It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Have we defined "traditional techniques" in this model?
my (arguably unproven) thesis
In Torchbearer, if a player didn't have an opportunity to act on a belief, then they should consider rewriting it. The GM doesn't change circumstances to respond to it. (So the system is more amenable to Klockwerk play).
my (arguably unproven) thesis
Ah, well, this is my whole question:What arguments do you feel support this thesis?I tried to list them above, but you didn't tell me whether I got them right or not.
Question:What is the overlap, in your mind (if any) between these "traditional techniques" and "proper blorb"?
Nope, I'm reading along. Your thesis is now "unblorb with traditional techniques is a bad idea" (but hopefully you can understand where I got my idea - "Narrativism with traditional techniques is bad" from, since that's the way you started the whole thread, and its topic ).
I *think* you're defining "traditional techniques" as those five pillars (now four pillars).
I don't know what "unblorb" means. I would guess it's "not committing to salient world facts before the players have to make decisions regarding those facts", but that's my own idea and wording, not yours. Close enough or no?
The issue is that I'm trying to avoid getting mired into a line-by-line definitional debate, but I disagree with so many of the things you're posting (like those five/four pillars - it seems to me that only one of five really holds!) that I'm not sure how to proceed.
I'm still mostly interested in some explanation/description/examples that support your thesis, so I can understand where you're coming from.
How much of that is necessary if all the players are already 100% clear that the game is not blorb, and have bought into that reality?This is basically what I'm asking you in the other thread, too: is this all about managing expectations? (Which is a fair point, but it's an awfully big leap from "this can set the wrong expectations" to "this is bad and you shouldn't do it".)
I’m getting kinda sick of my own thesis (“Unblorb with traditional techniques is a bad idea”), I’m getting worn down by the constant disagreement even though I’m not really hearing any arguments against it…?
And I’ve tried to put forward plenty of arguments including the technique walkthrough.
And here’s another one. It’s also an analogy. Kind of a variant on @Jeph ’s air chess argument, which was a great argument too btw.
On a bus there are four passengers. Old W, old B, kid W, kid B.
Old W and old B are playing a chess game. They have good memories so they can keep the board in their imaginations, they don’t need a physical board. Old W says “E4”, old B says “C5” etc etc. They’re playing chess in the one, true way.
Kid W and kid B thinks this “memory chess” sounds cool. They think it sounds smart & clever and they want in. They don’t know anything about chess nor do they have particularly good memories. But that doesn’t bother them, they have understood the basic rule: you say a letter, then a number. Occasionally you say some more letters or numbers.
“E5” kid W starts. “K9” kid B replies. They’re playing memory chess! “E29” kid W goes on. They’re playing chess in the bad, wrong, and fun way.
In the analogy, the algebraic notation is the “traditional techniques”, the GM player separation. The “real” (except not physically real) chess board in the oldies’ game, and the adherence to it, is blorb. The completely made up moves in the kids’ game is unblorb.
Not only does the traditional technique set up the wrong expectation, it’s also kind of the wrong task for the job. The kids are… playing that they are playing chess…?
Obv you’d get into even more complex nuances of this analogy if you’d have the winners of each of the two chess games face of against each other. One person tries to play chess, the other just goofing around because it’s all just a make-believe game anyway. “We’re both just playing pretend, right?”
I don’t know, I’m getting sick of the topic, of my own idea. It nestled itself in there like a vancian spell that day I found that magic mirror in the “mirror story”.
But the expectation management issue is nothing to scoff at either. I believe conveyance & affordance are parts of the design that can't be neglected just because there's an "Read the manual, we told you the set up in the disclaimer at the bottom of the license agreement"
(The three pillars are "conflict, discovery, interaction", the three principles are "three tiers of truth, wallpaper saliency, saliency time zoom", the five four techniques are "information separation, max 1 player per character, identifying stance, GM plays world")
I still think the most useful way to proceed is to lean on actual play, or, failing that, made-up actual play examples. How does not committing to full blorb ruin our hypothetical traditional-technique Narrativist game?
My thinking is that it’s hard to get invested when what you’re colliding with isn’t solid, when it just melts into air.
Your walkthrough was… interesting, but it doesn’t in any way address what Deliverator was saying: in your mental model of various roleplaying types, you’ve omitted a fourth option, which is what we’re talking about. That type wasn’t included in the walkthrough, and, unfortunately, it’s what we’re trying to discuss.
