NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8523894" data-attributes="member: 71699">Perhaps another perspective on this is to ask - where do principles and agenda come from? Is it the case that there was no inkling of principles or agendas in role-players until they saw those words written? Thus and only thus they came to have those things!? Or might it be that DMs always had inklings of principles and agendas, well or less-well formed, clear or obscure, and what is written acts to clarify, include and exclude, and organise those inklings.That's vital work. For one thing, advancement in understanding of principles and agendas is well-served by articulating them. I think one can get a much clearer idea of productive approaches to roleplaying from that line of thought and work. The impact of that could be especially valuable to those picking this up for the first time, or perhaps steeped in (and defaulting to) other traditions. It comes back to something I've said several times<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I can say - it is excellent game design to consider, organise and articulate principles and agenda</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I can't say - DM cannot have principles and agenda unless game designer considered, organised and articulated them</li> </ul>One useful consequence of articulated principles and agenda is to secure that X is done and not Y. Surely that's valuable work, making sure that the game the designer crafted is played. But then consider the FKR movement, and these possible RPG designs (in abstract):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only a title</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only an agenda</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only principles</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only rules</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only examples</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only agenda and principles</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only rules and examples</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only agenda and examples</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has only principles and rules</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an RPG that has title, agenda, principles, rules, examples</li> </ul>Which is playable? Which will give the most vivid and compelling experiences at the table? I believe (and I'm far from alone from believing, on the matter of rules and rule following) that the game played - rules as interpreted - are unavoidably influenced by principles from outside the game. It's the only way that interpretation is possible.That creates an interesting space for us. The possibility of choosing the principles under which we will interpret an RPG text to suit our creative purposes. We had to 'choose' or have it chosen for us anyway, so why not do it consciously? I'm not sure we need to avoid anarchic re-interpretations (in fact, I believe them potentially exciting and valuable), but supposing we want to, how do we make sure that our interpretation arises naturally and consistently from the whole text?5e* (revised and updated!) says, interpret the text like this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">interpret "narrates" as "say something meaningful"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">understand "narrates the results" is an imperative regulatory rule: it signals a shift or arrow to fiction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">narrating the results secures that the basic pattern begins and ends in the fiction (F > S > F)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">saying something meaningful is a guarantee: players can respond to what DM says as if it is meaningful (finding meaning later)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the imperative to say something meaningful encourages a DM to ensure there's something meaningful to say</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">follow the rule on DMG 237, knowing that the implied principle influences everything (read everything in its light)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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</li> </ul>5e* is fiction-first. There are other ways to interpret and play 5e. None have to be all-or-nothing.</blockquote>

Verification