Quote from: K BergWe played Shadow of Yesterday in a spacesetting, where the characters were all the crew of a spacs-ship called the Gnostic Avenger. A ship so old that what original design it once had been was lost beneath countless modifications. During the course of this short campaign we even played an entire session aboard this ship, with blaster bolts and what have you flying between down the corridors. But we never gave her any stats. Didn't make her less real in our imagination. Even when they used her escape pod to jettison a nuke into the hold of an enemy ship did the stats become important. That she had an escape pod did. But it had been established previously in play. So it was there.

When we back in the day (pre D20) played Star Wars, we most often used the space-ships this way. But in that Universe space dog fights are a part of the game. Off course we used stats for these. How else would we agree that the Millenium Falcon could escape Hoth and not go all freeformy?

K Berg,
Very good post (once we get past the nastiness up front).  It raises some questions that will, I hope, help me understand better.

How was the escape pod previously established in play?
When you jettisoned it, how did you come to agreement that it could make it to the enemy ship?
How did you determine it would fit in the hold of the enemy ship?
How did you determine the nuke did or did not destroy the enemy ship?

Why did you feel the need to stat ships in Star Wars, but not the Gnostic Avenger?
Why didn't you use the same mechanics for determining the Millenium Falcom could escape Hoth that you used to determine the above questions regarding the escape pod?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachI am a bit troubled by this tactic:


Guys – if you don't like what Sett is saying, try the IL.  It works really well, actually. The idea that someone has to stay away from a thread because you don't like what they are saying is anathema to this place, in general. Just a bit of advice you can, of course, take or leave...

Well, you could put it that way I guess.
Sett seems to have this notion that if he claims superiority long enough, he will somehow magically become superior. That attitude gets pretty nerve-grating.

I think Ill just try the "ignore" function. That should work wonders.

I am going to answer this bit for bit.

How was the escape pod previously established in play?
I as the GM put it there in a previous scene. It then functioned as an ad hoc prison for a rabid escaped alien monster, a hiding place for some highly illeagal drugs and eventually as a launchpad for the nuke.
When you jettisoned it, how did you come to agreement that it could make it to the enemy ship?
They were inside the other ships cavernous docking-bay about to be boarded.
How did you determine it would fit in the hold of the enemy ship?
All ships in this universe are either titanic juggernaughts or compact freighters. The enemy ship was a titanic juggernaught that caught our heroes' compact freighter dead in space (they were dealing with a bounthy hunter, aformentioned rabid alien and the discovery of a nuke while tampering with illegal tech).
How did you determine the nuke did or did not destroy the enemy ship?
It never cropped up. The nuke let them escape. The destruction of the enemy ship was not on screen, and thus left vague and unsaid (though assumed by the players). They were in jumpspace and thus could not know.

Why did you feel the need to stat ships in Star Wars, but not the Gnostic Avenger?Because in when we played star wars a part of the session would be either spaceship combat or a chase using these ships. The stats were there when we interacted with the rules (though at that time we didn't think about it that way it was just how we played).
Why didn't you use the same mechanics for determining the Millenium Falcom could escape Hoth that you used to determine the above questions regarding the escape pod?Different games, different goals, different situations. I think I answer this question above.

All this, in particluarly the Shadow of Yesterday game, is played by the following philosophy: Say yes, or roll the dice.
What this means to us is that if any player (including the GM) narrates something, you either agree to the events transpiring as narrated or you use the dice (the rules) to resolve what happens (or who gets to say how).
In the escape pod situation the conflict was whether the captain (at the airlock) could stall the boarders long enough for the other characters to carry out their plan. We rolled for that.

The rest just unfolded from there.

Quote from: James J SkachBut not to be outdone, we get Gunslinger (to K Berg's credit, not him) asserting this very thing: that the way described that is not-Sett's-way is predominant.

No.  What I said is that most of us have played Set's & AM's style of play and that it has been a predominant style of play in most of our experiences.  They claim we don't understand and I'm guessing that most of us probably do.  They're really not trying to understand a different style of play or give any lattitude to discuss it.  The reason why there are games like this or that people even play them is because we never fully accepted the greatness of their style of play in their opinion.  Isn't that why they pity us?  Anything outside of their preference gets thrown into the campfire/soap opera/drama category so they can easily dismiss it.

