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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6993565" data-attributes="member: 85870">Ah, okay ---- this getting closer to the heart of what I'm trying to get at. And you're right, the "arrow distribution" or state transference, as I labeled it, gives you no indication as to what the "cubes" side is doing. The basic process of state transference (from cube to cloud, cloud to cube, etc.) is the same across RPG systems; what ISN'T the same is A) what's happening inside the "cubes," B) how much state change can take place from any given "arrow," and C) where the locus for state change originates.The contrast between your two examples is fairly straightforward---in the case of attacking the goblin, the resulting state change in the fiction is a direct result of something C) the character actually does, has B) minimal repercussions outside the immediate scene, and is A) tightly bounded in the rules.(As a side note, it's easy to see why dungeon crawling was the initial milieu in which D&D was introduced, because it almost completely eliminates B) from the equation. The GM simply didn't need to worry about anything outside the immediate scene.)By contrast, while the Burning Wheel example demonstrates that the "Circles" mechanic is A) still bounded in the rules, the C) resulting fictional state change is in no way correlated to anything the character can actually do, and B) has dramatically broader scale implications for the downline fictional state. Unless the character is a time-traveling chronomancer of exceeding power, he or she can't plausibly create the fictional state resulting from the "Circles" check through any action they themselves can perform. It's a metagame, player-controlled mechanic, and the resulting state change carries an exponentially larger "ripple" effect. Even though the "Circles" rule is just as codified as the combat rules allowing an attack with a sword, it's doing something entirely different.Simply saying, "Oh look, we've introduced a State 2 / cube-to-cloud / left arrow transference" doesn't tell us much in and of itself. The fact that both examples produce a fictional state change is merely endemic to the fact that we're playing an RPG and not something else. (I think we've established pretty well by now that an RPG must assume State 2 / State 3 interactions. If there's no arrows moving between cube and cloud (in either direction), we're not playing an RPG; we're either playing a boardgame or a shared storytelling game.)In this sense, as a game design exercise, the clouds/cubes model might be useful for visualizing the process of RPG play, but I don't know that it's all that useful from a GM adjudication standpoint. Even in games that give some form of explicit control of the fiction to the player (not necessarily to the character), ultimately it comes down to GM judgment call in the end. "How much latitude do I give to any given player proposed action to modify the fiction?"In some cases, the rules specifically bind that latitude; in some cases, it's a pure judgment call; in some cases, it's something in between (some bounded rules extrapolated and interpreted). The question is how to apply that latitude and judgment in such a way that the resulting fictional state pleases as many members of the group as possible.I think there may be another undercurrent here as well, which is, even if there are metagame mechanics that allow players to directly modify the fiction, the general social contract between players and GM should give rise to "appropriate" fictional state changes. When your player rolls his "Circles" check, it's generally assumed the GM doesn't also get to turn the PC into an archangel of infinite power; that falls outside the agreed upon "contract". When your player's character tries to close the Abyss, your player is assuming that you're going to act in good faith to provide a satisfactory conclusion, one that meets the desired levels of dramatic tension, stakes, and investment of the group.</blockquote>

Verification