Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[pemerton]

But the connection to the BW Steel rules is something that I intend to think more about.

(And I'm not 100% sure how I ended up with this weird two-part post.)

 

[Fenris-77]

Well I'm engaging in actions. They can be described in a way that will reveal my intention, and other underlying mental states; and also in ways that won't.

I just don't think we need this sort of apparatus from phil of action and phil of mind to talk about what Thor and Dro were doing!

Like I said, I don't think it changes the game any at all which of us is right here, and I'm not even sure I am.

 

[clearstream]

I just don't think we need this sort of apparatus from phil of action and phil of mind to talk about what Thor and Dro were doing!

I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study. And I believe we can rightly hold such conversations on this site, specifically dedicated to conversation about games, where we happily find intelligent interlocuters deeply versed in the domain.

 

[Fenris-77]

I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study. And I believe we can rightly hold such conversations on this site, specifically dedicated to conversation about games with intelligent interlocuters deeply versed in the domain.

That's a lot of words. I do think that intentionality plays in though. Cut me some slack though, I'm a History guy, not a Phil guy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like I said, I don't think it changes the game any at all which of us is right here, and I'm not even sure I am.

Well, I think its a bit fuzzier. So, intention is a thing, but its a bit like the fiction that we're adjudicating in FitM, nothing is quite nailed down yet. At least this is the case in both DW and TB2, but remember, in BW you describe INTENT, the actual outcome you envisage happening. That might be a bit removed from intention. In other words I might attack the gnolls with the INTENT of delaying them, and my intentions are to protect my friends at any cost. My action is shooting. Now, as to the value of these distinctions in terms of analysis and formulation of process in game designs? Or informing techniques of play? I prefer to wait and see, but I just didn't want to prematurely lump intent into the related, but distinct, fictional position.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a lot of words. I do think that intentionality plays in though. Cut me some slack though, I'm a History guy, not a Phil guy.

Cheer up, I'm a mathematician and science + computers guy. Logic and 'process' I get. When you all start digging into higher level philosophical discussions it just sounds like navel gazing to me, lol. I wire boxes and arrows and whatnot together and run it and see what happens.

 

[pemerton]

intention is a thing.

Whose? Dro's? That's real, not part of the fiction. Harguld's? That's part of the fiction, but at the moment of action declaration is fully subsumed within the action - indeed, it's this relative thinness of the established fiction pertaining to Harguld's intention, ie we know nothing more than that he is shooting a bolt at the Gnoll, that permits the subsequent retcon created by use of the trait.

This isn't really aimed at you (AbdulAlhazred) as on this I think we're agreed. But I don't think that either @clearstream or @Fenris-77 has said whose intention they are having regard to, when they say that the intention is a component of the fictional position.

I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study.

Sure. But I will always take the view - whether in conversations on a discussion board, or when supervising my students, or when doing my own work, that it is a mistake to wheel out more machinery than you need.

Dro declares Harguld's action, which is to shoot at the Gnoll with a crossbow bolt. Although Dro's literal words are "I put a bolt in his face!", we all know that (i) Torchbearer has no hit location, so "in his face" is mere flavour, and (ii) a player saying it doesn't make it so, so the description of the action as "putting a bolt" in the Gnoll really means "shooting at the Gnoll, hoping thereby to stop and perhaps kill it".

We don't need any deeper analysis of Harguld's mental states to know what the declared action is. Nor do we need any notion of potentiality. We have all the relevant components of the fiction established: a cave, with a mouth and beyond that a shadowy tunnel; Harguld at the mouth, having just launched a bolt from his crossbow at a Gnoll in the tunnel.

The question is, what happens next. Whatever answer is given, the established fiction constrains the subsequent narration of that new fiction; no one can change the fact that Harguld is there, that the Gnoll is there, that Harguld has shot at the Gnoll.

But none of that subsequent narration is part of Dro's fictional position when he declared that Harguld shot the Gnoll. Not even if that subsequent narration establishes something that was true, in the fiction, when Harguld shot - such as the Gnoll got in close because Harguld waited too long to take the shot, trying to cunningly lure the Gnoll in.

What I've just posted can be explained without needing any account of Harguld's mental states beyond the description of his action: he shoots at the Gnoll hoping to stop or kill it ("put a bolt in his face!"). And adding some richer analysis of Harguld's mental state won't change the way the use of a trait works, the retcon works, and the GM's narration of consequences works.

That's why I think its unnecessary machinery.

 

[clearstream]

Whose? Dro's? That's real, not part of the fiction. Harguld's? That's part of the fiction, but at the moment of action declaration is fully subsumed within the action - indeed, it's this relative thinness of the established fiction pertaining to Harguld's intention, ie we know nothing more than that he is shooting a bolt at the Gnoll, that permits the subsequent retcon created by use of the trait.

This isn't really aimed at you (AbdulAlhazred) as on this I think we're agreed. But I don't think that either @clearstream or @Fenris-77 has said whose intention they are having regard to, when they say that the intention is a component of the fictional position.

Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -

Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can guess what your position is, and you can plan for your future position, but it's only when you test your position by making a move that you learn whether the move is legitimate

It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known. One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.

Alternatively, it might rule out establishing with certainty any of the contents of fictional position at any time, so that a fact that legitimated a move and thus might seem to have been established at time T+2 cannot be reliably known at time T+3, and I can only guess at the result of testing something also (seemingly) connected with it at T+4.

