The Forge Archives

Recent discussions have led me to think a lot about what it means to tell people that they cannot reject anything that another player contributes to the narration of a game.

Here's how I see it.  When something is narrated in the game, it goes through two possible evaluations on its way to becoming an important part of the SIS.  First, does it become a part of the SIS at all (hereafter "Authorized as Text")?  Second, when it is part of the SIS, is it important (hereafter "Authorized to have Meaning")?

Yeah, you might want to take a quick glance over Meaning at the Beginning, Middle and End right about now.

If you operate under Meaning at the Beginning, then these two evaluation steps happen at the same time, and influence each other.  Even if you think it's perfectly fine for Doc Killagain's thanatos-beam to instantly kill his minion, you may object because you don't want to set a precedent that could later mean that Killagain's ray can be used to instantly kill your character.

Accepting Text becomes harder under MatB, because it strongly implies Accepting Meaning.  The contrapositive is that Rejecting Meaning becomes harder, because it implies Rejecting Text, a process that is often restricted closely by System.

Meaning at the End breaks that link completely.  Accepting or Rejecting the Meaning of narration happens later.  This makes Accepting Text dead easy.  You can accept anything, unless you're actually worried about the specific thing being said, right now, this very instant.

So, here's my question:  Is Text qua Text ever the focus of concern?  Or is it the matter of apparent concern because of its uses as a tool for impacting later negotiations of authority over the SIS?  Or, short-form:  Do people care about Text, or only about Meaning?

Are you talking about text and subtext?

That is, "Doc Killagain's thanatos-beam kills Igortron" is the text; "Doc Killagain can kill anyone at will" is the subtext.

Yeah, sometimes people object to the text.

The heroes walk into a bar, just as its closing. Joss starts interrogating the bartender.  Kendi gets fed up with his lies, and shoots him.

Joss's player says, "DAMMIT!  Take that back, you idiot.  How are we going to get to Alpha Wolf with Kendi killing all the witnesses?"

Kendi's player says, "Alright, sorry... I guess I was getting bored."

Some games don't allow this.  "You say it, it happens."  Some do, as you point out.

No, I'm not talking about subtext.  I don't even have a definition for subtext.  I'm talking about meaning, which I defined in the referenced link as (roughly):  "The extent to which a past fact can be used as part of a player appeal for authority to narrate future facts."

So in your example "We're never going to get to Alpha Wolf" is an anticipation of the GM (probably) appealing to the killing of the bartender to lend authority to the future narration that all your leads have dried up (or been shot).  

That's probably either Meaning at the Beginning (because the player is establishing, right here, right now, that this is going to hamper investigation) or an anticipation of Meaning in the Middle, where the GM will refer to that at a later date, only then asking people to evaluate whether it lends him authority.

If Joss's player had an iron-clad guarantee that killing the bar-tender would never be talked about, ever again, throughout the course of the entire game... would this argument develop?

Quote from: TonyLBIf Joss's player had an iron-clad guarantee that killing the bar-tender would never be talked about, ever again, throughout the course of the entire game... would this argument develop?

If Joss has this guarantee, then what is Kendi contributing? Why is Kendi playing?

Who cares?  I'm asking a hypothetical, to get at one question first.

I tried to think of a text that has no meaning... I couldn't think of one.

ANY fact that people remember can be used as a source of authority for future facts.  And you never know which ones people are going to remember.  Whether that source of authority is actually enough to CHANGE future facts is a reasonable question, but immaterial, I think, to your topic.

So the iron-clad guarantee you cite is impossible, as I see it.

P = Joss's player gets an iron-clad guarantee
Q = Joss's player objects to Kendi's action

Given -P, does P imply Q?  In standard symbolic logic, the answer is a trivial "yes".  It's interesting to note that in standard symbolic logic, given -P, P implies -Q as well.  There's a name for the paradox but I can't remember it at the moment.

The fact that Joss's player objects means that, by definition, the event in question has meaning FOR HIM, even if not for the rest of the players.

Remember that each player, in addition to participating in the SIS, also partakes of the UNSHARED imaginary space; the part of his own experience that happens in his own mind but is not shared.  Meaning does not occur ONLY in the SIS.

Quote from: TonyLBWho cares?  I'm asking a hypothetical, to get at one question first.

I think this is highly dependent on Joss's reason for objecting (as distinct from the reason he is stating, which is cosmetic). There are reasons he could object that have no concern for the consequences of the action, but simply care about that statement in the moment: "Kendi should not do that because he knows we won't get to AW if he does, so it's not something that would occur in the first place," etc.

So, bluntly, yes. That ironclad guarantee isn't really all that important.

It seems to me that this is a question of feedback mechanisms. It would be good to have one of Vincent's pictures here, with the players, and the SIS, and arrows going back and forth.

If you have MatE, for example, there is no arrow back from the SIS to the player input. So, the explanation of what happened -- the text -- is always created after the players and mechanics have created an outcome, retroactively. So if I play PTA, and we get into a conflict situation where we fight someone we fought before who has a particular weakness, the previous text -- the determined weakness -- has no direct link back to influence the outcome of the conflict. Instead, we roll the dice. If we win, we retroactively (Meaning at the End) determine that the guy was defeated through that weakness. Or maybe something completely different.

