Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[Manbearcat]

And just to be clear - given that I feel you're something of an innocent bystander in this exchange who's taking fire from entrenched positions you didn't even know were there! - there is a hill I'm defending. Which is that the use of a Trait, in Torchbearer, is not fiction-first. And the reason I'm defending that hill is because the difference between Torchbearer and DungeonWorld is a real one. And if we want to have good play experiences in TB, and good play experiences in DW, we should keep that in mind. DW is "if you do it, you do it". TB isn't. That's part of what opens up TB to skilful play in ways that are different from DW. Not all skilful play in TB is skilful play of the fiction. Quite a bit of it is skilful play of "meta"-resources, like Traits. (I'll @Manbearcat on this point, in case he has any thoughts to share.)

Yup, I agree with this. Its a fundamental part of my lead post of the Story Now vs et al thread (which is invoking Torchbearer in part!).

* Some of Torchbearer Skilled Play will be about skillful play of the fiction (eg where you're able to avoid a Test yet defeat an obstacle...or you're able to correctly infer one or more aspects of a GM's upcoming turn in a Conflict based upon the "Pictionary-esque" telegraphed components of the fictional positioning they've relayed or that has been updated from the prior turn).

* A lot of Torchbearer Skilled Play will be about skillful play of system architecture (eg we need a Check for Camp and I'm surely going to lose this test so I may as well use a Trait against myself here...or I'm going to navigate my decision-space by playing hard to my strengths in this moment because we really need to avoid a Condition/Twist here).

* Some of Torchbearer Skilled Play will about skillful play of both the fiction and the system architecture (eg during Conflict Compromise the Conflict saw me using my Trait to Defend/Regroup my companions <navigating the headspace of player and PC at the same time>, but I took full HP loss at the end so perhaps if I accept an Injury, that will likely provide my companions the purchase they need from danger to see them through the rest of the Adventure...and I'm more capable than most of surviving Injury so perhaps I give myself a remote shot as well...or I'm hopeful that my precious magical helmet will survive the fall down that crevasse from that Twist, but we can't afford the Tests and risks nor can I in good conscious assume the liability of terrible fallout from an Adventure-impacting excursion to go get my Gear so maybe we'll go back for it after we achieve our Goals here.)

 

[Manbearcat]

This page contains his summary to that point. You'll have to say more about how his comment's meaning is limited in the way you suggest it is.

I think that any participant (not solely GM) is intended to be able to judge declarations of trait moves in TB2. (Per the Reaching rules.)

V.B is a big believer in both the legitimacy of axioms broadly applied but also the nuance that comes with an individual game's autonomous ruleset.

When he's invoking this for Apocaylypse World, we know that "the move is legitimate from a game perspective because we've agreed that a move was triggered." If it wasn't legitimate, a move wouldn't be triggered and we wouldn't be rolling dice. However, we don't know if the character's perspective on the fictional positioning (both the nature of all things in the shared imagined space + their orientation to each other) that helped them navigate their decision-space was legitimate until after the move is made and the shared imagined space is updated (downstream Consequences have been rendered by the GM).

When he's invoking Dogs in the Vineyard for this (which shares kindred tech with Torchbearer in that Traits, Things, Relationships are fictional tags/PC build components that come with associated dice pool which you martial during conflicts), he means. In Dogs in the Vineyard, your stuff martialed (the Attributes you've deployed + their results + any Traits/Things/Relationships you've just pulled into the conflict) and deployed on any given turn are both:

* What is at stake is the fundamental question of how the fiction will be changed as a result of this conflict.

* Your total dice and their results (your pool to pull from as you Raise/See et al) give your relevant bargaining position.

* Your Raise is both what your character does and the dice you put forth to back it up.

* How this turns resolution pans out and if your bargaining position in a "just talking" conflict winnows to the point of no bargaining position at all (forcing you to either escalate to "merely" physical...or make the situation outright life-threatening...or give/fold) will give a whole lot of shape to the nature of "what your character does/did" and "what is at stake."

 

[clearstream]

V.B is a big believer in both the legitimacy of axioms broadly applied but also the nuance that comes with an individual game's autonomous ruleset.

When he's invoking this for Apocaylypse World, we know that "the move is legitimate from a game perspective because we've agreed that a move was triggered." If it wasn't legitimate, a move wouldn't be triggered and we wouldn't be rolling dice. However, we don't know if the character's perspective on the fictional positioning (both the nature of all things in the shared imagined space + their orientation to each other) that helped them navigate their decision-space was legitimate until after the move is made and the shared imagined space is updated (downstream Consequences have been rendered by the GM).