The intent was that the “five techs in a hippie game” would cover that ground, just as it did for Lady Blackbird.
You also said you weren’t that familiar with BW yourself, Paul, so…?
But I’ll go through it again and add in BW specific comments.
Those are for the line of argument saying that BW wouldn’t be good as a fully blorby game…. Conversely, one could argue that BW would be better if it were more blorbified, or that it can be considered fully blorb already, that the introduction of elements is analogous to map keys and encounter tables. I am not making that latter claim though. I just don’t know.
How far in advance do highly detailed blorborriffic areas get created, when a big part of play is actual exploration?The next dungeon/town over? One in each cardinal direction, plus the ones from each of those?
How does it work with, say, a science fiction genres, as opposed to fantasy genre, where you're dealing with the issue on a multi-planet, planet-wide scale?
How do you avoid playing into your players' interests in the name of a consistent world?
And, while I can see a single person committing to it as designer/GM, I just don't see how that works out well in the long-term for that person, nor do I see how it encourages anyone else to take up that same level of commitment.
What do you do to confine play within an area to allow better blorbiness? I mean, at the campaign level.How does it impact play if players seem intent on ignoring content and going off the map, so to speak.How do you react to that? In game, out of game?What kind of setting works best with blorbiness? Is there a point at which a setting is effectively mined out for your purposes?At what point is it legit to re-use unexplored blorbied-up areas? Or is it really never legit, and the temptation to do so is treading on thin ice?
Hello,I just had an epiphany while reading @moconnor's description of Klockwerk in the "Half-myth" (why Burning Wheel is a no myth game) thread.This is no way meant to disparage or in any way cast shadows on Sandra's game style but I think what she's attempting to create is the anti-Turing Machine experience. Rather than programming a computer to converse with people for the purpose of trying to convince the user that he/she is talking to a human Sandra seems to trying to a human using blorb/glorical/Klockwerk trying to convince humans at the table that she's "not there." Or to be more specific not exercising her human agency. If she isn't "there" then what the players are experiencing must be the result of a "real" alternate reality.
On the other hand, my impression was that 2097 was going for something even more solid than that, with much more pre-game prep than that, which is what has been confusing me while watching this conversation.
Oh wow! No, OSR style is the model. Strict adherence to that but not more detail than that model. If anything, less, b/c wallpaper saliency principle.
This next part is possibly a bad derail, but I’m trying to figure out how I’d make 2097’s on-steroids version of pre-game prep work with either Boot Hill or Gangbusters, two of my old-timey favorite TSR games. Both of them have rather nice, simple setting modules for them, but both have larger adventure modules that I have a hard time envisioning working with anything like an explore in any direction set up, at any time. Neither one’s module are quite so site-based as D&D modules ( or general fantasy RP modules of the earliest styles). Since you name checked it, neither are the Star Frontiers modules really. Even the first Volturnus is only barely an example, and it starts off fairly railroad with the Taking of the Eleanor Morales.( Did I remember that name right after all these years?)
We gotchu fam, take a look at this thread
Hmm, maybe for that sort of game, the trick is to create When? type random tables, rather than What? type tables in a fantasy RPG.
1) That's pretty much how I would do an Old School game too. On the other hand, my impression was that 2097 was going for something even more solid than that, with much more pre-game prep than that, which is what has been confusing me while watching this conversation.
2) This next part is possibly a bad derail, but I'm trying to figure out how I'd make 2097's on-steroids version of pre-game prep work with either Boot Hill or Gangbusters, two of my old-timey favorite TSR games. Both of them have rather nice, simple setting modules for them, but both have larger adventure modules that I have a hard time envisioning working with anything like an explore in any direction set up, at any time. Neither one's module are quite so site-based as D&D modules ( or general fantasy RP modules of the earliest styles). Since you name checked it, neither are the Star Frontiers modules really. Even the first Volturnus is only barely an example, and it starts off fairly railroad with the Taking of the Eleanor Morales.( Did I remember that name right after all these years?)
