In "Thematic Causality": What, why and how? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15138), over in the Muse of Fire forums, we hit some very interesting general-purpose questions. Folks reckon, and I agree, that it might be worth discussing at large.
I think that we're all in agreement (there) that "meaning" is a construct placed onto events in the SIS by the perception of players. There is, in short, no such thing as "inherent meaning." Whether you have a Charisma of 6, or you did a great deed for the King, or any of that... at some point, some player (or players in consensus) are going to refer to that past fact as authority to shape present and future input to the SIS. That's "meaning." When your Charisma is why you fail to seduce the barmaid, that's some of the meaning of your Charisma score. When your deeds for the King mean that you are now a target in the machiavellian machinations of the court, that is the meaning of your heroism.
But Ralph, and others, rightly point out that the social expectations for how that authority can be applied are negotiated at different points in the sequence. I'll give my rough estimate of what those points can be:
Any fact which can be appealed to for authority goes through (at least) three stages. It is Established as a fact. It is Appealed to for Authority. The Authority is Applied to the SIS. This in turn Establishes new facts, and so the cycle continues. It is that very continuity, from one link to the next, that Chris Edwards termed "Thematic Causality."
So, similar to IIEE, this is EAAE. Somewhere in there the legitimacy of the claim is Judged, which can consist of both debates about whether it's applicable and reinterpreting the SIS in light of the agreement that it is relevant.
Meaning at the Beginning (EjAAE): Typified by the "Charisma 6" example above. Players come to the table with social expectations about what Charisma 6 means already in place. Rules, precedent and explicit social contract come together to form an expectation of when that fact can be appealed to for authority. Because of the way this structure reinterprets the SIS it is often viewed as "world-building".
Meaning in the Middle (EAjAE): Typified by freeform Traits as in Universalis, Dogs in the Vineyard, Capes, etc. A player refers to a fact for authority, and the legitimacy of that appeal is judged in the instant of the relevance of the fact, before things go further. Expectations are (usually) informed by explicit rules (like "Anything the player chooses to bring in is relevant... but isn't it creepy what they think is relevant sometimes?")
Meaning at the End (EAAjE): Quite possibly typified by Capes Inspirations, but maybe not. A fact is used for authority, and the legitimacy of that appeal to authority is not judged until after the authority has already been applied. The legitimacy (or not) of the appeal to authority does not determine whether it has authority to act on the SIS, but may determine what the nature of the newly Established facts are (and therefore have an impact on the next iteration of the cycle).
Does this seem like a sensible breakdown of the ways that social expectation can be applied to the ways that people appeal to SIS-features for authority?
Do these different styles of forming Meaning support different styles of play? Or simply different narrative structures within any style of play?
Hi Tony,
This is nice & solid. My thoughts on your last two questions ...
Yes, I think it's a good breakdown, and a good description of the variety of approaches. It's especially nifty if one considers that my "Fortune in the Middle" terminology represents a particular case of "Meaning." I wonder if my "Fortune at the End" is actually a particular case of "Meaning at the Beginning?" I suspect it is ...
It might be interesting to parse out how differing expectations lead to different dysfunctional trends in role-playing.
For example, if I am working mainly from an expectation of Meaning in the Middle, and if another guy is working mainly from an expectation of Meaning at the Beginning, I suspect a whole lot of arguments about what Climb 13 "means" or "would do" are going to arise during play. (I also suggest that Cover in Sorcerer, in particular, is explicitly Meaning in the Middle in order to avoid such issues, which in practice seems to have worked without a hitch.)
I wonder whether the tendency for groups new to Universalis to get bogged down in the tenets phase represents a similar sort of confusion, or perhaps disconnect or lack of trust, among members of the group. They can't tell what the components they're inventing mean, and thus can't get them into action.
As for "styles of play," I'm not sure what you mean by the term. If we're talking about Creative Agenda (which is not the same as "styles"), then I think your point is CA-independent to a certain extent - or rather, that your breakdown applies well regardless of CA.
H'm ... or is it that simple? As you probably know, I usually turn to the reward system as the center of "system matters" when CA is being considered. So if the meaning you're talking about feeds into the reward system in an identifiable, consistent way, then I think how it's conducted is relevant to CA.
That doesn't mean that any one of your categories lines up neatly with any one of the CAs, but it does mean that we can talk about how a given approach (e.g. Meaning in the Middle, especially) may, in tandem with other aspects of System, works well with a CA in a given instance.
Cool stuff, Tony.
Best,
Ron
Heya
Ron wrote:
QuoteH'm ... or is it that simple? As you probably know, I usually turn to the reward system as the center of "system matters" when CA is being considered. So if the meaning you're talking about feeds into the reward system in an identifiable, consistent way, then I think how it's conducted is relevant to CA.
That doesn't mean that any one of your categories lines up neatly with any one of the CAs, but it does mean that we can talk about how a given approach (e.g. Meaning in the Middle, especially) may, in tandem with other aspects of System, works well with a CA in a given instance.
Which is right, if I understand things. And Tony put it that way here:
QuoteSo, similar to IIEE, this is EAAE. Somewhere in there the legitimacy of the claim is Judged, which can consist of both debates about whether it's applicable and reinterpreting the SIS in light of the agreement that it is relevant.
So just like the Fortune mechanics can be applied in any CA so can these Meaning mechanics. And just like how certain fortune mechanics along with other aspects of system work well with a given CA, so can this Meaning mechanics put forth by Tony. At least, that's what I'm getting from this. Is that right?
Peace,
-Troy
Works for me, Troy. That's my reading of it too.
Best,
Ron
Yeah, this is very helpful.
As as Ron mentions, there can be issues when people expect one of these meaning categories and are confronted with another. I think that happens with traditional players who try their hands on some of the indie games.
The main tradeoff, as I mentioned in the other thread, is that MatB lends a lot of reliable expectancy. I know what's going on and how things will work, I can plan on it, and deviation will need a lot of justification. With MitM, interpretation will happen during play, which makes for more spontaneous events but also takes away some certainty and planning ability. MatE, then, is very spontaneous and means that players need to create their own causal links on the fly. That means they don't know what'll happen next or how their current contribution will hold up, but they also have a vast array of spontaneous possibilities.
It seems to me that most traditional RPGs are very much MatB oriented (obviously, we're talking about degrees here, as there is always some meaning that's made up on the fly). So I can see that there's a difficulty for traditional players in getting the hang of those newer, mostly indie games that ask more of them in terms of spontaneity and being able to operate without as much reliable expectancy.
That means, if I as a player suddenly don't have all those rules and regulations (not only mechanics, but all that's agreed to before play even starts regarding how events will go) in place to tell me how things are happening, I am empowered to contribute differently during play, but I might also be a little lost.
Thematic Causality comes in, then, when this is applied over the course of a session, campaign, etc. The more MatB we have, the more reliably we will have consistently causal events (notice the "reliably" part, as players can create this with MatE as well, they just have to work consciously toward it). In fact, through bricolage, we can probably build more and more MatB, but that's probably an issue for a whole other thread.
It seems to me that there can be a correlation between EAAE and CA (as Ron says, in conjunction with other parts of System), though on second thought, maybe there's some other play preference at issue here (reliability versus spontaneity). Because now that I think on it, you can support Sim play if you have a lot of MatB that's consistent with your Dream, but it might be helpful to be able to insert MitM so that the established rules don't get in the way of the Agenda. That's again where bricolage comes in, because we all know that there's just no perfect rules-system for our perfect play. Thematic Causality is certainly something that Sim-oriented players will strive for, but they may actually be able to do that better if they have the ability to spontaneously fit the meaning to the ideal, instead of being constrained by what's already established.
Hmm.
One way this scheme seems to be lacking is you put Universalis and Capes in the same category. As I recall, this whole thing came out of the recognition that there was some choice in design philosophy in which Uni and Capes (both GM-less Narr games) seemed to be opposing camps.
I certainly don't want to turn this into (specifically) Universalis vs. Capes here, (or worse, Tony vs. Ralph), but it seems like the scheme would be more useful if it attempted to explain the differences and validities of these two views.
Or are you suggesting that Capes merely straddles a line, one which could be pushed further into unexplored territory?
More attempts to place existing games into the scheme may be useful. Are traditional designs tending towards Meaning at the Beginning?
There's some unspoken assumptions about Social Contract going on here, too. No clue how that fits in yet.
Looked at after the fact, all of these will get you to the same place...an enjoyable play experience. But the process on how you got there will be quite different.
The biggest difference will be with player buy-in. During the game statements will be made by one player that will need to be accepted by other players and incorporated into the SIS. The amount of work you need to do to get that buy in, the amount of concession and compromise you must be willing to make to get that buy in, and the type of recourse players have who don't want to buy in will all be effected by the way the game delivers "meaning" as used above.
A lot of this difference is encapsulated simply by the notion of precedent. The longer a particular fact / interpretation has been in place and the more often its been apealed to and applied, the much easier it is to get acceptance for future use. When dealing with a new situation if you can extrapolate from already established precedent to form the rationale for your current narration then acceptance of that narration is far easier.
This impact can be greatly seen in games that permit/require more inventive narration from players. Every time new ground gets broken it must be established, applied, and accepted anew. The less it draws upon precedent the more the player must be aware of the social dynamics of the group in order to get that essential buy-in.
If a character is given a penalty when trying to seduce a barmaid because he has a Charisma of 6, there is enormous precedent supporting that rationale. Everyone knows what Charisma represents and how it gets used in the game and has probably seen it used like this in similar situations in the past. On the other hand if a character is given a penalty when trying to seduce a barmaid because he's wearing red and the barmaid hates the color red that acceptance isn't going to be quite as automatic, especially if the barmaid's distaste for the color red had never been established prior to the application of the penalty. That fact (distaste for red) hasn't existed for long, has never been appealed to before, and thus doesn't have the weight of precedent behind it to gain its acceptance.
There is thus a large difference in the play experience between meaning being accepted due primarily to the weight of precedence, and meaning being accepted that doesn't have any weight of precendence behind it. In the latter case acceptance is far more dependent on the immediate social dynamic...how compelling the presenter is, how attuned the presenter is to what the group would consider to be fun at that point, and how much authority over such things the presenter has been granted.
This last is of particular note, because, without it, acceptance becomes dominated by the relative charismatic will of the players. In a traditional game the GM is given enormous authority. If the GM introduced the barmaid's distaste for red at the last minute he could probably get it accepted through force of authority alone although it would probably result in a good bit of grumbling from the players. We can all point to examples of grudging acceptance of GM fiat in our play histories.
However, this becomes of particular interest to GM-less games (or GM-full games) like Uni or Capes. Not everything that could ever happen in a roleplaying game can be derived exclusively from precedence and there is no single authority figure to demand acceptance by fiat. How then are newly introduced elements imbued with meaning. How do they get accepted into the SIS.
Force of Charisma is one way. Skillful presentation by clever and entertaining individuals who can get their way simply because its so much fun to watch them go. On a darker note social bullying can take place as well.
Game mechanics become another way. Traditional game mechanics are only indirectly concerned with getting elements accepted in the SIS because they rely on a GM's authority to make that happen when precedent is insufficient. In a GM-less game, however, the mechanics must be much more explicit about how elements get accepted. Some games like Universalis appeal to group consensus with very rigid rules for how the group can choose to accept or reject narration. Some games like Polaris or Great Ork Gods divide the specific areas of responsibility up, creating sub GMs with greater or lesser authority over a smaller area.
Capes is unique in that it grants no recourse. The game gives authority to a specific player at a specific time and no other player has any ability at all to question, refute, reject, or even suggest alternatives to anything the authoring player says.
So I don't see "meaning" being categorized by game. I see it being categorized in play as its created. The way I view the three categories would be:
Meaning established at the beginning: Rules, setting material, character backgrounds, things accepted prior to play simply by agreeing to play. Everyone knows that Magic Users can't wield swords and Elves have infravision because these items were established prior to play and accepted by the simple decision to play D&D.
