Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[billd91]

You need to trademark that shizz.

Too late. Prior art. The Rashomon effect (or principle) has been out as public term since about 1982.

 

[Lanefan]

It's the Rashomon effect; each participant's recollections are their own story, and each story illustrates a part of the greater whole.

When different people read the same pre-written story (say, Lord of the Rings) and get different things out of it, that's one thing.

But in a RPG where the intent is a "shared fiction" that's to a greater or lesser degree being produced on the fly, if each participant's view of that supposedly-shared fiction is unique then trying to coherently share that fiction and add to it in the here and now of play would seem nigh impossible.

We know, however, that coherently sharing that fiction and adding to it is very possible (hell, we all do it every time we play!), which tells us the participants' view of the fiction is generally much more unified than Rashomon would have us believe.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Crimson Longinus - I completely get why you'd say this based on the rules. The GM does indeed introduce the idea of possible harm (or whatever) in the back and forth about the action. However, that presupposes that there is a consistent fictional outcome for the action in question. This doesn't apply to every action in the game, and even in the case of combat the fictional 'thing' that results in the harm is still prior, even if it's elided or assumed. The result of the action is still fictional thing X that results in mechanic Y.

Too late. Prior art. The Rashomon effect (or principle) has been out as public term since about 1982.

Well poo

 

[billd91]

When different people read the same pre-written story (say, Lord of the Rings) and get different things out of it, that's one thing.

But in a RPG where the intent is a "shared fiction" that's to a greater or lesser degree being produced on the fly, if each participant's view of that supposedly-shared fiction is unique then trying to coherently share that fiction and add to it in the here and now of play would seem nigh impossible.

We know, however, that coherently sharing that fiction and adding to it is very possible (hell, we all do it every time we play!), which tells us the participants' view of the fiction is generally much more unified than Rashomon would have us believe.

There's going to be overlap just as there was in Rashomon. But everyone at the table has a different perspective on the game, how the campaign's events are unfolding, what importance and prominence they will assign to those events, and how they'll remember and think about them. Each player comes from a different set of events in their lives when they come to the table. Each player is working with their own PC and the priorities that PC has as a character, the priorities and considerations the player has for that PC and how they act. There are a lot of different factors flying around that affect how people perceive the game and its events.
And those differences will almost certainly lead to different memories of the stories you established through play. I'd wager they'll diverge even further as time goes on if you compared those stories a month after the events are played, a year later, 3 years later, etc.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

@Crimson Longinus - I completely get why you'd say this based on the rules. The GM does indeed introduce the idea of possible harm (or whatever) in the back and forth about the action. However, that presupposes that there is a consistent fictional outcome for the action in question. This doesn't apply to every action in the game, and even in the case of combat the fictional 'thing' that results in the harm is still prior, even if it's elided or assumed. The result of the action is still fictional thing X that results in mechanic Y.

Is there some aspect we could append to what you post here along the lines of "and if this interpretation is not working, it's ok to try someone else's" ? That is to say, even if I read the rules way X, and someone says, naw its way Y, and way X isn't working for me, heck... I might as well give interpretation Y a shot

 

[Fenris-77]

Is there some aspect we could append to what you post here along the lines of "and if this interpretation is not working, it's ok to try someone else's" ? That is to say, even if I read the rules way X, and someone says, naw its way Y, and way X isn't working for me, heck... I might as well give interpretation Y a shot

Yes and no. The fact that the core of the game is framing and fictional positioning isn't really up for grabs. To what extent a given table might tightly tie that fiction to the mechanical results is variable but not as a result of some kind of ambiguity in the rules. I suspect a lot of GMs start by going straight to the 'take harm' mechanical moment, but as in most RPGs when you ignore the actual events in question in favour of a level of abstraction the results change.

It might sound like I'm making a puritanical argument here, but I'm really not. A given table can interpret the rules in any way they see fit and if they enjoy the results so much the better. I'm just pushing back against odd readings of what the rules actually say.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

...I'm just pushing back against odd readings of what the rules actually say.

Agreed! I agree, those readings were odd for sure. And I suppose my idea was less for 'use the odd reading' and instead a way of easing folks into the idea of 'use what the rules actually say', especially in the case where the odd reading is the one that is causing the less then fun or confusing results.

On a side note, I love the use of clocks and use them in all games regardless of system. So I am always curious why folks dislike them. I have found them to be an invaluable tool.

 

[zakael19]

@Crimson Longinus - I completely get why you'd say this based on the rules. The GM does indeed introduce the idea of possible harm (or whatever) in the back and forth about the action. However, that presupposes that there is a consistent fictional outcome for the action in question. This doesn't apply to every action in the game, and even in the case of combat the fictional 'thing' that results in the harm is still prior, even if it's elided or assumed. The result of the action is still fictional thing X that results in mechanic Y.

Well poo

Well yeah, like - consequences should follow directly from the fiction as established, as worked out in the position and effect conversation, and taking into account what the GM has telegraphed. If you charge that duelist and the GM says "cool, if you want to Skirmish with her she might skewer you through the heart before you can react" you shouldn't be surprised when that's followed up with "oh a 1-3? So wow that hurts as a foot of steel is now through your chest - do you resist the 4 Harm?"

Likewise we don't create a clock that doesn't follow from the fiction in some way - "you see Red Sashes melt out of the crowd on the other bank, they're clearly here to interfere with your operation in revenge for what you've done; but they're just pacing alongside for now, waiting for a moment of weakness to swoop in. I'm starting a "Red Sashes Jump You" clock and marking two ticks, want to resist?"

 

[Fenris-77]

Agreed! I agree, those readings were odd for sure. And I suppose my idea was less for 'use the odd reading' and instead a way of easing folks into the idea of 'use what the rules actually say', especially in the case where the odd reading is the one that is causing the less then fun or confusing results.

On a side note, I love the use of clocks and use them in all games regardless of system. So I am always curious why folks dislike them. I have found them to be an invaluable tool.

In the defense of lots of people, Blades and/or PbtA can be a real issue to grok when you come from different kinds of games without a real compass for how these new games are 'supposed' to work. I bounced so hard off of position and effect the first few times I tried to read it it's not even funny.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

TBH, I don't quite see the point of which is first, the rules or the fiction discussion in this context. Like sure, they need to be aligned, but when the GM is deciding the consequence they are aware of both. They are aware of the fictional situation in which the consequence occurs and they are aware of what the rules list as possible consequences. So they choose something that aligns. I don't think it is necessarily clear at all which information is "first" in this process, and as long as they align I don't see why it would matter.