Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7566530" data-attributes="member: 85870">I realize the thread has moved on quite a bit from this post, but I'm feeling the need to &quot;unpack&quot; this a bit. To restate---in your view, &quot;Say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot; principles meaningfully diminish some combination of desirable gameplay qualities, including but not limited to: <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Maintaining &quot;The mystery of the unknown&quot;.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Maintaining &quot;causational realism&quot; or &quot;causational coherence&quot;.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ensuring the PCs don't inhabit an artificial &quot;protagonist bubble&quot; / keeping NPCs' within the same &quot;realistic,&quot; &quot;naturalistic,&quot; or &quot;causational&quot; boundaries as the PCs.</li>
</ul>Can you elaborate how or why this diminishing effect happens? Because in my view, the exact opposite is true. I would be deeply suspicious of any GM who loudly and continually proclaimed how &quot;realistic&quot; and &quot;causationally consistent&quot; their games were, because it would tell me that at the end of the day, (s)he is willing to set the &quot;purity of fiction&quot; above the fun of the players.Does that mean that the GM is always and forever going to make that choice? Not necessarily, but it does tell me about the underlying motivation and gameplay principles the GM values. When push comes to shove, the players under this GM are going to be forced to subsume their wants and desires or end the relationship. (Sound familiar? &quot;Don't like your GM? Leave the group, or just deal with it. Your choice!&quot;)Do I think the listed items above have no merit, or that RPGs should be wholly devoid of &quot;realism&quot; and &quot;causational consistency&quot;? No. But beyond the point of establishing that purple worms won't randomly fall out of the sky and rocks don't randomly transmute into apple-pie-baking acrobats, what is the value of &quot;causational consistency&quot; anyway? Am I completely misreading the level of demand for games that insist upon strict, &quot;living-breathing world&quot; principles?In my view GMs should be very, VERY judicious in swinging the Bludgeon of Fictional Purity, because it's indicative of an attitude that the GM's play agenda will ultimately and always be seen as more important than the players'. &quot;Purity of fiction&quot; is too often a cop-out for GMs who don't want to cede control and are overly invested in their pre-scripted fiction. And the reason they're overly-invested in their &quot;game world&quot; is because they tie their own emotional state, wants, and needs to their ability to be seen as &quot;clever&quot; or &quot;imaginative&quot; or &quot;cool&quot; within the context of their game. For how could a GM ever be seen as &quot;clever&quot; if (s)he can't show off the amazing worldbuilding they've done?Given the choice between &quot;purity of fiction&quot; and re-configuring vast swaths of the GM's &quot;world&quot; because it would be massively more fun, I'd guess an overwhelming majority of players would choose the fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7566530, member: 85870"] I realize the thread has moved on quite a bit from this post, but I'm feeling the need to "unpack" this a bit. To restate---in your view, "Say 'yes' or roll the dice" principles meaningfully diminish some combination of desirable gameplay qualities, including but not limited to: [LIST] [*]Maintaining "The mystery of the unknown". [*]Maintaining "causational realism" or "causational coherence". [*]Ensuring the PCs don't inhabit an artificial "protagonist bubble" / keeping NPCs' within the same "realistic," "naturalistic," or "causational" boundaries as the PCs. [/LIST] Can you elaborate how or why this diminishing effect happens? Because in my view, the exact opposite is true. I would be deeply suspicious of any GM who loudly and continually proclaimed how "realistic" and "causationally consistent" their games were, because it would tell me that at the end of the day, (s)he is willing to set the "purity of fiction" above the fun of the players. Does that mean that the GM is always and forever going to make that choice? Not necessarily, but it does tell me about the underlying motivation and gameplay principles the GM values. When push comes to shove, the players under this GM are going to be forced to subsume their wants and desires or end the relationship. (Sound familiar? "Don't like your GM? Leave the group, or just deal with it. Your choice!") Do I think the listed items above have no merit, or that RPGs should be wholly devoid of "realism" and "causational consistency"? No. But beyond the point of establishing that purple worms won't randomly fall out of the sky and rocks don't randomly transmute into apple-pie-baking acrobats, what is the value of "causational consistency" anyway? Am I completely misreading the level of demand for games that insist upon strict, "living-breathing world" principles? In my view GMs should be very, VERY judicious in swinging the Bludgeon of Fictional Purity, because it's indicative of an attitude that the GM's play agenda will ultimately and always be seen as more important than the players'. "Purity of fiction" is too often a cop-out for GMs who don't want to cede control and are overly invested in their pre-scripted fiction. And the reason they're overly-invested in their "game world" is because they tie their own emotional state, wants, and needs to their ability to be seen as "clever" or "imaginative" or "cool" within the context of their game. For how could a GM ever be seen as "clever" if (s)he can't show off the amazing worldbuilding they've done? Given the choice between "purity of fiction" and re-configuring vast swaths of the GM's "world" because it would be massively more fun, I'd guess an overwhelming majority of players would choose the fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification