Search results

I like that better, but sufficient connection seems quite subjective (unless we are also going to define what is and isnt sufficient). And I also thought the whole point was that story now games don’t try and create narratives which seems to be in conflict with that meaning.

Saying Fighter is better doesn't mean the others are incompetent?

I don’t know what that has to do with them not being competent or their ability to establish and resolve conflicts.

So right now I’m of the opinion that either my d&d living world sandbox play is very nearly narrativist or that my blades in the dark play was very simulationist. I look at my blades in the dark play, there wasn’t any strong moral lines, the players were in a gang doing whatever they wanted...

Okay. How does the table establish a moral line? Even a typical method would be acceptable here. Okay so in the runes example, what was the player established moral line, what was the conflict, how was that conflict established and what was the resolution of that conflict? It's been a while...

*Note: I am willing to engage with the jargon, but quoting me a definition with a bunch of not clearly defined terms is a starting point that's going to require substantial followup. Okay check. IMO all RPG's create rising conflict, unless 'rising conflict' is being used as technical jargon...

You just plainly described the difference. 1) The game system has a rule for killing Orcs. 2) In MHRP, the game system has a rule for the player establishing what strange runes say. I'll note that of particular importance is the fact that you specifically didn't describe the first as 'the...

I'm trying to describe what is necessary for a narrativist game. My Definition - A narrativist game is structured in such a way as to produce fiction that revolves around certain player defined aspects of their characters chosen at character generation. I think this rules out D&D module style...

I've seen a few like @Faolyn say that not having fail forward or similar is boring. But that seems to presuppose there's no other way to generate non-boring content other than by bundling their generation with the player action resolution system. A large part of the problem in these...

I mean besides the obvious difference that you just agreed to right? For what it's worth, I agree the GM is bound to honor it. I don't see the relevance of that point in relation to what we are disucssing but if it may help move the conversation forward if you can clearly see my agreement to...

I had just watched a youtube video on that not long ago. But I don't see anyone taking that actual position here. So I think it's safe to elide discussion of it. If they were you are right that we would have to just agree to disagree.

I understand the sentiment but presumably the game has principles that would limit a player from declaring that as his hope in a situation where it wouldn't make contextual sense. The bigger issue around principles in these discussions is more that not everyone is familiar with what they...

Are you really quibbling about describing this as 'the PC's action' vs 'the player's action declaration' such that you would say 'the player's action declaration' prompts X to happen in the real world but 'the PC's action' does not prompt X to happen in the real world? Because from my...

As long as you agree that the player decided what the outcome would be if/when success was rolled. You see, we fully understand that the player decided 'potential' outcome is gated behind a roll that must succeed before it comes to pass. That's never been the issue, nor the concept we are...

Indeed. I'm in constant disbelief that such a simple concept and obvious difference is repeatedly denied.

On player driven Do we all agree that the failure or success with complication states of fail forward resolution introduce GM-driven complications (at least for most games that implement it)? If not, why not?

The ai produces nothing without a prompt, much like a copier produces nothing without a human directing the copier to copy. We don’t blame xerox because a user directed the copier to output a copyrighted work. We blame the individual directing the machine to do that.

Even then theres a clear undertone that this non-conservative way would be better. Else why even mention the non-conservative way in the first place.

Which at best shows some tools enabling infringement can be found complicit. Not that they generally will be.

Hold on. You said tools that enable large scale infringement are generally found complicit. I asked about copy machines and torrents both tools enabling large scale infringement and both not found complicit in it. Your next answer elaborated but didn’t fundamentally disagree with this assessment.