In "Thematic Causality": What, why and how?, over in the Muse of Fire forums, we hit some very interesting general-purpose questions. Folks reckon, and I agree, that it might be worth discussing at large.

I think that we're all in agreement (there) that "meaning" is a construct placed onto events in the SIS by the perception of players. There is, in short, no such thing as "inherent meaning." Whether you have a Charisma of 6, or you did a great deed for the King, or any of that... at some point, some player (or players in consensus) are going to refer to that past fact as authority to shape present and future input to the SIS. That's "meaning." When your Charisma is why you fail to seduce the barmaid, that's some of the meaning of your Charisma score. When your deeds for the King mean that you are now a target in the machiavellian machinations of the court, that is the meaning of your heroism.

But Ralph, and others, rightly point out that the social expectations for how that authority can be applied are negotiated at different points in the sequence. I'll give my rough estimate of what those points can be:

Any fact which can be appealed to for authority goes through (at least) three stages. It is Established as a fact. It is Appealed to for Authority. The Authority is Applied to the SIS. This in turn Establishes new facts, and so the cycle continues. It is that very continuity, from one link to the next, that Chris Edwards termed "Thematic Causality."

So, similar to IIEE, this is EAAE. Somewhere in there the legitimacy of the claim is Judged, which can consist of both debates about whether it's applicable and reinterpreting the SIS in light of the agreement that it is relevant.

Meaning at the Beginning (EjAAE): Typified by the "Charisma 6" example above. Players come to the table with social expectations about what Charisma 6 means already in place. Rules, precedent and explicit social contract come together to form an expectation of when that fact can be appealed to for authority. Because of the way this structure reinterprets the SIS it is often viewed as "world-building".

Meaning in the Middle (EAjAE): Typified by freeform Traits as in Universalis, Dogs in the Vineyard, Capes, etc. A player refers to a fact for authority, and the legitimacy of that appeal is judged in the instant of the relevance of the fact, before things go further. Expectations are (usually) informed by explicit rules (like "Anything the player chooses to bring in is relevant... but isn't it creepy what they think is relevant sometimes?")

Meaning at the End (EAAjE): Quite possibly typified by Capes Inspirations, but maybe not. A fact is used for authority, and the legitimacy of that appeal to authority is not judged until after the authority has already been applied. The legitimacy (or not) of the appeal to authority does not determine whether it has authority to act on the SIS, but may determine what the nature of the newly Established facts are (and therefore have an impact on the next iteration of the cycle).


Does this seem like a sensible breakdown of the ways that social expectation can be applied to the ways that people appeal to SIS-features for authority?

Do these different styles of forming Meaning support different styles of play? Or simply different narrative structures within any style of play?

Hi Tony,

This is nice & solid. My thoughts on your last two questions ...

Yes, I think it's a good breakdown, and a good description of the variety of approaches. It's especially nifty if one considers that my "Fortune in the Middle" terminology represents a particular case of "Meaning." I wonder if my "Fortune at the End" is actually a particular case of "Meaning at the Beginning?" I suspect it is ...

It might be interesting to parse out how differing expectations lead to different dysfunctional trends in role-playing.

For example, if I am working mainly from an expectation of Meaning in the Middle, and if another guy is working mainly from an expectation of Meaning at the Beginning, I suspect a whole lot of arguments about what Climb 13 "means" or "would do" are going to arise during play. (I also suggest that Cover in Sorcerer, in particular, is explicitly Meaning in the Middle in order to avoid such issues, which in practice seems to have worked without a hitch.)

I wonder whether the tendency for groups new to Universalis to get bogged down in the tenets phase represents a similar sort of confusion, or perhaps disconnect or lack of trust, among members of the group. They can't tell what the components they're inventing mean, and thus can't get them into action.

As for "styles of play," I'm not sure what you mean by the term. If we're talking about Creative Agenda (which is not the same as "styles"), then I think your point is CA-independent to a certain extent - or rather, that your breakdown applies well regardless of CA.