Preparation: By this formulation, preparation simply amounts to one player's construction of an imaginary space which he wants to make shared. But the only way that space becomes shared is through progressive Validations, leading to Integrations; in short, the other players must Abduce the total space. All the preparation in the world is not play, because it doesn't create Proposals; semiotically, there are no signs, because all signs require an interpretant to be such, and since there are no signs, no Abduction can occur. One person creating a personal language in a closet is doing something, but it's not communication.This reminds me of some old threads about No Myth gamemastering. Fang Langford emphasized this 'myth' that prepared material was already present in the game, and said that on the contrary, nothing is present in the shared space until it's, well, shared. The semiotic model would support that conclusion: you can Explore a pre-prepared space, just as you can Explore a totally open-ended one, and either way it requires addition because it requires successive Abductions and Deductions.
No no. There is a mistake here, a confusion. It's not realistic realism that klokwerk does. It's ontological realism. The state of the game doesn't change when you go to sleep. There's hard memory keeping it. That kind of realness : continuity of existence.
So you, Sil, bring up some interesting distinctions like they’re not actually gonna start hacking atcha, similar to the Frank Lantz talk I linked to earlier, when he says that if we were playing a super immersive game there would be no “game” left, we’d be in another world and we’d have to look down pick up some virtual pebbles or whatever and play chess with them.
And, OK, fair. Let’s use your definitions that it is a game, that it is made up. (For the purps of I don’t want to get into a semantics fight. Since me calling it “real” caused a lot of peeps to check out.)
This reminds me of some old threads about No Myth gamemastering. Fang Langford emphasized this “myth” that prepared material was already present in the game, and said that on the contrary, nothing is present in the shared space until it’s, well, shared. The semiotic model would support that conclusion: you can Explore a pre-prepared space, just as you can Explore a totally open-ended one, and either way it requires addition because it requires successive Abductions and Deductions.
I used to believe it was a myth too until I saw it happen.
If you have a game set up where the canon game-state includes things that haven’t been shared yet, i.e. you have hidden info…
… and that isn’t that big of a claim. Imagine a game like Battleship or Rock-Paper-Scissors or Poker. In those games there are things in the game state that are canon, that are immutable, but that are not shared. The “myth” would have it that those games do not exist…
… if you have such a game in a roleplaying game, where there is a canon 5-wide, 8-high corridor going 35 feet forward until it splits in a T intersection to the left and right, and it’s dark, and there are cobwebs, and if that corridor existed even before the players heard of it, before it was “shared”….
then the DM and the players would be inside of the same “unreal, gamey, not-like-real-combat, not-like-reality, its-just-a-game, dream logic”
There is symmetry with regards to the degree of “reality” or “canonicity” that the two sides are treating the prepared material.
It’s not just the GM spinning a yarn and barfing forth apocalyptica anymore. It’s a system/object/set-of-entities that both you and the DM are treating with the same degree of respect.
Like, when I’m doing phone-grocery-shopping, I can’t go “and then buy some angel wings, and some heaven pie, and then take some money from money tree”… I can’t just make up things. I have to be like “OK they have frozen corn right? Oh, they’re out? Get canned then”. Because the signifier has a referent.
The “made-up” “game” has the curious and interesting property that there is a canon offscreen gamestate that the DM and the players are interacting with, through an assymmetrical interface (by design) but with a symmetrical degree of canonicity.
Joueur (Fang) and Chris Lehrich, if they still believe it’s just a myth, are like the chess-playing kids in this analogy. I don’t know if they still are; it’s been 15 years since they wrote that, and back in 2004, I thought it was a myth too. Heck even in 2010 I thought it was a myth; that was before I got my own semiotics degree and could see that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
First, the classic, never-answered question in semiotics is how you get from Sign to Referent. If by Referent you mean an actual physical thing, the answer is you don’t. But here, you actually do, because all Referents are part of an imagined space, not a physical one. Thus things (referents) are actually constructed through signification (Proposals, language, signs, etc.).
This is incorrect on kind of two levels.
First of all, his limiting the word “sign” to utterances-made-at-the-table does not have support in the literature. If I write “Silmenume is a sweetheart” in my secret diary that only I can read, that is still me using signs in a semiotic sense. Chris’ language-in-a-closet quip was kinda (wilfully?) ignorant because obviously there is an interpretant—the Dungeon Master!
Second, regardless of which definition of “sign” is in use, the referents aren’t constructed through utterances-made-at-the-table. They are constructed, or integrated, at prep time (or, worst case, at the third truth tier). That’s why I have such a hangup with injection of entities into the diegesis—because they are referents in the semiotic model.
