First of all, please remember throughout that this:
...is shorthand for this:
...which, in the real world, means something more like this:
Right? If anybody has any questions about the above, ask them down in this thread, please. That thread will make a good place for Q&A.
So next. In that Forge thread I still don't really recommend you go read, Frank T talks about play like this:
And I say I agree with him, but then I go on and on about rules like this:
That's because what I'm really excited about right now is referring materially to the fiction, here:
It just happens that rules like "if your character has the high ground, you get +2 to your roll" are easier to talk about, even easier to come up with, than corresponding examples without the roll or the +2.
But here's the thing. This is wholly aligned with what Frank says in that thread, and contra my lazy over-attention to cloud-to-dice rules. Also, it's self-evident to (at a guess) 1/3 of all roleplayers, while story-gamers seem kind of funnily blind to it:
If your game treats details of the fiction as material causes, then it can treat changes to the details of the fiction as material effects.
If you'll forgive me a(nother) malformed diagram:
And full stop.
1. On 2009-04-09, Vincent wrote:
So Ben! Aren't Polaris' resolution rules mostly this:
With a little bit of this:
(Polaris has lots of non-resolution rules too, of course, but I haven't tried to diagram any whole games. Yikes!)
I figure the key phrases to be between the people, similar to is this worth awarding fan mail for? in Primetime Adventures and is the reparteé funny? in HoL. Thus, the former.
But, like, there are a zillion things that, do they count as cues, or as interactions between the players, or what? For instance, if you wrote the key phrases on 3x5 cards and held them up when you used them, would that make them cues where they weren't before? It's like the Forge threads where somebody's trying to class their mechanism as D F or K, and they zoom in so close that those distinctions don't make any sense.
Fiction vs cues vs interactions: they're convenient circles to draw for some purposes, but they don't, y'know, signify.
Okay, I'll accept that Polaris is too much of a mess to use your model for. If you think what I just drew is complicated, to diagram a sequence of four "But only if..." statements with a die roll at the end. Headache!
It may be worth considering that there's several different things going on here. I was dividing in my head between formal and informal, vs. heavy and light procedure.
The key phrase mechanics in Polaris are highly formal, but they're also procedurally as light as most non-formal mechanics. Likewise, "Bob plays Bobnar," a sort of rule present in every game is formal but procedurally light.
By "procedurally light" I mean "has no / little calculations or records attached."
Consider that the clouds, in your diagrams, aren't the shared imagined space, although they contain it. They are containing all procedurally light rules.
If it's up to me, then no: the arrows are the rules, so procedurally light rules are arrows, same as procedurally heavy rules. The cubes aren't "refer to the numbers on the character sheet" but the numbers on the character sheet themselves. The cloud isn't "refer to where my guy is standing" but the guy himself, imaginary as he is. Even "who's guy is he?" isn't inside the cloud, it's between us, the people.
Ben: I've played lots of games where I don't meaningfully have any character sheets at all, but I still own a character or more than one. It happens especially often with GMs and their impromptu NPCs, of course.
It's like I said about Polaris' key phrases. If I write them down on a 3x5 card to hold up when I use them, now they're a cue, when they used to be just a component of an interaction between us? I dunno. (Not skeptical, I just don't know. It doesn't seem important which.)
Is the character's name on my character sheet really a cue, or is it just how we know which player to hand the sheet to when the game starts? Why does it matter which, when what matters are the rules themselves?
What excites you about referring materially to the fiction? It offers a place where the rules can shift to reflect non-mechanical things?
Seems like, in practice, it might be dangerous, especially in situations where players were strongly invested in one character or another winning, rather than investing in a more meta "tell and interesting story" level. Because, if there are mechanical advantages that can be gained by making declarations that have no mechanical cost, sufficiently driven players will seize them immediately and often.