When he's invoking Dogs in the Vineyard for this (which shares kindred tech with Torchbearer in that Traits, Things, Relationships are fictional tags/PC build components that come with associated dice pool which you martial during conflicts), he means. In Dogs in the Vineyard, your stuff martialed (the Attributes you've deployed + their results + any Traits/Things/Relationships you've just pulled into the conflict) and deployed on any given turn are both:

* What is at stake is the fundamental question of how the fiction will be changed as a result of this conflict.

* Your total dice and their results (your pool to pull from as you Raise/See et al) give your relevant bargaining position.

* Your Raise is both what your character does and the dice you put forth to back it up.

* How this turns resolution pans out and if your bargaining position in a "just talking" conflict winnows to the point of no bargaining position at all (forcing you to either escalate to "merely" physical...or make the situation outright life-threatening...or give/fold) will give a whole lot of shape to the nature of "what your character does/did" and "what is at stake."

I was thinking something similar. Moves is defined and referenced, and that points well to the PbtA instantiation. TB2 adds nuance.

In both cases, someone is at some point contemplating the fictional position and deciding on legitimacy. Say it's the GM in a PbtA game. They decide legitimacy at the point they say that a move was triggered. In TB2 there can be escalation of the sort you say, and that is examined for legitimacy per the rules on reaching. (And possibly the rules on good ideas suggest that some especially legitimate moves accurately answer all doubts.)

You seem to be saying that what the player is guessing about is whether other players will agree that the fictional position legitimates their move. Where I presuppose a reasonable accord between players. It's not up to Jo to say - I don't like can-openers so nothing you declare involving can-openers will ever be legitimate. Jo has to accept Dro's declaration that they open the can of tomato soup with the can-opener. (And this is true even if the rules are silent on cans of tomato soup and can-openers.) This isn't a case of lines and veils, which is an agreement made in entering the magic circle, which of course could possibly exclude tomato soup, cans or can-openers.

Its a game of - do the contents of the fictional position in your mind match what is in my mind. And - does what you think the contents of the fictional position imply match what I think they imply (whether the same or dissimilar from what I think they include)? To which GMs in some modes of play bring privileged information.

In all these cases, what is in the fictional position is that which we intend. What you highlight, I believe, is that we are dealing with intentionality on a per mind basis. Which is what I think, too. And that certainly plays a part in guesswork. But... do you feel that in say DW it may matter more what the GM intends than what players intend? Given the GM decides when to say that a move is rightly invoked.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -



It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known. One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.

All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT, it exists as a mix of things that are fairly manifest (IE we have some minis and they are in certain spots on a battle mat, certain clear statements have been made that everyone should have internalized, etc.) and it also contains things that are LESS manifest, or not manifest at all and simply exist in the head of one participant. Some things will clearly never have been established at all (IE the color of the cave walls). IF these things become relevant in play, they will be tested, or someone responsible for framing that part of the scene will do so, etc. In TB2 it is mostly the GM that would do this sort of stuff, unless perhaps a player adds some details to the scene in support of using a trait or something like that. If he does, there's a risk the rest of the table might not accept that new detail, but its probably pretty safe in many cases.

When I called out Intention as separate, what I mean, and this relates to @pemerton's response, is it really is virtually NEVER in the manifest part of the fiction. Intentions change constantly with circumstances. Make up a new plan, begin to execute it, new intentions. The GOAL, the overall intent, may change less often, but the character's immediate goals are like water flowing in the river, its constantly moving and changing, its fluid! So it can really ONLY be established at the moment it is relevant by the player, or possibly tested by some dice or something like that. I don't think anything except the player can really change it in TB2. At most the GM could drop a condition or twist on you that UNDERMINES your intentions but it won't actually change or create them, the player does that.

 

[clearstream]

All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT, it exists as a mix of things that are fairly manifest (IE we have some minis and they are in certain spots on a battle mat, certain clear statements have been made that everyone should have internalized, etc.) and it also contains things that are LESS manifest, or not manifest at all and simply exist in the head of one participant. Some things will clearly never have been established at all (IE the color of the cave walls). IF these things become relevant in play, they will be tested, or someone responsible for framing that part of the scene will do so, etc. In TB2 it is mostly the GM that would do this sort of stuff, unless perhaps a player adds some details to the scene in support of using a trait or something like that. If he does, there's a risk the rest of the table might not accept that new detail, but its probably pretty safe in many cases.

