Quote from: Justin Alexander;889290This is definitely dissociated, but I'm not really seeing it as a matter of narrative control. (For much the same reason that I don't interpret any character creation mechanics or systems in which you spend XP to improve your character as narrative control. Control over the creation, definition, and advancement of your character isn't exactly unusual.)

Even the mid-session aspect of it isn't particularly unusual. Lots of point-buy games have a "you can hold onto some of your points and then spend them later to reveal previously unknown abilities". I even recall GURPS having that as an option.

Hero System allows it too and I've seen it in some others. You can add new abilities with experience in mid play if here is a reason for it at the GM's discretion and having had it "all along" but its just never come up before is generally acceptable if it doesn't contradict established things about the character. It doesn't like Narrative Control just character advancement/development. The player can even explain it as the character just has a knack for this particular task and picks it up faster judging from example.

Basically you guys are saying...

GM: This small alley is a dead-end.  There's a door on the left secured with a heavy lock.
Player: I spend {whatever} and my character finds a sewer grate.

...is somehow a completely different thing than...

GM: This small alley is a dead-end.  There's a door on the left secured with a heavy lock.
Player: I spend 2XP, that lock looks like it's crafted by a locksmith that grew up in my village, it has her signature hasp.  I apprenticed with her for a summer, let me see if I can open it.

Maybe you're missing the fact that you're actually declaring two things.
1. Whatever you're encountering that the player wants the character to succeed at is somehow relevant to the character's history. Editing the current world.
2. You're declaring that your character had that ability from their history connected to the current situation all along.  Editing your character retroactively.

The authors themselves call the mechanic story-based.  Whatever, you asked for the reasons for what I said, now you have them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889316Basically you guys are saying...

GM: This small alley is a dead-end.  There's a door on the left secured with a heavy lock.
Player: I spend {whatever} and my character finds a sewer grate.

...is somehow a completely different thing than...

GM: This small alley is a dead-end.  There's a door on the left secured with a heavy lock.
Player: I spend 2XP, that lock looks like it's crafted by a locksmith that grew up in my village, it has her signature hasp.  I apprenticed with her for a summer, let me see if I can open it.

Maybe you're missing the fact that you're actually declaring two things.
1. Whatever you're encountering that the player wants the character to succeed at is somehow relevant to the character's history. Editing the current world.
2. You're declaring that your character had that ability from their history connected to the current situation all along.  Editing your character retroactively.

The authors themselves call the mechanic story-based.  Whatever, you asked for the reasons for what I said, now you have them.

But yes it does feel different to me. The player didn't pull the sewer grate out of his ass. He's spending some experience to add a skill to the character sheet, specialized to a specific type of lock. In some games you can just spend the points and buy the skill outright mid session. This seems like the same thing just that a reason has to be attached to it. I add details about my characters all the timer to flesh out their backgrounds, as things are revealed about them (say from social interaction) and because its fun. I like developed backgrounds but I don't think I can capture everything about a PCs in a few paragraphs (or the couple of sentences some people on this site advocate)

When I think Narrative Control it means altering the setting not adding details to my character. I'm going to be doing that anyway at some point so it feels different and not intrusive, more like a way to encourage developing a PCs background and some ties to the world. And as the GM I can always say no or set the bounds as I see fit so it not really giving the Player much authority.

Using the padlock example if I as the GM had detailed that pad lock was special or unique I'm not obligated (as far as I can tell from the rule) to change that. I can refuse the expenditure or request a different justification which can be something like "My PC has a knack for jiggering pad locks. Here's 2 experience to be trained in it).

So yes, its does feel very different spending some points and changing the world around the character. I understand you feel differently and as I'm not trying to convince you otherwise I didn't question your opinion.

Quote from: Nexus;889319When I think Narrative Control it means altering the setting not adding details to my character.

You are altering the setting.

When you say "these types of mountains are just like the mountains back home" you are altering the mountains to make them just like the mountains back home.

When you say "that lock looks like it was made by the locksmith your character interned with", you are altering the lock to make it just like the locks made by locksmith you interned with.

