But Christian gets it right above, in identifying one of the main parts of what we’re all talking about here. And that’s the strange feeling that if play becomes solidly tactical, that is when it’s about players showing off their skills by manipulating the rules of the game into strategies, it often feels like the fiction doesn’t any longer matter. That it’s simply color laid upon the rules for kicks, and that the activity could go on with as much ability to determine player value as if there were no color at all.

And the question becomes, “where’s the link?” At what point does narration positioning actually start to matter? Does the timing matter in Vader’s revealing to Luke that he is his father? If so, how is that determined?

I have a question about this, that seems to get at the crux of the issue, but which probably still only hints at the iceberg. Is it that the GM or some player gets to make a judgment at some point regarding a declared action, an arbitrary judgement, that gives a mechanical effect, that makes the connection between fiction and the mechanics? Or, again, is that notion only indicative of the iceberg somehow?

For a zen moment, think about the games from these guys: http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html

The pyramid games. One of the things that they try to incorporate into such games is the idea of the games being without turns. Any player can make any move at any time. What’s fascinating is that, and it hasn’t been proven yet, but there are many boardgame theorists who figure that these games are somehow broken. But they can’t explain why.

RPGs are like this, but worse. Not only can you make a move at any time, it can be anything. Worse, whether or not you’re included in a scene, and other very “meta” things of that nature determine if you actually can make a move. We’re very much limited by the fiction in that the GM usually stands there to veto implausible moves. But do we avoid them because they’re implausible, or because we feel likely to be vetoed.

This is the “Sim” problem. Are we exploring, or preventing bad feelings by adhering to some quality of “plausibility” or such, so that we don’t have to deal with “gamey-ness?”

Fang’s work is seminal in this area in that it boldly has attemtped to say, “We can compete now, and do the other thing later, and here’s how we can systematically deal with that.” But does the fundamental problem of fiction meeting mechanics create a situation where we simply can’t mix these elements functionally?

From one perspective, isn’t this just El Dorado approached from a different angle? From another, couldn’t we ask, isn’t all fictional play bogus? Maybe we should go back to boardgames, or just write novels?

Mike

And that’s when I started working on Beast Hunters–to fully leverage that what makes TTRPGs special.

It looks like you’re writing from a bit of an embattled perspective. (Do you expect people to vocally disagree? It doesn’t really seem likely.) I have been thinking about the things which may give rise to the sentimentality of being embattled in your own blog.

As I detailed here, I think you’re simply working from a different approach. Specifically, one where apportioning credibility and authority simply isn’t the point.

I really like where you’re going with this! May I request that you continue with this in future blog posts? I would find it very interesting to hear you explore some examples of what you did in the MtA game and how you might clarify different concepts used in those examples.

Truly fascinating!
Fang Langford

Also, if you’re doing a mostly phatic game (heroes are all heroic, good is always good, etc) then that step should usually be left out completely.

The one thing about stage 4 is to try avoid it always being “black is not to black, villain sympathetic, ally not virtuous” which has a sense of “switcharoo” by GM.

To cite Ron Edward’s from Sex and Sorcery (hazily, don’t have it to hand), perhaps drawing a challenge from another level of the subjects of conflict (e.g., okay you were pursuing good of country, will you at cost of community, at cost of family, etc.)

That and a d4 won’t save you sometimes, so there is always the temptation to use a bigger dice… just a d6, right, what could that hurt?

When I was writing up TV Action, I found that I wanted to put in all the stuff about structuring TV-style episodes as a kind of mechanic. It’s not something that ever asserts authority over play - it doesn’t make you roll dice at certain times or distribute authority this way or that way or whatever - but it is a shared understanding of the fiction that is binding.

It is definitely rules-text to me, even though it states explicitly that every part of what it says can be defied or ignored. These two posts give me more comprehension of what that was about.