I've seen this happen in Agon play, for example. In Agon, you can gain an advantage over a future adversary by finding out information about them and making appropriate preparations. I've seen at least one group push to make a ton of preparations so they would have an overwhelming advantage against the adversary they were going to face, because there was little cost to doing so. It's kinda like those folks who play Final Fantasy or WOW and grind their level up way higher than it should be, so they can waltz past obstacles.
So, to clarify, if I'm playing D&D, and tracking hit points in my head rather than noting down every hit, that means that hit points are no longer a cue, but instead part of the cloud?
Cool. Here's a rule. Do that, then at every multiple of 20 write down your present number of hit points on your sheet, while continuing to track in your head. Tah-dah!
Now we're referring materially to the fiction*!
( * Now do you understand why I have an issue with the idea that, by memorizing a mechanical component, we make it part of the fiction?)
I have played many role-playing games without the appropriate accessories (on car trips, on camping trips, and the like). Doing so doesn't fundamentally alter the relationship between cues (or whatever you want to call them when we've internalized them) and fiction. You're getting at something important here, which I want to talk to you about, but I can't talk about it with you without first having firm basics. Which your diagrams, thus far, ain't.
I thought Frank had meant something more like, um, perhaps two boxes to the right, with a gap between them (have a question mark there), indicating not knowing how to get from one square to the other.
Then having an arrow from the cloud to the question mark (which I would call a broken line, but were talking Frank's thing), filling in the question mark with a square.
His main point seemed to be that without the imaginative cloud thingie, you didn't know what the hell procedure to go to next. He saw that as a feature, rather than a bug (and you can see how I see that, from how I just phrased that).
Hey Ben, are you comfy with the proposition (convenient for this scope of discussion, not necessarily true in any kind of absolute way) that some things - Bobnar, his sword, the tree stump, the wood-trolls, eg - are components of the game's ongoing fiction? That you can, for the most part and admitting some ambiguity, generally tell what things are components of the game's ongoing fiction vs what things aren't?
IF the Battling score is written down somewhere on the table, OR we're representing the +10 with 10 red glass beads or something, then yes, it's that sort of rule.
If the battling score and the +10 don't exist anywhere in the physical world, but exist only in the heads and interactions of the players - if nobody could point to them or hold them up for a camera - then it's the "congratulate the player" kind of rule: an arrow from cloud to smiley faces.
When you talk about finding a particular satisfaction in this sort of rule:
If it happens that we don't write anything down, it no longer has that particular satisfaction for you? My previous example, provided that it is "all in our heads" is a different sort of rule altogether?
I find a particular satisfaction in this kind of rule:
In the blue rightward-pointing arrow:
...Whether or not we then go on to write anything down.
In rules that refer materially to the stuff of the game's ongoing fiction.
If it happens that we don't write anything down, that blue rightward-pointing arrow still exists, and still is the one that makes the difference. The rules still refer materially to the stuff of the game's fiction.
I just thought of one of my personal favorite cloud-rightward rules: "If your pirate suffers a deadly wound, [your pirate must] strike a bargain or die."
Your pirate's suffering a deadly wound has absolutely no cue consequence. Your pirate's striking a bargain does have cue consequence, but of its own; the cue consequence for striking a deadly wound bargain is identical to the cue consequence for striking any bargain at all, under any circumstances.
Dying, if you fail to strike the bargain, also has cue consequences, but again they're identical whether you die of a deadly wound + failing to bargain, old age, a disease, or "killed outright," which can happen too.
if your pirate suffers a deadly wound, he must strike a bargain or die.
if your pirate strikes a bargain, or dies, [there are both in-fiction and cue consequences].
Vincent: Sorry to bump this up after a while, but I'm reading your messages and I've a doubt.
You said that
is short for
Then I think that
is short for
for as you said, "I haven't made the picture for this rule. It's a single rightward arrow from the cloud to the smiley faces. (Or from the cloud to the middle of nowhere, if I'm not showing the smiley faces.)".
So, my doubt: you said you "find a particular satisfaction in this kind of rule: