Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Principle of Legitimate Intentions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8996351" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I've been mulling over a principle I use that enables a series of acts over an arc of play to successively revise fictional position, until it's legitimate to include the resolution of a conflict or larger goal in what we say next. Essentially, players draft legitimate intentions, describe acts and check the arrow of momentum (system | fiction), and then redraft legitimate intentions, so that it always and eventually best follows that what they describe doing matches what they intend to resolve. The principle is used to achieve something that rules can also be designed to achieve, such as the Skill Challenge rules in 4e. In this post, I don't aim to argue for one or another, but only lay out the concept to see if others find it workable for them?</p><p></p><p>I should add as background that I take RPG to involve ongoing authorship of a common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in, with linkage between system and fiction. Momentum flows through that linkage. Everyone continually aims to say what best follows from their position (their fictional position, most importantly.) I won't dive into the full background on this, but fictional position is a powerful concept proposed by Vincent Baker and preserved on his old "anyway" site.</p><p></p><p>When I say <strong>principles</strong>, I don't mean rules, guidelines or preferences. I mean principles in the narrow sense of what I <em>ought </em>to do to have the play I'm aiming for. I don't mean that you <em>ought </em>to prefer that play, which is a wider kind of principle that feels a bit like a preference. Preferences don't matter to this discussion: only whether the envisioned principle if grasped and upheld could for others have the result described above. It might be that in my implementation I'm also doing something unnoted, so I'd like to understand that.</p><p></p><h3>Legitimate Intentions</h3><p>So what are legitimate intentions? In short, the principle of saying what follows from fictional position is applied to player intentions. For example, intending to find a specific object inside a chest is only legitimate if it would best follow to say that object is there. This is easy to see if as a player I pick a random chest, say the one at the foot of my bed in the inn I'm staying at, and say "I search the chest for a vorpal blade." I tell the GM that my intention is to find the vorpal blade." That's usually not legitimate because it usually doesn't best follow that there's a vorpal blade in that chest without some other truths having been established to make it legitimate (such as that I stowed my vorpal blade in that chest last night.) In such a situation, a legitimate intention could be “I want to learn what is inside the chest.” Success at opening the chest = success at satisfying my legitimate intention (l learned what was inside the chest.)</p><p></p><p>One way to spot a legitimate intention is that the result of an action that player describes looks extremely likely to match that intention. Prescriptively, when the scope of an act’s effect matches a legitimate intention then its consequences include that which is intended. And while the consequences of success are constrained to what is legitimate based on what has been said to be true, it is legitimate to accept <em>uncertainty</em>. Players can guess at truths off-camera and success legitimately include validating their prediction. In that case, success = successfully validating or falsifying the <em>prediction</em>.</p><p></p><p>Legitimate intentions drive <strong>arcs</strong> of play, in which a series of acts successively update fictional position until players can describe an act whose consequences include resolving their goal or conflict. An example might be an act where I research vorpal blades. That sets me up down the line to break open the Azure Vault of Perfidious Petra with the legitimate intention of finding a vorpal blade there. (With probably a bunch of other acts needed in between, to update my fictional position until I can legitimately say that.) I can of course break open any number of vaults <em>intending </em>to find a vorpal blade, but the only legitimate intention I can form about that is the one discussed above, which amounts to an intent to learn if there is a vorpal blade within. Success = learning that (whether true or false.)</p><p></p><h3>No Hidden Gotchas</h3><p>A related, and I think necessary principle is one I call <em>no hidden gotchas</em>. GM might at times establish truths that have not been shared with players yet. They ought to normally avoid hidden descriptions that would refute fiction that players have no reason to doubt. An example of this might be a clerk answering questions under a <em>zone of truth</em> spell. The clerk should not testify to veracity and certainty on matters that GM has established behind the scenes to be false. They could certainly establish imagined events that go against that, so this principle is saying that they <em>ought </em>not to. Where GM is the source of player knowledge of what is true about the world, they are in a unique position: the world seen through their words is something that they can make <em>principled </em>choices about.