H'm ... or is it that simple? As you probably know, I usually turn to the reward system as the center of "system matters" when CA is being considered. So if the meaning you're talking about feeds into the reward system in an identifiable, consistent way, then I think how it's conducted is relevant to CA.

That doesn't mean that any one of your categories lines up neatly with any one of the CAs, but it does mean that we can talk about how a given approach (e.g. Meaning in the Middle, especially) may, in tandem with other aspects of System, works well with a CA in a given instance.

Cool stuff, Tony.

Best,
Ron

Heya

Ron wrote:

H'm ... or is it that simple? As you probably know, I usually turn to the reward system as the center of "system matters" when CA is being considered. So if the meaning you're talking about feeds into the reward system in an identifiable, consistent way, then I think how it's conducted is relevant to CA.

That doesn't mean that any one of your categories lines up neatly with any one of the CAs, but it does mean that we can talk about how a given approach (e.g. Meaning in the Middle, especially) may, in tandem with other aspects of System, works well with a CA in a given instance.

So, similar to IIEE, this is EAAE. Somewhere in there the legitimacy of the claim is Judged, which can consist of both debates about whether it's applicable and reinterpreting the SIS in light of the agreement that it is relevant.

Works for me, Troy. That's my reading of it too.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, this is very helpful.

As as Ron mentions, there can be issues when people expect one of these meaning categories and are confronted with another. I think that happens with traditional players who try their hands on some of the indie games.

The main tradeoff, as I mentioned in the other thread, is that MatB lends a lot of reliable expectancy. I know what's going on and how things will work, I can plan on it, and deviation will need a lot of justification. With MitM, interpretation will happen during play, which makes for more spontaneous events but also takes away some certainty and planning ability. MatE, then, is very spontaneous and means that players need to create their own causal links on the fly. That means they don't know what'll happen next or how their current contribution will hold up, but they also have a vast array of spontaneous possibilities.

It seems to me that most traditional RPGs are very much MatB oriented (obviously, we're talking about degrees here, as there is always some meaning that's made up on the fly). So I can see that there's a difficulty for traditional players in getting the hang of those newer, mostly indie games that ask more of them in terms of spontaneity and being able to operate without as much reliable expectancy.

That means, if I as a player suddenly don't have all those rules and regulations (not only mechanics, but all that's agreed to before play even starts regarding how events will go) in place to tell me how things are happening, I am empowered to contribute differently during play, but I might also be a little lost.

Thematic Causality comes in, then, when this is applied over the course of a session, campaign, etc. The more MatB we have, the more reliably we will have consistently causal events (notice the "reliably" part, as players can create this with MatE as well, they just have to work consciously toward it). In fact, through bricolage, we can probably build more and more MatB, but that's probably an issue for a whole other thread.

It seems to me that there can be a correlation between EAAE and CA (as Ron says, in conjunction with other parts of System), though on second thought, maybe there's some other play preference at issue here (reliability versus spontaneity). Because now that I think on it, you can support Sim play if you have a lot of MatB that's consistent with your Dream, but it might be helpful to be able to insert MitM so that the established rules don't get in the way of the Agenda. That's again where bricolage comes in, because we all know that there's just no perfect rules-system for our perfect play. Thematic Causality is certainly something that Sim-oriented players will strive for, but they may actually be able to do that better if they have the ability to spontaneously fit the meaning to the ideal, instead of being constrained by what's already established.

Hmm.

One way this scheme seems to be lacking is you put Universalis and Capes in the same category. As I recall, this whole thing came out of the recognition that there was some choice in design philosophy in which Uni and Capes (both GM-less Narr games) seemed to be opposing camps.

I certainly don't want to turn this into (specifically) Universalis vs. Capes here, (or worse, Tony vs. Ralph), but it seems like the scheme would be more useful if it attempted to explain the differences and validities of these two views.