Meaning established during play: Primarily in game events or rulings that have already occured earlier in the game.
Meaning not yet established: This would be in game events and rulings that are currently actively in process of being integrated into the SIS.
The process of getting those elements accepted into the SIS works according to the Lumpley Principle. However, there are numerous ways for players to weight the negotiation process in their favor to make it more likely that their narration will be acceptable.
The Weight of Precendent is an attempt to draw on things that have had meaning established ealier and extrapolate that into the current situation.
The Weight of Authority is an attempt to use authority granted by the group to influence acceptance.
The Weight of Charisma is an attempt to use powers of personal persuasion/manipulation to obtain acceptance.
The Weight of Mechanics is a variation on the Weight of Authority where temporary authority is granted by mechanical means ("High Card Narrates" in Dust Devils) and the player uses that authority to influence acceptance.
And probably a few others we could come up with as well.
The thing that makes this of particular interest to me is that of all of these, the weight of precedence is the one that generally goes over with the least amount opposition or hurt feelings. The idea that "a low Charisma penalized me last time, so it makes sense it would penalize me this time" receives nearly automatic acceptance with much less need to justify it by anything more than "its in the rules".
When people do object in such a situation its rarely in the form of "who cares about the rules" but more often in the form of "I interpret that rule differently". Once the other party becomes convinced of a particular interpretation, it falls right back to "its in the rules".
In Universalis the precedent isn't so much "its in the rules" but "its an existing trait".
The key thing to note about appeals to precedent is that there always needs to be a human being to reach the decision. Precedent itself can't decide anything. It merely makes it easier for the real people to reach an accord. Therefor, in all cases, for functional play there needs to be a mechanism by which accord gets reached if individuals disagree as to how to apply precedent. Traditionally this is the role of the GM. Uni uses mechanically enforceable group consensus.
In the threads that spawned this one there was a great deal of discussion on how Capes handles this. Capes has zero appeal process. Players who don't like another player's narration have no immediate recourse. There are also no mechanics or guidelines to enforce or appeal to precedent. So, while a particular player with the power to narrate may base their narration on precedent...they may not. Other players expecting narration that is in-line with established precedent are left trying to retroactively justify the narration to preserve continuity.
This ability to freely ignore precedent during narration was, more or less, the core issue at the heart of much of the recent Capes discussion...made all the more noticeable because of the preeminent role precedent has with respect to altering the SIS.
Heya,
I'm with Valamir on a lot of this. A very good post, Ralph. I think he puts it best when he writes:
"So I don't see "meaning" being categorized by game. I see it being categorized in play as its created."
I hope I don't help to get this bogged down into specific games, but it is indeed important to examine how unique aspects of games (such as GM-less style in Capes and Universalis) interact with the topic of this thread. The mechanics of Meaning that Tony posted still apply in those games, I believe, but it may take more time to negotiate and finalize the meaning. Just like in Fortune mechanics, the instant the die (or whatever) stops rolling is not the instant things are resolved. Likewise, the instant Meaning is posited is not the instant Meaning is agreed upon.
Which brings me to something else I think bears discussion here on this topic and that is Hacking. It's similar to what happens in Universalis, but still different in its application. I think it can be applied to Meaning in the beginning, middle, or end depending on the System. It changes Meaning after it has initially been established and agreed upon. In other words, while the players in Universalis might haggle over meaning in the first stage and then agree on it in the second stage, Hacking can come in on a third stage and change what has been agreed upon. So what I'm asking is, is Hacking a "Meaning with Teeth" type mechanic similar to the "Fortune in the Middle with Teeth" concept?
Peace,
-Troy
Edit: Links to previous threads on Hacking:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13071&highlight=hacking
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12976&highlight=hacking
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13073&highlight=hacking
Ron: I'm not really sure
what I meant to convey by "style of play". Your phrasing of (roughly) "These are techniques. How do they apply? What are their consequences? How do they combine with other techniques?" is much the clearer.
Christian and Larry: I think you're assuming that an entire game is MatB or MitM, or whatever. I certainly don't see that being the case. I think each technique gets applied at different times. Example:
QuoteA fighter in D&D is trying to get past a door, guarded by an Orc.
Fighter: "I swing with my vorpal blade. I roll a twenty! Therefore the Orc is decapitated!" (MatB - "Vorpal + 20 = Head-lopping")
GM: "The orc dies messily, his body slamming back against the door, which closes. There is the distinct sound of a lock clicking shut." (MitM - "Headless flailing Orc + Lockable door = Door locked")
Fighter: "Okay, I go get that barrel of oil I saw earlier, use rope to make a fuse, set it against the door, retreat to the next room and light the fuse. It sizzles, burns, the barrel explodes. Kaboom!" (MatE - "Oil + flame = Kaboom!, but what does Kaboom! mean?"... maybe)
GM: "The door is in burning flinders."
Tony,
I agree with you, it's not all or nothing. That's why I wrote:
QuoteIt seems to me that most traditional RPGs are very much MatB oriented (obviously, we're talking about degrees here, as there is always some meaning that's made up on the fly).
Just that some games have much more MatB, while others have certain elements that are always interpretable in different ways during the game (like HeroQuest's abilities and magic).
Okay, so where does a veto power over modification of SIS fit into this? Just a case of Appeal to Authority?
I think I am trying in vain to integrate this into the Model at large. More examples (outside of Uni/Capes/D&D) might help make this less abstract.
I would think that a veto would be part of Judgment. Judgment can include debate about whether the fact lends authority in this instance, as well as restructuring the SIS to make it more (or less, I suppose) applicable.
The veto would fall squarely into that "debate" category, I would think.
Now, interestingly, almost all vetoes are instances of MitM, as such. They happen when the fact is Appealed to.
The authority to veto, however, can be based on MatB, MitM or MitE. Examples:
[list=a]
- MatB: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because your Charisma is still 6."
