Magic Realism RPGs
Jonathan Key
but I've been thinking about the issue of magic realism in gaming, and
something very obvious has just struck me (those who had already
mentally sorted this, please forgive).
Lea Crowe had been talking about the possibilites of using Magic Realist
techniques in gaming, and I had been sceptical. Over time I became less
sceptical, especially when I saw an outline for a game where reality is
not reliable.
However, something still struck me as not right. In Lea's outline, weird
& crazy stuff happens, which people have to deal with. It's interesting,
but it doesn't strike me as being quite what goes on in the archetypical
magic realist story (if such a beast exists). In Marquez' /One Hundred
Years of Solitude/, for instance, which is usually accredited with
starting the whole movement, the events that we, the readers, perceive as
odd and anti-realist are taken as normal, or at least, not in
themselves surprising, by the villagers. In one sense, they know no
better. In another, however, they merely acknowledge that this is how
life appears to them, and it all makes perfect sense in its curious way.
So, when one of the daughters suddenly floats away into the sky, it is
accepted because she was an 'angelic' girl. Similarly, in Rushdie's
'Midnight's Children', when Saleem's father has his assets frozen by the
government, his balls go very cold. Perfectly logical, once it's happened.
Now, Marquez had been trying to write his novel (which is at least
partially taken from his own upbringing) for some time when he
suddenly realised he'd been doing it all wrong. He's been taking a
broadly realist approach, and he realised that he would have to write it
as if his grandmother was telling it - which is how he'd heard things as
a child. The oral tradition, mixed with a lot a 'metaphorical truth' and
some mistakes/misunderstandings/plain tall story-telling = magic realism,
roughly.
How different is this to the Arthurian cycle, where the Dolorous Stroke
renders the Fisher King impotent, the land sterile. The (sexual) potency of
King and of country was a fairly natural one to make. Wrong, to our
worldview, but that's what this is all about. Similarly, that
stock-in-trade of the melodrama, the Pathetic Fallacy, is only the same
basic technique as that of magic realism.
To sum up: 'The Fisher King's problem was a Pathetic Fallacy'. I thank you.
Seriously, I can now see possibilities for a fantasy system where the
magic is not controlled in spells and suchlike, but where it operates as
a kind of sympathetic force, reinforcing the sort of emotional and moral
truths that magic tends to reinforce in fairy tales and classic fantasy.
Such as the giant whose garden was in permanent winter until children
got in to play there. Such as the regeneration of the land under Arthur.
And that, as far as I am concerned, is how simple it really is.
Jon.
_______________________________________________________________
Jonathan Key en...@warwick.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Mitchell
Jonathan Key <en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>[a lot of good discussion snipped]
>
>Seriously, I can now see possibilities for a fantasy system where the
>magic is not controlled in spells and suchlike, but where it operates as
>a kind of sympathetic force, reinforcing the sort of emotional and moral
>truths that magic tends to reinforce in fairy tales and classic fantasy.
>Such as the giant whose garden was in permanent winter until children
>got in to play there. Such as the regeneration of the land under Arthur.
As far as tuning this into a game, a few, probably blindingly obvious,
points occur to me:
1) One has to use some of the more modern "story-based" techniques here
(not necessarily Storyteller, but some mechanics-light system like Amber,
Falkenstein, Pendragon, a really simple configuration of Fudge, etc.)
HERO and GURPS would simply not work.
2) You'd also have to pick your players carefully; there are lots of
people who get bored if they can't kill something, or analyze a puzzle.
3) One first approximation you could make is to take a normal RPG, say
Runequest/Call of Cthulhu, remove the magic system, and instead, as GM,
proclaim that any mundane action you take can have magical consequences
... critical successes surely, but even intense roleplaying, or just
normal actions at particular times and places, would become mythically
exaggerated, or cause repercussions above and beyond normal
consequences. (For fairness sake, not to mention some sort of internal
consistency, you might enumerate some basic "rules of thumb".)