Not so in D&D. If we all know from the start that acid surpasses a construct's damage reduction (Meaning at the Beginning), and the time comes that we face a construct and use acid, it makes a difference. Now, if we create a precedent by GM fiat, it either comes in as a house rule (MatB) or a spontaneous modifier (MitM).

Finally, if in HeroQuest we fight a golem, and I want to augment my attack with "Spell of Acid 5M," I talk it over with the Narrator. We figure it out together. Does it apply? That's Meaning in the Middle.

So I think Tony is right on here. There is a distinction between text and meaning, or between Color and System, if you want. It's not always clear, and especially MitM blurs the distinction, but it's still a useful categorization.

Overall, I think we're still getting confused on the definition of "Meaning" here, so let's keep Tony's definition in mind.

Can we define "text" as well?  Is it the SIS, or is it verbal input that may affect the SIS, or both?

Provisionally, let's say that the SIS itself (including all system-features which may have a later impact, like "hit points" and other mechanics) is Text.  The verbal input that may affect the SIS is "Provisional Text."

The act of Accepting Text makes Provisional Text into Text.  The act of Rejecting Text refuses to allow Provisional Text to become Text.

Does that sound workable as a definition?

Given how you've defined "meaning," I think it's pretty clear that characteristics of the text outside of that "meaning" can also be a concern. Especially, consistency with established facts.

"I shoot the bartender."

"You don't have a gun. You ditched it down a drainpipe in the last scene, remember?"

Authority for future facts (that the bartender is dead, or even that the character now possesses a gun) isn't the issue; consistency with past facts is. It would remain an issue even under the hypothetical iron-clad guarantee.

Here are a few other possible examples of not-authorized-as-text:

"I shoot the bartender."

"Wait for your turn to act; we're still resolving Joss's interrogate skill use."

"I shoot the bartender."

"You're out of tokens, you can't initiate any character actions now."

"I shoot the bartender."

"Tonight the meter of Shakespeare's in force,
So please speak only in the proper form.
To five iambs, not one beat more nor less,
Your uttered verses must henceforth conform."

- Walt

Quote from: TonyLBProvisionally, let's say that the SIS itself (including all system-features which may have a later impact, like "hit points" and other mechanics) is Text.  The verbal input that may affect the SIS is "Provisional Text."

The act of Accepting Text makes Provisional Text into Text.  The act of Rejecting Text refuses to allow Provisional Text to become Text.

Does that sound workable as a definition?

That's excellent, Tony, thanks.

Walt, I see how players have authority to do those things.  No question.

I'm not sure I see how that translates into motive to do so.  You seem to be speaking mostly about authority, rather than motive.  Am I missing something?

I'm intrigued by the question of whether authority imparts motive:  Whether gathering and applying authority can be a wholly independent motive, without recourse to any other purposes that the authority can be directed toward achieving.

I'm going to winge again about the idea of authority, like I did in the other thread, since I just see investment.

I'll give an real life example: The other month we were sifting through treasure collected in out D&D campaign (rotating GM's). Some treasures from an old game of mine were written on paper, with a removable tab to remove once you found out the secret properties of the treasure.

One of them was a potion and I chuckled when I saw it, as they would have identified it by now I just said 'Ah, that's the poison potion I put in, hoping someone would just suck it down thinking it was a healing potion! Oh well, may as well chuck it now!'

Okay, this statement isn't an authorisation for anything. What it shows is that I was invested in the idea that this potion was a poison (as part of my investment in throwing some danger into the PC's lives).

So what does one player say 'Hey, I've been wanting to work with poison...I'll use that to poison my weapons!'. And he had been planning to use poison, and this comes up and he turns it around right to what he wants!

And not that I mind (I'm impressed, actually!), but he's got me! And it's nothing to do with authority...if I were giving out authority to do something, I'd be able to withdraw that authority without any consequence at all.

But I can't here. I haven't assigned authority...the reason his action is so cool is because I'm invested in it. I've invested in the idea that this potion is poison. I may as well have put down ten bucks on the table and said 'If I back out on asserting this potion is poison, shred my ten bucks!'. That isn't a fact that has some sort of authority...it's a fact I have a stake in. And he built his gamist tactics on top of my stake (which is way cool). It only seems like authority because you can say 'Well, Callan will assert authoritively to anyone that this potion is poison. After all, he's got ten bucks riding on this! So I'll just rely on that to get advantage X!'

I really should start a thread on this, but I thought I'd air the idea here incase it suits this thread (if not, I'll bug out).

Heya,

Let me give a go at Callan's situation here and Tony can correct me if I'm wrong.  The appeal to authority in the instance you talked was the other player saying, "Can I use this potion to poison my weapons?"  The past facts were: there was a potion in their possession, they have the capability to identify it, and the PC has the ability to work with poisons.  The rules state that you indeed can poison weapons with the right materials and skill, so the player is free to carry out his action.  The fact "The old potion we forgot about" now has meaning because "Player X has used it to poison his weapons."

The appeals to authority wasn't to you as a player, but to past facts and the system which allows weapon poisoning.  This is meaning at the begining that Tony outlined.  The rules say weapon+poison= poisoned weapon, therefore he can use the potion as he wants.

Peace,

-Troy