Or are you suggesting that Capes merely straddles a line, one which could be pushed further into unexplored territory?

More attempts to place existing games into the scheme may be useful. Are traditional designs tending towards Meaning at the Beginning?

There's some unspoken assumptions about Social Contract going on here, too. No clue how that fits in yet.

Looked at after the fact, all of these will get you to the same place...an enjoyable play experience. But the process on how you got there will be quite different.

The biggest difference will be with player buy-in. During the game statements will be made by one player that will need to be accepted by other players and incorporated into the SIS. The amount of work you need to do to get that buy in, the amount of concession and compromise you must be willing to make to get that buy in, and the type of recourse players have who don't want to buy in will all be effected by the way the game delivers "meaning" as used above.

A lot of this difference is encapsulated simply by the notion of precedent. The longer a particular fact / interpretation has been in place and the more often its been apealed to and applied, the much easier it is to get acceptance for future use. When dealing with a new situation if you can extrapolate from already established precedent to form the rationale for your current narration then acceptance of that narration is far easier.

This impact can be greatly seen in games that permit/require more inventive narration from players. Every time new ground gets broken it must be established, applied, and accepted anew. The less it draws upon precedent the more the player must be aware of the social dynamics of the group in order to get that essential buy-in.

If a character is given a penalty when trying to seduce a barmaid because he has a Charisma of 6, there is enormous precedent supporting that rationale. Everyone knows what Charisma represents and how it gets used in the game and has probably seen it used like this in similar situations in the past. On the other hand if a character is given a penalty when trying to seduce a barmaid because he's wearing red and the barmaid hates the color red that acceptance isn't going to be quite as automatic, especially if the barmaid's distaste for the color red had never been established prior to the application of the penalty. That fact (distaste for red) hasn't existed for long, has never been appealed to before, and thus doesn't have the weight of precedent behind it to gain its acceptance.

There is thus a large difference in the play experience between meaning being accepted due primarily to the weight of precedence, and meaning being accepted that doesn't have any weight of precendence behind it. In the latter case acceptance is far more dependent on the immediate social dynamic...how compelling the presenter is, how attuned the presenter is to what the group would consider to be fun at that point, and how much authority over such things the presenter has been granted.

This last is of particular note, because, without it, acceptance becomes dominated by the relative charismatic will of the players. In a traditional game the GM is given enormous authority. If the GM introduced the barmaid's distaste for red at the last minute he could probably get it accepted through force of authority alone although it would probably result in a good bit of grumbling from the players. We can all point to examples of grudging acceptance of GM fiat in our play histories.

However, this becomes of particular interest to GM-less games (or GM-full games) like Uni or Capes. Not everything that could ever happen in a roleplaying game can be derived exclusively from precedence and there is no single authority figure to demand acceptance by fiat. How then are newly introduced elements imbued with meaning. How do they get accepted into the SIS.

Force of Charisma is one way. Skillful presentation by clever and entertaining individuals who can get their way simply because its so much fun to watch them go. On a darker note social bullying can take place as well.

Game mechanics become another way. Traditional game mechanics are only indirectly concerned with getting elements accepted in the SIS because they rely on a GM's authority to make that happen when precedent is insufficient. In a GM-less game, however, the mechanics must be much more explicit about how elements get accepted. Some games like Universalis appeal to group consensus with very rigid rules for how the group can choose to accept or reject narration. Some games like Polaris or Great Ork Gods divide the specific areas of responsibility up, creating sub GMs with greater or lesser authority over a smaller area.

Capes is unique in that it grants no recourse. The game gives authority to a specific player at a specific time and no other player has any ability at all to question, refute, reject, or even suggest alternatives to anything the authoring player says.



So I don't see "meaning" being categorized by game. I see it being categorized in play as its created. The way I view the three categories would be:

Meaning established at the beginning: Rules, setting material, character backgrounds, things accepted prior to play simply by agreeing to play. Everyone knows that Magic Users can't wield swords and Elves have infravision because these items were established prior to play and accepted by the simple decision to play D&D.

