Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast posted

[Jason Lee]

Now I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. My point (illustrated in my first post and in John's followup) is that the specific problem of the impossible thing concept was quite well understood in gaming circles in the 80's. On the other hand, the pervasiveness of the problem before 1988 (the date of Ron's first example in Narrativism: Story Now) is far from clear. In fact, glancing quickly through Runequest II, the original Traveller, Bushido, Dragonquest, In The Labyrinth, and Universe, I was only able to find TITBB-ish text in Universe and the second edition of DQ (both from 1982)--and in those cases, I believe the interpretation is more-or-less prejudged along "Bass playing" lines by text that immediately follows. Of course, many of these and other early texts have little or no GMing advice at all, which is probably how TITBB really originated--as one of the ad hoc, GM-by-GM and group-by-group answers to the question, "How can we make roleplaying interesting once we leave the dungeon?"

If you are replying to me, then perhaps we are not disagreeing at all.  I don't see anything to disagree with in the above post.  Perhaps I misunderstood your intention in the section I replied to...  Now on with the rambling and I guess we'll see if I get what you're at this time!

It's endlessly debatable whether or not the actual impossible thing phrasing exists in any text - especially when we get into varying definitions of story.  Fortunately that doesn't matter, as it's just saying to be clear about GM/player credibility.  And whether you think impossible thing text actually causes dysfunctional play I suppose depends on whether you are the kind of person that thinks video games cause kids to shoot each other.

I've always felt it would be better to just say something like "Without clear rules about GM and player credibility people will have to figure it out for themselves and some people suck at that".  But, I suppose talking about the impossible thing works for people who need to discovery things instead of just be told them.  Anyway, the impossible thing is just the Forge way of saying that.  I've never much cared for the way in which in the impossible thing addresses the issue and I think MJ could talk about the issue without talking about the impossible thing.  

However, the article is focused on Forge-style theory, and as the impossible thing and GMing styles are closely related in Forge-style theory.  I don't see any problem with both topics being discussed in the same article.  It's logically consistent and a good representation of the thinking here.

[ewilen]

(I was replying to you.) Yup. Although I do think--and this is something I've learned from this conversation--it's a valid and important point that unclear or missing GMing advice can lead to multiple, wildly diverging, often-clashing, and sometimes dysfunctional styles of play. In this sense, the overall thrust of M.J.'s article, enumerating the various styles that arise from the credibility-distribution and related issues, is something that definitely should be included in a roleplaying primer (and addressed in roleplaying texts).

About "the article is focused on Forge-style theory"--I think that "TITBB", named and stated as such, is a poor way to lead the layman into the theory. In some formulations the reader is practically told, "You believe something which is silly and untrue, and now I'm going to set you straight." That would be fine if that was really the case but it's not, and the reader knows it's an unfair cop.

If the provocative hook must be retained, I'd just begin by stating the quoted part of the glossary definition, ask the reader to consider what it means when it comes to control over the story or action of a game, and then challenge him with the fact that different readers are going to give very different answers.

[M. J. Young]

I'm going to thank everyone for their comments. I will be mulling over some of this, and will come back for the information when I start writing the fourth article (after the third one is published, so I have a better idea what I need to clarify).

That's not to say the thread is closed. I'm still interested in any comments on the article (or its predecessor in the series) and will follow this thread as long as new posts are made.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Actually, I am going to call this thread closed.

Continuations and further ideas should be taken to new threads.

Best,
Ron