4) I suspect Earthdawn was trying to make magic magical again, but in the
process it got too bogged down in rules and spells and lists. Still, it
looks like a possible resource if you want NPCs or PCs who can actually
shape magic (e.g. a bruja or shaman). GURPS Voodoo also has a magic
system which at least avoids extravagant pyrotechnics.
BTW, in addition to the South Americans, one might also check out Mark
Helprin or John Crowley. I just finished Crowley's _Love and Sleep_,
which has an interesting take on lycanthropy, and some other interesting
tidbits besides (not to mention the sort of language one might adopt in a
Magical Realist RPG).
--
Frank Mitchell
work: fr...@fnbc.com (NeXTmail) home: fr...@gagme.chi.il.us
John Miguel Baker
Probably one of the best systems I would recommend for such an endeavor
would be Over The Edge. Its rules are fast, loose, and don't really get in
the way, and you can take the system into anywhere. Now, admittedly, OTE's
environment is meant to be "psychosurreal" which it is, but this can be
easily changed into a magic real world. After all, magic real elements are
found in William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" (of which The Edge IS Interzone)
or in any Kafka story. (Compare and contrast the characters of "The
Metamorphosis"'s Gregor Samsa and "Falling Down"'s D-FENS. One is simply
the magic realist version of the other.)
Look at Rene Magritte and Frida Kahlo (their paintings give me inspiration)
Most of all, good luck on your project. It sounds wonderful.
John Baker
a magic realist, myself
David R. Henry
>>Seriously, I can now see possibilities for a fantasy system where the
>>magic is not controlled in spells and suchlike, but where it operates as
>>a kind of sympathetic force, reinforcing the sort of emotional and moral
>>truths that magic tends to reinforce in fairy tales and classic fantasy.
>>Such as the giant whose garden was in permanent winter until children
>>got in to play there. Such as the regeneration of the land under Arthur.
>4) I suspect Earthdawn was trying to make magic magical again, but in the
>process it got too bogged down in rules and spells and lists.
It's a bit bogged down, yes, but that's probably because the inhabitants
of Barsaive _wanted_ their magic quantified for easy explanation.
The Earthdawn world, however, runs on the basis that belief is magic
and vice-versa; the emotions of the people in the world create the
reality of the world, and the karma of what goes around, comes around
is an everyday occurance. There are also huge blots of anti-Karma
called Horrors mucking about, but that's another matter. I wouldn't
recommend Earthdawn for any rules on a "sympathetic magical world,"
but their background information on a world run entirely by magic
because people _know_ that things are supposed to be that way is
interesting.
--
David R. Henry-Rogue Fan Club//Oh, no! I've been webbified and hypnotized!
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
Jonathan Key
> As far as tuning this into a game, a few, probably blindingly obvious,
> points occur to me:
>
> 1) One has to use some of the more modern "story-based" techniques here
> (not necessarily Storyteller, but some mechanics-light system like Amber,
> Falkenstein, Pendragon, a really simple configuration of Fudge, etc.)
> HERO and GURPS would simply not work.
Yes. Pendragon has got to be the nearest to perfect system for doing
something like this. It wasn't coincidence that I used Arthurian
examples. The presence of magic with the absence of a magic system was a
master-stroke that has, I fear, been lost in the new edition. All magic
is GM fiat - it's as simple as that. The only question is the principle
of magic that the GM goes by. I think the Arthurian stories give plenty
of clues there.
> 2) You'd also have to pick your players carefully; there are lots of
> people who get bored if they can't kill something, or analyze a puzzle.
I would have thought that there was plenty of scope for both. The Monster of
Id in /Forbidden Planet/ is classic example of something completely
beyond the mental scope of the heroes, but which they can either fight or
try to puzzle out. Plenty of puzzles if you can see the effects of
something rendered large by magic, but you have to locate and correct the
cause. This is what a lot of epic quests are about - rescuing an item
that is necessary for the prosperity of the land (to give a bog standard
example).
> 3) One first approximation you could make is to take a normal RPG, say
> Runequest/Call of Cthulhu, remove the magic system, and instead, as GM,
> proclaim that any mundane action you take can have magical consequences
> ... critical successes surely, but even intense roleplaying, or just
> normal actions at particular times and places, would become mythically
> exaggerated, or cause repercussions above and beyond normal
> consequences. (For fairness sake, not to mention some sort of internal
> consistency, you might enumerate some basic "rules of thumb".)
