Not really much to say - I was commenting in another thread that if 'fiction' decides what rules can be used/deployed, then it doesn't matter how awesomely you design. If fiction says your rules don't get used, then those rules don't get used. Precisely because they come first. So fiction can, and perhaps if 'it' decides, always will throw all structure to the wind.

And it struck me perhaps this is what Ron's called murk, or what I've called molasses?

That there is no structure, unless this 'fiction' decides it's okay to use. And this 'fiction decides' is as bullshit as the planchette is moved by spirits on the ouja board.

Okay, before I lay too heavily into that, let me say this. I think, like watching a magic show and humouring the little feeling in oneself that maybe it's real magic, one can humour the idea that the 'fiction' decides something. Of course it doesn't - were back to the point where in the past people would say 'What do the characters want' and we'd tell them the characters don't exist to want anything. Here, the 'fiction' doesn't exist to decide anything. There's just people. Okay, BUT we can enjoy humouring the idea that the 'fiction' decides things, like we enjoy humouring the idea 'magic' makes that rabbit appear out of the hat.

But oh boy, are some of you serious about 'the fiction' actually deciding.

Anyway, how do you get anywhere when there is no structure? Exactly - well, to me that sounds like murk (which makes me think of swamp mud and walking through it) or mollases (again, wading through it).

Of course in the old days you could write a standard rant and that was a pass. So for a token actual play example - I've played in many games where the GM called on skill rolls because it 'sounded right'. Oh wait, that doesn't sound specific enough because pretty much everyone does that, right? Well it is specific, but I'll try some more.

Okay, I've played in games where the GM had some notion of a plot or something, where bad guy had done X, perhaps left remnants (read: clues) behind of that. But what did we engage - well, it'd go from 'okay, a guy is hiring you' to whatever we did, then a roll that 'makes sense' based on what we did, then we'd do something else and that'd get a roll that 'makes sense' to the GM, or the GM would start to get a slightly constipated look as the very skism between what structure he had in mind and what happened at the table divided not so much directly to our actions as players, but divided instead to how HE was determining what rules happened next. Ie, he was letting 'the fiction' determine what happened next, and the fiction pretty much let things disapear up their own arse because it HAS NO STRUCTURE (worth a damn). Letting the 'fiction' decide is a bit like narrativistically playing a nut job and letting the actual character decide what rule is used next/letting the psycho run the asylum.

Actually that's a bit of a generalisation, but hey, it basically puttered - waddled - waded through molasses to get anywhere, many, many a time. I'll dare to say - every time. I wont say it didn't get places at times in the session - sweet memories. But it was like a raft on the open sea.

So, fiction first? Take it out the back and shoot it in the head?

Well, as I said in another thread, there is no binary state on the matter that I'm aware of. Like a board game is allllll mechanics first. But then roleplayers try and make it alllll fiction first. And weve had threads about before and after traits (STILL hate the name, btw, even if I get the idea). You could quite possibly define some rules as coming before fiction, being rules first, and yet also define some rules of the same game as being fiction first - the 'fiction' decides if they can be applied. Clearly define which is which, and your dandy. It doesn't have to be all fiction fetish or all boardgame steel and oil.

And hopefully we leave the age of roleplay myth, and get past where the fiction gets to practically faux religion levels. Whoa, did I say that - I'll use the 'did I sound scary' get out from Spiones text to excuse myself...hehe.

But basically here's the big idea - if 'fiction' decides what rules will or wont be used, if any, it DOES NOT MATTER how well you design them (or for that matter, how badly you design them...perhaps). If the 'fiction' decides (for ALL rules) if they get used, you may well go whole sessions (plural!) without using them. What was the point of writing any rules in that case?

Gah, and now I know I'll get a counter point that they 'work' as suggestions. And I'd agree in that if you were on the titanic and paddled furiously on one side, you could affect the titanics course...to a degree.

I'm almost outta booze, so I'm done :)

just about every game I know of has rules for making a perception test.  you don't normally use it when the character's walk down the street to see if they notice the cars or step in front of traffic.

in every game I've played the GM decided when to use tests and when not to.  They don't apply the mechanics to every action and every situation.

Callan, ranting while drunk isn't exactly the best way to post responsibly here, nor is flippantly flaunting board rules about discussing topics grounded from Actual Play and carelessly making up a scenario that fits your assertion or half-assedly posting AP just so you can post two cents about whatever crusade you're on this week.

And here's why all that is a problem: if you have ever played any RPG ever in the history of RPGs you realize that fiction does indeed decide things and comes first. "I'm in a room with monsters" is fiction, as compared to the fiction "I'm in an empty field." The fiction does indeed decide what rules can be used. You can't use combat rules in an empty field, just like you can't swim when not in the water. (I think if you had posted a moment of actual play, this would have been shockingly and immediately apparent.)

There is, in fact, a balance or a position you're willfully ignoring in order to rant about the evils of "fiction", which is exactly why I ignored your attempt to drag my thread off-topic with posts about it. Because if your character in my game is a mile away tied to a stake buck-naked, then the fiction says you can't contribute dice even though the rule says you can, and you can't for what should be obvious reasons, And "OMG! FICTION! BLARGH!" was a pointless response that did nothing to help or contribute to my design.

What it comes down to is that the problem you're describing isn't even with "fiction first", not if you have ever played and enjoyed any RPG ever. It's with something else entirely that you are choosing not to try and identify, instead you're focusing on a convenient-but-transparent scapegoat in the form of "fiction decides".

Sigh.

1. Raven, you're out of line. I ask that you not participate in the thread at least until some substantial back-and-forth occurs, if it does. Your post makes it about a hundred times harder to deal with the various minor faults in Callan's.

2. Callan, please do not reply to Raven's post. It will be remotely possible to have a discussion based on your post, but you're going to have to deal with some moderator comments.