- MitM: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because... uh... the enchanter's tower lends iron will to all servants."
- MitE: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her. Which tells you something, if you stop to think about it...."[/list:o]
Quote
Now, interestingly, almost all vetoes are instances of MitM, as such. They happen when the fact is Appealed to. The authority to veto, however, can be based on MatB, MitM or MitE. Examples:
[list=a]- MatB: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because your Charisma is still 6."
- MitM: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because... uh... the enchanter's tower lends iron will to all servants."
- MitE: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her. Which tells you something, if you stop to think about it...."[/list:o]
Ooh... the list command. Sexy.
What about a game where you purposefully forgoe judgement for as long as possible, up to and including not judging the outcome entirely (leaving it ambiguous)? I'm thinking about some of the PTA I played with Vincent, Meg and crew, where they were still discussing events from sessions ago in terms of
implications rather than
meanings. Does this stress the social contract?
yrs--
--Ben
I'm not sure we're using the same terminology. You're saying that players would forego judgment for that long about whether or not an appeal to past facts was a legitimate source of authority?
Quote from: TonyLBI think that we're all in agreement (there) that "meaning" is a construct placed onto events in the SIS by the perception of players. There is, in short, no such thing as "inherent meaning." Whether you have a Charisma of 6, or you did a great deed for the King, or any of that... at some point, some player (or players in consensus) are going to refer to that past fact as authority to shape present and future input to the SIS. That's "meaning."
This is going to sound a pointless quibble, because it ends up almost exactly the same. No, that isn't "meaning" in terms of the group. That's the player expressing what they have previously decided is meaningful to them.
Once the other players have heard this expression and understood as best they can exactly what is meaningful to the player (sometimes it's hard to know even with the clearest speach), they may use this to their advantage.
QuoteAny fact which can be appealed to for authority goes through (at least) three stages. It is Established as a fact. It is Appealed to for Authority. The Authority is Applied to the SIS. This in turn Establishes new facts
Which makes 'authority' a missplaced term.
Instead players may be 'invested' in an idea. And that investment can be extended to other potential idea investments, via system dependancy. A classic example might be a player declaring their investment in the idea that their PC is 'Alive in his game world!'. Once they have declared that investment, the idea of armour can be sold to them and because their being alive has a systematic dependancy on armour rules, they are more than likely to extend their investment of 'Alive in the game world!' to the armour. Thus the armour becomes 'alive' in similar terms to his original investment. Thus if armour becomes an investment to the player as well (quite likely), it's because system assisted that investment spread. Have a bunch of these sorts of rules and the players one investment in his character being alive, brings an entire game world to life.
These new investments rest on the shoulders of the previous investments. Clearly if one stopped thinking one's PC is alive in the game world, then your not going to give a crap about armour.
QuoteDoes this seem like a sensible breakdown of the ways that social expectation can be applied to the ways that people appeal to SIS-features for authority?
I'm probably being tangental and it doesn't change what your trying to say, but every time I read 'appeal to authority' it makes getting into this thread difficult. 'Authority' suggests something simply must happen. Bah. All you can say is 'Hey dude, your heavily invested in your character being alive...come on, invest in these armour rules to! You know because of the system here, it's the smart thing to do!'
If I look at someone talk about the idea of authority in the rules, what I see is someone who's invested in the idea 'the rules have authority'. As a player I can use this declaration to say 'Hey dude, your heavily invested in the rules having authority so do X because the system says so'. But ideas like the lumpley principle blew away my own personal investement in the idea 'the rules have authority' a few years ago.
I just see a different dynamic underlying the whole proposal. It may not make much functional difference. What do you think, Tony?
Quote from: TonyLBI'm not sure we're using the same terminology. You're saying that players would forego judgment for that long about whether or not an appeal to past facts was a legitimate source of authority?
BL> Huh. I don't know. So let's take your mind control example.
Ben's Example:
"No, your ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her."
What does that mean? We don't know. We don't resolve it. Maybe, sessions later, we find out that it is because of her secret Bene Geserit training, or because of the sorcerer's tower, or whatever. Maybe we'll never know. But we haven't really decided what it means. Just that it happened.
yrs--
--Ben
Heya
Callan wrote:
QuoteIf I look at someone talk about the idea of authority in the rules, what I see is someone who's invested in the idea 'the rules have authority'. As a player I can use this declaration to say 'Hey dude, your heavily invested in the rules having authority so do X because the system says so'. But ideas like the lumpley principle blew away my own personal investement in the idea 'the rules have authority' a few years ago.
-If I'm understanding things correctly, we're not talking about the book rules in these Meaning mechanics but instead about events that happen in play sessions using these mechanics. The authority being apealed to is not the rules in the book but the events the players constructed in the SIS. These events are in turn used as a foundation to create future events. That foundation is the authority (or legitimacy) for present and future imagined events. Not the rules.
Ben wrote:
QuoteBen's Example:
"No, your ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her."
What does that mean? We don't know. We don't resolve it. Maybe, sessions later, we find out that it is because of her secret Bene Geserit training, or because of the sorcerer's tower, or whatever. Maybe we'll never know. But we haven't really decided what it means. Just that it happened.
-The fact that the ring didn't work, however, is established and the meaning of the fact it didn't work is also therefore established. The
reason it didn't work is not established, true, but that does not stop the players from refering to that past incident to create future ones. Each event must be looked at in singularity to decide *if* and *how* it happened; *why* it happened can always be delayed.
-In your example:
If = Did the ring fail to seduce the barmaid?
How = The player atempted to use it, and it was decided that it didn't work.
Why = A mystery at this point.
-The event is now established, it has meaning, and can be used to create future events in future play.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: Tony, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
I don't think, by the terminology I'm using, that every event which is established as having happened in the SIS has meaning. They are given meaning when someone appeals to that event for authority i some later instance, and the legitimacy of that appeal is judged.
And the things being referred to for authority can be both events in the SIS and rules. But that doesn't give either of them any "inherent" authority. It's the players who have the authority. The rules and events of the game are just tools that they try to use to support their own authority.