I think that the biggest mistake would be to give any kind of guidelines.
Let people work them out for themselves. Also, to my conception of any
form of 'magical' magic, enumeration or definition of any kind diminishes
the status of that magic in the eyes of those dealing with it. Magic is,
by definition, the unknown.
Frank R. Mitchell
On the other hand, the GM at least should have some idea what can and
can't happen ... and the players, whose characters who have lived in this
world for their entire lives, should have some idea of that idea.
And I'm not talking about any sort of "rules" with numbers attached
(except if the GM wants to number them) ... what I had in mind was the
Law of Sympathy, the Law of Contagion, the Taboo Against Talking About
The Future (apparently an Eskimo tribe believes that talking about what
you think will happen, or want to happen, brings bad luck), and so
forth. One of the reasons nobody in a Magical Realist novel objects when
a woman floats into the sky is that they share a (tacit) belief that
humans who are virtuous enough are assumed into Heaven, as was the Virgin
Mary. So a lot of the "laws" the GM formulates could be encrypted in
the myths of that world.
John R. Snead
>On the other hand, the GM at least should have some idea what can and
>can't happen ... and the players, whose characters who have lived in this
>world for their entire lives, should have some idea of that idea.
>And I'm not talking about any sort of "rules" with numbers attached
>(except if the GM wants to number them) ... what I had in mind was the
>Law of Sympathy, the Law of Contagion, the Taboo Against Talking About
>The Future (apparently an Eskimo tribe believes that talking about what
>you think will happen, or want to happen, brings bad luck), and so
>forth. One of the reasons nobody in a Magical Realist novel objects when
>a woman floats into the sky is that they share a (tacit) belief that
>humans who are virtuous enough are assumed into Heaven, as was the Virgin
>Mary. So a lot of the "laws" the GM formulates could be encrypted in
>the myths of that world.
the PCs rules for how the world works the GM tells the players a series of
events their characters have obseved or heard of. Someone truly virtuous
floating into the sky would be a good example of something someone had seen.
In this type of game the fewer rules and exact definitions the better. It's
initially damn frusrating (trust me I know, I'm currently playing in a
game of this type) but after a while things begin to make sense.
-Heron jsn...@netcom.com
Jonathan Key
> >I think that the biggest mistake would be to give any kind of guidelines.
> >Let people work them out for themselves. Also, to my conception of any
> >form of 'magical' magic, enumeration or definition of any kind diminishes
> >the status of that magic in the eyes of those dealing with it. Magic is,
> >by definition, the unknown.
>
> On the other hand, the GM at least should have some idea what can and
> can't happen ... and the players, whose characters who have lived in this
> world for their entire lives, should have some idea of that idea.
>
> And I'm not talking about any sort of "rules" with numbers attached
> (except if the GM wants to number them) ... what I had in mind was the
> Law of Sympathy, the Law of Contagion, the Taboo Against Talking About
> The Future (apparently an Eskimo tribe believes that talking about what
> you think will happen, or want to happen, brings bad luck), and so
> forth. One of the reasons nobody in a Magical Realist novel objects when
> a woman floats into the sky is that they share a (tacit) belief that
> humans who are virtuous enough are assumed into Heaven, as was the Virgin
> Mary. So a lot of the "laws" the GM formulates could be encrypted in
> the myths of that world.
I think we may have been talking at slightly crossed purposes, because I
/entirely/ agree with this. My only problem is what is presented to the
players. I /don't/ like the idea of the GM saying "By the way, folks, in
this game, anything you do will be reflected metaphorically in the world
at large" or whatever.
By all means have the "Law" (better term - a so-called 'law of nature'
rather than a 'rule of the game'), but its influence, and hence wonder,
should be subtle. You have to work to implant the /beliefs/, then
gradually show that they are warranted. So, in your example, (mixing
reality with games for a moment) a Player Character member of the Eskimo
tribe who persists in talking about the future may eventually be brought
to realise that the future is always bad when he/she talks about it. That
is an interesting moment for the player, and I don't think that it is one
that should be pre-empted by the game (at least, not the way I imagine
these things to be effective).
