The rule "'fiction' determines what rules can be deployed" - definition of murk?

[Callan S.]

What I'm taking away from that is if your move is challenged, you're not forced to use a different rule, but rather to change the fiction until it allows the rule to be 'successfully' embedded, which seems to be completely counter form what you're saying.

However, if you were arguing that it was an example of the mechanics first, then we're on the same page, and I simply misunderstood what you were saying. Could you clarify which is your stance?

Well, that's an interesting interpretation. I was calling it fiction first. I've been showing this rule in chunks because it's rather a big piece of text, and perhaps I've spoiled context in doing so. Forgive me for the big quote I'm going to do

Challenge the Fiction

During the game there will be times when another player's actions just don't feel right. Maybe you think a particular tactic is dirty pool, or a particular action is a cheap shot. Most of the time when a move feels cheap or lame or uninspiring it's because it was not properly embedded in the fiction.
When you have the right lead in, the right foreshadowing, the right justifications, then that very same move will feel right. It will feel like it belongs, like it's a natural next development in the story.

When it doesn't feel right, Rise Up and Challenge it. You can't Challenge the move, after all it's a competitive game and your opponent can act as he likes within the rules. But you can Challenge the fiction surrounding the move. It's a rule of the game that every player is responsible for embedding their mechanical choices in the fiction according to the story aesthetic appropriate to your group. Failing to do so not only produces lame play, it's against the rules.

You can't control what actions your opponents choose to take, but you can require them to frame their actions firmly within the fiction. If they do so in a way that makes the action feel more appropriate and alleviates your concern, great, if not, Challenge the fiction until they come up with something the majority of the group can enjoy (or, if they can't, until they decide to do something else.)

Bold mine.

Now I interpret that 'decide to do something else' to mean until they use another rule (and for anyone who think that contradicts the 'you can't control what actions your opponents choose to take' notion, I do too).

In your interpretation, what happens when one person is sticking with a mechanic, but someone else keeps challenging, over and over and over, no matter what fiction the other guy says? Or would you say this challenge loop could not happen? How it looks to me, you'd have to decide either the mechanic choice comes first. Or the fiction comes first and he has to choose another mechanic. So I'd need to know more about your interpretation. And tell me if you think I'm presenting a false dichotomy or that the loop couldn't happen. I think they would, but I'm not trying to simply force discussion along the lines that they would.

[Callan S.]

Hi Alfryd,

but I think this definition of "fiction first" conflates Sim priorities with whatever metagame agenda (Positioning?) the players might have.

I think some people can play universalis without ignoring the rules, and others would ignore the rules of universalis on certain occasions 'because it makes sense' or whatever fiction reference they give. I don't think it's an agenda vs meta-game thing.

In terms of railroading, it's a word with alot of emotive gamer history. I'll go with what masqueradeball said. This isn't about railroading - you can use this process I'm refering to facilitate a railroad, I'll grant. But in itself it isn't railroading. It's about two processes and which one is being used. One is that all rules are followed as they instruct. The other process is that that someone decides whether any rule is used, based on their own internal judgement - this latter one can be used in various ways. Using it to railroad or not doesn't somehow change the process in some way. It's still the same process.

Hi masqueradeball,

I don't think the question is about railroading or about CA, I think its about procedure, which has president, the RAW or the fiction. Its not the same as railroading because its not about GM limiting player authority, and its not about CA because it could be used to support or detract from any. It seems like its a basic social contract issue: How much do I have to "narrate" my use of the mechanics into the story before I'm allowed to use them and how much power does Player X's vision of the narrative allow them to override the mechanics (when interpretted in their most simple or direct way, that is to say, is the in game narrative that decides if the "spirit" trumps the letter of the law). If this isn't understood as part of the Social Contract, than its really hard to identify because where the fiction:mechanics split happens is entirely within a given players head.

I think your getting it, but it doesn't have to be a social contract issue at all, the game itself can be designed in advance to cover this. So rather than a social contract issue, it's a game design issue, to my mind. Not much different to what your saying, but centered on the games design. It sounds pedantic of me, but I think it's important.

[masqueradeball]

Callan, cool, I think I understand, so whether or not Fiction First play is a good or bad thing goes into the big bag of player tastes and game-by-game priorities. Strangely, my own game design actually addresses this a lot, where Fiction First is totally true (you just "free form" while modifying some point totals based on what happens in the narrative) until a player decides they want dice, and then its not quite "Fiction Second" but something close, as all of the fiction for that segment of play is derived from mechanics. This reminds me of Vincent Baker's clouds and boxes over at anyway... just talking about where and how fiction and mechanics feed into one another.

