What is the point of GM's notes?

[Aldarc]

Are we talking the game or who created the majority of the fiction... including framing, consequences, etc.?

Presumably yes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A “highly equivocal term” is not a thing at least not in how you seem to be using it. You keep repeating this as if it meant something when it doesn’t.

What I mean is a term that carries lots of connotations so that it is easy to equivocate on. Both story and fiction are easily equivocated on. Take story, it can mean 'hey what's the story man'. as in 'what happened. But it can also mean a formal story, with structure, themes, etc. This regularly crops up in RPG discussions where someone takes the former meaning then shifts to the latter to assert that all RPGs are about story (I have been in countless threads where this has been the case) in order to build an argument that RPGs ought to have strong story telling tools, or that the GM ought to be trying to weave a story, etc. Fiction is a very similar kind of term, and I have seen it produce similar problems in previous discussions. It is a lot less prevalent of a term though, so I am mostly anticipating the problems it will produce if it gets more mainstream currency. Still it is very murky, I know in previous discussions with posters here it has routinely produced all kinds of difficulties for me when contrasting my style with pemerton's for example (and I suspect this is because of the elasticity of the term due to all its connotations, and how it kind of glues the events in the campaign with the setting in a way, so that the fiction is both setting and what the characters do-----at least that was my reading of some uses of it in prior discussions).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Let me read what you are saying here back to you: If I don't agree with your conclusion that the term 'fiction' is "highly equivocal" then I am just using my advanced knowledge to dismiss your conclusion without any merit. Now tell me, @Bedrockgames. How is that not utter presumptuous nonsense? Do you truly not get how insulting and dismissive your own words are here?

The ability for a word to have different meanings or for people to shift between meanings does not mean that a semantic unit is "highly equivocal." It means that the word is "polysemous" or displays "polysemy." This can also mean that the word is multivalent, in the sense that it can be used in different linguistic constructions and combinations of meaning. Intentional use of polysemy occurs frequently in literature, often for purposes of subversion of expectations and humor (e.g., the character Bottom in Midsummer's Night Dream). Again, multivalency, polysemy, and lexical ambiguity are key factors in the word that is the focus of my study. It's not a "highly equivocal" word or term. It's a polysemous one that is used in a wide range of contexts and meanings. The fact that the term "fiction" includes distinct, but clearly interrelated, meanings as part of its semantic field does not mean that it's somehow "highly equivocal." That a word can be ambiguous in a hypothetical given utterance does not mean that it is inherently or always ambiguous in every utterance. It means that some further context is generally needed by interlocutors to decipher the meaning in utterances where it's difficult to decipher which sense or meaning of a word is likely intended.

This is an example of what I mean. I really can't contend with this language. It is beyond my expertise. But I can say, a term like fiction has multiple meanings that can serve different ends in an RPG discussions and equivocating on those meanings would be easy, thus it is highly equivocal. Are you saying it isn't easy to equivocate on the word fiction? Granted that is a subjective call, but I would maintain it is extremely easy to equivocate there

 

[Bedrockgames]

A “highly equivocal term” is not a thing at least not in how you seem to be using it. You keep repeating this as if it meant something when it doesn’t.

I was just looking for a useful descriptor of what I am trying say. I wasn't invoking it as a formal term, I was putting it together as a description of fiction because it carries so many meanings and is prone to ambiguity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ah, yes. I see. The qualifications of the people arguing for "the fiction" is all wrong. They come from

Secondly, I don't understand the problem with "fiction" applying to both what happens and the setting, because, yes, they are both aspects of the imagined fiction. I'm also not sure why or how this is a bad thing or even "sorta equivocation." I think that people such as @pemerton and @Manbearcat have been consistent in their use of "fiction." As you will see below, even Kevin Crawford uses "fiction" in reference to the setting.

Because this has been an enormous problem in discussions I have had with them. It just creates this barrier to talking about a sandbox style in the conversations and gives them the leg up. I don't really have the depth of thought or time to put it into words right now (about to get ready for a game session). But I know this has come up again and again. And this blurring has definitely mattered when we are talking about a style where those two things are much more distinct.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are we talking the game or who created the majority of the fiction... including framing, consequences, etc.?

I'm confused by the question. I didn't frame anything that wasn't prompted by the players, and then constrained by them. I don't think you can call this unilaterally me doing it at all -- I'm not telling them my conception of the fiction, I'm creating fiction for them in accordance with their inputs and constrained by those inputs. If your point is that the GM exercises creative license, then sure, both games are the same in that the GM exercises creative license. This misses much.

Have you actually played Blades in the Dark? What crew was in play? What was one of the themes/stories that emerged?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Honestly, IMHO, as someone who doesn't really care about GNS, I find "the fiction" to be the most natural term for well... the fiction that's created as part of play, whether that applies to the play process or setting. From what I can tell reading through the Alexandrian, he does not have any hang-ups with using the term "the fiction" to describe "the fiction" of play. I can also not find any hang-ups regarding 'fiction' from Kevin Crawford, who writes in SWN and WWN, "No matter how finely-sculpted your world or inventive your fiction, if you can’t deliver a playable bit of fun at the table then your job as a GM is not done." Maybe I missing something about why "fiction" is so problematic for these pro-sandbox people who don't seem to have problems using the term.

I can't speak for either Crawford or Alexander. However that use seems to be much more casual than the proper term 'the fiction' (not saying he hasn't used it, just the example you give seems like a casual one). I myself use that language casually about games, and happily will use terms like drama and story when describing what happened even in GM advice. But I wouldn't use those labels for something as fundamental to play as what arises at the table. And I would not use them in a way that makes them the purpose of play (they can be the purpose of play, but they don't have to be).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actual citations have been requested.

I am not going to give you citations for discussions I have had with people. You don't have to agree with or believe my sense of what most sandbox would tend to think. That's up to you. Me reporting my sense doesn't require an academic citation. Sorry, I am not in class with you here

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can't speak for either Crawford or Alexander. However that use seems to be much more casual than the proper term 'the fiction' (not saying he hasn't used it, just the example you give seems like a casual one). I myself use that language casually about games, and happily will use terms like drama and story when describing what happened even in GM advice. But I wouldn't use those labels for something as fundamental to play as what arises at the table. And I would not use them in a way that makes them the purpose of play (they can be the purpose of play, but they don't have to be).

So, then, what? "Make believe?" "Pretend elves?" What would you term the entirely made up, fictional results of play -- both the fictional inputs by players and GMs, and the fictional outputs of the same. What term do you prefer to this make believe?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, then, what? "Make believe?" "Pretend elves?" What would you term the entirely made up, fictional results of play -- both the fictional inputs by players and GMs, and the fictional outputs of the same. What term do you prefer to this make believe?

I usually use terms like 'developments', 'events', 'in-game events', to describe what happens in a game.