3. I'm trying to get ready for GenCon, and this is not helping. I'll get to the moderator comments later.

Best, Ron

Stepping over wreckage and moving on

dugfromthearth wrote:
just about every game I know of has rules for making a perception test.  you don't normally use it when the character's walk down the street to see if they notice the cars or step in front of traffic.

in every game I've played the GM decided when to use tests and when not to.  They don't apply the mechanics to every action and every situation.

dugfr wrote: 1. determining what is likely or "realistic".  We often think something like "a corporation would have a security camera in an area like that".  But being fiction, the GM often has to have the enemies doing dumb things to make a game possible.

Hi Callan !
I'm just wondering if this kind of system isn't working because exploration is driven by scenario prepared before the play.
This make the GM puts rythm, conflict and dramaturgy to the play (so the structure is planted before the game for the best part of it), letting rules state about what is doable or not, getting a part of credibility of the EIP.

Am I in the subject ?

All right, now I'm stepping in as moderator.

1. Callan, please provide references to threads or other sources in which someone uses the term "fiction first." Readers can then use their own judgment to decide whether what you're criticizing, calling by that name, is actually what those people were talking about.

2. If they're not the same threads or sources, then provide references to anything which shows that "some people" as you call them are so devoted to the principle in question.

For purposes of full disclosure, I fully agree with your criticisms of what you are talking about. My favorite is more small-scale, when my character takes some damage and then, for my next action, the GM tells me that "You can't get to him, you're too far away where he slammed you." Even if the previous narrations had established that my character had been knocked away, and given that we're not playing with miniatures and hexes, where did that decree come from?

I suggest that this is two things, Murk and Railroading, with the former at the service of the latter. I further suggest that the GM is not playing "from the fiction," as you suggest, but rather "toward his current intended outcome." (Clip out my extended rant of hatred for this way of playing, including frantic jig.) I currently suspect that you are confounding "fiction first" as a term or idea with playing in this fashion, as opposed to what I think others have used the term for.

But until you point to sources as I call for above, then there's no way to assess that, because maybe this is what others have supported, and maybe it's not. I want to distinguish a valid and coherent topic of discussion from some bug up your ass about who said what, and who supported them, and how you don't like it. Or rather, to distinguish between your criticisms of certain ways to play vs. your desire to show up somebody you really want to scream "wrong wrong" at. I am currently unable to tell which this is. Providing those sources will solve the problem.

I hope that you can see I am not slapping you down. I am trying to make your thread possible.

Best, Ron

P.S. Everyone, please do not exploit my relative absence from the forums over the next week to play rats'-dance in this thread. Post fair & reasonable, and no passive-hostility either. If you fuck with me about this, the thread gets closed.

Hello Ron,

1. Callan, please provide references to threads or other sources in which someone uses the term "fiction first."

I currently suspect that you are confounding "fiction first" as a term or idea with playing in this fashion, as opposed to what I think others have used the term for.

I suggest that this is two things, Murk and Railroading, with the former at the service of the latter. I further suggest that the GM is not playing "from the fiction," as you suggest, but rather "toward his current intended outcome." (Clip out my extended rant of hatred for this way of playing, including frantic jig.) I currently suspect that you are confounding "fiction first" as a term or idea with playing in this fashion, as opposed to what I think others have used the term for.

Or rather, to distinguish between your criticisms of certain ways to play vs. your desire to show up somebody you really want to scream "wrong wrong" at. I am currently unable to tell which this is. Providing those sources will solve the problem.

Hi Frédéric, welcome to the forge!

Frédéric wrote:
Hi Callan !
I'm just wondering if this kind of system isn't working because exploration is driven by scenario prepared before the play.

The problem with this concept is that it's so completely subjective.  It feels like the "fiction first" quandary, as you phrase it, is rooted in the same nebulous decisionmaking as the "+2" debate from a couple of months ago.  Ron's got a point, I think, when he says that using "fiction" to railroad your players or make the action go the way you want is bullshit. 

That said, Callan, per the "+2" thread, you know how I feel on the concepts of "expectation" and "consistency", and for that matter, on whether the game as played even needs to conform to the rules on paper.  But I suspect, between your original post and Ron's reply, we've raised a good point regarding the inconsistency of how rules are interpreted.  In very nearly every tabletop experience I've had, the GM had a particular set of skills or rolls he relied very heavily on, while ignoring others to the point of irrelevance.

At a local university convention, a GM I played with essentially disallowed any attempt to do anything without having its parameters strictly defined.  Character knowledge didn't exist, essentially; you had to know what you were doing.  I played in another game that same con year, this time under the Dead Reign system (*shudder*).  My character had a high Electronics skill, and I attempted to disable an electronic keycard lock.  I was asked by the GM, "Well, how do you plan to do that?"  Hell if I knew, I thought; assuming he meant I couldn't apply the skill, I clammed up.  Another party member, with the same skill, explained the engineering details on exactly how he would manipulate the lock, and got the opportunity to check for it.  In this case, because I, as a person, didn't know how to break open a keycard lock, my character didn't either, and couldn’t apply the knowledge he “should have” had.  The rules on applying a skill, in this case, gave way to the GM's exhaustive knowledge of engineering principles.

The examples I provided are perhaps tangential, but they stem from the same dilemma -- a GM that refuses to apply the rules where he "should".  The first GM didn't have rules in front of him to tell or even suggest when his rolls should apply, where the second GM had rules that laid out a strict procedure, but refused to follow them.  The “fiction” suggested I should have been able to attempt a roll, and the GM ignored it.

Now, there's always "Rule Zero" floating around; you know, the "ignore all rules" rule that appears, in some form or other, in every RPG rulebook in the known universe?  The other side of that coin is pretty much "What the GM says goes".  It's clear from our earlier discussions that you have different ideas from me about how rules work in RPGs, and we have very different reasons for roleplaying.  But let me try something here -- I'm going to present a devil's advocate point of view, and see if perhaps it can bring to light the "real problem".