And... urgggh... I'm in way too much of a hurry this morning to give this the treatment it deserves. Later.
Is it as simple as 'Cause and effect' - that is...
In MatB, we have an Cause and Stated Effect link that has more credibility due to past precident including the rules. (Natural 20 + Vorpal weapon = Chopped off head).
In MitM we have a cause and an stated effect, which needs to be negotiated as there is no precident (I am trying to Pick a lock with this dagger).
In MatE, we have a cause and no stated effect - and so there is no precedent either. (I am throwing water over the lighting elemental)
In each case there is a cause - but what it means is in flux.
Or have I missed it?
It appears to me that the specific thing about MatE is that you are not creating precedent.
In MitM, once something is interpreted a certain way (an ability in HQ, say), it's reasonable to assume that this meaning will be accepted later on as precedent.
Not so with MatE. In Capes, you win a contest and state that you destroy the lightning man with water, or what have you. However, that fact will not matter in the next contest--the mechanics are not going to be influenced by whether you use water or not. You can create this continuity by narrating the use of water once the contest is over, but previous solutions hold no power over future solutions. I think that's what's meant with the lack of Thematic Causality.
Hoy, :)
The way I'm understanding this thread so far, that last Capes example is an example of no meaning, rather than MatE. Correct?
Cheers,
J.
I'm not really sure. I suppose it depends which of the many Facts created there you're referring to. And, frankly, I think the issue is about much more than "Let's discuss Capes", or I'd have left it in the Capes forum. So if you're expecting me to jump in with Capes commentary then you need to split a thread back there.
Anyway, Lightning-Man and EAAE. I'll take one possibility:
"Lightning man was defeated by water": Established when said defeat happens. Appealed to when somebody hits him with a fire-hose and says "Remember how water defeated him last time?" The authority is Applied to the SIS, and water once again short-circuits him. This Establishes his second defeat as a Fact.
Somewhere in there, people (or a person) decide whether the first defeat is relevant to the second conflict. When they decide that is what the Meaning structures are all about.
MatB: The negotiation about when it can apply happens right after the fact is established. "So Lightning Man is vulnerable to water! Cool!" "Yeah, unless he gets some sort of special grounding footgear." "But he has to work to get that... until then this fact will always be applicable." (EjAAE)
MitM: The negotiation about when it can apply happens after the fact is appealed to. "Hey, Lightning Man was defeated by water last time... that should still work!" "I don't know... wouldn't he have tried to overcome that weakness in the intervening time?" "Nah... he's electricity. It's just part of his schtick." (EAjAE)
MatE: Feedback is given after the authority has been applied to the SIS. "Lightning Man is vulnerable to water, and we just soaked him. He's toast! KzzzaP!" "Sure, I guess. So he's toast. Sort of a lame fight though. The news outlets start going on about theories that you set up these fights to look good... after all, they never see you really being challenged." (EAAjE)
Simon: Do you mean Cause and Effect at the level of the players (i.e. "X has been introduced into the SIS, and because of that I feel that I have authority to say Y"?) or at the level of the characters ("The dragon has been defeated, and because of that I feel that I have authority to say that its hoard is ours"?) I think those are two different levels of "cause and effect", and could get easily confused.
Christian: I think "precedent" is almost inherently connected with MatB. You're saying that how a Fact can be applied is decided when it is established, rather than when it is applied.
So the first application of an HQ ability (to use your example) might be MitM. But subsequent uses that rely on "I used it this way before, therefore we've already judged that it is legitimate to use it this way again," are MatB. Is that different than what you were saying, or just an elaboration?
Tony,
I agree with that. Once you establish a fact as authority, and can use it mechanically later, it turns into MatB.
However--it seems to me that you could have a system like PtA where those facts don't matter and you always work out the details of what happened after the conflict is decided. Maybe you try the water again, but that won't get you any more dice. Maybe you leave open how exactly you fight him, and if you win the conflict, you refer back to the water thing to reinforce that fact.
But the next time, that still won't make a difference (for the dice) until after the fact.
So I guess I want to make a distinction mechanically as to how the established meaning is applied. Does it actually make a difference when you get to the next conflict? Is it predetermined (from here on out, water will always get +2), is it negotiated when it comes up (hey, I use water again, do I get +2 this time?) or is it applied after the fact (I won the contest, I guess I fried him with water again)?
I think this discussion illuminates an important aspect of how players interact with the mechanics of a certain game, and that difference really matters for the kind of gameplay you'll get.
For example, in my AD&D 2e group, the dominant player *always* negotiates. He brings in all sorts of things, asks the game master to give modifiers for circumstances, explains why that person could not possibly attack him from that position, etc. So it's not even necessarily a game-dependent thing, it also plays out differently for each player and group. I vaguely remember that there was a thread on old-school gaming experiences which showed that this is not uncommon.
Heya Troy and Tony,
I think Tony is closer...
Quote from: TonyLBAnd the things being referred to for authority can be both events in the SIS and rules. But that doesn't give either of them any "inherent" authority. It's the players who have the authority. The rules and events of the game are just tools that they try to use to support their own authority.
But I still don't believe in 'authority' inherantly existing in a player.
I don't see the authority of a fact, or a fact granted authority by a player. What I see is a player invested personally in a fact, so much so that he would be lothe to throw that fact away. Once he's invested like this, I or another person can use this to ensure my fact WILL enter the SIS, backed by what this other player is invested in.
For example, say the GM is really invested in the idea that once all a creatures HP are gone, it's dead. So I can use what he's invested in, to change the SIS. If I remove all the dragons HP, it stays dead as much as that GM is lothe to give up his investement in the idea of zero HP=dead. SIS fact grounded in real life player investment.
Tactical use of player investments is a very different dynamic to the idea that rules or players have authority. What would it change about the first post?
Side note: When I say authority doesn't
inherantly exist in a player, that in no way stops any player from being personally invested in the idea that players have authority. That's cool and all, but no different; you'll still end up with tactical use of that professed investment.
