Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 7533257" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Do you mean that it's really down to the individual group, with equal justice on either interpretation?</p><p></p><p>In background analysis of games (game studies and philosophy of games) about a decade ago it was suggested that there is always a duality in the relationship of player to game. There is player as the real person, still a member of their society and culture, thinking about all kinds of things as well as what they are doing in the game. And there is player as subject to the game, obedient to the rules of the game. Several people suggested it and Miguel Sicart writes it up pretty well. It wasn't specifically directed at RPGs. What we're hitting here possibly relates to that duality. We have two models (at least) that people are using. To sketch it out very roughly:</p><p></p><p><u><strong>Model A</strong></u></p><p>Player intents and Character intents are the same thing. Character acts like walking, hiding or perceiving things are mediated through the mechanics.</p><p></p><p><u><strong>Model B</strong></u></p><p>Player's have intents. Those intents say what character intents, like intending to walk, hide or perceive, are. Character intents, and character acts, like walking, hiding or perceiving things, are all mediated through the mechanics.</p><p></p><p>Model B hypothesises a duality between player and character that appears to be sustained in the literature. Model A relies on denying that duality, and in doing so creates some interesting mysteries around the Charisma-based skills. I mean "mysteries" here in a strong sense: the exact reason for their behaviour isn't really explained. This is kind of hard to articulate, but I'll try. Some spells seem to be able to insert themselves between player intent and character intent. Yet, if there is really no space there, then they shouldn't be able to do that. Ergo, there is space there, or space can be created there. If space can be created there, why don't I prefer an explanation where that space is always there? Or even if I don't, why do I believe only spells can create that space? It's a mystery.</p><p></p><p>Absent this point, Occam's Razor would guide me to prefer Model A. But Model A ends up being more complicated than Model B, because it has this bit of space that has to come in and out of existence, on cue. Character intents are, I might argue, exactly as fictional as character actions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7533257, member: 71699"] Do you mean that it's really down to the individual group, with equal justice on either interpretation? In background analysis of games (game studies and philosophy of games) about a decade ago it was suggested that there is always a duality in the relationship of player to game. There is player as the real person, still a member of their society and culture, thinking about all kinds of things as well as what they are doing in the game. And there is player as subject to the game, obedient to the rules of the game. Several people suggested it and Miguel Sicart writes it up pretty well. It wasn't specifically directed at RPGs. What we're hitting here possibly relates to that duality. We have two models (at least) that people are using. To sketch it out very roughly: [U][B]Model A[/B][/U] Player intents and Character intents are the same thing. Character acts like walking, hiding or perceiving things are mediated through the mechanics. [U][B]Model B[/B][/U] Player's have intents. Those intents say what character intents, like intending to walk, hide or perceive, are. Character intents, and character acts, like walking, hiding or perceiving things, are all mediated through the mechanics. Model B hypothesises a duality between player and character that appears to be sustained in the literature. Model A relies on denying that duality, and in doing so creates some interesting mysteries around the Charisma-based skills. I mean "mysteries" here in a strong sense: the exact reason for their behaviour isn't really explained. This is kind of hard to articulate, but I'll try. Some spells seem to be able to insert themselves between player intent and character intent. Yet, if there is really no space there, then they shouldn't be able to do that. Ergo, there is space there, or space can be created there. If space can be created there, why don't I prefer an explanation where that space is always there? Or even if I don't, why do I believe only spells can create that space? It's a mystery. Absent this point, Occam's Razor would guide me to prefer Model A. But Model A ends up being more complicated than Model B, because it has this bit of space that has to come in and out of existence, on cue. Character intents are, I might argue, exactly as fictional as character actions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
Top