IIEE and FatE/FitM

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoph,

The thread has been very useful. I'm in the beginning stages of the end of the school term, so life will be dominated by exams and students' grades for a little while, but after that, I plan to overhaul the IIEE, Fortune, and Task/Conflict entries quite thoroughly.

Also, I'm not sure why you got the idea that the wiki is entirely retrospective, but that's not true at all - I want it to be as current as possible. It just so happens that in this case, I think that most of the dialogue from 2005 onward wasn't very productive, and returning to the originals was the best idea. But that won't always be the case.

Best, Ron

[Christoph]

Hi Ron

Okay, my bad. In this case, I question the utility of FatE/FitM as such in the current day (for people trying to understand the current state of the Big Model), except as a pedagogical tool to discuss the historical evolution of thinking that led us to such rules as those of Polaris, Dogs in the Vineyard or S/lay w/me. Arguably, their rules can be deconstructed into atomic elements, each of which is a case study of FitM or DitM ending in some cases with a FatE, but I don't see how a peruser of the wiki completely new to the Big Model could easily see how FatE/FitM mixed up with IIEE ends up with stuff as complex as those three games I mentioned (and which are hardly negligible examples, given their success). It seems to me that one has to bring in the discussion of how these games use at least two layers of these concepts applied at two time-scales: the concrete action leading to a statement, pushing two dice forward or rolling dice, and how a set of those leads to a resolution (of a conflict in Polaris and Dogs, or even an adventure in the case of S/lay w/me.) Talking about resolving actions makes, in my opinion, no sense without the bigger picture of a specific game and how it factors into the long-term rules. At the time IIEE and FatE/FitM appeared and were discussed successfully, games such as Pool, My Life with Master, Sorcerer (even though you can carry bonuses from one roll to the next), Dust Devils and probably many others did have just the one narration and mechanical resolution tied together in a specific way. This is not quite as clear cut with the three games I mention, two of which appeared about at the time you say the discussion of FatE/FitM and even IIEE started to break down, the third having come long after the theory forums closed down.

Okay... I'm flailing around wildly with my internet arms, but am I making any sense? Is there a way I can put my argument in a more useful manner?

[Ron Edwards]

Good question. It brings into focus the issue of the intended audience. Although I agree with you that Polaris and the other games you mentioned are not negligible,* they are most familiar to a fairly limited gamer audience. The Forge's theory-talk was specifically inwardly-directed, oriented toward people who were committed to being there and participating there, but I'd like the wiki eventually to be a very friendly place. Quite a lot of games were founded on mechanics for which the Fortune-when distinctions are relevant, and quite a lot of those games are still played and still written.

I completely agree with you about the relevance of the bigger picture and long-term rules - it's the essence of my ongoing point about reward systems being the main thing, and resolution and other mechanics being subroutines. So, now what to do? Perhaps some orientation at the wiki about when these concepts are most obviously relevant, and how deeply they are embedded in the larger Techniques context.

In the Techniques section, I've tried to outline a layered/scale approach to them. I should definitely think about placing the Fortune issues quite deeply in there, and to point out that you don't just hit a game with a stick and have it beep once for in-the-middle and twice for at-the-end.

Best, Ron

* And thanks for including S/Lay w/Me, that was nice.