A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

The only distinction I can see being made is that, in the case of a chance encounter or an instance of providence, as seen in genre fiction, the character may not actually be looking for the ally. It would seem that the player is hoping for aid.

That was my first interpretation as well. But then I was assured that in fact the character was looking for the ally in the fiction and that it wasn't just a player hoping for aid. If that assessment is wrong (and it may very well be as I am trying to take ya'll at face value when you say something works a certain way without very much scrutiny) then it would fall back to what you describe here.

I don't believe my objection you are looking at would apply to the scenario above. Though possibly a different one could.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you mean story level there? At the game level the only food that exists are the snacks your friend brought

No, I meant game level. The fictional food is introduced to the fiction of the game because a player said his character looked for it and then rolled well enough.

But that isn't what's happening. I'm in a forest with no otherwise special qualities. The presence of food is included in the presence of the forest. The introduction of the forest is enough to also establish in the shared fiction the existence of food in it.

Who’s in a forest?

The introduction of the forest does not introduce the food. It introduces the possibility of food.

Maybe. I'm not fully willing to commit to that notion. I think it may just depend on what perspective you are looking at it from.

No, I think we can say that until an element is actually introduced to the fiction, it doesn’t yet exist in the fiction. It can be altered or changed or discarded freely, and there would be no change.

Essentially, fiction simply does not work the way the real world does. It may be something a GM tries to emulate, but that doesn’t change the way fiction works.

Even after it's been introduced it can be changed via adding important additional details that were initially left off entirely or the magnitude of certain effects not nearly emphasized enough.

Yes. So?

 

[Campbell]

Here's why the concept of a shared fiction that is separate from a GM's conception of the setting is important to me : the stuff that has been established in the shared fiction has been accepted as true. It has teeth. It is binding.

Even if a GM treats what is in their prep as true it is not true for the whole group until it is revealed as true because it is not binding. The GM can simply change it on a whim. They might choose not to. It's true in the same way.

 

[Campbell]

More detailed analysis will follow soon, but I wanted to address something. When I talk about subjective aesthetic preferences or judgements in connection to game design I am not waffling. Playing a game is a subjective aesthetic experience. Our aesthetic preferences here are everything. There are these valuable sacred things. It's not mere preference. It's everything.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I meant game level. The fictional food is introduced to the fiction of the game because a player said his character looked for it and then rolled well enough.

Isn't the game real and played in the real world? Isn't the fictional food being introduced to the fiction and not the game?

Or is this just a bad case of "game" referring to far to many different things?

Who’s in a forest?

Is that an OWL joke

The fictional PC's.

The introduction of the forest does not introduce the food. It introduces the possibility of food.

HUH? The forest has food in it whether the characters find it or not. The survival (forage) check doesn't determine whether there is food around, it determines whether the character finds said food. (I realize this is different in some games)

No, I think we can say that until an element is actually introduced to the fiction, it doesn’t yet exist in the fiction. It can be altered or changed or discarded freely, and there would be no change.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your argument better.

Essentially, fiction simply does not work the way the real world does. It may be something a GM tries to emulate, but that doesn’t change the way fiction works.

Depends on your perspective. A fictional earth that's exactly the same as ours very much functions exactly as the real world does from the fictional perspective.

Yes. So?

You said until it's introduced it can be changed, implying that it cannot be changed after it's introduced. I was showing that it could be. Not particularly relevant other than to say you were incorrect on that one. A bit pedantic on my part perhaps. Then again including that part initially was probably a bit pedantic on your part as well.

 

[prabe]

Even if a GM treats what is in their prep as true it is not true for the whole group until it is revealed as true because it is not binding. The GM can simply change it on a whim. They might choose not to. It's true in the same way.

A minor quibble: I think what's in the GM's prep is as binding and true as the GM thinks it is. One GM might feel more constrained by stuff that hasn't appeared at the table than another.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's why the concept of a shared fiction that is separate from a GM's conception of the setting is important to me : the stuff that has been established in the shared fiction has been accepted as true. It has teeth. It is binding.

I mean changing a forest to a desolate and empty forest where you can smell death and decay is altering the shared fiction as they conjure 2 different fictional images. This kind of stuff is not uncommon in D&D campaigns where a DM accidently left out some important detail until the moment it's importance rears it's head.

Maybe that isn't altering established fiction to you because it's technically still a forest - but to me a forest and a desolate and empty forest where I can smell death and decay aren't the same things.

Otherwise I get where you are coming from.

Even if a GM treats what is in their prep as true it is not true for the whole group until it is revealed as true because it is not binding.

If binding means it's in a state it will not be changed then I'd say that very much depends on the DM.

The GM can simply change it on a whim. They might choose not to. It's true in the same way.

IMO. Could and would are two different things. If they can but would never do so I'd say it's established and has teeth and won't be changed.

That said, I know very few DM's or DM advice given that would say never change something that the players are not yet aware of. So I think you have a valid concern and point, but not all the way to the universal qualifier level.

 

[Fenris-77]

So I see we've moved on to Schrodinger's Food. Excellent. Let me just pop some popcorn and the stick the cat in a box...

 

[pemerton]

My time at the Forge and Story Games got me to embrace games as games. While I do think Ron and others had some interesting things to say about Right To Dream the project was about other ways to play. I can see it not being useful to running those games, but I think at least understanding the ways other people play should be useful at least for discussion purposes.

I GMed Rolemaster for nearly 20 years. I first read The Right to Dream essay in 2004, and I finished GMing my 2nd long-running RM campaign at the end of 2008.

Edwards' essay had a huge influence on how I understood and approached my RM GMing. My 1st long-running campaign (1990-97) came to an unsatisfactory end with the PCs having level in the mid-20s, in part because I wasn't able to handle the interacting demands of setting, situation and rules-mandated PC abilities. As a group we made some rules changes for our second big campaign (1998-2008) but I think that reading Edwards and thinking seriously about the way the system worked at the table was also a big part of how I was able to bring that second campaign to a fruitful conclusion. (I even used an endgame narration approach that I learned from reading Paul Czege's Nicotine Girls.)

In my view anyone who wants to do serious purist-for-system RPGing needs to read that essay.

 

[Campbell]

When I talk about something being binding or having teeth in the context of RPG play I am speaking to the social environment rather than personal constraints people place upon themselves. I mean it in the sense of (of an agreement or promise) involving an obligation that cannot be broken. "business agreements are intended to be legally binding"

Something that has been established as true in the shared fiction has been accepted as true by the group and we are socially bound to treat it as true. It becomes something we can all depend on.