Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7395976" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think this can be taken as the nut of the 'backstory controversy'. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] focuses on the fiction and claims something is 'authoring backstory' if it establishes some fact that would precede the fictional timeframe of the scene. You define backstory as something that happens in the real world previous to the playing out of the scene. This is part and parcel of a dislike on Max's part (and I think some other posters who take a 'classical' stance may fit this too) of examining the PROCESS of play at the table as opposed to examining the fiction which it produces. As we discussed FAR upthread it seems like you cannot really perform an analysis of RPG techniques by focusing strictly on the resultant fiction. I believe that this is the sense in which Max's analysis of Eero Tuovinen's essay WRT backstory is flawed, because Tuovinen isn't actually that interested in what fiction results, at least in terms of technique, he's only interested in it AS results. In fact he has no terms for or discussion of what PCs do in-game. It isn't coherent to interpret his statements about backstory to apply to PC actions authored inside the game by the players. The sequence of events he describes is ONLY a sequence of events during (or preceding) play at the table. Backstory is thus 'what is authored preceding play' and all else is framing or responses to framing. If you don't accept this reading then the rest of the text is incoherent!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7395976, member: 82106"] I think this can be taken as the nut of the 'backstory controversy'. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] focuses on the fiction and claims something is 'authoring backstory' if it establishes some fact that would precede the fictional timeframe of the scene. You define backstory as something that happens in the real world previous to the playing out of the scene. This is part and parcel of a dislike on Max's part (and I think some other posters who take a 'classical' stance may fit this too) of examining the PROCESS of play at the table as opposed to examining the fiction which it produces. As we discussed FAR upthread it seems like you cannot really perform an analysis of RPG techniques by focusing strictly on the resultant fiction. I believe that this is the sense in which Max's analysis of Eero Tuovinen's essay WRT backstory is flawed, because Tuovinen isn't actually that interested in what fiction results, at least in terms of technique, he's only interested in it AS results. In fact he has no terms for or discussion of what PCs do in-game. It isn't coherent to interpret his statements about backstory to apply to PC actions authored inside the game by the players. The sequence of events he describes is ONLY a sequence of events during (or preceding) play at the table. Backstory is thus 'what is authored preceding play' and all else is framing or responses to framing. If you don't accept this reading then the rest of the text is incoherent! [/QUOTE]

Verification