Perhaps this is more a comment on the nature of declarations: avoiding assuming that future (and thus not yet known) declarations can be reliably connected with the contents - established or otherwise - of a fictional position. Suppose that a player's subsequent declaration is identical to their first? At T1 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree" which we test and say that it's okay. At T4 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree"... is it no more than a guess that this will be legitimate in the absence of intervening change?

We regularly speak of established or prior fiction, so for now my view is the first one. Through speech acts and tests we gradually establish some known contents of our fictional position. Even if we never establish all of its the contents.

Dro declares Harguld's action, which is to shoot at the Gnoll with a crossbow bolt. Although Dro's literal words are "I put a bolt in his face!", we all know that (i) Torchbearer has no hit location, so "in his face" is mere flavour, and (ii) a player saying it doesn't make it so, so the description of the action as "putting a bolt" in the Gnoll really means "shooting at the Gnoll, hoping thereby to stop and perhaps kill it".

We don't need any deeper analysis of Harguld's mental states to know what the declared action is. Nor do we need any notion of potentiality. We have all the relevant components of the fiction established: a cave, with a mouth and beyond that a shadowy tunnel; Harguld at the mouth, having just launched a bolt from his crossbow at a Gnoll in the tunnel.

Suppose we had a description of fictional positioning that assumed it was a set of facts. Earlier you suggested that Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. These facts seem to include both imaginary physical facts (imagined tension in the spring arm of a crossbow) and imaginary mental facts (waiting for Gnolls).

What I believe Baker might have been dealing with is that Dro can say something like "H picks a pebble up off the cave floor" - and everyone may well agree that yes, cave floors no doubt have pebbles and picking up a pebble is something H can do. In that light, it seems hard to pin fictional position down to a finite set of facts, rather it has to be thought of as a scene with some known contents and some unknown.

What contents become known? Only those we intend to know.

The question is, what happens next. Whatever answer is given, the established fiction constrains the subsequent narration of that new fiction; no one can change the fact that Harguld is there, that the Gnoll is there, that Harguld has shot at the Gnoll.

But none of that subsequent narration is part of Dro's fictional position when he declared that Harguld shot the Gnoll. Not even if that subsequent narration establishes something that was true, in the fiction, when Harguld shot - such as the Gnoll got in close because Harguld waited too long to take the shot, trying to cunningly lure the Gnoll in.

We must avoid assuming here that Dro's fictional position is completely known at time T when Dro declares that H shot. According to Baker, and my own reasoning, it is not. Whatever is known about its contents at time T omits something that comes to be known at time T+1.

The only known contents of the fictional position are those we intend to know, and at time T+1 it has gained additional or modified contents that will legitimate (or not, e.g. rule out as reaching) Dro's further declarations.

What I've just posted can be explained without needing any account of Harguld's mental states beyond the description of his action: he shoots at the Gnoll hoping to stop or kill it ("put a bolt in his face!"). And adding some richer analysis of Harguld's mental state won't change the way the use of a trait works, the retcon works, and the GM's narration of consequences works.

That's why I think its unnecessary machinery.

Of all the things we can argue about, arguing about what we are allowed to include in our process of understanding seems to me the least appealing. Especially given the nascent state of game studies and ludology.

 

[Manbearcat]

Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -

V. Baker
Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can guess what your position is, and you can plan for your future position, but it's only when you test your position by making a move that you learn whether the move is legitimate.

It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known. One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. Alternatively, It might imply ruling out knowing anything certain about fictional position at any time.

Given the context of his works and GMing of Dogs in the Vineyard + Apocalypse World + his other contributions to The Forge and his own blog + seminars/things he's said on podcasts, I'm confident this means the following:

* Fictional Positioning error on the part of the character (their own perception of things) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.

For instance:

"I believe I can exorcise this demon <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"I believe Brother Abner to be above the Sin of False Testimony <no he isn't vs yes he is>."

"I believe my rebuke of Brother Abner by the way of the words of The Book will bring him back into the fold of The King of Life <no it won't vs yes it will>."

"I believe I can break this horse <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"When I need it, my aim is always true <no it isn't vs yes it is>."

"Matilda and Baroness Zuma don't have the cajones to bring weapons to this cease-fire meeting <no they don't vs yes they do>."

"I can get this hunk of junk started <no you can't vs yes you can>."

Etc etc.

The match between pre-move and post-move conception of setting and situation and character is up for grabs as an outgrowth of move resolution (so long as that rendered consequence doesn't violate any rules, principles, or firmly established priors).

 

[clearstream]

Given the context of his works and GMing of Dogs in the Vineyard + Apocalypse World + his other contributions to The Forge and his own blog + seminars/things he's said on podcasts, I'm confident this means the following:

* Fictional Positioning error on the part of the character (their own perception of things) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.

For instance:

"I believe I can exorcise this demon <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"I believe Brother Abner to be above the Sin of False Testimony <no he isn't vs yes he is>."

"I believe my rebuke of Brother Abner by the way of the words of The Book will bring him back into the fold of The King of Life <no it won't vs yes it will>."

"I believe I can break this horse <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"When I need it, my aim is always true <no it isn't vs yes it is>."

"Matilda and Baroness Zuma don't have the cajones to bring weapons to this cease-fire meeting <no they don't vs yes they do>."

"I can get this hunk of junk started <no you can't vs yes you can>."

Etc etc.

A PC's pre-move conception of setting and situation and character is up for grabs as an outgrowth of move resolution (so long as that rendered consequence doesn't violate any rules, principles, or firmly established priors).

This page contains his summary to that point. You'll have to say more about how his comment's meaning is limited in the way you suggest it is.

I think that any participant (not solely GM) is intended to be able to judge declarations of trait moves in TB2. (Per the Reaching rules.)