Quote from: GunslingerNo.  What I said is that most of us have played Set's & AM's style of play and that it has been a predominant style of play in most of our experiences.  They claim we don't understand and I'm guessing that most of us probably do.  They're really not trying to understand a different style of play or give any lattitude to discuss it.  The reason why there are games like this or that people even play them is because we never fully accepted the greatness of their style of play in their opinion.  Isn't that why they pity us?  Anything outside of their preference gets thrown into the campfire/soap opera/drama category so they can easily dismiss it.

If someone says "starships should have stats" and someone else says "haha, that means the sun is a fire elemental", how am I supposed to think anything other than there must be widespread misunderstanding?

And thats not a guess..Thats kinda like an observation.

Quote from: Abyssmal MawIf someone says "starships should have stats" and someone else says "haha, that means the sun is a fire elemental", how am I supposed to think anything other than there must be widespread misunderstanding?

Just a quick question. Can you point me to a place were I say this. And when you realise that I don't why do you treat me like I have said this?

Quote from: K BergJust a quick question. Can you point me to a place were I say this. And when you realise that I don't why do you treat me like I have said this?

Dont you know that all proponents of non-traditional gaming are one entity? We live on the Forge, where we damage brains and condemn traditional roleplaying games and the people who play them. Any statement by any one of us is automatically the opinion of all of us, because like everyone knows we are one.

Amirite?

Quote from: K BergJust a quick question. Can you point me to a place were I say this. And when you realise that I don't why do you treat me like I have said this?

Let me break my silence. Fear not, it will not be about the actual argument, as that has run it´s course.

You seem to have a big misconception of what was going on. AM linked to a blog entry.
We attacked the persons on that blog, questioned their integrity and intellectual decency.
Then Paka, Temple and you showed up. Defending them.

Defending them with allegations, lies and grave misreadings of reasonable arguments. We got angry because of the malice in the blog entry.
You came to defend that malice. With more malice.

You wonder why we don´t like your ilk?

Please read that thread again, read that blog entry. Read my first explanation, read Calithenas explanation. They were neutral. And countered with malice.

Is it so hard to understand that people get angry?

So, don´t give us this shit you just said. It´s a fucking lie, making everything worse.

EDIT: I even made long and neutral explanations to Paka. But he showed no signs of cooperation. So I must assume he is just fucking with me. Messing with all of us, to be part of a flamewar. Because Flamewars are their bread and butter, and Paka must sell a game too.
They do that on purpose.

I didn´t know Paka had games of himself, elsewise I wouldn´t have argued with him. Now it´s clear: he is not stupid and uncooperative. He is using this board for viral marketing, as coordinated in story-games threads.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf someone says "starships should have stats" and someone else says "haha, that means the sun is a fire elemental", how am I supposed to think anything other than there must be widespread misunderstanding?

And thats not a guess..Thats kinda like an observation.

So, on that misunderstanding...

Colour

Quote from: The ForgeImagined details about any or all of System, Character, Setting, or Situation, added in such a way that does not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene. One of the Components of Exploration.

in a sandbox game is pretty meaningless, because all details may change aspects of action or resolution.  Right?

Question: does resolution in sandbox games require DM "fiat" - what I'd much rather call "referee decisions" - because of this?

(Maybe these questions aren't relevant to the topic.  It's just that I've seen some cool descriptions of sandbox play lately (eg Melan's post on EN World) and I'm intrigued.)

Quote from: droogI think that the lesson of Wittgenstein is, rather, that there is no final definition of what constitutes a game, nor are there commonalities between all things marked as 'game'.

Yeah, but with his kind of reasoning we can say that about anything. There is then no such thing as a "country" or "religion" or "language" or "species" or "sex" and so on and so forth. It all ends up in the worst kind of deconstructionism. There's a kind of philosophy and discussion that leads to greater understanding, and a kind that leads to greater confusion. The former relies on using words as they're commonly understood, the latter on pulling those apart till nothing makes any sense any more.

