RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

I kinda feel that both of these rely on what at least I would understand to be low myth. It is basically the GM improvising new bits of the fictional reality about plot critical thing to honour the player's intent. I think that this is the sort of thing that would be locked beforehand in a high myth game.

I'm making quite a general claim about the limits of imagination. No matter how much myth you prep, I can avoid collisions with resolution results (if that is my aim) by extemporising along another axes.

This differs from and complements the strategy of actively disclosing myth that it is not the focus of play to find out.

Not that these are exact terms, so we might understand them differently and it is spectrum in any case, but this sort of flexibility regarding key items/information rather than just regarding mostly flavour and padding seems like a feature of low myth to me.

It's distinct from low myth, because my claim is that no amount of myth will thwart it. High myth will never be high enough.

That is the significance of my quibble as to "know". Assertions (or what you know, if that's how you want to think of it) must be double-barrelled. In prep, I would have to commit both to the myth, and to it inevitably mattering. The safe must be empty, the dirt inevitably required and never conveniently nearby; and that must all go undefeated.

That's a requirement for both high myth and promises relating to its every element! There can always turn out to be an epistemologist hidden under the desk, while a hologram appears to be working. (See Gettier.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's distinct, because my claim is that no amount of myth will thwart it. High myth will never be high enough.

This seems highly doubtful to me. The myth does not only contain things like location of information and objects, it also defines things like motivations and attitudes of NPCs.

In prep, I would have to commit both to the myth, and to it inevitably mattering. The safe must be both empty, and the dirt must be inevitably required, and it must never be conveniently nearby, and that must all go undefeated.

But certainly in a high myth game it is trivially so? Only thing we might quibble with is the dirt "mattering" and that would really be the players' call to make that they no longer care about the subject, not the GM's.

 

[clearstream]

This seems highly doubtful to me. The myth does not only contain things like location of information and objects, it also defines things like motivations and attitudes of NPCs.

Can they have a change of heart?

But certainly in a high myth game it is trivially so? Only thing we might quibble with is the dirt "mattering" and that would really be the players' call to make that they no longer care about the subject, not the GM's.

Isn't it neither? We're talking about adherence of fiction to results, right? I'm saying GM can always manage that. Low or high myth. CR or TR.

Prep - the will isn't in the safe.​

​

Player intent - find the will. It's CR. Low myth, the will is in the safe. High myth, the will is in the wastebasket, or it's not needed, etc.​

​

Or it's TR. Performance effect - see what's in the safe. Low myth, the will isn't in the safe. High myth, the will isn't in the safe.​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can they have a change of heart?

Maybe. But within the confines of their predefined personalities.

Isn't it neither?

What is what now?

We're talking about adherence of fiction to results, right? I'm saying GM can always manage that. Low or high myth. CR or TR.

I am no longer sure what you're talking about, but I still suspect that I might disagree. But you need to elaborate for me to be sure of that.

 

[clearstream]

Maybe. But within the confines of their predefined personalities.

Thus I must define their personalities, and their scope for change. And so on. There's always another angle.

What is what now?


I am no longer sure what you're talking about, but I still suspect that I might disagree. But you need to elaborate for me to be sure of that.

Prep - the will isn't in the safe.

Player intent - find the will. It's CR. Low myth, the will is in the safe (no prep). High myth, the will is in the wastebasket, or it's not needed, etc.​

​

Or it's TR. Performance effect - see what's in the safe. Low myth, the will isn't in the safe. High myth, the will isn't in the safe.​

Over to you to find a case that forces prepped fiction to collide with resolution results.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thus I must define their personalities, and their scope for change. And do on.

Which you have.

There's always another angle.

About this I am sceptical.

Prep - the will isn't in the safe.

Player intent - find the will. It's CR. Low myth, the will is in the safe. High myth, the will is in the wastebasket, or it's not needed, etc.​

​

Or it's TR. Performance effect - see what's in the safe. Low myth, the will isn't in the safe. High myth, the will isn't in the safe.​

Over to you to find a case that forces prepped fiction to collide with resolution results.