I feel that "shared" is similar to "on a per mind basis". Both are right.

When I called out Intention as separate, what I mean, and this relates to @pemerton's response, is it really is virtually NEVER in the manifest part of the fiction.

It's always manifest in the fiction, and every example given thus far has shown that. One version of the fiction offered had among its proposed contents "waiting for Gnolls." Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.

I am starting to notice two types (or layers) of intention present in fictional positioning.

Intentions change constantly with circumstances. Make up a new plan, begin to execute it, new intentions. The GOAL, the overall intent, may change less often, but the character's immediate goals are like water flowing in the river, its constantly moving and changing, its fluid! So it can really ONLY be established at the moment it is relevant by the player, or possibly tested by some dice or something like that. I don't think anything except the player can really change it in TB2. At most the GM could drop a condition or twist on you that UNDERMINES your intentions but it won't actually change or create them, the player does that.

The fact that they change is not at odds with forming part of the fictional positioning. Another way to put that is - can you say how you think it is at odds? Fictional positioning is fluid, right? It's not - set it up and it's static from then on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I feel that "shared" is similar to "on a per mind basis". Both are right.


It's always manifest in the fiction, and every example given thus far has shown that. One version of the fiction offered had among its proposed contents "waiting for Gnolls." Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.

I am starting to notice two types (or layers) of intention present in fictional positioning.


The fact that they change is not at odds with forming part of the fictional positioning. Another way to put that is - can you say how you think it is at odds? Fictional positioning is fluid, right? It's not - set it up and it's static from then on.

Sure, but the player can come up with the character's intentions for a given scene on the fly. It isn't manifest (at least unless its really spelled out in a formal way on the character sheet perhaps) in any sense, not until the player says what the character does. I mean, some of it may be pretty obvious from the start, and thus probably part of the "everyone has the same idea in mind" part of the fiction, but a lot of times I can't really guess exactly what a player is going to say, until they say it. It becomes part of the FICTION at that point, but I don't think it is POSITION, it is more REACTION. Anyway, this is all idealized, and real play is this mix of things, right? So I don't feel like you want to get too rigid, but it IS helpful to do these analyses.

 

[pemerton]

Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is

Here's a fuller quote:

A player's position is the total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to her at this moment of play. Positioning refers to the various factors and processes, including in-fiction, cue-mediated, and interpersonal, that determine a player's position. . . .

When you say that your character does something, no, she doesn't. Not until every person at the table agrees that she's done it.

Fictional positioning can give legitimacy to other players' assertions and challenges about "your" character, thus showing the character to be not your own at all, after all. . . .

Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can guess what your position is, and you can plan for your future position, but it's only when you test your position by making a move that you learn whether the move is legitimate. (It usually is.)​

This conforms broadly with what @AbdulAlhazred and @Manbearcat have posted:

I'm confident this means the following:

* Fictional Positioning error on the part of the character (their own perception of things) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.

<snip examples of action declarations which have an uncertain outcome at the moment they are declared by the player who declares them>

The match between pre-move and post-move conception of setting and situation and character is up for grabs as an outgrowth of move resolution (so long as that rendered consequence doesn't violate any rules, principles, or firmly established priors).

Manbearcat's examples of action declarations which have an uncertain outcome at the moment they are declared reflect Baker's remark that a character doesn't do a thing until everyone agrees that they do, and hence that fictional positioning is retroactive, in the sense that it a player's intuition about what the shared fiction is vis-a-vis their PC is not confirmed until after they declare an action on the strength of it. Manbearcat's examples of action declarations all involve the triggering of fortune mechanisms (I think - I'm not sure about Matilda and the Baroness) but another example, which turns on sheer consensus unmediated by a fortune mechanism, is declaring a trait.

So @clearstream is correct in mentioning that (in post 260) but in my view wrong to think it's any sort of counter-example to Manbearcat's post.

All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT

Right. And because we can't know what is shared until we put it to some sort of test, that's why it becomes confirmed retroactively. In the context of the sorts of examples Manbearcat has in mind, the main contributor to uncertainty - and hence the locus of the "test" - is the roll of the dice. (Or toss of the coin, or draw of the cards, etc.)