We're discussing games. We have a pretty common understanding of what that means. Arguing that definition is just confusing things on purpose. It's like if you're at a game session and someone says, "have you got any dice?" and you pull out a twenty-cent piece, saying, "well, this is a kind of die." It's just fucking with people. We know what people really mean when they say, "dice", likewise "game."

Quote from: TempleSett seems to have this notion that if he claims superiority long enough, he will somehow magically become superior. That attitude gets pretty nerve-grating.

Just treat it as random background noise. There are posts where someone is asking us something, if only, "I think X," with an implied, "what do you think of X?" And there are posts where people are just Telling You How It Is. The first kind should get a reply, the second kind, the poster doesn't actually want a reply. So don't give them one.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe're discussing games. We have a pretty common understanding of what that means. Arguing that definition is just confusing things on purpose. It's like if you're at a game session and someone says, "have you got any dice?" and you pull out a twenty-cent piece, saying, "well, this is a kind of die." It's just fucking with people. We know what people really mean when they say, "dice", likewise "game."

Apparently not, since there are things I'd class as a roleplaying game that others wouldn't. Anyway, it's a side issue.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere are posts where someone is asking us something, if only, "I think X," with an implied, "what do you think of X?" And there are posts where people are just Telling You How It Is. The first kind should get a reply, the second kind, the poster doesn't actually want a reply. So don't give them one.

Wise words.

Quote from: LostSoulSo, on that misunderstanding...

Colour...
in a sandbox game is pretty meaningless, because all details may change aspects of action or resolution.  Right?

Exactly.

QuoteQuestion: does resolution in sandbox games require DM "fiat" - what I'd much rather call "referee decisions" - because of this?

If it has stats and rules for handling, there can be no fiat. So, no. conversely, if any given item doesn't have stats, and the results of handling are eventually determined by whim or fancy, or any arbitrary order or decree... even if they just require a GM's assent ("say yes or roll the dice"), that thing is fiat. Thats the dictionary definition.

The description of a game where you just made up the details of whether there's a nuclear missile on board the ship and what happened when it went off, and where it was placed, and all of that?  Is pretty much the definition of fiat. It's a handwave.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But if you have a floorplan, and you know what the missile is and what happens when it goes off, and what could happen, then, no. The GM remains as mere referee.

Ironically, this delineation of duties means that the GM (who oversees the handling of rules items)  and players (who oversee their own characters actions) are on a much more even footing when playing D&D then they are playing any given story-game.

K Berg,

Quote from: K BergHow was the escape pod previously established in play?
I as the GM put it there in a previous scene. It then functioned as an ad hoc prison for a rabid escaped alien monster, a hiding place for some highly illeagal drugs and eventually as a launchpad for the nuke.

How did you, as a GM, determine the escape pod was there?
When you placed it, did you "stat it up" at that point, or did it exist and then get stats only later; or did it get stats at all?

Quote from: K BergWhen you jettisoned it, how did you come to agreement that it could make it to the enemy ship?
They were inside the other ships cavernous docking-bay about to be boarded.
How did you determine it would fit in the hold of the enemy ship?
All ships in this universe are either titanic juggernaughts or compact freighters. The enemy ship was a titanic juggernaught that caught our heroes' compact freighter dead in space (they were dealing with a bounthy hunter, aformentioned rabid alien and the discovery of a nuke while tampering with illegal tech).

Ahh...now I see. Now I've got the picture.

Quote from: K BergHow did you determine the nuke did or did not destroy the enemy ship?
It never cropped up. The nuke let them escape. The destruction of the enemy ship was not on screen, and thus left vague and unsaid (though assumed by the players). They were in jumpspace and thus could not know.

How did you come to agreement that it let them escape?
Did the nuke destroy the enemy ship?

Quote from: K BergWhy did you feel the need to stat ships in Star Wars, but not the Gnostic Avenger?Because in when we played star wars a part of the session would be either spaceship combat or a chase using these ships. The stats were there when we interacted with the rules (though at that time we didn't think about it that way it was just how we played).