Hey, I've got a great idea. There are these picture cards, and people
believe that somehow the cards you choose will tell you something about
the future. Hmm. No, it's too ridiculous. Nobody would fall for that. How
about this: there are all these people who think that what happens to
them in the next few days depends on ... ooh ... the stars! Ack, that's
even /more/ stupid. No, it's no good, I just can't see how a Magic
Realist game could make any sense to late 20th century, intelligent,
mature gamers. Maybe I'd better drop the whole idea...
Jon.
Lea Crowe
Keeping the Brane Clean" while this thread was doing its thing, so I
sort of missed it. However, my brane is now deliriously filthy again,
so Angela Carter it is.
In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.950704160707.28785G-100000@crocus>
en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk "Jonathan Key" writes:
> Seriously, I can now see possibilities for a fantasy system where the
> magic is not controlled in spells and suchlike, but where it operates as
> a kind of sympathetic force, reinforcing the sort of emotional and moral
> truths that magic tends to reinforce in fairy tales and classic fantasy.
> Such as the giant whose garden was in permanent winter until children
> got in to play there. Such as the regeneration of the land under Arthur.
>
> And that, as far as I am concerned, is how simple it really is.
This was the sort of thing I was trying to get at in the Indian example
a while back. It's a simple idea to consider, but I think a more difficult
one to implement. As we discussed, it requires a consensus that the laws
of reality should be poetic rather than physical--with all the quirky
irregularity that entails.
I don't know about your "fairy tales and classic fantasy" clause, though,
especially since magic realism is a very modern mode. Fairy tales tend
to reinforce a particular type of "emotional and moral truth," whereas
modern literature operates against a much more diverse background. For
example, fairy tales tend to have very sharp divisions between good and bad,
whereas contemporary literature tends to explore individuals in rather more
detail, and to describe them in shades of grey. Fond as I am of fairy tales,
it's the modern angle that I'd like to see being pursued. The images of
rebirth that you describe are powerful, but to me they also seem rather
clumsy and overstated: that's okay when you're dealing with myths or
fairy tales (or in hack fantasy), but a "literary" game design would have
to deal in much more subtle and/or individual expressions of the magic
in the world.
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!
Lea Crowe
jsn...@netcom.com "John R. Snead" writes:
> Hmm, That give me an interesting idea. How about if instead of the GM giving
> the PCs rules for how the world works the GM tells the players a series of
> events their characters have obseved or heard of. Someone truly virtuous
> floating into the sky would be a good example of something someone had seen.
>
> In this type of game the fewer rules and exact definitions the better. It's
> initially damn frusrating (trust me I know, I'm currently playing in a
> game of this type) but after a while things begin to make sense.
This certainly seems to fit the "poetic logic" that Jon and I discussed
in the "Midnight's Children" thread. If the GM comes up with reproducible,
"qu*ntif*able" laws such as the law of sympathy mentioned by a previous poster
(or the law of not talking about the future, which was a wonderful example--
thank you!), then the world becomes predictable and exploitable. "Hmm,
we need to see over that wall. Brian, do something virtuous--not too
virtuous, mind you, or you'll float off altogether."
By putting the characters' knowledge of the world in the form of stories,
the GM (a) emphasises the uncertain, wonderful nature of the world and
(b) if he plays his cards right, gets to be an ultra-cool modernist by
using the word "metafiction." Actually, metafiction isn't quite the correct
word (well, actually it isn't the correct word at all, but it's ultra-cool
all the same)--I'm trying to get across the sense that magical realist
writing often has of *knowing* that it is a fiction.
It also ties in with Jon's remarks about how Marquez was telling his story
as though it were a fable being read to him by his grandfather. If the
narrative voice of the campaign is one which tells stories (fables), the
poetry of the world is reinforced.