Let's assume, for the purposes of what I'm about to type, that "fiction first" is correct -- that is, GMs should consider whether the SIS supports a particular interpretation and application of the rules before they are used.  For reference, let's flesh out Ron's example a bit.  An ogre packing a big, big club just whaled on our fighter, dealing a lot of damage.  Fighter stands up and goes to take a swing, and the GM says, "you can't get there, you've been knocked away."  Let's also assume that we're not playing a grid-based system, so the rules of movement and such aren't rigidly defined.  Is the GM's interpretation correct here?  If there's no rule saying the character is knocked away, but similarly, movement is vaguely defined enough that there's no rule saying he isn't, we're in a quandary.  Is it possible that we could step away from the idea of GM as sole aribter of the SIS?  Maybe the players (and I'm including the GM here) can determine whether the player got knocked away, and just go with whatever makes the most sense at the time -- whatever consensus can be reached.  Let the fiction win, whatever that is, but don't leave it up to just one person to determine.  I've played in games where the player steps in front of the GM and says "I probably wouldn't attack right now, as my head's spinning from the blow and I probably couldn't stumble to the ogre in time to strike, let alone strike effectively."  (As an aside, I love players like this -- they roleplay their character so heavily that they're willing to make suboptimal decisions in service to the story.)

All right, let's change things up a bit, and probably (finally) get to the meat of your particular question.  What if we're instead playing D&D 3.5, where there is a grid-based system, and the assumption is that characters are not moved around by attacks unless the text of the attack specifies that?  Well, to then tell the player that his character is sent reeling and can't get to the ogre to attack him his next turn is more tenuous.  The rules, of course, say that's not how it goes, and the player is where he stood the previous turn and is free to start swinging.  But is it fair, if the GM and his players agree that the fighter got knocked on his ass, to tell them that they're wrong?  I argue no in this instance.  But it's no more wrong to say that the fighter isn't moving.  Hence, the challenge.

So I just spent nearly 1000 words to come to the conclusion, "it depends".  Well, on what?  Those same two damn words I keep blathering on about, I argue -- "consistency" and "expectation".  What you, individually, expect from a situation during a game, and what I expect, are two different things.  So there's no way we're ever going to come to full agreement on this topic, just like we (amicably, I think) agreed to disagree on the "+2" point.  In a funny way, Callan, I agree and disagree with you simultaneously.  The sticking point is how we define "rules".  If we define the rules of the game as explicitly what's written on the paper or in the rulebook, then I disagree, since I believe there are applications wherein a decision that goes against them is more reasonable.  If we define the rules as the combination of what's written on the paper and whatever modifications the players agree thereto, whether explicitly or implicitly, then in that case I do agree.  What's important to me is that the GM doesn't pull some reasoning out of his ass and tell me, essentially, that I can't attack because he said so, and then never use that same justification again.  If I'm the only fighter that gets knocked spinning for a round, and everyone else has no problem during that same session, I'm going to be a little pissed.

Vincent Baker has written a bit about this:

In my imagination, a rule is like if you take a nail and scratch a line in dry dirt, and what people actually do is like where the water actually runs. Some water will run down the line you scratched, because you scratched it. Other water will run down the line you scratched but would have run there even if you hadn't. Other water will go wherever it goes. And (and here this picture breaks down, now I'm talking about bizarro-world water) some water will respond perversely to your line, bouncing off of it or testing its limits or sliding around it or flowing in the opposite direction out of plain orneriness.

So, yeah -- there's rules, and there's people, and some people will use some rules, and some people won't.

Is this inherently problematic?  I'm not so sure.

It's been years now since I've played a game in which we used the encumbrance rules, even though I've played lots of games with those rules.  I don't recall thinking to myself, Dang, if only we'd been using those encumbrance rules, our experience would have been better.

Can disregarding rules be used for evil?  Sure.  Just like everything else.

In light of all that, does rules design matter at all in a strong Fiction First group?  I would suggest it does -- some rules are going to come into the conflict with Fiction First more than others.  If a rule states that horses are really good at climbing ropes (which at least one popular ruleset does) then that will tend to introduce more dissonance than a rule stating that ungulates are really bad at climbing ropes.

Cheers,
Roger

Here is an actual play report of someone who is trying a "fiction first" approach on a hacked 4E game:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/278034-d-d-4th-edition-hack-fiction-first-playtest.html

I am one of the players ("E").

I whiffed an attack roll and the GM narrated the result. He described how my staff was caught up in the facial pincers of the Ankheg, it really helped me imagine the situation. Then when my turn came, I picked up that bit of fictional detail to justify a +2 to my next attack.

I used the publicly articulated fiction to justify a bonus.  I don't remember anything in the rules about Ankheg jaws and exactly how wide they are.

Jim and Roger,

You seem to be raising the same idea as each other. Let me say your idea that 'it depends' or 'some people use rules and some people don't' - this is like you saying you have a pyromaniac at the gaming table who in real life sets fire to things. And your saying, hey roleplay is sometimes about the drapes catching on fire. Because sometimes the drapes do just catch on fire.

No, the drapes don't just catch on fire - you invited the pyro. Or you invited the person who is the 'water' that ignores the line. You are the origin of why the drapes catch on fire or why rules are ignored. It's not what roleplay is, it is just your own doing for inviting this guy.

I'll give an example I remember Ron gave (using him as he's probably taken more credibly than myself), where he had a potential player, as I recall, who kinda had a wishywashy character concept for the upcoming game and indeed was kind of trying to leave it up to Ron to make the character. Ron politely said not to turn up, IIRC.

What you guys and the Lumpley quote are effectively saying to me is instead that roleplay is sometimes about making your players character for them. Because you'd still invite this guy along, and the guys who only want to work from their expectations, and the guys who ignore rules, and the little dog with a black spot who was snuffling around outside.

And cool, whatever is cool for you. But that you do that doesn't mean roleplay is about that or that all designs and design discussions must revolve around all the people you'd invite. Your treating what you do out of habit as not something of your own doing, but 'how roleplay is'.

I don't know what to say in terms of inviting anyone, no matter what they do or wont do - I think it's another subject entirely, really?

