Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9230692" data-attributes="member: 42582">So one set of things I'm disagreeing with this this, namely, the claim that heuristics for play, and empirically-informed characterisations of that play and those heuristics, are axioms from which logical deductions can be made.The two of you are relying on suppressed premises that are false in the RPGs you are purporting to speak about. Actual play, or even close reading of the rulebooks, might reveal this to you. Purely abstract thinking won't, because you keep re-importing the premises and disagreeing with my various attempts - by explanation, by reference to designer blogs, by posting rules extracts, by working through imagined or actual examples of play - to reveal this."Logical derivations" that rest primarily on suppressed or un-questioned premises that experience and observation have refuted - and would refute again, if the one engaged in the derivation actually had that experience or made those observations - is nothing but speculation.And this is the reason that I used the example of technical invention: because this discussion about methods of inquiry is one that is well-known in history and philosophy of science. Your position seems to me to be close to those who want to assert that science is purely deductive, without paying attention to the question of where would the premises come from. Kepler's great contribution to knowledge, for instance, is not in geometry but in astronomy - based not on logical deduction from the studies of the orbits of Mars, but on developing, in response to the, a new conception of planetary motion that didn't take the circular character of that motion as an unquestionable premise.Likewise, only science-fiction writers conceive of vehicles in the abstract. James Watt (for instance) was familiar with a variety of (stationary) steam engines, and their problems (including leakage of steam), and he tested and re-tested and iterated his own designs. Much as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] describes for the "indie" RPG designers not far upthread: they were not sitting around pontificating, they were designing and playing games, finding out what did and didn't work, and on that basis developed more general conceptions of what is possible in RPGing.You keep fastening on this and thereby miss my point.You asserted that conflict resolution requires "no myth" so that the GM is free to introduce the appropriate backstory at the moment of resolution, so as to preserve the connection between success at the task and what is at stake. And that is what I disagreed with, and continue to disagree with. Conflict resolution, of the DitV sort, is quite compatible with the GM having established, as part of their prep, where the title deeds are.The DitV advice on town prep starts on p 112:Before you start in earnest, there are three things you’ll want to be sure to get out of the process: some NPCs with a claim to the PCs’ time, some NPCs who can’t ignore the PCs’ arrival, and some NPCs who’ve done harm, but for reasons anybody could understand. In the following procedure I talk about whether the town “seems grabby enough” and whether there are “enough NPCs to keep the PCs busy” — those three things are what I’m talking about. It can also be very useful to bring a secular authority figure into play, a person who represents the Territorial Authority in some fashion. Since the needs of the Territorial Authority are different from the needs of the Faith, you can thereby introduce a person who a) has legitimate reason to be involved in the situation, but b) is working at cross-purposes to the Dogs.The next couple of pages take the GM through the process of thinking up problems in the town, advising the GM at each step to write a paragraph. Then they conclude (p 114) by instructing the GM to answer the following three questions:What does each named person want from the Dogs? Write a sentence or two for each. What do the demons want in general? What do they want from the Dogs? What might they do? Write a paragraph. If the Dogs never came, what would happen - that is, what’s the next step up the “what’s wrong” ladder? Write a sentence or two.Nothing in those instructions precludes the GM coming up with the idea of the sinners' meeting hall, which has been inherited by the young innocent, but with the will and title deeds hidden in the mayor's safe to make sure the property does not have to be given over to that heir.And such a set-up could nevertheless be resolved in DitV, using its conflict resolution method.This is the basis for my claim, that there is no inherent conflict between GM prep and conflict resolution. And conflict resolution does not depend, as you have asserted, upon the GM being free to manipulate the fiction so as to ensure that a goal is achieved if the task is successful. (In fact, based on my experience, I think looseness of fiction is more important for (i) framing, and (ii) narration of failure consequences, than it is for ensuring the connection between success-of-task and attainment-of-goal.)I am disagreeing with your assertion because it is wrong, and is misleading as to the topic at hand."Low myth" (and now "no myth" and "low myth" are the same thing?) - what I have just referred to as "looseness of fiction" - is often important for framing, and for narration of failure consequences. What I am contesting is your assertion that it is important for narration of consequences on a success. It can be in some contexts, but there are RPGs where it is not. Ron Edwards made this point <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">almost twenty years ago</a>:A lot of people have mistakenly interpreted the word "Narrativist" for "making it up as we go." Neither this nor anything like it is definitional for Narrativist play, but it is indeed an important issue for role-playing of any kind.  . . . I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. . . . In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest following the full-disclosure lead of HeroQuest and abandoning the metaplot "revelation" approach immediately.That last sentence is obviously related to the principle of actively revealing the town in play.One of the earliest RPGs to use conflict resolution in a thorough-going fashion is Prince Valiant. That game's rulebook includes a collection of scenarios; and when I bought it, it shipped with a second book consisting purely of scenarios (the Episode Book). These scenarios are prep that includes information about who is where, who did what, etc. The Blue Cloak, for instance (on p 22 of the Episode Book), turns on the fact of a murder. It's possible to run a RPG where facts like that are the product of resolution rather than part of their framing (eg I've run Cthulhu Dark in this fashion, and have linked to an actual play report upthread); but the Blue Cloak is not an example of this.The scenario begins with the PCs, as they journey on their errantry, meeting a blue-cloaked figure at nightfall. He is "seeking their aid in apprehending the bandits who robbed him." Once he has led the PCs to the bandit's camp, he vanishes. And when the PCs meet the bandits,The Adventurers also notice the bandit leader wearing a blue cloak with a silver clasp identical to Kallo the Merchant’s, though his is spattered with dark stains - the merchant’s blood.If the bandits are confronted and defeated,They admit to murdering Kallo and that he is buried in a shallow grave near the camp.The key backstory is established as part of prep, and yet this scenario can be resolved using conflict resolution. Here's an actual play report:One interesting feature of the Episodes in the Episode Book - which I have commented on more than once before - is that some are not well-conceived for conflict-resolution play, because they depend upon the GM breaking the connection between success/failure and win/lose in just the way Vincent Baker describes. The most egregious in this respect is Mark Rein-Hagen's "A Prodigal Son - in Chains" (pp 60-62), which contains such directions as "They [the PCs] need to capture and question Quink the hunchback and find out who he worked for" and "At this point you want Bryce to win over the Adventurers with his nobility of spirit despite his physical shortcomings" and "The Adventurers must now scour the forest to find Quink" and "Whatever happened, you need to have things end up with Bryce’s father, the duke, dead."This is similar to a CoC scenario, or many TSR and WotC modules for D&D (including but by no means limited to Dead Gods). It is not compatible with conflict resolution.One recurring instruction in Vincent Baker's rulebooks is this:DitV, p 124: don’t have an answer already in mind. GMing Dogs is a different thing from playing it. Your job as the GM is to present an interesting social situation and provoke the players into judging it. You don’t want to hobble their judgments by arguing with them about what’s right and wrong, nor by creating situations where right and wrong are obvious. You want to hear your players’ opinions, not to present your own. DitV, pp 137-8: Don’t play “the story.” The choices you present to the PCs have to be real choices, which means that you can’t possibly know already which way they’ll choose. You can’t have plot points in mind beforehand, things like “gotta get the PCs up to that old cabin so they can witness Brother Ezekiel murdering Sister Abigail...” No. What if the PCs reconcile Brother Ezekiel and Sister Abigail? . . . You can’t have a hero and a villain among your NPCs. It’s the PCs’ choices that make them so. DitV, p 143: DO NOT have a solution in mind. If you have a solution in mind, the game rules are going to mess you up bad. . . . Your job is to present the situation and then escalate it. The players’ job is to pronounce judgment and follow through. The solution is born of the two in action. Apocalypse World, p 107: DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not [mess]ing around . . . Apocalypse World, p 124: Before the 1st session . . . Daydream some apocalyptic imagery, but DO NOT commit yourself to any storyline or particular characters.Preparing situations without preparing story, without stipulating heroes and villains, is one part of the use of conflict resolution in a context of GM prep of the relevant backstory.</blockquote>

Verification