Charles M Seaton
In article <jsneadDB...@netcom.com>
jsn...@netcom.com "John R. Snead" writes:
> Hmm, That give me an interesting idea. How about if instead of
> the GM giving the PCs rules for how the world works the GM tells
> the players a series of events their characters have obseved or
> heard of. Someone truly virtuous floating into the sky would be a
> good example of something someone had seen.
Though actually, this sort of thing works not -- or rather less --
because the characters have observed or heard of magical events --
like someone's bodily assumption into heaven -- than because it
makes SENSE on a deep and profound level. Heaven is up, so of
course someone virtuous could be bodily lifted up to be in heaven.
Well, it COULD happen...
Of course there is the occasional legend about it, but the legends
come after the fact -- to illustrate the metaphysical point being
made, or to provide an allegory. Also, if you tell your players
that one of them once saw a virtuous person float into the sky, they
aren't going to be nearly as surprised when it happens (again)
during the game; that crucial sensa wunda is going to be lost.
Sorry. "Sense of wonder." Anyway. Much better to lay the
groundwork early on -- establish that Heaven, where virtuous people
go when they die, is up in the sky, and that Charly over there is
very virtuous, so virtuous that it hurts, and then, at the proper
emotional point, have Charly lifted bodily into the sky. Let them
have the fun of going, "Huh? Wha'?" and then let them explain it on
their own.
For a magical realism (ick, bleahh, what an awful neologism) game to
work properly, the GM (and the players) are going to have to have an
assured, confident, intuitive sense of how the world works; they're
going to have to know its myths, legends, history, literature,
religion, and society inside and out to be able to weave a complex
enough web of allusion, imagery, and allegory. Which is a lot of
work, but necessary. One way to get around this, of course, is to
steal from the myths and fables we are all familiar with (hence the
assumption analogy). Which is probably why so many gaming worlds
have faeries just like those Western European ones.
Another aspect of a magically realistic game is that it is going to
require a great deal more consensus between players and GM than most
games. Characters in a magically realistic story are not just
passive observers of a magical world; they are themselves magical to
one degree or another. The GM should feel free to allow the players
to add their own touches of magic and whimsy, whether it's a story
their character knows or tells, some silly superstition they believe
in or magic lucky ritual they do, or some hideous wild monster their
grandfather told them about. Or even some some, simple, almost
mundane magical thing they can do. Sometimes. If the weather's
right. Of course, whether these things are TRUE or not is a point
of contention, but ultimately doesn't matter. See the point on
subjectivity a couple of paragraphs down.
The players need to know so much and be so involved, of course, if
their characters are living in their own society, one in which
they've grown up and which they are familiar with. Another way to
bring magical realism into the game is to design a region of the
world which works that way and then have the characters, for
whatever reason, travel there. Let them experience the magic first
hand and be completely mystified by it and never ever explain it to
them. Let them work out their OWN ideas as to how and why things
work this way. You might even decide to use their ideas instead of
the ones you had in the first place, or to meld the two. Call that
the Total Immersion Method.
One more thing to play with -- subjectivity. Have one character
witness an event in one, distinctly magical, fashion; have another
witness the same event in a more mundane fashion. Let them argue
about it, and try to convince the other characters. Don't just look
at magic as an objective, quanitifiable irruption into everyday
life; there is a crucial subjective component of magic which most
games gloss over or ignore outright in their attempts to rule
exactly how many dice of damage a first level fireball delivers.
People experience magic in different ways, and if your characters do
as well, it's only going to add to the richness of the game.
The final suggestion I want to make -- if you want to play with this
idea, but don't want to wreck your current game with any sort of
experimentation, try role-playing a character's dream sequence.
First, no consequences -- they wake up, and they're back in what
passes for the real world. No damage. (With the possible exception
of psychological -- but you'll all be good boys and girls, right?)
But within the dream environment, you can play with subjective,
intuitive effects and ideas, and surreal scenes and sequences. It
is going to be much less subtle than magical realism, but it will
allow you to experiment with various techniques you can apply to
magical realism and give you the confidence to run with an idea, no
matter how loopy it might seem -- and also, as dreams are different
than the real world, and as it's occurring in the character's head,
you can experiment some with allowing more consensus to develop in
the game. Encourage the player to describe or moderate certain
aspects of their own character's dream. Or encourage other players
to get involved as other aspects of the character's psyche, or the
dream reflections of their own characters.