You can't do the "half spend experience retcon thing that I can rationalize" without first editing the world to make it relevant to your character, thus allowing the retcon.

The "oh I always knew that" part requires the "I just changed the world to make it relevant to the character in just the way I want" part.

That's why it's effectively a Deus Ex Machina literary device.  A subtle one, yes, but one nonetheless.  It's why the authors themselves refer to it as story-based because you are declaring something true about the world first and then declaring something about your character that didn't really exist before the second you needed it to.

Compared to the "make a sewer grate" it's not a Difference of Kind, it's a Difference of Degree.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889323You are altering the setting.

When you say "these types of mountains are just like the mountains back home" you are altering the mountains to make them just like the mountains back home.

When you say "that lock looks like it was made by the locksmith your character interned with", you are altering the lock to make it just like the locks made by locksmith you interned with.

You can't do the "half spend experience retcon thing that I can rationalize" without first editing the world to make it relevant to your character, thus allowing the retcon.

The "oh I always knew that" part requires the "I just changed the world to make it relevant to the character in just the way I want" part.

That's why it's effectively a Deus Ex Machina literary device.  A subtle one, yes, but one nonetheless.  It's why the authors themselves refer to it as story-based because you are declaring something true about the world first and then declaring something about your character that didn't really exist before the second you needed it to.

Compared to the "make a sewer grate" it's not a Difference of Kind, it's a Difference of Degree.

I understand you feel its a narrative mechanic but I don't share your perspective and opinion for the reasons I outlined previously. But I'm not trying to argue with you about. Two adults can disagree about something, particularly something this trivial.

Hell, Most of this jargon we use to draw lines between different preferences will get you four different answers if you ask three different gamers anyway.

Whatever Dude.

You want to claim that you're not editing the world, cool.
You're objectively, provably wrong, but cool.

Liking Pepperoni is subjective.
Whether or not this pizza has Pepperoni on it, is objective.

"Feeling" like you're editing the world is subjective.
The fact that you're actually editing the world in order to relate it to your character so you can take a minor bonus through retconned character advancement is objective.

Having a metal spike piercing my flesh is objective.
The fact that it's a needle and not a piece of rebar is a level of degree.  If you have to choose between a needle and a piece of rebar, then you take the needle, but that doesn't mean you don't have a metal spike piercing your flesh.  There's a difference between the states of
1. Having a spike of metal in your flesh.
and
2. Not having a spike of metal in your flesh.
The fact that you might wear an earring and like it, doesn't change that fact that you exist in state 1.

Yep. I'm completely wrong and you're completely right. Someone was WRONG and you showed them. Another victory won for the forces of Justice on the Internet.

:rolleyes:

You take this shit way to personally, man.

Are you saying that claiming "these mountains are just like the mountains back home" is not declaring something about the setting that was not true until you said it?

I'm not asking if you like it.
or if it breaks immersion...
or if you think it's major or minor...

Just asking if you think you are editing the world when you say
"these mountains are just like the mountains back home" and spend 2XP to make that true.

Because that HAS to come before you say "I never really was that great a climber, but I did climb those mountains back home a lot, maybe it will help here."

Quote from: CRKrueger;889328Are you saying that claiming "these mountains are just like the mountains back home" is not declaring something about the setting that was not true until you said it?

I'm not asking if you like it.
or if it breaks immersion...
or if you think it's major or minor...

Just asking if you think you are editing the world when you say
"these mountains are just like the mountains back home" and spend 2XP to make that true.

Because that HAS to come before you say "I never really was that great a climber, but I did climb those mountains back home a lot, maybe it will help here."

I've already answered this question in detail earlier.

So at this point we're left with you not wanting to call an apple an apple because for some reason you don't want to be associated with apples or don't like the "apple" tag.

You say I care too much about this, but you didn't say
"Holy Shit, Dinosaurs!"
"Psycho SuperHero Kids"
or anything about the three new games, you led with...

Numenera is narrative?

We got down this side-thread because you're calling minor world-editing NOT world-editing.