[Callan S.]

Callan, cool, I think I understand, so whether or not Fiction First play is a good or bad thing goes into the big bag of player tastes and game-by-game priorities.

No. Using the process of fiction first has ramifications, rather huge ramifications, upon the rest of a design. You can undercut your own priorities by using the fiction first process. Apart from that, yes, it's a taste thing. I suppose.

Strangely, my own game design actually addresses this a lot, where Fiction First is totally true (you just "free form" while modifying some point totals based on what happens in the narrative) until a player decides they want dice,

If the written procedure is that you narrate alot and occasionaly, as decided by someone, modify point totals, it's not fiction first. Your following the written procedure. Atleast at that point.

Actually a question on that, is there a written procedure on when and how you get from that to the giant snake fight, for example?

Now if your talking about your playtest - where the player had 'impervious to harm' but you denied its bonus dice because you thought it didn't apply against the giant snake - if the written procedure is you as GM decide if the traits extra dice are applied or not, your following the procedure in deciding. If it isn't in the procedure and the trait dice are supposed to be added every time, then you were operating from fiction first process, ignoring the rules in favour of 'what makes sense' in that the snake could still grapple the guy even if he's impervious to harm. Which way is it in the written procedure?

[masqueradeball]

The rules state that Traits can be used when applicable in the fiction, and that GM has final authority over when a trait is applicable, so I guess this isn't fiction first.

[Alfryd]

I think some people can play universalis without ignoring the rules, and others would ignore the rules of universalis on certain occasions 'because it makes sense' or whatever fiction reference they give. I don't think it's an agenda vs meta-game thing.

I can't comment on Universalis, since I haven't played or researched it, but the point I'm making is that the later example you agreed with- pushing over the Dwarf PC- has nothing to do with "making sense" in the way that your earlier examples would imply.  Nor do I see what it has to do with a particular 'fiction reference'.

I'm not certain what you mean by agenda vs. metagame, because to my understanding 2 of the 3 CAs are essentially defined by metagame agenda (i.e, winning, or story.)

Look, here's the thing- what happens when two or more players agree that the rules should be broken, but disagree about what should happen in the absence of rule arbitration, either momentarily or in general?  What guidelines or standards would you give to ease negotiation of this kind?

I mean, if you're talking about 'internal plausibility' and/or 'fidelity to genre convention' (WRT a particular 'genre') as the foremost priority of play, then go ahead and say so.  What you'd have there, AFAICT, is straightforward simulationism, and I don't think you need new terms for it.

[masqueradeball]

Alfryd, because its not an agenda, its a technique (I think). Fiction First is something that a person or group does during play, internally, not something that they would necessarily want to do, and "making sense" even in a Sim sense can be seen as best supported by strict adherence to the rules when the rules are carefully designed to simulate something in particular. Pushing over the dwarf is Fiction First (the technique that arises in that given instance) because the rules say (with the exception of "rule 0") that this cannot happen. If you want to push someone over you'd have to roll Initiative (which occurs whenever anyone has harmful intent towards anyone else), make a touch attack, etc...

[Callan S.]

Alfryd,

I uses a bit of a short cut on a jargon term - prolly a double error on my part. By saying agenda I'm refering to 'creative agenda', a term used to describe nar, gamism and sim at the forge.

I mean, if you're talking about 'internal plausibility' and/or 'fidelity to genre convention' (WRT a particular 'genre') as the foremost priority of play, then go ahead and say so.  What you'd have there, AFAICT, is straightforward simulationism, and I don't think you need new terms for it.

On a side point, I'm not sure sim is by definition about ignoring the rules if plausibility or fidelity wont apparently be adhered to if you follow the rules. But that's a side point.

but the point I'm making is that the later example you agreed with- pushing over the Dwarf PC- has nothing to do with "making sense" in the way that your earlier examples would imply.  Nor do I see what it has to do with a particular 'fiction reference'.

The thing is, I'm throwing both the pushed dwarf and the genre convention adherance you mention, in the same basket. I'm also throwing Rons railroad example in the same basket, too.