That's the problem. Memory is not the ontological "thing". It's a representation of some external reality as run through the subjective filter of the person experiencing the event. The memory of an event is not the ontological event itself. To use an analogy it is the finger pointing to the moon, but it is not the moon itself. Or put another way the memory is our cognitive map of the ontological reality but it is not reality itself. All memories are subjective.
No no. There is a mistake here, a confusion. It's not realistic realism that klokwerk does. Its not about verisimilitude or plausibility. It's ontological realism. The state of the game doesn't change when you go to sleep. There's hard memory keeping it. That kind of realness : continuity of existence.
But… claiming that a game with a prepped dungeon is somehow fundamentally “more real” than one without is self-delusion, in my opinion.
To avoid this semantic-layer debate, which to me is kind of “finger pointing at moon” rather than “moon” level, we are tryning to use “offscreen canon game-state” rather than “real”. I’d love to get into a more poetic talk about “realness” once we’re done with all of this and we’re all the same page but for now, I’ve tried to table it, side step it by using vocabulary hopefully more palatable to you.
Imagine a game like Battleship or Rock-Paper-Scissors or Poker. In those games there are things in the game state that are canon, that are immutable, but that are not shared. The [view that it is a] “myth” would have it that those games do not exist…
See, I’m using the more palatable vocabe “canon offscreen gamestate”.
When you tell your friend to get some “angel wings and heaven pie”, of course she can’t do that, because she’s in an actual, physical store and there is no “heaven pie” there. In an RPG, you can always say that, yes, there is heaven pie, and from now the game state has changed: to ignore that we can (and do!) constantly “change the contents of the store” is a huge oversight.
When you are doing that in an RPG (saying “from now on there is heaven pie”), you are injecting entities into the diegesis which is the exact interaction I want our newly carved out design space to moderate.
It’s easy to prove, because if anyone ever screws up and misreports something, that supposedly “real thing” is instantly transformed.
As you saw from that example, which was an example of a mistake where I accidentally broke the rules of our table (“correctly report the diegetical entities”), the canon off-screen gamestate took precedence over what had been shared at the gametable. This is a direct falsification of Chris’ claim.
In short, I don’t think any amount of discussion about how ‘real’ something like this might feel discredits with Silmenume and Chris Lehrich and Le Joueur are saying about the idea of “Myth”. To claim otherwise is extremely dishonest.
“Delusional” is ablist and “extremely dishonest” is uncharitable. Let’s look at what I actually wrote:
Here is me reiterating what we had already started doing upthread, moving away from the “realness” vocab.
Here is me using that less offensive (less “delusional”) vocab.
Here is me refering to the games reality as unreal.
There is symmetry with regards to the degree of “reality” or “canonicity” that the two sides are treating the prepared material.It’s not just the GM spinning a yarn and barfing forth apocalyptica anymore. It’s a system/object/set-of-entities that both you and the DM are treating with the same degree of respect.
Here is me emphasising the canonicity / establishedness over the “realness”, and emphasising the symmetrical degree of “reality” rather than going “wow man that mirror felt so real it was cosmic man”.
And here is the importantest part. Chris made some errors in his argument, I pointed out two of them [I figured I’d start there] and the most relevant one to our research is when he said that the referents were constructed at the “proposal”/utterance level. (I’m using the construct at-the-table-utterance to not reinforce his misuse of “sign”; “at-the-table-utterances” are a subset of signs that consist of things being shared between players, such as “OK, you see a 5 feet wide corridor, what do you do?”.) This is demonstrably a false statement.
A cornercase of our position is that these referents are constructed when they are injected, as entities, into the diegesis at prep time rather than, as Chris and Fang says, being constructed only later, when they are shared between participants.
Going from that statement to “Sandra is delusional” or “Sandra is extremely dishonest” is frankly rude.
Let me bring it back to the “there is now heaven pie” example.
In AW the rule is that you add the one die to the other die and then add in your stat and that is the sum that you are comparing to the 7–9 or whatever. Someone could say I’m gonna also add in the number of toes I have on the left foot to that sum. But they would be breaking a rule of the game. Producing the number you use to compare to the 7–9 or whatever is governed by a rule of the game.
In full blorb, injecting entities (“heaven pie”) into the diegesis is similarly governed by rules of the game.
Sil thought you meant normal human memory. In French, he thought you meant rappelant, when you meant mémoire.