Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9668187" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, I think there are two issues with this:1) Relatively few games do "hard code that dial" though. And the games people object to explicitly don't. Daggerheart is a great example. One can't even argue that it "hard codes that dial", because it explicitly, repeatedly explicitly, does not. You could go anywhere between the players creating large amounts of the fiction, and the players creating basically none of the fiction.2) It's clear people many object without knowing how the dial is "hard coded" even where it is, whilst some people, like [USER=6906980]@AlViking[/USER] are speaking from experience, many people clearly are not. So we've necessarily got to look lower in the chain of causation for the cause, at least for a lot of people, maybe even the majority of people who object generally "to narrative games" or "narrative mechanics". And I would suggest that cause is much more straightforward - they don't really like the idea of this part of the game being discussed or considered at all. And there can be more than one reason for that - I think one major one is that some people's sense of immersion relies on them very much not thinking about the origin of the narrative, treating the game as if it is a simulation, even though, were they to stop and consider it, even for a few minutes, it would be obvious it is not. I could give examples but it'd get tedious, still I think the point is fairly clear.Your broader point about groups divvying up narrative control without even thinking about it is undoubtedly true imho, I just don't think the objection is really due to different configurations of divvying up, as much as it is to pointing out that narrative control is even a thing that exists and can be divvied up.</blockquote>

Verification