I think you want to differentiate fiction that has been...I dunno, sullied by overt meta game agenda, as seperate from...I dunno, 'pure'(?) genre convention and maintaining plausibility.

They all go in the same basket, to me. For what I'm describing it doesn't matter what reason your trying to describe and push a certain fiction, to me. If your ignoring the rules for the sake of 'maintaining' that fiction in some way, it's fiction first. Whether the reason is you wanna railroad toward a fixed fictional description, wanna push around a player at the table by fiction proxy, or whether you wanna maintain 'plausibility'.

Now maybe you've had awesome sim sessions and don't want it associated with this sullied stuff. Fair enough. I've enjoyed milk and I don't like to think of milk with puss and hairs in it as being in the same basket as pure milk (or was this an awful analogy? I'm trying to show sympathy, however awkwardly)

But for technical discussion here, they are all in the same basket.

Or am I missing your point entirely and taking a long post to do it?

Look, here's the thing- what happens when two or more players agree that the rules should be broken, but disagree about what should happen in the absence of rule arbitration, either momentarily or in general?  What guidelines or standards would you give to ease negotiation of this kind?

How I deal with it in terms of designing a new game (that moves on from the way past RPG books have been layed out)? I don't have people agreeing the rules should be broken, to begin with. The game you design says you don't. Otherwise your not actually playing the game and instead your own invented derivative.

What to do when your just playing a regular RPG and this crops up?

I dunno, your question implies I think there is a happy ending to arrive at and it's just a matter of finding the way to it. I don't think there is, by default, a happy ending to arrive at in such a situation. Because nothing I'm aware of guaratees a happy ending to exist.

Once people walk off the trail, so to speak, I see nothing that guarantees a happy ending to it all.

Now granted that with traditional RPG's, like D&D (though slowly less so in each new incarnation), it's really, really easy to fall off the 'trail'. Often because the 'trail'/procedure to follow ran out before the average human senses noticed it. But people would think they were still on a trail/playing the game and not lost in a wilderness...making it twice the wilderness it was, really.

Jabber jabber jabber on my part...any of this seem to have a place with you?


Nolan,
Thinking on it, I'm not sure about the forges common use of the term 'technique'. If it means using it through the whole session and everyone who is about to play knows then yeah, it's a technique. Apart from checking where we are on that word, I'd say your post hits the nail on the head.

[David P.]

Well, I would have replied sooner, but I've been at the hospital and been very busy the last week because on  Sunday my baby girl was born. (<--- Shameless plug for congratulations..)

Callan, the idea that I'm trying to illustrate is that there are many different causes that could have a given effect, and that once a player says that X is happening, they must frame the situation so that X is plausible. I think it's best illustrated by referring to, of all things, a movie...

In The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, Joan is having a conversation with a man (presumably her conscience, or God), about whether or not God has sent signs to her. She brings up the fact that the sword she found in the field was a sign, and he offers many other explanations for how the sword could have ended up there.


     

JEANNE
          No, but... he sent me so many signs!

                         MAN
          What signs?

                         JEANNE
          Like... like the wind... and the
          clouds... and... the bells... and
          what about that sword lying in the
          field... that was a sign...!

                         MAN
          No.  That was a sword in a field.

                         JEANNE
          But... it didn't just get there by
          itself.

                         MAN
          True -- every event has an infinite
          number of causes -- but why pick one
          rather than another?  There are many
          ways a sword might find itself in a
          field...

FLASH:  A group of soldiers on horseback trot across the
field of Jeanne's childhood.  The last soldier's sword is
coming loose, and ends up falling into the long grass...

                         MAN
          Seems a perfectly valid
          explanation... but how about this
          one...

FLASH:  Two young children are hurrying with the sword
when an old man calls them from far away --

                         OLD MAN
          Hey, you little devils -- come back!

The two children drop the sword in the long grass (in the
same spot as before) and run off...

                         MAN
          But then again, there are other
          possibilities...

FLASH:  A man is being chased across the field by a couple
of English soldiers out looting.  His heavy sword is
slowing him down -- he flings it into the long grass...

                         MAN
          ... or even faster...

FLASH:  The same man running across the field is suddenly
hit by an arrow from nowhere.  He drops the sword in the
long grass, but manages to stagger off into the forest...

                         MAN
          ... and that's without counting the
          inexplicable...

FLASH:  A man crosses the field.  For no apparent reason
whatsoever, he drops the sword and keeps on walking...

                         MAN
          Yet from an infinite number of
          possibilities, you had to pick this
          one...

Basically, the idea is that given a certain effect, a player can be asked to frame the situation so that the end result is plausible, rather than causing a new effect from the initial action introduced.

If your ignoring the rules for the sake of 'maintaining' that fiction in some way, it's fiction first.

My question is this: If fiction first is ignoring a rule to maintain fiction (rather than fiction determining which rules are applicable in a given situation), then what's the point of having a mechanic that makes the mechanics first mandatory? Wouldn't a group that has adopted a fiction first mentality simply ignore that rule as well?

[Callan S.]

Hi David,

Congratulations on starting the race, with your new baby girl. It's very mind changing!

the idea that I'm trying to illustrate is that there are many different causes that could have a given effect, and that once a player says that X is happening, they must frame the situation so that X is plausible.

I think your mixing up potential as existant. Yes, that's the idea your trying to illustrate. Is that idea actually being used in the rules or not? Potentially you could take the words of the game text and do that - it might be subtle drifting. The symantics of the wording are bendable.

I'll look at the brief snippet of wording

until they decide to do something else.)

Is it actually going by your idea? Or by 'somthing else' it means use another rule? I understand your idea - me saying it's not happening here doesn't mean I don't understand your idea.

Regardless, I am talking about people who use a process, perhaps not even a conciously recognised one, of having to choose another rule. I thought the blood red sands was a textually accurate example, but you brought me to notice some ambiguity in it's text.

Also regardless, your idea still has an unresolved challenge loop built into it. Someone keeps challenging the other guys fiction - the other guy sticks with the same mechanic and keeps making up new fiction, which is rejected again and again. Everyones getting sick of it and are getting more tempted to a full blown social contract resolving of this waste of time. This is what I call a 'leak' in a ruleset, where play leaks out to the greater social contract bubble (traditional RPG's are chock full of leaks - basically sieves. Some people find that hot, for some reason).

Regardless of whether the rules manage it to begin with or it goes to an uncomfortable social contrat thing, either the first dude just has to accept the damn mechanic choice and entailing fiction, or the second dude has to change what mechanic he chose.

So with your idea, you need to outline how you end that loop, because how it's ended determines if it's fiction first or rules first. The way you were thinking of it, the other guy can stick with the mechanic he chose and just makes up a fiction, so it appears to you it's rules first. But until you get rid of that loop, which it is is not determined.

My question is this: If fiction first is ignoring a rule to maintain fiction (rather than fiction determining which rules are applicable in a given situation), then what's the point of having a mechanic that makes the mechanics first mandatory? Wouldn't a group that has adopted a fiction first mentality simply ignore that rule as well?

Good question.

The point of this thread is to make concious and obvious the existance of that rule ignoring.

If someones not aware they are ignoring something, they can't stop doing it. They have no choice on the matter for being blind to it (see the prince of nothing novel 'The darkness that comes before' for an idea of being controlled by something your blind to).

Now maybe for some folk even if they know, they'll decide to keep going with it. Okay, cool - they now know, and have made their choice. And indeed I think it'll help in terms of them finding other folk who play that way, since fiction first and rules first aren't compatable. Seems a good ending to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think alot of gamers are habitually fiction first. I'm merely offering a red pill (I guess describing it as red pill makes it sound the better choice - for me atleast, it is). Though I think it's technical fact that with fiction first, system doesn't matter. But system not mattering doesn't have to matter to anyone, either, of course. It's not heresy for it to not matter.

So I'm not describing something that works to a fiction first person as yes, as they currently are, your right, they'd just ignore the rule. I'm instead describing how they could change, and describing what they'd be changing to (in fair detail). If they want.

[David P.]

I understand your logic pattern with regard to the idea of the continual loop. That being said, I think it is wrong. For one, the "Well, what happens if someone keeps challenging and it keeps getting rejected?" could happen whether the fiction was being changed to suit the rule, or a new rule being used altogether, so I dont see anything inherently different between your interpretation of the rules and mine, in that regard.

However, I also challenge the idea that there is even a continual loop in the first place.

The fact that the rules end with, 'until they decide to do something else' seems to support the idea of offering new fiction to suit the rule as opposed to offering a new rule for a given situation. The rules state that a player can be challenged to reframe their action to embed in the fiction.

