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: 9715116" data-attributes="member: 42582">Examples would help here, because I'm not sure if the things you're thinking of are the things I'm thinking of; but I don't think I agree.<a href="http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html" target="_blank">Following Vincent Baker and Emily Care Boss</a>, I will call those real world occurrences cues.A cue can prompt game participants to accept something as part of the shared fiction. I think that's the main reason for using them. But the cues don't, in themselves, create the fiction. The participants have to actually accept the cues' deliverances. Fudging, re-rolling etc shows that this doesn't always happen.Now if your point is that cues can be used to prompt acceptance of fiction that the participants wouldn't create through their own authorial efforts, I agree. In fact, <a href="http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/360" target="_blank">Baker says that this is the only reason to use game rules</a>:Here's what I'd say: if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better. . . . As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's . . . No, what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject. If you don't want that . . . then live negotiation and honest collaboration are a) just as good as, and b) a lot more flexible and robust than, whatever formal rules you'd use otherwise. The challenge facing rpg designers is to create outcomes that every single person at the table would reject, yet are compelling enough that nobody actually does so.The references to playing by the rules and agreeing to abide by the rules' results and nobody actually rejecting outcomes highlight that the outcome yielded by the cues still has to actually be taken up by the participants to enter into their shared fiction.I don't follow this at all.I mean, yes it's true that there can be no audience experience without an audience. But the audience are not elements of the story they experience. The point of talking about diegesis is to focus on the telling of the story, not the uptake of the story. And as [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] has posted, one noteworthy use of the adjective "diegetic" is not describe phenomena that accompany the telling of the story that are also elements within the story, such as (some) sounds and music.No they don't.I mean, in a movie (or a book, for that matter, but I think it is more likely to occur in a movie), the audience might see the character at the bottom of the cliff, getting ready to climb (chalking their hands, tightening the laces on their boots, etc); and then the next shot has the climber scrambling over the top of the cliff, red in the face and with sweat on their brow. The audience has not experienced the climb, and the climb is not part of the diegesis. It has been elided. As per my reply to [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] not too far upthread, this sort of thing is very common in RPGing. Not every moment and every activity is presented to or imagined by the game participants. Lots of events are elided. For instance,*The PC is in a small sailing boat at the docks, intending to sail to the island 20 miles off the coast; *The player declares "I set off!"; *The GM calls for a roll (in some systems this would be a Sailing check; in others a check on some other skill - eg maybe a DEX check modified by proficiency with the vehicle); *If the roll succeeds, the GM then narrates "after a few hours of smooth sailing, you arrive at the island". The actual journey across the water has not been narrated, and hence was not experienced by the audience - the game participants. They elide it, and turn their attention to what matters to them, namely, the events that occur once the PC lands on the island.Of course if the roll had failed, then things might be different. Even then, though, there would likely be some ellision: eg "Things are smooth for the first hour or so, but then <GM narrates something going wrong>".But there is no representation of anything. The d20 roll tells the participants - who have agreed to abide by its outcome - whether or not the character succeeded in their attempted climb. It doesn't show the climb happening, or narrate the events of the climb.</blockquote>

Verification