In the case of a drama-type resolution, like Dro declaring that Harguld's cunning leads him to wait too long, then the uncertainty arises from the possibility that fellow participants will reject the suggested addition to the shared fiction. Personally I think that Baker here is too sceptical and/or behaviouristic about our knowledge of the contents of others' minds, but I'll willing to let that pass. He kind-of concedes the point with his parenthetical "It usually is." Why is that? Because usually we know what our fellow players are thinking about the fiction.)

None of this seems to connect in any particular way to intentions - either the imaginary intentions of imaginary people (ie the characters in the fiction) or the real intentions of real people (those who are together constituting the shared fiction in virtue of their collective imagining.

It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known.

That would depend on one's standard for knowledge. To use a phrase from Russell's Problems of Philosophy, it can certainly be a matter of "probable opinion". Eg when Dro declares that Harguld shoots his crossbow, that is drama resolution (before we get to the fortune aspect of whether or not the Gnoll is shot, or driven back by the shot) and the fictional position that underlies it is Harguld waiting in the cave mouth with his crossbow loaded and ready. Dro can be pretty confident that his fictional position permits the making of that move, as there is no provision in Torchbearer that I'm aware of that would permit another participant to veto that sort of action declaration grounded in that sort of robust fictional position.

One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.

Well, it can depend. In Dro's case, what you learn is whether your conjecture about what your fellow players are envisaging, and that it's the same as what you are envisaging, is true. You learn this twice: once when you declare that Harguld shoots, and a second time when you declare that Harguld's Cunning led him to wait too long trying to lure the Gnoll in.

You don't learn anything new about the fiction out of this. What you do learn is the truth (or otherwise, if your move is not accepted) of your conjecture about what your fellow participants believed about the fiction. You learn what your fictional position was. (Not what it is - that would contradict the claim about retroactivity.)

Contrast @Manbearcat's fortune-based examples. In those cases, what the dice do is lead you to learn something new about the fiction. Eg is your PC really able to abjure the spirit?

it might rule out establishing with certainty any of the contents of fictional position at any time, so that a fact that legitimated a move and thus might seem to have been established at time T+2 cannot be reliably known at time T+3, and I can only guess at the result of testing something also (seemingly) connected with it at T+4.

Fictional position is, says Baker, confirmed retroactively, in that it is tested by finding out if everyone agrees with your own conception of what the fiction contains and permits. At T+4 you know that your move at T+3 was legitimate, but that doesn't mean that your move at T+4 will be.

Suppose that a player's subsequent declaration is identical to their first? At T1 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree" which we test and say that it's okay. At T4 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree"... is it no more than a guess that this will be legitimate in the absence of intervening change?

What does "intervening change" mean here? In Baker's terminology, it is a guess that your fellow participants agree with you, the declaring player, that the fiction has not relevantly changed. (Maybe think there are no needles left on the tree, or that you've fallen asleep, or that by touching the tree you were paralysed by a contact poison.)

I've set out my quibbles with his use of the word "guess" above and so won't reiterate them. Those quibbles don't go to the main point, which is that the status of the fiction as shared depends upon consensus at every moment. It is never "locked in" by the conception of one particular participant at one particular moment.

We regularly speak of established or prior fiction, so for now my view is the first one. Through speech acts and tests we gradually establish some known contents of our fictional position. Even if we never establish all of its the contents.

I don't think this is what is being said at all. He's not talking about the process of building up the fiction. He's talking about the issue of consensus. This is brought out by linking the remarks about fictional position to the remarks about what a character does - eg Dro says "I put a bolt in his face!" but that doesn't actually become part of the shared fiction unless everyone agrees, and everyone will agree only if certain cues - results of dice rolls, etc - come up certain ways. Otherwise all that Dro establishes is that Harguld has shot a bolt from his crossbow.

Suppose we had a description of fictional positioning that assumed it was a set of facts. Earlier you suggested that Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. These facts seem to include both imaginary physical facts (imagined tension in the spring arm of a crossbow) and imaginary mental facts (waiting for Gnolls).

What I believe Baker might have been dealing with is that Dro can say something like "H picks a pebble up off the cave floor" - and everyone may well agree that yes, cave floors no doubt have pebbles and picking up a pebble is something H can do. In that light, it seems hard to pin fictional position down to a finite set of facts, rather it has to be thought of as a scene with some known contents and some unknown.