On that side topic, probably worth reading this as well. And as a happy ending towards not inviting people if they aren't going to do the required tasks, IIRC, the guy rung Ron back a week latter with a character he'd really thought out and put alot effort into. Being uninvited drove him to put his nose to the grindstone a bit. Sound good?

epweissengruber,

Coincidence on the parralel use of the words 'fiction first', it seems.

On top of that odd coincidence - your specific example does not seem to be the fiction determining rules use ignoring the rules at all?? There is a rule in the texts, IIRC, for the GM assigning a +2 if in his reflection upon the spoken fiction so far, he thinks it should apply. Whether the GM gives you +2 or not, he is still following the rule in either case as that is exactly what it says to do. Or so I would think - are you trying to say you all didn't care about rules at all and only by chance what you did happen to match the rules? That's getting rather complicated - are you trying to say that?

Because otherwise your describing mechanics first play, as I'd call it, not fiction first. You mechanically failed to hit and...you missed. The GM did spoken narration - maybe hinting through it to you, I dunno. Then following the mechanical procedure on turns, he follows the mechanics on +2 and whether it is mechanically assigned or not. The mechanic is that he listens to the spoken fiction, and he decides.

Sorry, this all appears to be following the rules utterly, rather than the procedure being consulting 'the fiction' to decide if a rule is used or ignored? Indeed to me it's system mattering - mechanics are followed utterly, and the imagination sits itself around those mechanics - so the mechanics are worthwhile in the way they will help you imagine something you otherwise would not have. You might never have imagined the staff tangled in the Ankheg pincers without the mechanics, thus the mechanics assisted your imagination to go to a new place - by simply following rules (rules that are quite followable as much as 1+1 is quite followable) and fitting ones imagination around them.

Sorry, I'm just talking up the possitives of mechanics first now.

I do have a hypothesis that alot of gamers...their imagination hates the idea of conforming and shaping itself around mechanics and instead exults instead in mechanical things being shaped around it. Usually so much so it eventually has the group perhaps rolling one die a session, if that, and calling it great roleplay. Having shaped mechanics so much around itself, it's destroyed them all. Having run out of mechanics to exult in the deformation of, it turns towards pe...nm, it's mainly a hypothesis right now.

Back to earth, you seem to be describing a mechanics first situation, as I would name it? Do I make sense in saying that? Do you have any examples of where your GM said 'Well, the rules say this would apply, but it just doesn't make sense because of (insert fiction here), so I'm tossing it for now"? Not that I like that play, but this thread is looking at it technically. Though it's great to have what I call mechanics first examples to contrast it with.

Callan, you make a valid (and profound) point regarding the presence of, for lack of a better term, undesirable players at the table, who attempt to shift the table dynamic, and by extension, the "rules" of the game.  Thinking about the example you mention in passing about disinviting a disruptive player, your point on that count is absolutely right -- if you have a player who tries to turn the game into something it isn't, and the group as a whole doesn't want that, there's no reason to placate the guy.  Finding someone else to play with in that instance is the right choice, I believe.

However, I want to make sure we're not confusing my application of the term "expectations" with another -- in short, what's more important, the desires of the individual or the desires of the group?  The disinvited player example makes clear that we both believe the group comes first.  I do not intend to suggest, however, that this also means a GM and roleplaying group should naively allow anyone's desires to change the game.  Fire does just happen, but it only happens when you let it.

Referencing the same convention from earlier, I also attempted GMing a Dogs in the Vineyard session.  All things considered, it went quite well -- I had three players who were spot on, loved roleplaying and really dug the conflict system.  Unfortunately, I was saddled with a fourth who had the attention span of a gnat, latched on to each and every distraction available, and disrupted the game repeatedly.  We were lucky to play one complete minute without having the flow broken.  Seeing this wasn't going anywhere, and not wanting to be a jerk and call the guy out, I dissolved the session and we played again in private, the three other players and me, and loved it.

I dare say the link you provides to Ron's post illustrates both of our points.  His 1-3 there do well to explain your idea that in the best case, the players should convene, utilize an established ruleset, and learn to play the game, even if it doesn't come naturally.  However, the following passage, I think, illustrates GM versus player (in the context of "player character") expectation:

I recommend thinking about something that you wrote: your goal to convert  the other players. That makes me less confident about the whole endeavor. It's not the same as the more positive situation of people gathering to do what they want even if some of them aren't sure about how to do it exactly. It doesn't lend itself well to the points listed above.

Well, this emphasis on "use of rules" is new, I think, and I have not had that perception that this was what Callan was arguing against before, and I'm frankly surprised to see Callan accept the idea that a public statement (narration) turns fiction into sufficiently concrete material that rules can be activated or affected by it.

But now I also don't know what it is that Callan is objecting to.  I thought the ankheg face-barb example was precisely the sort of thing to which he was opposed.  So I'd like to second the call for a clear play example, whether real or made up, but an example of play and not an analogy to some other aspect of life.

At present it looks to me that "murk + railroading" serves as a description of what Callan is objecting to, but then "fiction first" is probably an unfortunate way of describing it as it includes the ankheg example as well.

Callan wrote:
Coincidence on the parralel use of the words 'fiction first', it seems.

On top of that odd coincidence - your specific example does not seem to be the fiction determining rules use ignoring the rules at all??

It seems that we're arguing two different types of scenarios here.

In one scenario, the GM decides before the game starts that he "doesn't like those rules". This goes with Callan's earlier example of the GM that doesn't like the spiritual rules in Riddle of Steel. He decides they have no place in his "fiction" so decides to ignore them. However, I'm sure that either before play or during character creation, such a GM would have to state to the players, "We're not using those rules. They don't make any sense." Thereby, he's "house ruling"--we're playing a game that's like Riddle of Steel, but without the spiritual rules.

