Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8132975" data-attributes="member: 82106">I would like to point out that in my own analytical technique this kind of statement is meaningless. There is no 'same place' for them to end up, as DEFINITIONALLY the GM has not created such a place to start with! Thus you have only the epistemologically empty statement that you 'believe' that if the players had made other choices the narrative would have been (in some substantive sense) 'the same'. This is of course not a falisfiable statement, and thus can never be anything EXCEPT an unsupported belief. I question whether it even matters, or if perhaps it simply elucidates that the real question is only "who is able to have the most meaningful input into the fiction at the table." Given a 'no myth' starting point, we can never actually be sure. All we can do is observe the process, and if we can agree on what is meaningful, then 'count' the points at which each participant meets the criteria. Still, we can only say that some other method (IE extensive prep) works better in this regard by resorting to experimentation! So, I can buy that people may 'feel that this is true' and even base that to an extent on reference to their experience with using both techniques, but all that can really be said is "participants of type X get more agency using techniques A, B, and C vs techniques L, M, and Q."</blockquote>