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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8500583" data-attributes="member: 16814">Let's say I have a token representing my character, and I'm playing a game where the token is a useful cue.  A dog runs into the room, grabs the token, and eats it.  Has the game or any fiction that has been created been altered by this event -- the thing that happens to the token?  If the answer is no, then this is why cues can be separated from the fiction in a model -- they're representative, yes, but they are not the same thing.  They are separate things.  We often invest symbols with conceptions, but that doesn't mean that they are not separate things.  The flag of a country is often used to represent that country as a whole, and yet it's never actually that country.  I can separate countries and flags.  This is the separation of the model -- these are different things being used in conjunction to play a game.  They are never the same thing.The idea you have, that there's some flow between pieces, would require that you first clearly identify what properties or concepts adhere to each so that you can define what the interfaces are and what is traded across them.  The model discussed by [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] does this, clearly, by indicating that the Lumpley Principle stands at the head of everything, and then how each piece of the model interacts to bring this to bear.  Cues exist to help share imagination and foster consent (the requirement of the Lumpley principle).  The rules exist to help constrain the possible and to resolve issues of disagreement so that consent can be reached.  However, at all points, the one thing that matters is that we (at the table) all consent to an introduction into our imaginations of what's going on -- the fiction being created.  You're arguing that there's some other process of flow.  Cool, enunciate it.  In the meantime, your questions and quibbles about the model discussed aren't holding much water -- you're asking questions as if you want to know how to play chess on a backgammon board.By the by, the suggest that I should read more on game design while you're defending a bad review of a game that clearly failed to grasp how that game is structured is somewhat ironic.  Do you have experiences with Brindlewood Bay? With PbtA games?  Forged in the Dark?  Cortex Prime? I'm very unclear as to what you mean, here.  What do you think "stories...emerge from game as game" means?  No story emerges from chess, for instance.  And story told about a game of chess is arbitrary.  I don't think a game can create story without people inserting it at all.  Even a classic dungeon crawl with pawn stance play creates a story of what happened, but requires that the GM sow those seeds via prep and the players reap those seed through action.  In a game like Blades in the Dark, there's story sown in the sparse setting details, and in the intent of play, but it doesn't emerge unless the GM and players start pushing hard against each other to establish what they want to be in that story.  Game as game is anodyne and incapable of producing story.  Story is uniquely a human endeavor.</blockquote>

Verification