In the other scenarios, the GM creates "fiction" on the fly. "Well, let's see here, the ogre's pretty powerful. It would make sense that a hit from him would send this warrior character flying." So when the players says, "I attack," the GM rules, "No, you can't, you got knocked too far away." The GM did not make this decision before play with this rule set began, he did not announce to the players that ogre attacks would be ruled as capable of knocking characters too far. So here, he's created a house rule on the spot that wasn't included in the original game. The only way for play to continue and still "make sense", however, would be that the players accept this rule and play consistently like this from here on--ogre attacks will always knock you too far away to strike back immediately.

If the GM is creating this house rule for actual purposes of the logic in his head, then we can at least ascribe to him noble purposes. If, as often happens, however, the GM is creating this house rule in order to "increase the drama" (which is code for 'let's make this scene more interesting so that the warrior doesn't just plow through this thing and we can extend the conflict a little longer") then that's railroading.

"oculusverit": (Sorry, did you ever provide a real name?  That seems to be what we go by around here.  You can change your display name or have it appear in your signature.)

Yeah, that's absolutely true.  Although I think your situations aren't as dissimilar as you think.  I argue that the quality of play in a roleplaying session is directly proportional to how clear and consistent a picture the participants have in mind of both the fictional situation at hand, and the rules in play at any given time.

In the ogre scenario, I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that the GM should've explained his ruling at the time it would've naturally occurred ("The ogre hits you so hard it knocks you flying!", immediately upon the successful attack roll, so that the player and his party knew it and could react to it), but if the GM can explain his reasoning and the player characters buy it, it's okay, as long as now the ruling does remain consistent.

In the other scenario, the players, by necessity, have it in their mind that the spirit rules are not in play -- of course, if the GM didn't announce this, and he simply never called for spirit combat or related checks, there would be fundamental ambiguity and lack of clarity, and the player who built a spiritual powerhouse would be (rightly) peeved!

Jim,

The disinvited player example makes clear that we both believe the group comes first.

As far as I can tell, the GM in this case has a desire to shift a group's dynamic entirely in his favor by playing another system, when the group wants something else.  It's a more extreme version of the disruptive player situation above.

Well, this emphasis on "use of rules" is new, I think, and I have not had that perception that this was what Callan was arguing against before, and I'm frankly surprised to see Callan accept the idea that a public statement (narration) turns fiction into sufficiently concrete material that rules can be activated or affected by it.

Then when my turn came, I picked up that bit of fictional detail to justify a +2 to my next attack.

I used the publicly articulated fiction to justify a bonus.

But now I also don't know what it is that Callan is objecting to.  I thought the ankheg face-barb example was precisely the sort of thing to which he was opposed.

oculusverit,

If I understand you, I think your reading something into it I used to read into it - ie, he's tacking on a new house rule.

A house rule is the pure mechanical assertion that we follow this rule because hey, we follow the mechanics.

This isn't what the riddle of steel guy is doing. His idea of 'what makes sense' gets first priority. That's the procedure he's running under. They aren't house rules, they are the decrees of 'the fiction', which is just that GM's own personal whim, whether he recognises its his own whim and not some galactic standard on 'sense' or not.

Imagine this - you flip a coin. If it's heads, you use the spiritual attributes. Tails you don't.

Is the coin making a house rule? No.

Now the GM has forced in the rule that 'what makes sense' decides what rules will or wont be used. As much as the coin flip decides. Is he making a house rule any more than the coin did? No.

Actually I'll kinda agree - if there is no rule in riddle of steel that says 'what makes sense' decides what rules are used, when he forces in the rule that 'what makes sense' does indeed decide, he is forcing in a house rule. But after that he's not making any more house rules when he effectively drops spirtiual attributes. It's interesting to note that the current playtesting document of blood red sands (not related to riddle of steel, though) does actually have this 'what makes sense (addition by me: to the supposed) group is what mechanics can be used' rule in its text.

If the GM is creating this house rule for actual purposes of the logic in his head, then we can at least ascribe to him noble purposes.

Callan,

I'm not sure I understand your position so I'll try rephrasing it. This isn't meant as an attack or a barb or anything other than an attempt to figure out what you mean, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.

"Murk is when you change the rules without that being explicitly permitted by the rules."

Hi Anders,

Not really, as the process isn't changing rules, it's putting one control rule ahead of them all, which turns them on and off like a lightswitch (it's as much changing rules as turning a lightbulb on is changing a lightbulb) - were looking at an additional rule being added, essentially, like I spoke with oculusverit about - the rule being something like if the GM thinks another rule 'doesn't make sense' to use, he does not use it. He switches it off.

With the addition of this rule, 'what makes sense' can pretty much veto every other single rule that exists. Because it's placed before all other rules.

The thing is, 'what makes sense' is just in the persons head, and there is no guarantee what's in their head will get the game going anywhere, like in my mollases example. Rules can get the game rolling, but if they are vetoed by 'what makes sense' well then they are vetoed and wont.

Do you get what I mean - say rule X would make your game great, but you have a rule that says if it doesn't 'make sense' to use rule X, you don't. With the corresponding result that 'making sense', if it so determines rule X is not to be used, makes your game not great. It would make your game miss out on the great rules.

So Callan, how does this Rule "X" that says "You may ignore any rule that does not 'make sense', or at your whim" compare to the earlier mentioned "Rule Zero" which is found in nearly all mainstream games that states "If your particular gaming group finds that any of these rules don't work for them, you can ignore those rules for the purposes of the fun of your group"? Or are they the same rule?

oculusverit wrote:
So Callan, how does this Rule "X" that says "You may ignore any rule that does not 'make sense', or at your whim" compare to the earlier mentioned "Rule Zero" which is found in nearly all mainstream games that states "If your particular gaming group finds that any of these rules don't work for them, you can ignore those rules for the purposes of the fun of your group"? Or are they the same rule?

I'm not going to get distracted by other issues, metaphoirs, or anaologies.  So:

Callan wrote:
HOW it's done is what I'm opposed to (on the principle of avoiding absurdity).

