I'm not sure what 'larger' means precisely. They're two necessary parts of a whole fiction.One question to think about is - which is the larger, the player-character, or the game-world?
Well... maybe, maybe not. I think you can play even a game like DW in a few styles. I would say it should always be pretty 'committed', but it doesn't have to portray the action of the game as being laser focused, that is the NARRATIVE from the PC's point of view could be quite different, the parts that digress from what the game focuses on will simply be largely glossed over and reduced the essential parts. A game could, for example, depict a cross-continental exploration mission (IE Lewis & Clark) where 99% of the time it is just dull boring plodding over trackless landscape and poking around. The other 1% is fraught with danger, etc. and the end result is a pretty epic tale. Merriweather Lewis however probably was a bit bored much of the time...My thought was to ensure I could construct how a certain view emerges from the theory. What I probably have (related to my OP) is this
5e! (fiction-first + story-now)
- interpret "narrates" as "say something meaningful"
- understand "narrates the results" is an imperative regulatory rule: it signals a shift or arrow to fiction
- narrating the results secures that the basic pattern begins and ends in the fiction (F > S > F)
- saying something meaningful is a guarantee: players can respond to what DM says as if it is meaningful (finding meaning later)
- the imperative to say something meaningful encourages a DM to ensure there's something meaningful to say
- follow the rule on DMG 237, knowing that the implied principle influences everything (read everything in its light)
- most often, what will turn out to be meaningful will have consequences that matter to fictional positioning - the set of valid gameplay options available to player at this moment of play
As others have observed (in other forums) it's possible to get to fiction-first + story-now from non-committal games like 5e, but it's not possible to get to a non-committal game from a fiction-first + story-now game. That's because in the end the heavy lifting is done by the principles, not the mechanics, and fiction-first + story-now games set their principles out explicitly in their texts.
- 5e* +
- give emphasis to the rules for Inspiration in PHB Chapter 4, and related guidance in DMG 240/241
I don't see why. There is a "time before there was a game" and a "time when the participants agreed as to how to run the game" and then a "Time of the Game itself." I see no compelling reason why we MUST include them all in an analysis of things that primarily concern running the game. It is enough to acknowledge that in the agreement time something was somehow agreed upon, and then look at what that is. I mean, asking "why did this specific agreement come about" MIGHT have some value, but probably more in terms of a game designer adding features to a game that attract people to playing it, vs attributes of actual play.To notice the regress here,
- if system (including but not limited to 'the rules') is the means by which people agree about what happens in play,
- then what enables people to agree to use the particular system?
- we must include the means by which people agree to use the particular system, in the particular system
Again, I'm not finding a reason to call this an issue. It seems outside the scope of my current interest, at the very least.But the means in that case cannot be a rule written up in the particular system text, implying that we can't escape leaning on exogenous rules even if we set out to do so. Recall that games are a voluntary activity. That has been fairly well accepted in game studies from at least the 1970s. Players agree upon grasping and upholding the rules in order to play the game. You can see the regress right there: players have to agree to the means by which they agree about what happens in play.
Eh, I don't think they did 'consciously afford' that. I think it is mostly just a truth that you can bend RPGs a whole bunch, at least most of them. FOR ME at least the other truth also remains, I can run a Story Game more easily with other systems. 4e (and my bastard step-child of it) has the huge virtue IMHO of being both pretty D&D-like, and yet vastly easier on the DM!Some believe it's impossible to play 5e as DW. On superficialities I agree. As to the mode(s) of play though, I disagree. One can play 5e* as a fiction-first + story-now game. Given the precise constructs and wordings of 5e, I'd be unsurprised if the designers didn't consciously afford that. Either way, it's inspiring.