It's a rule of the game that every player is responsible for embedding their mechanical choices in the fiction according to the story aesthetic appropriate to your group.

To me, this says that after a choice of mechanics is made, it needs to be properly fit into the fiction. When challenged, the challenge isn't directed toward the rule, but rather the implementation of it within the fiction. When combined with 'until they decide to do something else' seems to mean that a player that is challenged can either reframe their implementation of the rule to fit the fiction, or choose a new rule to implement.

Either way, the loop isn't an inherent flaw in the system. It's the flaw of a stubborn player, either one who is adamant about using a certain rule, or another player's continual filibustering. However, considering that the rules state that the group determine whether the new fiction is appropriate, it's more likely to result from a stubborn player trying exploit a mechanic that doesn't fit within the story aesthetic that the group wanted (like trying to build a pistol in a game where it's been agreed that there are none, despite whether a system has rules for firearms.

At any rate, a single player can't control the actions of another's character anyway, since at the end of the day, it comes down to group consensus. Further, even if it wasn't determined by a consensus, this rules is not allowing one player to control any actions, just bar actions that don't fit the aesthetic. It's not someone saying, "No, you do this instead." It's more like saying "That doesn't work quite that way. Try again."

The way I see one of the loops going would be like this:

Player 1 states they want to do something.
Player 2 challenges.
Player 1 alters the specifics of his action.
Group consensus.
If denied, start with step 1, where a can choose to pursue a different action altogether, or try to fit the action within the fiction.

On a separate note, if I were designing a system like this, I would have a consensus to immediately follow a challenge and if the group decides that the act shouldn't work like that, then it goes back to the initial player to reframe, but if the group as a whole determines that the action is suitable, then they simply move from there.

I feel as though I'm ranting though, so I'm going to stop here for now.

[Callan S.]

For one, the "Well, what happens if someone keeps challenging and it keeps getting rejected?" could happen whether the fiction was being changed to suit the rule, or a new rule being used altogether, so I dont see anything inherently different between your interpretation of the rules and mine, in that regard.

Yep. I didn't say the fiction first interpretation of the did any better. Just that in the end, textually the fiction wins the tie.

Either way, the loop isn't an inherent flaw in the system. It's the flaw of a stubborn player, either one who is adamant about using a certain rule, or another player's continual filibustering. However, considering that the rules state that the group determine whether the new fiction is appropriate, it's more likely to result from a stubborn player trying exploit a mechanic that doesn't fit within the story aesthetic that the group wanted

Your supposed to be judging the fiction, not judging the player. If you start determining what you challenge based off the player, you are simply not following the rules any more. All you've done is crash the loop by ignoring the rules yourself. If you don't ignore the rules, the loops still there.

At any rate, a single player can't control the actions of another's character anyway, since at the end of the day, it comes down to group consensus. Further, even if it wasn't determined by a consensus, this rules is not allowing one player to control any actions, just bar actions that don't fit the aesthetic. It's not someone saying, "No, you do this instead." It's more like saying "That doesn't work quite that way. Try again."

I'm not forcing you to take a particular card, I'm just saying not that one. Try again! Nor that one. Nor that one. 49 to go...gosh you are stubborn, aren't you!

The way I see one of the loops going would be like this:

I don't understand - your examples seem to be the same loop prone stuff? They look exactly the same? Am I missing something? I need to know how your loop ends. You just seem to be operating off some sort of good faith that it'll all just work out on it's own (and equally if it isn't working out, it's because someones being stubborn). If you want to believe some sort of good faith will work it out and only some bad apples can stop that - in conversing on it I'll only attempt to dismantle that notion. If you want to hold onto what you believe, I wouldn't engage in conversation on this matter with me. I'll just keep cutting and stabbing at that. But I wont do so without permission from you. You've room to let this lie, if you wish.

[Ron Edwards]

All right, Callan, that's enough.

You're not cutting and stabbing at flawed points. You're claiming others are making flawed points that you articulate, and then cut and stab at that.

Even without that, it's time to end. In all these pages, you've either made your point for readers to appreciate and consider, short term or long, or you haven't. Looking at the discussion as it stands, it's there to be decided. I see no reason for continuing with what appears to be a bear pit, Callan in the middle, even if you're happy with it.

Moderator's call: the thread's over. Anyone is free to start new ones based on anything raised here, abiding for forum rules for content.

Best, Ron