And I'm quite tired of this 'unspecified actual play account' from a number of people. Ask for something a bit more specific, like "were you ever in a game where the spoken fiction had you in a field and enemies far away" - that shouldn't be hard to do. This whole barked 'you put more effort in cause I judged you should...no, I'm not going to put in any effort, you do it all' is just a one sided talking at me affair (that even Ron participated in last time).

I've started through this thread before, and just read through the whole thing today. I decided I would give the whole thing a look before I made any comment. But the more I look at it, the more I feel that either people are missing an underlying point to the matter, or I'm imagining it.

That point would be that by saying that there should never be a time when fiction comes before rules is essentially saying that rules are infallible on strength of the fact that they are rules. It is saying that any given rule is always right, even if it doesn't 'make sense' despite the fact that the rules are there for the purpose of 'making sense.'

'Making Sense' is basically affirming structure of the narrative. Rules exist to give structure to a narrative. If a rule isn't affirming the structure of the narrative in a given instance, shouldn't a ruling that goes in line with said narrative supplant the rule?

Perhaps I'm not grasping the issue at hand though. I just fail to understand why "What makes sense" shouldn't be first priority.

Basically my viewpoint is that the assertion that Fiction should not determine Rule is flat out wrong. Rules exist as a service for Fiction, not the other way around.

Gareth,

Well, I said from the start epweissengruber example seemingly to me wasn't a good one.

I think I've given you unabiguous examples already. The problem is this is discussing the persons intents and process of thought they go through before they act, but you judge the persons intent by their actions, and your sure your judgement is 100% correct. You judge by their actions and your sure their intent is blackmail or bullying, or you judge by their actions are are sure their intent is just using this or that rule.

And your not the only one - Ron before said the guys railroading - he looked at and judged the actions and is 100% sure he knows the intent from it.

I'll quote from the blog of an author I like

The primary problem, it seems, is that we judge ourselves according to our intentions, and others according to their actions. So everybody literally sees everybody else falling short of what they would do, were they in that situation. And of course, research has shown that we are rarely so generous, upstanding, what have you in act as we are in intention.

Because if your character in my game is a mile away tied to a stake buck-naked, then the fiction says you can't contribute dice even though the rule says you can, and you can't for what should be obvious reasons

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.)

Hi David,

Well, I'm thinking more you should dialog with Ron about his giant knocking away the character - I mean, a giant! Would it make sense to be hit, yet not budge an inch? And dialog with Gareth's(contracycle) notion something is bullying or blackmail, when the staff was just described right in the pincers of the creature, etc.

Maybe if you'll dialog with each other, you'll realise your working with different underlying intents and processes from each other when it comes to written rules texts.

Honestly, when I say a bunch of gamers seem to think what I'm saying - well, your post, coming out of the blue, is perfect evidence of it! I think there are tons of people who operate from what your post succinctly describes. You'd probably agree there are tons of people who do to.

And yet I try to describe the elephant in the room, and eyes scan all around it!?

Now, some clarifications

That point would be that by saying that there should never be a time when fiction comes before rules is essentially saying that rules are infallible on strength of the fact that they are rules.

'Making Sense' is basically affirming structure of the narrative. Rules exist to give structure to a narrative. If a rule isn't affirming the structure of the narrative in a given instance, shouldn't a ruling that goes in line with said narrative supplant the rule?

I just fail to understand why "What makes sense" shouldn't be first priority.

despite the fact that the rules are there for the purpose of 'making sense.'

To me it seems like this is basically just an argument of Form Follows Function, and different people have different ideas about which is form and which is function.

To some people, it's quite obvious that Rules are Function, as they determine how events unfold. So thus, Fiction should seek to follow the rules.

To others, it's quite obvious that the Function is the act of creating fiction. Thus, rules, are simply products of that function and are treated as form.

It's basically an argument such as this:
Did man begin to stand upright in order to reach higher things without climbing? Or did man begin standing upright, and as a result become to reach higher things without climbing?

Both are potentially valid interpretations (for sake of this hypothetical, as I don't want to get into an argument about the evolution of man,,, or lack thereof).

It's basically a chicken or egg argument.

Upon further review, I don't think this has anything inherently to do with "the fiction" at all.

I would suggest it rests on two factors:

1.  Responsibility for the quality of the play experience

2.  Faith in System

Responsibility for the quality of the play experience:  The classic approach is that this responsibility falls entirely upon the shoulders of the GM.  It's written write into the job title:  Game Master.  If there is some failure in the quality of the play experience, it is necessarily a failure of the GM.  One of those failures of quality can be a failure in the quality of the fiction, which is the scenario originally presented by Callan.  However, any quality of the experience that is considered important by the play group can be subject to failure.

This is relevant insofar as the greater the responsibility and pressure here, the harder it becomes to have:

Faith in System:  This lies at the heart of the problem.  I don't use Faith lightly here -- this really is about a blind leap of trust based on little-to-no evidence.  Does the group have Faith that a System like RoS' Spiritual Attributes will result in a successful play experience?  Do they have Faith in PTA's narration mechanics?  Do they have Faith in hit points?

Making the GM ultimately responsible for the quality of the play experience is asking him to make this leap of faith over a chasm.  The  consequences of misplaced Faith quickly become unacceptable for many people.

In my experience, this has been one of the unexpected joys of taking new games out for a test drive.  Our group decides, hey, let's give Lady Blackbird a whirl, and there's no responsibility placed on anyone to ensure anything about the play experience.  Maybe we have a great time, maybe we fail with spectacular misery.  System becomes a safety net across the chasm -- it's not we who failed, but the rules.  Faith becomes a virtue.

Cheers,
Roger

Roger, maybe I'm missing something from your post, but I don't understand what the responsibility for the quality of play experience has to do with the arguement between conforming fiction to suit a ruleset or conforming a ruleset to suit the fiction. Could you elaborate for me, because I'm not grasping the connection.

What I get from this, if there's any reason to throw another voice in this late in the game, is that Callan thinks its unfair for what I would call "in game content" (the shared understanding of what exists and what is happening within the SIS) to come before the rules. This is not to say that in game content should or should not determine how rules are applied.