Christian: You seem to be saying that some individual game rules support specific points of judgment (MatB, MitM, MatE) when executed. I totally agree with that. In fact, I'll offer a zinger in that regard:
In Task Resolution, the relevance of a single roll to a player's goal (absent "hit-point" effects) is judged MitM, whereas in Conflict Resolution that relevance is judged MatB.
I'm honestly not sure that there's any other difference between Task and Conflict resolution. How's that for mechanics altering this issue?
Callan: Appealing to a fact for authority is, actually, using that fact to appeal to other players for authority. Therefore the attitude of the other players toward that fact is key to how successful the appeal is. Does that sound (to you) like what you're saying too? I think we're on the same page, but I'm not sure.
TonyLB
I think I mean Cause and Effect in a MetaGame sense, but that is translated into a SIS sense as well.
If the precident is that rolling a 20 in an attempt to strike an orc succeeds - and that it always has succeded - then it is reasonable to have the expectation that the cause (rolling a 20) and the effect (hitting) is linked.
I'm not sure what 'meaning' ... means, but I'll have a guess.
I'm reading it as "Having a high expectation that this is a fact that will repeat" or that "There is a causal link from this to this"
So, maybe A (means) B is the same as saying A (causes) B, and so MatB is saying "A previously caused B, so it will again", MitM is saying "A previously caused B, so B is an option - but it may cause other things as well" and MatE is saying "A causes ... what"
Or have I got it wrong?
"Meaning" in this terminology is the result of judging whether a past fact lends authority in a current situation. The "judgment" phase in my first post.
So your reading of "Having a high expectation that this is a fact that will repeat," is a straightforward description of Meaning at the Beginning. You establish the fact, and pre-judge what situations it can lend authority over.
In Meaning in the Middle, you establish the fact, appeal to it for authority, and then judge... that moment there, where you say "Hey, yeah, Kell's hatred of his father would help him cross this river... neat," is when the meaning is created.
In Meaning at the End, you establish the fact, assert its relevance, and then judge the meaning later. That means that you cannot refuse its relevance, you can only retrofit reality to justify its relevance. "Okay, so Kell's hatred of his father helped him shoot this man dead. My God... all of his fighting is a sublimation of his desire to kill the man he hates and loves. Which I didn't know until we insisted that the trait was relevant here."
Make sense?
Okay, I've resorted to reading this thread (slowly) in hard copy. I think I blew a theory fuse somewhere.
I think Ralph's Weight of Charisma terminology is very useful, and somehow relevant to what I'm trying to figure out. Could we move away from the "My [character's] Charisma is 6" example to avoid confusion with actual player charisma?
Gotcha.
So, Kell hates his father (a fact)
In this hypothetical system, we can look at what this translates into.
It will lead to certain 'predefined' effects - So, it will grant +2 to any attempt to harm his Father. This is MatB, as it is Judged once the fact is created.
If I then say "Kell's hatred of his father helps me jump the river" then thats an attempt to add to the SIS that this is true. It is judged when I try to use it.
If I then say ""Okay, so Kell's hatred of his father helped him shoot this man dead. My God... all of his fighting is a sublimation of his desire to kill the man he hates and loves. Which I didn't know until we insisted that the trait was relevant here." is where you rationalise why you got +2 to killing this man.
So the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"
That makes sense to me...
Wow, yeah! That summary is terrific! I think it's exactly what I was trying to say only much better worded.
Heya,
QuoteSo the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"
-Now I get it. I can definately see how this can help in both evaluating and designing games. Nice work, Simon/Tony.
Peace,
-Troy
Quote from: TonyLBIn Task Resolution, the relevance of a single roll to a player's goal (absent "hit-point" effects) is judged MitM, whereas in Conflict Resolution that relevance is judged MatB. I'm honestly not sure that there's any other difference between Task and Conflict resolution.
Quote from: Simon MarksSo the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"
[fanboy raving]The crunch-rip-tear sound you hear is my mind expanding.[/fanboy raving]
And I begin to think this could usefully be hybridized with Vincent Baker's SIS-players-cues trifecta, (http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html) though I'm not sure how.
Hey Tony,
I apologize ahead of time, but I've been reading this thread and I am all turned inside out! Since I'm having such a hard time making cohesive sense of it all I'm just going to lay out the various difficulties
I'm having and hopefully in the process someone can make sense of my post. (I just quickly scanned though this and I am almost too embarrassed to post it, but I am tired of working on it and it is very late – I beg your indulgence.)
First of all this whole taxonomy scheme seems to entangle two distinct spheres. Let me start by providing some terms and background.
Going back to Victor Gijsberg's Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14893) thread, it was discussed that the SIS could possibly be broken into three "separate" spaces.
- The Proposal Space
- The "Gijsbers" Space, so labeled by JMendes, which I believe might be more easily understood as "The Fact Space"
- The "Individual Fictional World" which I also believe might better thought of as the "Affect Space."[/list:u]The Proposal Space is basically the realm of the functioning of the Lumpley Principle.
The Fact Space is the repository of the consensuses wrought by the action of the Lumpley Principle. The Fact Space is utterly without judgment - it is a space of Facts, not aesthetic opinions. This is the one touch place where all the players must all be on the same page. This is upheld in the very definition of the LP. What is important in this post is the understanding that the Facts within the Fact Space are just objects typically destined for interpretation.
This brings us to the Affect Space. The Affect Space is that space within each player that assigns meanings to the Facts including such concepts as events, value judgments, the assigning "meanings". This assignment process is guided by that aesthetic called the Creative Agenda. The Affect Space is where we "make sense" of the Facts, inform our creative decisions (prepare our Proposals) and where we enjoy or not enjoy the game. In short this is the realm of "meanings" and where the actual CA resides.
Given the above I am confused as to what is meant, functionally, by "meaning" as "meaning" can only operate in the Affect Space. At first blush MitB and MitM seem to be focused with the Fact space of the SIS while MitE seems to be focused on the Affect/Aesthetic space. (Further down I find that matters get more involved, but I wanted to leave this in as record of my progressively addled thought process.) I'm also uncertain if this taxonomy is geared toward task resolution or conflict resolution. Unless I am mistaken I understand that the "Effects" of conflict resolution are geared more towards the "Affect Space" while the "Effects" of task resolution are geared more towards the "Fact Space."
I am going to guess what is assumed in this taxonomy proposition that this process is only observed after the player has succeeded in negotiating the "cause" into play. IOW this process only comes into play after the player has accomplished his task. What remains to be "negotiated" is the Effect of said cause (resolution) within the Fact Space. I am going to shamelessly borrow from Simon Marks (I am not trying to mischaracterize you! This is my response of what I think you tried to convey.)
Quote from: Simon MarksIn MatB, we have an Cause and Stated Effect link that has more credibility due to past precident including the rules. (Natural 20 + Vorpal weapon = Chopped off head).
In MitM we have a cause and an stated effect, which needs to be negotiated as there is no precident (I am trying to Pick a lock with this dagger).
In MatE, we have a cause and no stated effect - and so there is no precedent either. (I am throwing water over the lighting elemental)
In each case there is a cause - but what it means is in flux.
It this example we have something a bit different. First of all there are two important assumptions. First the player is attempting a Task and second that he has already succeeded. As is stated what remains is "meaning." In the MatB example the player has authority to declare the Effect without negotiation. In MitM the player has input on Effect but it is open to negotiation. In MatE the player has no input on the Effect – that is to be decided by someone else. So in this particular iteration what appears to be happening is that cause and Effect are being overtly/consciously/mindfully separated into two distinct concepts so that we can chose whether to overtly/mindfully negotiate the Effect and if so what that Effect will be.
In this case "meaning" isn't really effectively dealt with at all. The above take is effectively focused on the Effect Space (action resolution) rather than on concept/meaning/significance (Affect Space).
Now Tony responded with a different take –
Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, Lightning-Man and EAAE. I'll take one possibility:
"Lightning man was defeated by water": Established when said defeat happens. Appealed to when somebody hits him with a fire-hose and says "Remember how water defeated him last time?" The authority is Applied to the SIS, and water once again short-circuits him. This Establishes his second defeat as a Fact.
Somewhere in there, people (or a person) decide whether the first defeat is relevant to the second conflict. When they decide that is what the Meaning structures are all about.
MatB: The negotiation about when it can apply happens right after the fact is established. "So Lightning Man is vulnerable to water! Cool!" "Yeah, unless he gets some sort of special grounding footgear." "But he has to work to get that... until then this fact will always be applicable." (EjAAE)
MitM: The negotiation about when it can apply happens after the fact is appealed to. "Hey, Lightning Man was defeated by water last time... that should still work!" "I don't know... wouldn't he have tried to overcome that weakness in the intervening time?" "Nah... he's electricity. It's just part of his schtick." (EAjAE)
MatE: Feedback is given after the authority has been applied to the SIS. "Lightning Man is vulnerable to water, and we just soaked him. He's toast! KzzzaP!" "Sure, I guess. So he's toast. Sort of a lame fight though. The news outlets start going on about theories that you set up these fights to look good... after all, they never see you really being challenged." (EAAjE)
In this particular case authority is not an issue – the player in all three cases exerts authority over Effect. In the MatB example the causal player asserts that Lightning Man "will" be Effected in a certain desirable fashion by his proposition when he asserts authority over the objection. IOW the player claims authority to assert outcome. In this case the MitM example is nearly identical to the MatB case as the player asserts authority over Effect in both cases. This example confused me. The MatE is a little different in scope than the first two. While the first two were focused on Effect and narrations rights (the Fact Space), MatE seems to indicate more of a focus on the aesthetics of the Effect (e.g. the Affect Space/CA concepts). Why do I say that? The "Sort of a lame fight..." comment is a value judgment, not a consensually agreed upon Fact. The "value" in the "value judgment" is a reflection of or determined by the Creative Agenda in operation. So, to me, this particular iteration is especially confusing. In all three cases the Player has authority to assert the Effect of his action, but the last case has the challenge to the authority does so from the point of view of the Affect Space while in the first two the objection stems from precedent previously established within the Fact Space. Sorry – not trying to be a butthead. I'm just trying to clarify where and why I am having so many problems trying to wrap my brainpan around this whole concept.
Upon further reflection it seems to me as if Tony was looking more towards the Affect Space in this particular example. However the disjuncture within the example remains. The MatB example sits squarely in the Fact Space without any hint of aesthetic/meaning being discussed. The MitM example hints or suggests something more than straight Fact with the inclusion of the "It's just part of his schtick" comment. Such a statement to me could possibly suggest a value judgment (an action that falls in the Affect Space), but it is difficult to determine. The MatE example very clearly contains a value judgment (by the GM) which places it directly in the sphere of the Affect Space (meaning Space). Unlike Simon's take, the individual who has the authority to determine outcome is clearly not at issue here, but rather it seems to me that the aesthetic value (CA value judgment) of the player's choice of Effect is the issue. In this slant I can kind of see where "meaning" can be seen to be relevant to the conversation, but the formulation of the examples is still confusing to me.
Now this a particularly interesting twist!
Quote from: TonyLBI don't think, by the terminology I'm using, that every event which is established as having happened in the SIS has meaning. They are given meaning when someone appeals to that event for authority i some later instance, and the legitimacy of that appeal is judged.
And the things being referred to for authority can be both events in the SIS and rules. But that doesn't give either of them any "inherent" authority. It's the players who have the authority. The rules and events of the game are just tools that they try to use to support their own authority.
There are two ideas here that I want to draw attention to. The first is that is that what Tony here called "meaning" I think might be less confusingly and thus better called "weight" or "value." Near as I can tell the only meaning that can be imputed to something that is called upon to lend authority is that that Fact has been called upon to lend authority. Now that may be important or satisfying to the player who originally negotiated the referred to Fact in the Fact Space, but I'm not sure I'm seeing anything else.
