance and figuring out where they end up (or what they’re doing off-screen).

    I still need to think more about this but I’d probably have something like the ‘rule of boring’. So if your aunt is established as being held in a dungeon (during a session 0), then that’s cool. Otherwise your aunt is just in the most obvious place she’d be given who she is. Of course if your aunt is a world renowned dungeon delver than maybe she is in a dungeon, then you can use a random table or something.

    When I was thinking about tiers of truth for my games I was playing around with the following.

    1) Prep
    2) The most obvious or boring based on already established facts
    3) Roll a dice

    This gets awkward because a lot depends on the game system you’re using and that type of stuff but an example of this might be.

    A Player questions the cop in the evidence room, but we already know the precinct has a lot of corrupt cops. (so is evidence guy corrupt?)

    If the evidence guy isn’t in prep then what makes the most sense based on what’s already been established, keeping in mind to be obvious/boring.

    If that doesn’t solve it then create a quick table. 1-2: he’s got integrity and isn’t corrupt. 3-4: he’s not corrupt but he won’t sell out his fellow officers. 5-6: he’s corrupt.

    Anyway I think rule of boring would work well in a sufficiently prepped Narrativist game, where natural session 0, occur with some regularity. The kicker being resolved in Sorcerer for instance.
  • @AlexanderWhite , how do you know when to pass "most obvious or boring" and go to "roll dice"?

    Is it when there's not a single obvious, boring thing—when there's some salient "known unknown"?

    So

    1. If it's in the prep, say it.
    2. If there's no salient burning question, say the obvious, boring thing.
    3. To answer the burning question, come up with possibilities and roll.

    ?
Sign In or Register to comment.