Meaning established during play: Primarily in game events or rulings that have already occured earlier in the game.

Meaning not yet established: This would be in game events and rulings that are currently actively in process of being integrated into the SIS.


The process of getting those elements accepted into the SIS works according to the Lumpley Principle. However, there are numerous ways for players to weight the negotiation process in their favor to make it more likely that their narration will be acceptable.

The Weight of Precendent is an attempt to draw on things that have had meaning established ealier and extrapolate that into the current situation.

The Weight of Authority is an attempt to use authority granted by the group to influence acceptance.

The Weight of Charisma is an attempt to use powers of personal persuasion/manipulation to obtain acceptance.

The Weight of Mechanics is a variation on the Weight of Authority where temporary authority is granted by mechanical means ("High Card Narrates" in Dust Devils) and the player uses that authority to influence acceptance.

And probably a few others we could come up with as well.



The thing that makes this of particular interest to me is that of all of these, the weight of precedence is the one that generally goes over with the least amount opposition or hurt feelings. The idea that "a low Charisma penalized me last time, so it makes sense it would penalize me this time" receives nearly automatic acceptance with much less need to justify it by anything more than "its in the rules".

When people do object in such a situation its rarely in the form of "who cares about the rules" but more often in the form of "I interpret that rule differently". Once the other party becomes convinced of a particular interpretation, it falls right back to "its in the rules".

In Universalis the precedent isn't so much "its in the rules" but "its an existing trait".


The key thing to note about appeals to precedent is that there always needs to be a human being to reach the decision. Precedent itself can't decide anything. It merely makes it easier for the real people to reach an accord. Therefor, in all cases, for functional play there needs to be a mechanism by which accord gets reached if individuals disagree as to how to apply precedent. Traditionally this is the role of the GM. Uni uses mechanically enforceable group consensus.

In the threads that spawned this one there was a great deal of discussion on how Capes handles this. Capes has zero appeal process. Players who don't like another player's narration have no immediate recourse. There are also no mechanics or guidelines to enforce or appeal to precedent. So, while a particular player with the power to narrate may base their narration on precedent...they may not. Other players expecting narration that is in-line with established precedent are left trying to retroactively justify the narration to preserve continuity.

This ability to freely ignore precedent during narration was, more or less, the core issue at the heart of much of the recent Capes discussion...made all the more noticeable because of the preeminent role precedent has with respect to altering the SIS.

Heya,

I’m with Valamir on a lot of this. A very good post, Ralph. I think he puts it best when he writes:

"So I don't see "meaning" being categorized by game. I see it being categorized in play as its created."

I hope I don’t help to get this bogged down into specific games, but it is indeed important to examine how unique aspects of games (such as GM-less style in Capes and Universalis) interact with the topic of this thread. The mechanics of Meaning that Tony posted still apply in those games, I believe, but it may take more time to negotiate and finalize the meaning. Just like in Fortune mechanics, the instant the die (or whatever) stops rolling is not the instant things are resolved. Likewise, the instant Meaning is posited is not the instant Meaning is agreed upon.

Which brings me to something else I think bears discussion here on this topic and that is Hacking. It’s similar to what happens in Universalis, but still different in its application. I think it can be applied to Meaning in the beginning, middle, or end depending on the System. It changes Meaning after it has initially been established and agreed upon. In other words, while the players in Universalis might haggle over meaning in the first stage and then agree on it in the second stage, Hacking can come in on a third stage and change what has been agreed upon. So what I’m asking is, is Hacking a “Meaning with Teeth” type mechanic similar to the “Fortune in the Middle with Teeth” concept?

Peace,

-Troy

Edit: Links to previous threads on Hacking:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13071&highlight=hacking
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12976&highlight=hacking
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13073&highlight=hacking

Ron: I'm not really sure what I meant to convey by "style of play". Your phrasing of (roughly) "These are techniques. How do they apply? What are their consequences? How do they combine with other techniques?" is much the clearer.