Did the Gnostic Avenger ever get into combat or chases?

Quote from: K BergWhy didn't you use the same mechanics for determining the Millenium Falcom could escape Hoth that you used to determine the above questions regarding the escape pod?Different games, different goals, different situations. I think I answer this question above.

What was different about the goals?
What was different about the situations?

Quote from: K BergAll this, in particluarly the Shadow of Yesterday game, is played by the following philosophy: Say yes, or roll the dice.
What this means to us is that if any player (including the GM) narrates something, you either agree to the events transpiring as narrated or you use the dice (the rules) to resolve what happens (or who gets to say how).
In the escape pod situation the conflict was whether the captain (at the airlock) could stall the boarders long enough for the other characters to carry out their plan. We rolled for that.

On what was the roll based?
What determined if the characters actions could be completed in the time allowed by the captains stalling?
What determined if the captain could stall?

Thanks,
Jim

QuoteHow did you, as a GM, determine the escape pod was there?
When you placed it, did you "stat it up" at that point, or did it exist and then get stats only later; or did it get stats at all?

I set a scene in a maintenance corridor, the player said he was looking for somewhere to hide. I described the escape pod, he didn't challenge its prescense. It was there. And thus it became a solid fact in the game world. This is one of the jobs a gm has in this play style.
It never got stats. Why?
It didn't need them because it never entered a conflict where it matter mechanically (rules wise).

QuoteHow did you come to agreement that it let them escape?

Say yes or roll the dice. I saw no need to contest this, neither did they. So we didn't use the dice. It was the stakes of the other conflict, the one between the Captain and the boarders. This was where the escape or not was decided.

QuoteDid the nuke destroy the enemy ship?

I think I already answered this.

QuoteDid the Gnostic Avenger ever get into combat or chases?

No. It never entered any conflict as anything else than a background element or color if you like.

QuoteWhat was different about the goals?
What was different about the situations?

My bad for being imprecise.
The goals of the conflict. The what and the how of the conflict at hand.
The situations (the millenium falcon from Hoth has never cropped up in play, it was an example meant to be widely recongnizable.) The situation there is basically Han Solo trying to pilot a the MF around a Star Destroyer blocade. Its first Piloting versus gunnery (or something), then piloting versus sensors. Maybe with an Imperial procedures check to see if the good smuggler remembered procedures correctly.
The Gnostic Avenger situation was, "can we keep the boarders out long enough to escape". It was the Captains bluff (statted ability) versus the boarders Belligerence (another statted ability).

Which begins to answer this:
On what was the roll based?

QuoteWhat determined if the characters actions could be completed in the time allowed by the captains stalling?
What determined if the captain could stall?

The captains player stated he wanted to stall the boarders long enough for the mechanic to jury rig a detonator on the escape pod nuke. This intention stated what the conflict was really about. So if the captain made the roll then they would manage to hold off the boarders long enough. That is how we decided how long it would take him; which was as long as was needed.
As I said above we rolled to see if he managed that based on statted abilities.

At which point we rolled to see how the mechanic did.

I can see how this may seem like Fiat. But the difference between fiat and this is that when it matters (when we do not say yes) we use the rules. And everyone gets to say when it matters, not just one person.
We also adhere to the internal consistency of the world as established beforehand and during play.

Quote from: AMBut if you have a floorplan, and you know what the missile is and what happens when it goes off, and what could happen, then, no. The GM remains as mere referee.

In this example it was a multi megaton nuclear warhead inside a ship about the size of the Firefly (from the Joss Whedon sereis/movie). Where it was placed in the ship was, according to the internal consistency in our imagined world, a moot point.

Quote from: AMThe description of a game where you just made up the details of whether there's a nuclear missile on board the ship and what happened when it went off, and where it was placed, and all of that? Is pretty much the definition of fiat. It's a handwave.

What is the difference between the Nuke being established in play (as a complication created by a player actually) on the spur of the moment and the GM revealing that "ohmygod, someone has smuggled a nuke aboard our ship"?