The picking of a pebble from a cave floor is an action declaration that takes, as a premise, that Harguld is in a cave with pebbles on the floor. Dro finds out if his fictional position permits that action declaration when people agree or they don't - maybe the GM calls for a Scavenger test! (In my last Burning Wheel session, I made a Scavenger test for my PC to find a burning brand in the inn that would let him light his way.)

This doesn't change the point that fictional position flows from (or if one focuses on character rather than player, is constituted by) an imagined state of affairs. But the state of affairs has to be imagined by everyone, and every attempt to introduce some new content into it - and for players, it is action declarations that are the main way of doing that - reopens the question of what exactly it is that everyone agrees on!

What contents become known? Only those we intend to know.

Whose intention are you referring to here? Who is the "we"?

Dro declares "Harguld picks up a pebble." This is a suggestion to introduce some new content. The GM calls for a Scavenger test. The test fails. The GM narrates a twist - groping around on the cave floor in the semi-darkness, Harguld accidentally drops his crossbow. The Gnolls hear the clatter and rush the cave mouth! We still don't know whether or not there are pebbles on the cave floor. We know that Harguld has dropped his bow, and that the Gnolls are charging at him. These newly-known things are not things anyone at the table intended to know.

In all these cases, what is in the fictional position is that which we intend.

If that were so, RPGers couldn't play to find out.

 

[pemerton]

Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.

All action is replete with intention. I put a bolt in its face! is replete with intention. I pick up a pebble is replete with intention. But the intention is encompassed by the description of the action.

I also note here that you are talking about Harguld's imaginary intention; whereas when you refer to intending the fictional positioning, you are referring to game participants' actual intentions. Upthread I asked whose intention and I'm still quite unclear on that.

Sure, but the player can come up with the character's intentions for a given scene on the fly. It isn't manifest (at least unless its really spelled out in a formal way on the character sheet perhaps) in any sense, not until the player says what the character does. I mean, some of it may be pretty obvious from the start, and thus probably part of the "everyone has the same idea in mind" part of the fiction, but a lot of times I can't really guess exactly what a player is going to say, until they say it. It becomes part of the FICTION at that point, but I don't think it is POSITION, it is more REACTION.

The point can be made more strongly than you have made it here.

Dro declares (speaking for Harguld): "I put a bolt in its face!" The explanation exclamation mark that is used in the type suggests a degree of immediacy and enthusiasm in Dro's utterance at the table. Yet we learn, later on (ie after the trait is declared) that Harguld didn't shoot immediately and with enthusiasm, but that in fact he waited too long (Dro's narration of Cunning) and that he barely got the shot off in time (Thor's narration, as GM, of the success + condition). There is not the least hint in the rulebook that anyone might declare Dro's use of the trait to be "reaching" because of the immediacy implied by his enthusiastic action declaration, uttered in Harguld's voice.

This greatly reinforces your point that character intentions are made up on the fly, are typically not regarded as part of the fictional position beyond the declared action itself (in this case, shooting at the Gnoll), and are rather injected retrospectively as needed to make sense of what is going on. In Edwards' terminology Dro, in using his Cunning trait, first enters author stance, narrating that Harguld waits too long; and then enters director stance, narrating that the Gnoll comes in close before Harguld takes his shot. Attributions of intention to Harguld help establish credible fiction around these moments of narration, but they are not part of the fictional position. Even when Thor narrates consequences, the salient fictional position that he relies on is not that Harguld waited but rather that the Gnoll closed and thus that the shot was a desperate one - hence Harguld becomes Afraid.

 

[clearstream]

If that were so, RPGers couldn't play to find out.

There is no conflict between intending, and finding out: RPGers find out what is within the scope of what they intended to find out. Anything else is meaningless. But more interestingly...

Well, it can depend. In Dro's case, what you learn is whether your conjecture about what your fellow players are envisaging, and that it's the same as what you are envisaging, is true. You learn this twice: once when you declare that Harguld shoots, and a second time when you declare that Harguld's Cunning led him to wait too long trying to lure the Gnoll in.

You don't learn anything new about the fiction out of this. What you do learn is the truth (or otherwise, if your move is not accepted) of your conjecture about what your fellow participants believed about the fiction. You learn what your fictional position was. (Not what it is - that would contradict the claim about retroactivity.)

There may be some unhelpful ideas about the timeline coming into play here. There is no fictional position that was. There is only our present belief about the fictional position, given what we know right now. It might be better to use the term "reflectively". You learn (through your own and others reflection upon it) what your fictional position is believed to be now.