Christian and Larry: I think you're assuming that an entire game is MatB or MitM, or whatever. I certainly don't see that being the case. I think each technique gets applied at different times. Example:

A fighter in D&D is trying to get past a door, guarded by an Orc.

Fighter: "I swing with my vorpal blade. I roll a twenty! Therefore the Orc is decapitated!" (MatB - "Vorpal + 20 = Head-lopping")
GM: "The orc dies messily, his body slamming back against the door, which closes. There is the distinct sound of a lock clicking shut." (MitM - "Headless flailing Orc + Lockable door = Door locked")
Fighter: "Okay, I go get that barrel of oil I saw earlier, use rope to make a fuse, set it against the door, retreat to the next room and light the fuse. It sizzles, burns, the barrel explodes. Kaboom!" (MatE - "Oil + flame = Kaboom!, but what does Kaboom! mean?"... maybe)
GM: "The door is in burning flinders."

Tony,

I agree with you, it's not all or nothing. That's why I wrote:

It seems to me that most traditional RPGs are very much MatB oriented (obviously, we're talking about degrees here, as there is always some meaning that's made up on the fly).

Okay, so where does a veto power over modification of SIS fit into this? Just a case of Appeal to Authority?

I think I am trying in vain to integrate this into the Model at large. More examples (outside of Uni/Capes/D&D) might help make this less abstract.

I would think that a veto would be part of Judgment. Judgment can include debate about whether the fact lends authority in this instance, as well as restructuring the SIS to make it more (or less, I suppose) applicable.

The veto would fall squarely into that "debate" category, I would think.

Now, interestingly, almost all vetoes are instances of MitM, as such. They happen when the fact is Appealed to. The authority to veto, however, can be based on MatB, MitM or MitE. Examples:

• MatB: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because your Charisma is still 6."
• MitM: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because... uh... the enchanter's tower lends iron will to all servants."
• MitE: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her. Which tells you something, if you stop to think about it...."

Now, interestingly, almost all vetoes are instances of MitM, as such. They happen when the fact is Appealed to. The authority to veto, however, can be based on MatB, MitM or MitE. Examples:

• MatB: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because your Charisma is still 6."
• MitM: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her, because... uh... the enchanter's tower lends iron will to all servants."
• MitE: "No, your new ring of mind control doesn't help you seduce her. Which tells you something, if you stop to think about it...."

I'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?

TonyLB wrote: I think that we're all in agreement (there) that "meaning" is a construct placed onto events in the SIS by the perception of players. There is, in short, no such thing as "inherent meaning." Whether you have a Charisma of 6, or you did a great deed for the King, or any of that... at some point, some player (or players in consensus) are going to refer to that past fact as authority to shape present and future input to the SIS. That's "meaning."

Any fact which can be appealed to for authority goes through (at least) three stages. It is Established as a fact. It is Appealed to for Authority. The Authority is Applied to the SIS. This in turn Establishes new facts

Does this seem like a sensible breakdown of the ways that social expectation can be applied to the ways that people appeal to SIS-features for authority?

TonyLB wrote: I'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?

Heya

Callan wrote:

If 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.

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.

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...

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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.

Heya,

So the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"

TonyLB wrote: 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.

Simon Marks wrote: So the question becomes, "What effect will this fact have", "Does this fact have an effect" and "Why did this fact have an effect"

Hey Tony,

I apologize ahead of time, but I’ve been reading this thread and I am all turned inside out! Since I’m having such a hard time making cohesive sense of it all I’m just going to lay out the various difficulties I’m having and hopefully in the process someone can make sense of my post. (I just quickly scanned though this and I am almost too embarrassed to post it, but I am tired of working on it and it is very late – I beg your indulgence.)

First of all this whole taxonomy scheme seems to entangle two distinct spheres. Let me start by providing some terms and background.

Going back to Victor Gijsberg’s Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text thread, it was discussed that the SIS could possibly be broken into three “separate” spaces.

• The Proposal Space• The “Gijsbers” Space, so labeled by JMendes, which I believe might be more easily understood as “The Fact Space”• The “Individual Fictional World” which I also believe might better thought of as the “Affect Space.”

The Proposal Space is basically the realm of the functioning of the Lumpley Principle.

The Fact Space is the repository of the consensuses wrought by the action of the Lumpley Principle. The Fact Space is utterly without judgment - it is a space of Facts, not aesthetic opinions. This is the one touch place where all the players must all be on the same page. This is upheld in the very definition of the LP. What is important in this post is the understanding that the Facts within the Fact Space are just objects typically destined for interpretation.

This brings us to the Affect Space. The Affect Space is that space within each player that assigns meanings to the Facts including such concepts as events, value judgments, the assigning “meanings”. This assignment process is guided by that aesthetic called the Creative Agenda. The Affect Space is where we “make sense” of the Facts, inform our creative decisions (prepare our Proposals) and where we enjoy or not enjoy the game. In short this is the realm of “meanings” and where the actual CA resides.

Given the above I am confused as to what is meant, functionally, by “meaning” as “meaning” can only operate in the Affect Space. At first blush MitB and MitM seem to be focused with the Fact space of the SIS while MitE seems to be focused on the Affect/Aesthetic space. (Further down I find that matters get more involved, but I wanted to leave this in as record of my progressively addled thought process.) I’m also uncertain if this taxonomy is geared toward task resolution or conflict resolution. Unless I am mistaken I understand that the “Effects” of conflict resolution are geared more towards the “Affect Space” while the “Effects” of task resolution are geared more towards the “Fact Space.”

I am going to guess what is assumed in this taxonomy proposition that this process is only observed after the player has succeeded in negotiating the “cause” into play. IOW this process only comes into play after the player has accomplished his task. What remains to be “negotiated” is the Effect of said cause (resolution) within the Fact Space. I am going to shamelessly borrow from Simon Marks (I am not trying to mischaracterize you! This is my response of what I think you tried to convey.)

Simon Marks wrote: 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.

TonyLB wrote: 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)

TonyLB wrote: 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.

Simon Marks wrote: 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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

Jay: Whew... okay, let me give a try at this. First, let me say that I like recent examples in this thread much more than earlier examples (especially my own earlier examples, which you found confusing because they're muddy and (in places) just plain wrong). So there's that... the thread shows work in progress, at least for me.

"Meaning" as I'm using it here is completely distinct from the Affect Space (as you term it). The "meaning" I'm talking about is as objectively there as the things you are talking about as Fact Space. What I am using the term to mean is the process of judging whether and why a past fact lends authority to present or future contributions to the SIS. It is created in the choices people make in using the Lumpley-principle System.

So, say you have a fact "Kell hates his father." The following thoughts have nothing to do with "meaning" as I'm using it here:

• "This addresses our thematic question of 'What keeps families together, what tears them apart?' "
• "This means that Kell is a bad person."
• "This means that our campaign will be much darker, because so many of us are motivated by hatred."

Those are all perfectly legitimate considerations, and I can totally see how they deserve the term "meaning." But that's not how I'm using it here. The following thoughts are all "meaning" as I'm using it here:

• "This will justify Kell getting into arguments easily, particularly with father figures."
• "This justifies Kell's surge of strength, because he refuses to prove his father's low opinion of him right."
• "Why did Kell's hatred of his father justify his breaking off his relationship with Emma?"

Are we understanding each other here? I'm having a bit of trouble, because you have so very much summary and just the one question ("Upon what exactly did the Fact Effect?") I feel like there must be something more that I should be replying to, but I don't know quite what it would be. So, with apologies for the brevity of my response, I think I'll end here and await your further questions.