The myth says that the will is not in the safe, nor anywhere near it. The myth also says that the will is the only thing that contains the relevant information. CR, the player stakes finding the will in the safe and succeeds.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which you have.


About this I am sceptical.


The myth says that the will is not in the safe, nor anywhere near it. The myth also says that the will is the only thing that contains the relevant information. CR, the player stakes finding the will in the safe and succeeds.

See, this all bears on my assertions about 'simulation' and its inherent impossibility beyond very basic stuff in any practical RPG. There are ALWAYS dozens, neigh thousands of possible other ways things can fall out that aren't constrained by even the most incredibly detailed pre-authored fiction. 'Myth' is always a very loose net. Dungeon World talks about 'maps with holes', but truthfully every map has a plethora of them. When we get into personalities and etc. the dimensions grow so large and our ability to map them so ill-defined it is hardly even worth considering 'holes'.

I mean, what would be the state of the art for describing NPCs? A Myers-Briggs type indicator? How much does that tell us about real-world people? Not a heck of a lot! You going to get MORE detailed than that? For every NPC? I mean, really, it's just not even a question. Realistically any damned thing can happen at any moment in these settings without it being impossible to explain self-consistently.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

See, this all bears on my assertions about 'simulation' and its inherent impossibility beyond very basic stuff in any practical RPG. There are ALWAYS dozens, neigh thousands of possible other ways things can fall out that aren't constrained by even the most incredibly detailed pre-authored fiction. 'Myth' is always a very loose net. Dungeon World talks about 'maps with holes', but truthfully every map has a plethora of them. When we get into personalities and etc. the dimensions grow so large and our ability to map them so ill-defined it is hardly even worth considering 'holes'.

I mean, what would be the state of the art for describing NPCs? A Myers-Briggs type indicator? How much does that tell us about real-world people? Not a heck of a lot! You going to get MORE detailed than that? For every NPC? I mean, really, it's just not even a question. Realistically any damned thing can happen at any moment in these settings without it being impossible to explain self-consistently.

So how I see it the high/low myth divide is not so much about the literal amount of myth, rather than the role of it. A low myth game is where the vagueness is a feature, and the GM is encouraged to improvise even rather significant new fictional elements as they go along. In a high myth game vagueness is a bug, a necessary evil. The GM of course still can and needs to improvise stuff, but the aim is to have the important bits nailed down beforehand, and the improvisation should mostly be just extrapolation based on those.

 

[Lanefan]

Or it's TR. Performance effect - see what's in the safe. Low myth, the will isn't in the safe. High myth, the will isn't in the safe.​

Which paradoxically enough makes the will being in the safe a complete myth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So how I see it the high/low myth divide is not so much about the literal amount of myth, rather than the role of it. A low myth game is where the vagueness is a feature, and the GM is encouraged to improvise even rather significant new fictional elements as they go along. In a high myth game vagueness is a bug, a necessary evil. The GM of course still can and needs to improvise stuff, but the aim is to have the important bits nailed down beforehand, and the improvisation should mostly be just extrapolation based on those.

Well, I'm not prepared to comment much on what people's perspectives are on what they do and do not want in 'myth', but I think its more a case that you have an amount of pre-authored setting which suits your needs. If a game is intended to produce specific kinds of action and has a fairly limited milieu, like say Blades in the Dark, then it probably has some fairly specific setting material that fairly well constrains the overall shape of things. Dungeon World is a bit more general in terms of what it intends to take on fictionally, so it lacks much specification of setting at all, and what it does have is more just a toolbox. However, both games tend to approach their 'lore' as a catalyst for building scenes in play and putting things in context vs being a true 'map' which dictates where stuff is and how it all fits together (with BitD being more specific between the two).

Overall I don't think the amount of 'myth' is the primary way to differentiate Narrativist games. It has some relevance, but I think more substantive dimensions might include how they regulate the introduction of fiction, who has what authority, and the structure of play in general. So, DW has less 'myth' maybe, canonically that TB2, but the differences between them really revolve around other elements. I'm no expert on the taxonomy of Narrativist systems in a theory sense, but I expect someone is out there classifying them (I mean beyond what 'family' of rules they belong to).