Go for it.
kip manley enn...@student.umass.edu
"The panel load on the upper lateral system is 25 x 150 = 3 750 lb =
3.75 kips."
my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Nine
Jonathan Key
> Hi, Jon. I know this is late, but I was out "Akquiring Culture and
> Keeping the Brane Clean" while this thread was doing its thing, so I
> sort of missed it. However, my brane is now deliriously filthy again,
> so Angela Carter it is.
Clean Branes are a chiz as any fule no.
> > Seriously, I can now see possibilities for a fantasy system where the
> > magic is not controlled in spells and suchlike, but where it operates as
> > a kind of sympathetic force, reinforcing the sort of emotional and moral
> > truths that magic tends to reinforce in fairy tales and classic fantasy.
> > Such as the giant whose garden was in permanent winter until children
> > got in to play there. Such as the regeneration of the land under Arthur.
> >
> > And that, as far as I am concerned, is how simple it really is.
>
> This was the sort of thing I was trying to get at in the Indian example
> a while back. It's a simple idea to consider, but I think a more difficult
> one to implement. As we discussed, it requires a consensus that the laws
> of reality should be poetic rather than physical--with all the quirky
> irregularity that entails.
Ah, 'quirky irregularity'. I'm beginning to see a distinction between
your view of magic realism stories and mine. I'll deal with this in
response to you other post.
> I don't know about your "fairy tales and classic fantasy" clause, though,
> especially since magic realism is a very modern mode.
Whoah! That's exactly what I was questioning, particularly with the story
about Marquez. Magic realism is (IMO) a postmodern take on the fairy-tale
mode of storytelling. It can hardly be coincidental that so many US-European
'magic realist' writers make ironic returns to fairy tales (viz. Angela
Carter, and, to a certain extent, John Barth). Of course, magic realist
writers from other continents do much the same, but I'm less qualified to
talk about them.
> Fairy tales tend
> to reinforce a particular type of "emotional and moral truth," whereas
> modern literature operates against a much more diverse background. For
> example, fairy tales tend to have very sharp divisions between good and bad,
> whereas contemporary literature tends to explore individuals in rather more
> detail, and to describe them in shades of grey. Fond as I am of fairy tales,
> it's the modern angle that I'd like to see being pursued.
OK. A preference for one over the other is fine. There are patently
strong cultural, moral and technical differences between fairy tale and
magic realism. I wouldn't like to defend the 'black & white' vs. 'shades
of grey' thing on a case by case basis, though. The Athurian stories,
e.g., have a lot of very ambiguous characters in them (although an unkind
person might describe them as 'radically inconsistent due to the lack of
a modern sense of "character"').
> The images of
> rebirth that you describe are powerful, but to me they also seem rather
> clumsy and overstated: that's okay when you're dealing with myths or
> fairy tales (or in hack fantasy), but a "literary" game design would have
> to deal in much more subtle and/or individual expressions of the magic
> in the world.
Yes, I can understand this, but I find myself coming back to a concern I
expressed ages ago. In my opinion, I'm more likely to see magic realist
techniques /successfully/ expressed in the clumsy and overstated manner
of fairy tales than in the subtle manner of (insert favourite Magic
Realist writer here). This is for the simple reason that most games /are/
essentially mythic/fairy tale-based (or, as you correctly identify, hack
fantasy), than literary. Now, this shouldn't necessarily be a problem.
Except, my contention is that this is by and large (I /am/ prepared to
make honourable exceptions) due to the fundamental limitations of RPGs.
Technically, as largely improvised stories created by different 'authors'
with different (and largely unexpressed) motivations and desires, I think
that this is almost inevitable.
That isn't flamebait. I'm not just doing rolegamers down (well...). But
if someone does want to argue, and I don't respond, it's not personal.
I'm going away at the weekend, and will not return for a month or more.
Even when I do, it will be in the cunning disguise of an american-type
person. Oh joy ;)
A shame, as I was enjoying this discussion.
