thread: 2009-06-22 : Secrets: the Smelly Chamberlain
On 2009-06-25, Arturo G. wrote:
OK. Direct question, Vincent. This is my current view of it.
Players are authors and also audience. But when different parts of the audience are watching different movies, there is no unique fiction were things are happening or not. In one fiction something happens, in other not.
When players arrive at the point of aligning the different fictions, a detail like if the Chamberlain smells, it only becomes true if everybody agrees that is was true. All character actions and world events need the (implicit) approval of the other players to be really true in the shared fiction. Even when someone is using an authority/responsibility given by the rules, she may still say something so strange that some other players may object to let it be stated as true in the fiction. You need your fellow players to reassure that the things you are saying are reasonable and true in the fiction, no matter the authorities.
In outcomes 1 and 2, the GM accepts and confirms that the Chamberlain was smelling. This makes it retroactively true in the fiction. From now on, everybody may play with that detail safely, because at that point, everybody was accepting it was a real thing in the fiction. Previously it was not clear, and it was not safe to try to use it. Indeed, the reactions of the GM in other outcomes show what could happen when someone uses a detail in play which has not yet been agreed to be true by everyone.
In outcome 3, the fiction is blending, at the end, the Chamberlain does not smell bad, and the players retroactively build an explanation for their behavior that becomes true, as it is agreed by everyone (you may discuss if they only agree due to coercive means, but it is another question).
In outcome 4, they don't manage to create a shared fiction. Thus, the chamberlain may smell bad or not, depends on whose fiction you consider. Using anyone of the different views to justify actions or events in the shared fiction is not safe, as other players may have another view. It may create troubles.
Troubles like in outcome 5. They don't manage to create a coherent shared fiction and they fight for it. They spoil the game doing it. It does not matter who had the right or authority to decide if that small detail was true or not in the shared fiction. Everyone should (implicitly) agree on it to make it true and safe to use.
In outcome 6, they are not creating a coherent shared fiction. Thus, for some players it is true, for the GM it is not. But nobody uses it in a relevant way to build on the shared fiction. Thus, it becomes irrelevant and it does not bring trouble.
Outcome 7. Interesting example. The fiction may be blended in people minds. In this case, they retroactively decide that they were never even opening the windows. At this point, everybody erases the possibility that the Chamberlain was smelling bad. They agree that nobody can use that detail (or even the opening of the windows) in the shared fiction. At this point, the Chamberlain definitively does not smell bad. They were playing with the possibility. But at this exact moment, the whole audience knows it was not.
Outcome 8. They decide that the Chamberlain does not smell, but their characters are acting like he was, for whatever reason. The GM think it is a silly thing, but it seems he accepts. Thus, at this moment everyone has a clear idea. In the shared fiction the Chamberlain was never smelling bad.
Outcome 9. As outcome 5.
Outcome 10. Nobody ever thought about it. Nobody knows or cares if he smelled. Thus, it was an irrelevant detail that was never used. It was never stated in the fiction if it was true of false.
Final thought: Even things that are true in the shared fiction, may be retroactively changed to be false. You only need that everyone agree on it. You can discuss if things are true/false only in a given moment, in a given fiction. All the people sharing a given fiction need to agree on any detail to make it really true on that fiction. Something that is stated to be true, may be used (safely) by any player to build more fiction based on that fact. Until the group change their minds and they agree it is not true, or it was never true. If this destroys or not the coherence of the fiction, is again another question.