The other idea is that using either an established Fact or Mechanics is the same process. I'm not certain that is the case, but I could be wrong. In the case of using established Fact as an authority – that process is definitely Bricolage. The latter may or may not be Bricolage. In Bricolage both objects are altered by each other in the course of their mutual employment. Thus the process of using previously established Facts to aid in the establishment of a Fact of Effect alters/colors the meaning of both Facts. I'm not so sure that a Mechanic colors/alters the proposed new Fact of Effect. I don't think players would tend to link Fact of Effect and Mechanic in the same way they would tend to link two Facts that are used to support one another. IOW the linking of two Facts can signify each other by virtue of the linking process (this is the Sim process), but that signification process really doesn't happen with appeals are made Mechanics as an authority for the purpose of establishing a Fact. The Mechanic may pick up something from the Fact of Effect but I am uncertain as to whether the Mechanic lends anything to the new Fact of Effect beyond its perceived authority. So once again I am confused by the lumping together of these two processes.
Finally we come back to Simon's summary!
Quote from: Simon MarksSo, Kell hates his father (a fact)
In this hypothetical system, we can look at what this translates into.
It will lead to certain 'predefined' effects - So, it will grant +2 to any attempt to harm his Father. This is MatB, as it is Judged once the fact is created.
If I then say "Kell's hatred of his father helps me jump the river" then thats an attempt to add to the SIS that this is true. It is judged when I try to use it.
If I then say ""Okay, so Kell's hatred of his father helped him shoot this man dead. My God... all of his fighting is a sublimation of his desire to kill the man he hates and loves. Which I didn't know until we insisted that the trait was relevant here." is where you rationalise why you got +2 to killing this man.
In the MatB example the area affected by the Fact is the Mechanics which lie outside the Fact Space. This could be used to signify the "hatred" (which is an Affect Space operation), be used in the service of Premise (TROS frex) or Challenge which are concepts that exist in the Affect Space. In Whatever light this +2 for hatred is seen it is not something that resides in the Fact Space of the SIS.
In the second example, which I'll assume is MitM, is bit more difficult to parse. One the one hand we basically have a straight forward statement of Execution while appealing to the hatred as a justification for his success – essentially retconning IOW he made a statement and used hatred to help justify or lend additional authority to the player in his attempt to have his statement of successful action gain credibility. On the other hand the player may be trying to establish a Fact that his hatred for his father ought to affect his jumping ability. IOW he's trying to forge a link between the two Facts (that he hates his father and that he is jumping across rivers) to create yet another Fact (his hatred for his father helps him jump across rivers that he could not normally succeed at). The former is really an argument while the later is an attempt to create meaning/significance.
The final example, which I'll assume is meant to be an example of MatE, is pretty much straight retconning. The question I'm wrestling with is why is it necessary or even valuable to rationalize the employment of a mechanic after it has been employed to successfully establish credibility? Can a player just self-authorize the use of a bonus to gain credibility for his statement and have it enter the Fact Space without having to justify or explain the employment of said bonus beforehand? It just seems a little wonky to me to have to justify the use of a mechanic after credibility had already been granted to its employment. If a player wished to explain off a series of really good rolls in conjunction with his jumping over rivers by saying that it was related to his Character's hatred of his father – that would be Bricolage. IOW the player is attempting to account for some unusual in world events (due to unusual out world events – excellent die rolling) by linking them to an in world source. But I don't think that is what the author intended.
So once again I'm not seeing a through line connecting the three above examples. Even the questions "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect" begs the question "Upon what exactly did the Fact Effect?" The Fact Space, the Affect Space, the Mechanics, the Social Contract? The processes of appealing to Mechanics or previously established Facts to lend authority, though they may function similarly on the Fact Space, do have profoundly different Effects on the Affect Space (that which is concerned with CA's).
I'm seriously not trying to nitpick or be a jerk on any level. I'm seriously trying to make sense of the ideas that have been thoughtfully presented. I hope what I have done is to demonstrate the source of my confusion. I know that I've been all over the map here and I apologize – it's a manifestation of my current reasoning processes.
Quote from: TonyLBCallan: Appealing to a fact for authority is, actually, using that fact to appeal to other players for authority. Therefore the attitude of the other players toward that fact is key to how successful the appeal is. Does that sound (to you) like what you're saying too? I think we're on the same page, but I'm not sure.
Sadly no, mines a sort of 'glass half empty' version, which is why it looks so similar. I'll save it for a whole new thread some time, rather than derail this cool thread.
Jay: Whew... okay, let me give a try at this. First, let me say that I like recent examples in this thread much more than earlier examples (especially my own earlier examples, which you found confusing because they're muddy and (in places) just plain wrong). So there's that... the thread shows work in progress, at least for me.
"Meaning" as I'm using it here is completely distinct from the Affect Space (as you term it). The "meaning" I'm talking about is as objectively
there as the things you are talking about as Fact Space. What I am using the term to mean is the process of judging whether and why a past fact lends authority to present or future contributions to the SIS. It is created in the choices people make in using the Lumpley-principle System.
So, say you have a fact "Kell hates his father." The following thoughts have nothing to do with "meaning" as I'm using it here:
- "This addresses our thematic question of 'What keeps families together, what tears them apart?' "
- "This means that Kell is a bad person."
- "This means that our campaign will be much darker, because so many of us are motivated by hatred."[/list:u]Those are all perfectly legitimate considerations, and I can totally see how they deserve the term "meaning." But that's not how I'm using it here. The following thoughts are all "meaning" as I'm using it here:
- "This will justify Kell getting into arguments easily, particularly with father figures."
- "This justifies Kell's surge of strength, because he refuses to prove his father's low opinion of him right."
- "Why did Kell's hatred of his father justify his breaking off his relationship with Emma?"[/list:u]Are we understanding each other here? I'm having a bit of trouble, because you have so very much summary and just the one question ("Upon what exactly did the Fact Effect?") I feel like there must be something more that I should be replying to, but I don't know quite what it would be. So, with apologies for the brevity of my response, I think I'll end here and await your further questions.