Too much of this damn hobby is people arguing opinions as facts, the last thing we need to do is give all of game theory the postmodern relativist treatment.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889333So at this point we're left with you not wanting to call an apple an apple because for some reason you don't want to be associated with apples or don't like the "apple" tag.

You say I care too much about this, but you didn't say
"Holy Shit, Dinosaurs!"
"Psycho SuperHero Kids"
or anything about the three new games, you led with...

Numenera is narrative?

.

It wasn't if Cypher was narrative or not that I was referring too when I said you care to much. It was about if people agree with you about narrative vs whatever.

But if we're going to be pedantic here, I asked if Cypher System was considered narrative because I hadn't heard that anywhere else. It was like someone calling GURPS narrative from my end. I couldn't care less about the setting if I tried but that was a curious statement so I asked for clarification.

You described the rules that you felt made it narrative and why. Then I agreed with another person that they didn't seem like narrative control to me. I didn't try to argue you out of your opinion.

But apparently that was enough to set you off and you can't seem to let it go. Personally, I don't care that much about whether they're considered "narrative" or not. Like I said, they don't match up to what I consider "narrative control" rules. Others may have different opinions. I'm an adult so I can deal with complete strangers thinking something different than I do without some urge to prove myself "right" especially little shit like RPG jargon that might mean something different in a few months.  

Whether I like rules or not doesn't come into play and I don't have any issue with being associated with dreaded Narrative rules. I  like Fiasco and Capes, for instance.

I'm not sure what your hang up is or why you can't just let it go and keep trying to pick a fight. But I'm not interested in having one. I'm not the one dragging this out and poking at it. So yeah, I'd say you take this stuff too personally.

Edit: And, just FYI, I don't like the Cypher System very much to begin with. I like The Strange as a setting but I want to switch to a different set of mechanics but that has nothing to do with how "narrative" it is or isn't.

We can agree to disagree on subjective things, and...
whether any mechanic bothers you or not
whether any mechanic breaks whatever you term immersion for you or not
whether any mechanic is, in the end useful for your table or not
...can't be argued.

Whether a game system should address the physical differences between a pen knife and a great axe is arguable.

That a great axe is capable of delivering more force than a pen knife is not arguable.

Whether you think saying "these mountains are just like the mountains of home" feels like an OOC statement giving you as a player control over the setting or not is immaterial, because it is.

Why do I care?  
Because if we accept that tiny amounts of OOC world editing aren't *really* world editing or OOC, then the terms have no meaning.  

If the terms have no meaning, then there is no way to communicate effectively about OOC world-editing, because now we've turned the definition of OOC world-editing (ie. editing the world as a player choice outside of the character) to be something completely different.

The end of this road is where there is no language we can use to effectively talk about game design or why we like certain types of games because it's all just "I hate strawberry".  That helps no one.

and, FYI, all these narrative mechanics I'm caring too much about, are completely optional, so you can just not use them.  The XP spends aren't the entirety of the reason I don't like the system.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;889279People tolerate the Cypher System because Monte's name is on the cover. See hero worship.

Wow, that's dismissive. I enjoy the system because I grok what Monte was trying to do with it. It's not perfect, but it's damn easier to play with than most I've dealt with. And Monte and Bruce have been producing fun and good quality support for their lines.

But hey, that's me.

I for one didn't like Monte's take on WOD. And this was when I was desperate for anything that felt different.

I didn't know who Monte Cook was before Numenera, so I don't think that me liking the Cypher System has anything to do with hero worship.

For many the game is good, and that's why we play it, there isn't much to it than that really.

Yeah, not a tolerate thing for me; I like the system. It isn't for everyone, but it works better for me and those with my tastes than anything else so far.

Monte Cook didn't really factor into it for me. I think he's living the dream and all, with that whole never had a non-game writing job business, but I wouldn't call it worship of any sort. I remembered him more from his Hero System days than anything else. I do know that a lot of fourth edition fans (especially closeted fans) have a hate-on for him because of comments he made about the failings of that edition, though, so I'm never surprised by those kind of Big Purple-ish comments no matter where I see them.