Additionally, we're close to saying that fictional position is the judgement of what is legitimate. So that it has no other form than the sense for legitimacy. Whereas almost all of our earlier discussion has given it (incompletely known) form, so that players might be expected to be capable of self-reporting much about what they believe the fictional position is.

In any case, when I think of intention there are two ways that applies. The first is aboutness. In order to be capable of saying what follows (or does not follow, say in the case of reaching) we must know what the fiction is about. That's an important aspect of fictional positioning: a shared idea of what the fiction is about. In the case at hand, it's about (inter alia) being pursued by gnolls.

Suppose contrary to that, it was not? That will commit us to accepting non-sequiteurs - absurdly disconnected sequences of actions - as always justified. That's not the sort of game that anyone plays. Given the vast number of possible declarations, taken sincerely it would rule out anyone saying anything that follows.

The second way is the question of whether someone can hold a belief about the fictional position that includes an intention - such as I believe the parson intends to strike the child - and then make judgements of declarations in that light (retroactively, reflectively, whatever.) Such as counting justified a player's invoking their Good Parent trait (were there such a thing) to oppose the parson. I do not see how that can be ruled out and therefore one must accept at minimum that fictional positioning can include intentions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All action is replete with intention. I put a bolt in its face! is replete with intention. I pick up a pebble is replete with intention. But the intention is encompassed by the description of the action.

I also note here that you are talking about Harguld's imaginary intention; whereas when you refer to intending the fictional positioning, you are referring to game participants' actual intentions. Upthread I asked whose intention and I'm still quite unclear on that.

The point can be made more strongly than you have made it here.

Dro declares (speaking for Harguld): "I put a bolt in its face!" The explanation mark that is used in the type suggests a degree of immediacy and enthusiasm in Dro's utterance at the table. Yet we learn, later on (ie after the trait is declared) that Harguld didn't shoot immediately and with enthusiasm, but that in fact he waited too long (Dro's narration of Cunning) and that he barely got the shot off in time (Thor's narration, as GM, of the success + condition). There is not the least hint in the rulebook that anyone might declare Dro's use of the trait to be "reaching" because of the immediacy implied by his enthusiastic action declaration, uttered in Harguld's voice.

This greatly reinforces your point that character intentions are made up on the fly, are typically not regarded as part of the fictional position beyond the declared action itself (in this case, shooting at the Gnoll), and are rather injected retrospectively as needed to make sense of what is going on. In Edwards' terminology Dro, in using his Cunning trait, first enters author stance, narrating that Harguld waits too long; and then enters director stance, narrating that the Gnoll comes in close before Harguld takes his shot. Attributions of intention to Harguld help establish credible fiction around these moments of narration, but they are not part of the fictional position. Even when Thor narrates consequences, the salient fictional position that he relies on is not that Harguld waited but rather that the Gnoll closed and thus that the shot was a desperate one - hence Harguld becomes Afraid.

Right, so between us all we have pretty much come to an understanding, as I see it. There are already agreed-upon elements of fiction, which are presumably shared in consensus fashion and possibly in the form of cues. These, at least some of them, provide us with a fictional position, a frame in which participants can employ the game's process to extend the fiction. This process consists of assertions, which are then supported or not supported. Ultimately they are or are not accepted as new facts, which may alter the fictional position of the characters and thus feed into a new cycle of assertions. Things like character intent seem to me to relate more to AGENDA and PREMISE, and don't so much belong to the realm of fictional position. They may well become part of the fiction itself, though I would note they take on a character of more being 'narrative' than fact assertions (IE some sort of omniscient 'god view' or maybe 'first person' narrator would describe Harguld's intentions and mental state). I think a player might even plausibly deny that they are fictionally established after the fact (IE claim some alternative motive for a character action later on, who is to say which is true, given that they both lead to the same facts).

Anyway, bringing all that back to TB2 we can certainly see where it engages process at a good number of points to bolster or constrain what can be said about a character's nature and intentions. You can cut against that, or go with it, and either way it has some impact on play. If my character abandons his belief in favor of some other goal (my current character for example could cause harm to his elf community to save another PC) that's accounted for as a possibility, and I think there's even a potential reward of Personality points for that kind of thing. I might also have to rewrite my belief, so it engages with game premise in a mechanical way (changing some cues). I think that is really ultimately what pushes it into being Gamist vs purely Narrative in character, as a game. I think that's pretty uncontroversial though at this point.