Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8655268" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Fair enough.</p><p></p><p>I tried to get this in my parantheses.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by "'referencing' fiction", so don't know what the answer is.</p><p></p><p>Here's an example of non-fiction first resolution:</p><p></p><p>Each Burning Wheel character has an attribute called Reflex. It is derived from three stats (Agility, Speed and Perception). It will rarely be lower than 2, and if it gets to 8+ that's superlative. 3 or 4 is a typical number.</p><p></p><p>Reflex specifies how many actions a character can take in an exchange during Fight! Each exchange in Fight! consists of three volleys. Actions must be allocated to volleys such that, as near as possible (given there are no fractional actions), each volley has the same number of actions. Thus, the typical allocation of actions is 1 in each volley, but the possibility of a second in one or more volleys.</p><p></p><p>The allocation of actions to volleys - when they are taken, and what they are - is done at the start of each exchange, in secret. Thus we have blind declaration of actions, with uncertainty as to where they will land (unless someone has Reflex 3, 6 or 9 in which case we know there will be 1, 2 or 3 actions per volley). Part of the skill of scripting is to land your uncertain actions at a point where they are unopposed by the opponent. (Eg you Strike as your second action in the second volley, and with their Reflex 4 they have only one second action for the exchange and they've put that into their third volley - so your Strike will not be opposed by a Block or Avoid or Counterstrike.)</p><p></p><p>I can report from experience that scripting is tense, and the resulting play rather visceral. But it's not fiction first. It is nothing about the fiction that divides the back-and-forth of melee combat into a sequence of exchanges and volleys and actions; or that deems the spread of actions to be as flat as possible but with little peaks of uncertainty; or that deems one person (the one with Reflex 6) to act with a metronomic regularity that others don't display.</p><p></p><p>Those features of the action declaration framework are all external to the fiction. They're designed to support engaging gameplay.</p><p></p><p>A skill challenge does not have an action economy, does not use initiative (some early iterations toyed with this, but it was quickly abandoned - I can't remember, but maybe even the 4e DMG flags this as optional), begins all action with the fiction - <em>what is the situation</em> - and ends all action with the fiction - <em>here is how the situation has changed</em>. The fullest discussion of this is found in the DMG2, but it is also set out in the DMG.</p><p></p><p>In Apocalypse World, if I succeed on my attempt to Seize something By Force then we have to weave fiction to conform to that outcome. We don't independently consult the fiction to work out whether or not it "makes sense" that I have seized the thing by force.</p><p></p><p>But it would be an odd result if one of the games best known for "beginning and ending with the fiction" turned out not to count as "fiction first".</p><p></p><p>This is why, as I've already posted, you seem to be using the phrase in some fashion different from the way I have generally understood it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8655268, member: 42582"] Fair enough. I tried to get this in my parantheses. I'm not sure what you mean by "'referencing' fiction", so don't know what the answer is. Here's an example of non-fiction first resolution: Each Burning Wheel character has an attribute called Reflex. It is derived from three stats (Agility, Speed and Perception). It will rarely be lower than 2, and if it gets to 8+ that's superlative. 3 or 4 is a typical number. Reflex specifies how many actions a character can take in an exchange during Fight! Each exchange in Fight! consists of three volleys. Actions must be allocated to volleys such that, as near as possible (given there are no fractional actions), each volley has the same number of actions. Thus, the typical allocation of actions is 1 in each volley, but the possibility of a second in one or more volleys. The allocation of actions to volleys - when they are taken, and what they are - is done at the start of each exchange, in secret. Thus we have blind declaration of actions, with uncertainty as to where they will land (unless someone has Reflex 3, 6 or 9 in which case we know there will be 1, 2 or 3 actions per volley). Part of the skill of scripting is to land your uncertain actions at a point where they are unopposed by the opponent. (Eg you Strike as your second action in the second volley, and with their Reflex 4 they have only one second action for the exchange and they've put that into their third volley - so your Strike will not be opposed by a Block or Avoid or Counterstrike.) I can report from experience that scripting is tense, and the resulting play rather visceral. But it's not fiction first. It is nothing about the fiction that divides the back-and-forth of melee combat into a sequence of exchanges and volleys and actions; or that deems the spread of actions to be as flat as possible but with little peaks of uncertainty; or that deems one person (the one with Reflex 6) to act with a metronomic regularity that others don't display. Those features of the action declaration framework are all external to the fiction. They're designed to support engaging gameplay. A skill challenge does not have an action economy, does not use initiative (some early iterations toyed with this, but it was quickly abandoned - I can't remember, but maybe even the 4e DMG flags this as optional), begins all action with the fiction - [i]what is the situation[/i] - and ends all action with the fiction - [i]here is how the situation has changed[/i]. The fullest discussion of this is found in the DMG2, but it is also set out in the DMG. In Apocalypse World, if I succeed on my attempt to Seize something By Force then we have to weave fiction to conform to that outcome. We don't independently consult the fiction to work out whether or not it "makes sense" that I have seized the thing by force. But it would be an odd result if one of the games best known for "beginning and ending with the fiction" turned out not to count as "fiction first". This is why, as I've already posted, you seem to be using the phrase in some fashion different from the way I have generally understood it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory
Top