Example: We were playing a D&D game set aboard a ship, and one of the PC's was playing a dwarf. The DM, in order to express the prowess of an NPC we were suppose to be scared of had this NPC push the dwarf over easily. Everyone thought, "okay" except for me. There are a hell of a lot of rules in D&D that say when and if someone can push someone else and how hard and how far, and some that specifically say that dwarves are harder to push than other people, but because the DM assumed/thought that having the PC be pushed down would make for better fiction, the rule was ignored. Now, I guess D&D has a 'rule 0' but this wasn't explicitly invoked...

So, Callan, is that play example one that was 'fiction first'?

David wrote:
To me it seems like this is basically just an argument of Form Follows Function, and different people have different ideas about which is form and which is function.

To some people, it's quite obvious that Rules are Function, as they determine how events unfold. So thus, Fiction should seek to follow the rules.

To others, it's quite obvious that the Function is the act of creating fiction. Thus, rules, are simply products of that function and are treated as form.

Example: We were playing a D&D game set aboard a ship, and one of the PC's was playing a dwarf. The DM, in order to express the prowess of an NPC we were suppose to be scared of had this NPC push the dwarf over easily. Everyone thought, "okay" except for me. There are a hell of a lot of rules in D&D that say when and if someone can push someone else and how hard and how far, and some that specifically say that dwarves are harder to push than other people, but because the DM assumed/thought that having the PC be pushed down would make for better fiction, the rule was ignored. Now, I guess D&D has a 'rule 0' but this wasn't explicitly invoked...

So, Callan, is that play example one that was 'fiction first'?

No one is to post further to this thread until I moderate in my next post.

Best, Ron

All right, that was delayed and took longer than it should have. My apologies for inadvertently closing the discussion, which was not my goal.

Several things need moderating. Callan, they all have to do with you.

1. Quit whining about how you're so persecuted and misunderstood. You get plenty of attention and respect, in this thread and at this site.

2. You've invented enemies. According to your posts, other people explicitly advocate this whatever-it-is you're calling fiction-first. You've used the phrases "Some people around here" who apparently intensely support it, or that "people at the Ramshead forum would" fight irrationally to support it. This kind of phantom opponent talk is beneath you. You seem determined to call people out on a logical fallacy or at least some particular unacknowledged factor in their play and game design. Since they're so explicit, call them out, chapter and verse, names and claims. If I'm one of them, as you keep hinting, then that's OK.

3. You're dodging the call for some kind of understandable, specific example that really happened in your experience. None of your excuses hold any water and this lack is making people guess. Never mind what anyone else posted as possibilities. Freaking do us the respect of talking about your role-playing experiences.

The following isn't a moderation point, but an addition to the discussion if anyone is interested. After the traits discussion a year or so ago, I have kept an eye on the issue of how traits are "called in" during play across several groups and games. I decided the before/after distinction doesn't hold. Exactly how traits are "called in" in a logically-coherent fashion, I am currently not sure, or if it's logically-coherent at all. So the points raised by Markus remain open as far as I'm concerned.

The discussion is not being closed or even under threat of being closed. It's interesting stuff to read. But #1-3 are needed to make it actually valuable.

Best, Ron

Ron,

If someone told you to quit whining, you'd take it as a mark of respect? Assuming your aren't hypocritical and would take it as respectful, I don't. That's wreckage to me. By my culture your just being rude here (I would expect an apology, but that'd probably be imposing my cultural expectation just as much). I'll be continuing in spite of it rather than because it gets my nod of valid social interaction.

2. You've invented enemies.

You seem determined to call people out on a logical fallacy or at least some particular unacknowledged factor in their play and game design. Since they're so explicit, call them out, chapter and verse, names and claims.

3. You're dodging the call for some kind of understandable, specific example that really happened in your experience. None of your excuses hold any water and this lack is making people guess. Never mind what anyone else posted as possibilities. Freaking do us the respect of talking about your role-playing experiences.

The following isn't a moderation point, but an addition to the discussion if anyone is interested. After the traits discussion a year or so ago, I have kept an eye on the issue of how traits are "called in" during play across several groups and games. I decided the before/after distinction doesn't hold. Exactly how traits are "called in" in a logically-coherent fashion, I am currently not sure, or if it's logically-coherent at all. So the points raised by Markus remain open as far as I'm concerned.

Callan wrote:
I've posted the link to the warhammer mollases thread previously. I'm pretty certain there were many instances where 'what makes sense' drove what mechanics were deployed, if any.

If you want specific instances where I really truely know it was the intention to use that process...if you believe you can definately know someones intent from gross physical evidence, then freakin' prove that to me! I don't think you/anyone can and if that doesn't hold water with you, then it must be really easily to prove you can figure someones intent on a matter, so hit me with it. Your possibly moderating me on a fantasy you have that you can really determine their intent to use a particular inner process when you have as little idea as I do. How do you determine it, because I don't know it? I'm serious in asking that - I'm not trying to dodge, I really don't know how to do that, and I really think you don't know either. Am I wrong in some way - I'm willing to listen to methods and see if I can apply them to my previous actual play.

Wow, this thread seems to be bring up some bad blood, but maybe it can be salvaged.

Callan, if its not too forward of me  to say so, I think you're being too precise in your criteria. Can you give us an example of an instance of play where you think that was the intention of the other person/people to put 'fiction first', based off their actions and what you know about the players in question. We can all agree that maybe thats not what they meant, but I'm pretty sure in the D&D example I gave, its a fair guess that 'fiction first' was what was happening there. If it was, or we can agree to treat it as if it was, then maybe the discussion could move forward to addressing what are the pros/cons of that play style or whether or not it even is a separate phenomena.
I think this idea is really interesting, and I think the hypothetical 'ogre knock back' example is something that I've encountered before and that really upsets my sense of fun during a game session, so I would love to be able to identify this behavior and address its ramifications.

