Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8639767" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So my thoughts here would be the following:This seems to be calling on a pretty sizable edge case use of Rule 0; deploying it transparently during play to "fix" an eff-up so it can be resolved in such a way that observes Gamist priorities.  This absolutely can happen, but it is a very remote usage of Rule 0.  But lets talk about that edge case.  The change has to be both transparent and deftly deployed AND the GM has to be very self-disciplined and conscientious (they have to be hyper-aware of even the smallest of mental-model-perturbing eff-ups and demand of themselves and the table the time and effort to resolve the mismatch).  This is because we're (the participants interested in distilling Skillful play from Unskillful play) reliant upon the players having well-parameterized mental models of the situation such that their OODA Loop can be executed with optimum skill.  If we fail at either transparency or deftness, that (lets call it) "software patch" that we're introducing into play doesn't yield the necessary course-correction to the players' mental models.  In my experience, the huge % of in-situ "eff-up fixes" like you seem to be describing above doesn't entail the transparency rider because the GM is simultaneously trying to observe "I'm There" priorities (High Concept Simulation or Purist for System - Process Sim - agenda) and being transparent about the "software patch" to fix the players' mental model will be perceived as harming immersion.  But yeah, if a GM applies the fix with transparency and deftness, Gamist priorities can absolutely be salvaged.  Its just that this (IMO) a small subset of a very small use case of deploying Rule 0.  Its sufficiently "edge-case-y" enough and demonstrably different enough that it should really be called something different; "system patch" or something.And finally, this is why I'm a huge believer of systematizing this stuff and structuring play/conversation and having a principle that says to "keep the meta-channel open (to resolve exactly this stuff)."  You are (a) no longer become reliant upon GM self-discipline, conscientiousness, and deftness of resolving the software patch.  Not just that, but you (b) aren't reliant on the nearly perfect uptake of that software patch in real time by the players (same problem but coming from the other direction).  Neither (a) nor (b) manifest as a problem because you have a huge part of this equation offloaded onto or bridged by system (eg Torchbearer or Blades is a great example of what I'm talking about).</blockquote>

Verification