In another thread here, Baileywolf, Bankuei and I have been tossing around thoughts on Flavor and Significance in the game. I thought that the comments were "significant" enough to warrant starting a new thread on them.

Currently each statement is broken down into facts at a very narrow level. The way the rules are written any of these Facts that are "Significant" to the game/story must be paid for seperately to be treated as Facts and any of them that aren't "Significant" don't have to be paid for but are just "Flavor" and can't have any game impact.

This has led to the somewhat convoluted excersize of determining which statements might have impact and paying for those while not paying for things that are predicted to not be of importance in the future.

Instead Baileywolf suggests that every thing said is Fact, and nothing NEEDS to be paid for. However, any item a player choses not to pay for is then mutable and open to alteration by other players at will. Only those items which a player choses to pay for gain "protection" from other players.

Essentially this reverses the Significance to Fact relationship. Instead of determining what part of a statement is Significant and then paying for it. One decides by ones choice of what to pay for what is actually Significant.

(at least thats how I interpreted your initial comment on the subject BW, let me know if I'm being inaccurate in my summary)

How does this change strike those who've read through the rules. Is it a powerful adjustment, too subtle to really have any impact... I have my own thoughts but thought I'd throw it open to the forum here before "making a ruling" so to speak.

Well, I'll chime in here and say that this is very much like how I've been playing anyhow (something that Ralph is aware of, possibly to his great annoyance ;-) ). Anyhow, when players ask me when they have to pay it is certianly more intuitive to say, "When you want people not to be able to mess with it."

Anyhow, to defend the original position, this implies that people should be allowed to mess with already established elements if they have not been purchased. This sounds fine until you imagine the potential for bad storytelling. I say there is a big car heading towards a character. Bob says that the character screams in fear. Tim says but the car is just an inch high (making the character in queston seem silly).

This will obviously be challenged, but the character who made the car will have no advantage as he did not pay for it. An Advantage he would have if he was "forced" to pay for it under the rules as currently written.

So, is that OK? Is the threat of challenge or player goodwill enough to prevent such nonsense? Is it a case of Caveat Emptor (the player gets what he paid for, nothing)?

Or is this a potential problem that needs to be addressed?

Mike