</p><p></p><p>This is roughly what results (each dot is an act)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]282363[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8996351, member: 71699"] I've been mulling over a principle I use that enables a series of acts over an arc of play to successively revise fictional position, until it's legitimate to include the resolution of a conflict or larger goal in what we say next. Essentially, players draft legitimate intentions, describe acts and check the arrow of momentum (system | fiction), and then redraft legitimate intentions, so that it always and eventually best follows that what they describe doing matches what they intend to resolve. The principle is used to achieve something that rules can also be designed to achieve, such as the Skill Challenge rules in 4e. In this post, I don't aim to argue for one or another, but only lay out the concept to see if others find it workable for them? I should add as background that I take RPG to involve ongoing authorship of a common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in, with linkage between system and fiction. Momentum flows through that linkage. Everyone continually aims to say what best follows from their position (their fictional position, most importantly.) I won't dive into the full background on this, but fictional position is a powerful concept proposed by Vincent Baker and preserved on his old "anyway" site. When I say [B]principles[/B], I don't mean rules, guidelines or preferences. I mean principles in the narrow sense of what I [I]ought [/I]to do to have the play I'm aiming for. I don't mean that you [I]ought [/I]to prefer that play, which is a wider kind of principle that feels a bit like a preference. Preferences don't matter to this discussion: only whether the envisioned principle if grasped and upheld could for others have the result described above. It might be that in my implementation I'm also doing something unnoted, so I'd like to understand that. [HEADING=2]Legitimate Intentions[/HEADING] So what are legitimate intentions? In short, the principle of saying what follows from fictional position is applied to player intentions. For example, intending to find a specific object inside a chest is only legitimate if it would best follow to say that object is there. This is easy to see if as a player I pick a random chest, say the one at the foot of my bed in the inn I'm staying at, and say "I search the chest for a vorpal blade." I tell the GM that my intention is to find the vorpal blade." That's usually not legitimate because it usually doesn't best follow that there's a vorpal blade in that chest without some other truths having been established to make it legitimate (such as that I stowed my vorpal blade in that chest last night.) In such a situation, a legitimate intention could be “I want to learn what is inside the chest.” Success at opening the chest = success at satisfying my legitimate intention (l learned what was inside the chest.) One way to spot a legitimate intention is that the result of an action that player describes looks extremely likely to match that intention. Prescriptively, when the scope of an act’s effect matches a legitimate intention then its consequences include that which is intended. And while the consequences of success are constrained to what is legitimate based on what has been said to be true, it is legitimate to accept [I]uncertainty[/I]. Players can guess at truths off-camera and success legitimately include validating their prediction. In that case, success = successfully validating or falsifying the [I]prediction[/I]. Legitimate intentions drive [B]arcs[/B] of play, in which a series of acts successively update fictional position until players can describe an act whose consequences include resolving their goal or conflict. An example might be an act where I research vorpal blades. That sets me up down the line to break open the Azure Vault of Perfidious Petra with the legitimate intention of finding a vorpal blade there. (With probably a bunch of other acts needed in between, to update my fictional position until I can legitimately say that.) I can of course break open any number of vaults [I]intending [/I]to find a vorpal blade, but the only legitimate intention I can form about that is the one discussed above, which amounts to an intent to learn if there is a vorpal blade within. Success = learning that (whether true or false.) [HEADING=2]No Hidden Gotchas[/HEADING] A related, and I think necessary principle is one I call [I]no hidden gotchas[/I]. GM might at times establish truths that have not been shared with players yet. They ought to normally avoid hidden descriptions that would refute fiction that players have no reason to doubt. An example of this might be a clerk answering questions under a [I]zone of truth[/I] spell. The clerk should not testify to veracity and certainty on matters that GM has established behind the scenes to be false. They could certainly establish imagined events that go against that, so this principle is saying that they [I]ought [/I]not to. Where GM is the source of player knowledge of what is true about the world, they are in a unique position: the world seen through their words is something that they can make [I]principled [/I]choices about. This is roughly what results (each dot is an act) [ATTACH type="full" alt="LI acts.png"]282363[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Principle of Legitimate Intentions
Top