thread: 2009-07-13 : How About Some Q and A
On 2009-07-17, Vincent wrote:
Adam: Yep.
I don't think that anybody's quite managed to say that there are two timelines before, although we've been groping for it for a long time. Here's how I've usually said it before: "your game's rules coordinate what happens in the fiction with what the players do in the real world."
Bwian: There's no earthly reason to classify existing rules into atE or itM. As a concept, atE/itM can serve to draw your attention to the range of possible ways you can treat the die roll when you're designing rules. Once the rules exist, though, how they actually do treat the die roll - that's all that matters.
We know that in your example rules above, for instance, the die will tell us who gets to narrate, and the narrator will have freedom to say whatever. THAT'S what matters. I can tell you its itM/atE classification if you want, but that won't improve our understanding of the rules, right?
So first, whatever. Distant second, it's FitM.
Here's a nuance I'm mentioning for the first time: with-teeth and without-teeth. FitM with teeth = there are game-mechanical decisions left to make after the roll, like assigning dice or spending points to change the roll or whatever. FitM without teeth = the decisions left to make after the roll are all in-fiction, like when the roll assigns a narrator and the narrator gets to choose after the roll what happens in the fiction.
Thus: your example rule is FitM without teeth. FitM because the narrator has decisions to make after the roll; without teeth because of precisely the distinction between real-world and fiction you raised.