Callan, none of this has anything to do with intention. I despise intention-based arguments and I think the others posting do too. For instance, my reference to railroading was not an intention issue, because I think that behavior is an observed, identifiable thing. Nor am I demanding that you demonstrate anyone's intention. I'm talking about observable behavior only and most crucially, I am not demanding actual play as proof but rather for a touchstone so everyone can communicate.

You're still twisting and dodging. I'm not talking about your intentions here either, but about your words in your post. For instance, you're creating false claims to fight, such as this notion that I said that the "some people said" is your first priority. This is silly posting on your part and I can't fathom why you're doing it.

Gareth (contracycle) isn't fighting you either. He's trying to understand what you're saying. Why don't you work with him instead of defending and striking back?

(masqueradeball), there is no bad blood here. I am fully committed to getting Callan's points into the light, which begins with me making sure that I understand them. I think his foundational claim is correct. What I don't think is correct, is that either a number of newer game designs or the discussion participants he's hinting about subscribe to what he's criticizing. However, both "I thinks" have to be subjected to rigorous thought. I cannot say I understand that foundational claim yet. And maybe he is correct about the game designs and/or the attitudes of specific participants, including mine.

To pick one useful example about the designs, maybe successfully playing Blood Red Sands does rely on the thing he's talking about. I do not know. It would be good for people who've played it, or who are playing this particular version, to participate here. Also, since it's a game currently in active playtest, and since I'm well aware of how Ralph's games in deveopment tend to go through cycles of including ideas then field-stripping them, the game itself might well benefit from that. Or maybe a close examination of this version in play would show that Callan's reading is incorrect, and again, my experience has shown me that reading alone is a terrible way to understand a game.

I'm being very patient because talking about RPGs at this level is an emotional issue, and the internet medium lends itself to excessive private complications for all participants.

And finally ...

Callan, this site is moderated. Like it or not, when I say you're whining, and for that matter, flinging provocations, that's the moderator's social and intellectual judgment and, regardless of whether it's right or wrong to you, you either modify the way you're posting or you have to make a choice about where you want to spend your internet time.

Best, Ron

Ron, being a mod of a web forum doesn't mean your incapable of being rude or that somehow you have a right to be rude to someone and they only get to decide whether they turn up for more or not. If your moderation can't be said in an objective way and only relies on an emotive word, it's probably BS to begin with. You want specific technical qualites to what's written, cool, I'm listening - but 'whining' is not a technical word. Or not one I'm aware of. I'm saying that as a partial concilliatory - I hope I'm joined in it. I'm skipping the 'what I actually said' stuff.

Getting back to the workbench...

For instance, my reference to railroading was not an intention issue, because I think that behavior is an observed, identifiable thing.

Even just crossing a room with mini's and a grid - I think I moved my mini (not in combat) across a room and we then had to go into everything that happened before that

To pick one useful example about the designs, maybe successfully playing Blood Red Sands does rely on the thing he's talking about.

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.

Or maybe a close examination of this version in play would show that Callan's reading is incorrect, and again, my experience has shown me that reading alone is a terrible way to understand a game.

Callan wrote:

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.

Bold mine.

There can't be a 'maybe' in 'successfully playing Blood Red Sands does rely on the thing he's talking about'. Your either doing it, or your not actually playing the game. If the rule somehow doesn't 'embed' in the fiction, you can't use the rule (someone will challenge you and if it hasn't embedded right, the challenge will be backed - you have to choose some other rule to invoke). That fiction comes ahead of the rules use. All of the other rules.

Jim wrote:
The problem with this concept is that it's so completely subjective.  It feels like the "fiction first" quandary, as you phrase it, is rooted in the same nebulous decisionmaking as the "+2" debate from a couple of months ago.  Ron's got a point, I think, when he says that using "fiction" to railroad your players or make the action go the way you want is bullshit.

Callan wrote:

Example: We were playing a D&D game set aboard a ship, and one of the PC's was playing a dwarf. The DM, in order to express the prowess of an NPC we were suppose to be scared of had this NPC push the dwarf over easily. Everyone thought, "okay" except for me. There are a hell of a lot of rules in D&D that say when and if someone can push someone else and how hard and how far, and some that specifically say that dwarves are harder to push than other people, but because the DM assumed/thought that having the PC be pushed down would make for better fiction, the rule was ignored. Now, I guess D&D has a 'rule 0' but this wasn't explicitly invoked...

So, Callan, is that play example one that was 'fiction first'?

It seems a very high likelyhood of being 'fiction first', where the integrity of the fiction (to some individuals mind) comes ahead of the ruleset. Indeed, to that individual, that's the procedure of play - rules follow this function, as David put it in his latter example.

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'm sure Callan will tell me (and everyone) if I'm not getting his point.

I agree with Nolan that this is a basic problem of procedure, but I'm not certain this can really be separated from railroading.

This is why I mentioned the 'golden rule' of white wolf games- as Ron observed, it's a covert way of saying that the GM may ignore any rule, or any player who invokes it, that interferes with his or her idea of what should happen.  Oh, it all sounds very well-intentioned- who in their right mind could object to "fun"?- but the problem is that it gives no useful guidelines for mediating disputes when two or more players disagree about what constitutes 'fun' in a given situation.  Given the GM often has the most power at the table, s/he is most likely to get his/her way.

Alfryd: probably the GM isn't necessarily the GM. Though I'm sure he's the most likely culprit. Plus the GM could be allowing the fiction to trump the mechanics to give the players what they want, or to open up there options, which would still be "Fiction First" but wouldn't be railroading. Also, I could use game mechanics, without consulting the fiction, to railroad my players. This is actually a classic bad-GM tactic, penalizing the players with the rules as harshly as possible when they don't do what the GM wants.

David wrote: 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?

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.)

Hi Alfryd,

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

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.

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, 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,

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.

Callan wrote: 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.

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...

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.

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'.

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?

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...

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

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.

until they decide to do something else.)

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?

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.

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.

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

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:

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