Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8533294" data-attributes="member: 71699">One question to think about is - which is the larger, the player-character, or the game-world?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 this5e* (fiction-first)<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">interpret "narrates" as "say something meaningful"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">understand "narrates the results" is an imperative regulatory rule: it signals a shift or arrow to fiction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">narrating the results secures that the basic pattern begins and ends in the fiction (F > S > F)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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="ol">the imperative to say something meaningful encourages a DM to ensure there's something meaningful to say</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">follow the rule on DMG 237, knowing that the implied principle influences everything (read everything in its light)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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> </ol>5e! (fiction-first + story-now)<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">5e* +</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">give emphasis to the rules for Inspiration in PHB Chapter 4, and related guidance in DMG 240/241</li> </ol>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.To notice the regress here,<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">if system (including but not limited to 'the rules') is the means by which people agree about what happens in play,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">then what enables people to agree to use the particular system?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">we must include the means by which people agree to use the particular system, in the particular system</li> </ol>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.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.</blockquote>

Verification