Jon.
Jonathan Key
> This certainly seems to fit the "poetic logic" that Jon and I discussed
> in the "Midnight's Children" thread. If the GM comes up with reproducible,
> "qu*ntif*able" laws such as the law of sympathy mentioned by a previous poster
> (or the law of not talking about the future, which was a wonderful example--
> thank you!), then the world becomes predictable and exploitable. "Hmm,
> we need to see over that wall. Brian, do something virtuous--not too
> virtuous, mind you, or you'll float off altogether."
But butbutbutbut...
I think this misses one of the /great/ things that magic realist
techniques can add to a game. That is the ability to determine events
according to motivation, character, and all kinds of subtle measures
rather than mere material events. In Lea's example, the GM would be a
total fool to let the characters get away with such blatant manipulation,
but (and this is the important bit) could prevent such manipulation by
direct recourse to the 'poetic laws of nature' that are being used. As
any first year philosophy student will identify, Brian being virtuous to
see over a wall is in fact Brian /not/ being virtuous. He would be doing
it for selfish ends, or at least, not with disregard for his own
situation. Ergo, it is not virtuous. This could be an incredibly powerful
tool, particularly as the GM is usually perfectly placed to see whether
characters are doing something because it is the 'right' thing to do, or
are doing it to increase some numbers on their character sheet.
I don't think that it is really a case of avoiding quantifiable (sorry)
rules, despite anything I may have said earlier, although I think it
definitely /is/ a case of not handing things to players on a plate by
giving them the mechanics of the poetic system in use. After all, you can
make things quite hard enough by simply changing the circumstances,
subsituting a different (but not contradictory) set of rules. Ah, but I'm
getting into deep water here, with no examples to keep me afloat.
> By putting the characters' knowledge of the world in the form of stories,
> the GM (a) emphasises the uncertain, wonderful nature of the world and
> (b) if he plays his cards right, gets to be an ultra-cool modernist by
> using the word "metafiction." Actually, metafiction isn't quite the correct
> word (well, actually it isn't the correct word at all, but it's ultra-cool
> all the same)--I'm trying to get across the sense that magical realist
> writing often has of *knowing* that it is a fiction.
Postmodern self-reflexive sensibility? Actually, I think 'metafiction'
/is/ the right word. I think that this would be a /perfect/ device for a
bunch of people sitting around making up a story together, as though they
are really in it, but constantly aware (and reminded by the fact that
they are sitting around talking about it) that it is fiction. Hey, that
sounds like...
> It also ties in with Jon's remarks about how Marquez was telling his story
> as though it were a fable being read to him by his grandfather.
Well, that's more or less what I said, bar some gender details and the like.
> If the narrative voice of the campaign is one which tells stories (fables),
> the poetry of the world is reinforced.
I think I understand this. I /do/ like the idea of the narrative voice of
the campaign, especially if the players can participate in it fully. When
I was planning an Al-Qadim campaign (no snide comments /please/), I
wanted to take the story-telling aspect of the culture quite far, and
make the players /narrate/ events as they were happening. Hence:
Mushtaq:- When I saw that the helmsman had been washed overboard, I leapt
toward the tiller. For I knew that we would certainly be washed
onto the rocks of that accursed shore otherwise.
Hassan:- (their host, played by the GM) /shakes his head/
Mushtaq:- ...but, as Fate willed it, I slipped on the wet planks and missed.
Hassan:- Ah, and that is how you got the scar on your forehead. What
happened while you were unconscious?
Mushtaq:- Oh.
Achmed:- I ordered one of the other sailors nearby to grab the tiller.
Hassan:- I see. So my son Achmed was not brave enough to save the ship.
Fortune rewards the brave. Perhaps this is why my dear son Achmed
is not here now, but you are, Mushtaq. [Mushtaq & Achmed exchange
puzzled looks] Explain to me how it came to be that he disappeared
in such sad circumstances.
Mushtaq:- Well...
Unfortunately, it proved too convoluted to be practical, although I'm
sure some players would be up for it in principle.
Jon.