The Forge Archives

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.