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="pemerton" data-source="post: 9715055" data-attributes="member: 42582">According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diegesis" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>,Diegesis (Greek διήγησις "narration") and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis" target="_blank">mimesis</a> (Greek μίμησις "imitation") have been contrasted since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle" target="_blank">Aristotle</a>. For Aristotle, mimesis shows rather than tells, by means of action that is enacted. Diegesis is the telling of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative" target="_blank">story</a> by a narrator.But I think you're correct that its use, in the RPG context, is based on the idea of sound in cinema. Though the Wikipedia page gives other contexts of use that are helpful for thinking about RPGs:In filmmaking the term is used to refer to the story as it is directly depicted onscreen, as opposed to the (typically much longer) real time events which said story purports to tell. (It is the difference between seeing an intertitle reading "a week later," and simply waiting a week.)This gives us the contrast between (i) a cut from character goes to bed to character wakes up and (ii) Warhol's Sleep. Edwards <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">coined the term</a> "metagame time" to get at the same distinction in RPGing:Metagame time is rarely discussed openly, but it's the crucial one. It refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole.A challenge that I experienced in GMing Rolemaster was managing "metagame time" in a manner consistent with the simulationist inclinations of the system. As Edwards explains (in the same essay),the Simulationist view of in-game time . .  is a causal constraint on the other sorts. One can even find, in many early game texts, rules that enforce how in-game time acts on real time, and vice versa. However, most importantly, it constrains metagame time. It works in-to-out. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds, seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movement, and who gets where in what order.But at a certain degree of scaling up, the constraint can break down - eg exactly how long does someone spend asleep, or eating their lunch? And then the GM has to make a call about the metagame time. And this then risks departing from Sorensen's principle 3, with the GM making decisions about fictional events that are not simply "diegetic" extrapolations but rather imposing a vision. In practice, randomisation (eg "You have a 50% chance to get there before the Mind Bomb goes off") is often used: but this violates Sorensen's principle 4.I like how Burning Wheel handles this in the moment of play: make an appropriate Speed test (whether opposed, or vs a fitting obstacle) to get there first. It is non-arbitrary, and allows the player to invest resources into the test (I think you talked about the importance of this a way upthread). But a consequence of the BW approach is that in-game time is no longer a meaningful constraint on metagame time: the chance of getting there first is highly sensitive to how the GM choose to frame the relevant scene. This doesn't matter for Burning Wheel, because in BW there are other (non-process-simulationist) constraints and guidelines on how scenes are framed which reflect the concerns/goals of the game - it is not about "winning" by "making it to the finish line".But the BW approach won't work for RM, or anyone else trying to uphold the Sorensen principles.Anyway, back to your post after that detour:This is a point well made!Which is why I like [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER]'s example of the prop map, or showing the players the puzzle square that their PCs are trying to solve. These are moments of "diegetic" resolution that are departures from the norm.</blockquote>

Verification