Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6685688" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Whenever these issues arise, it always seems to me that one of the primary areas of dispute is &quot;how is content meant to be generated for general consumption (eg during play or before play and if during then how)&quot; and &quot;how is the basic conversation of play + the resolution mechanics meant to snowball (if at all)&quot;.There are all sorts of leaps of logic that I've never found compelling from a &quot;logically following&quot; perspective.&nbsp; Perhaps not outright non sequitor, but borderline.&nbsp; For instance, consider the following:A game tells me that my basic job when running it is to (a) follow the rules, (b) portray a fantastic world, (c) fill the PCs lives with adventure and danger, and (d) play to find out what happens.&nbsp; The same game tells the players to (1) listen to the GM and other players, (2) make moves/declare action in response and generally contribute, and (3) advocate for your PC's thematic interests (which the system works to reward).Pretty simple formula which should create interesting, emergent play.&nbsp; On the surface there would seem to be no reason for play to be antagonistic to an immersive experience.&nbsp; However, because everyone at the table is (i) privy to the simple, transparent formula and (ii) the content generation process and the action resolution mechanics are integrated (generate adventure-filled, fantastic, dangerous content &gt; declare actions &gt; resolve actions with dice &gt; escalate the danger, complicate things, resolve some danger, or transition to new danger), it becomes damaging to some folks ability to achieve or maintain immersion.&nbsp; For some folks, there must be some level of opacity when it comes to content generation.&nbsp; The character in the fiction wouldn't batt an eyelash if genre-coherent danger manifested while blazing a trail off the beaten path.&nbsp; However, the player sees that the roll of the dice of their Trailblazer move resulted in the generation of a recently burst cocoon and a fresh, slimy, translucent trail leading off into parts unknown (perhaps still lurking nearby...) of the oppressive, dark forest that the group is traversing, and that metagame transparency is corrosive to their immersive capacity.&nbsp; For others, the only thing that matters is that they're a Ranger blazing a trail in a dark, oppressive forest and some creepy aberration might be lurking nearby.I've said it before in various threads.&nbsp; It is all about mental frameworks.&nbsp; Some folks &quot;need&quot; stuff one way.&nbsp; Some folks &quot;need&quot; stuff another way.&nbsp; And still other folks are more malleable or versatile than either of the other two and don't &quot;need&quot; it either way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6685688, member: 6696971"] Whenever these issues arise, it always seems to me that one of the primary areas of dispute is "how is content meant to be generated for general consumption (eg during play or before play and if during then how)" and "how is the basic conversation of play + the resolution mechanics meant to snowball (if at all)". There are all sorts of leaps of logic that I've never found compelling from a "logically following" perspective. Perhaps not outright non sequitor, but borderline. For instance, consider the following: A game tells me that my basic job when running it is to (a) follow the rules, (b) portray a fantastic world, (c) fill the PCs lives with adventure and danger, and (d) play to find out what happens. The same game tells the players to (1) listen to the GM and other players, (2) make moves/declare action in response and generally contribute, and (3) advocate for your PC's thematic interests (which the system works to reward). Pretty simple formula which should create interesting, emergent play. On the surface there would seem to be no reason for play to be antagonistic to an immersive experience. However, because everyone at the table is (i) privy to the simple, transparent formula and (ii) the content generation process and the action resolution mechanics are integrated (generate adventure-filled, fantastic, dangerous content > declare actions > resolve actions with dice > escalate the danger, complicate things, resolve some danger, or transition to new danger), it becomes damaging to some folks ability to achieve or maintain immersion. For some folks, there must be some level of opacity when it comes to content generation. The character in the fiction wouldn't batt an eyelash if genre-coherent danger manifested while blazing a trail off the beaten path. However, the player sees that the roll of the dice of their [I]Trailblazer [/I]move resulted in the generation of a recently burst cocoon and a fresh, slimy, translucent trail leading off into parts unknown (perhaps still lurking nearby...) of the oppressive, dark forest that the group is traversing, and that metagame transparency is corrosive to their immersive capacity. For others, the only thing that matters is that they're a Ranger blazing a trail in a dark, oppressive forest and some creepy aberration might be lurking nearby. I've said it before in various threads. It is all about mental frameworks. Some folks "need" stuff one way. Some folks "need" stuff another way. And still other folks are more malleable or versatile than either of the other two and don't "need" it either way. [/QUOTE]

Verification