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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8139083" data-attributes="member: 16814">A few things, here.Firstly, simple misadventure is not a thing.  In life we have accidents, but there are no accidents in any RPGs I'm aware of (there could be one that implements a mechanic to check for accidents, I suppose).  Instead RPGs are full of intent -- players choose actions with intent, and, in traditional games, GMs choose outcomes with intent.  Suggesting players should be careful playing characters because accidents could happen is obfuscating what is actually happening in games and the reasons why players choose to play how they do.And, again, I absolutely reiterate that if a player is playing cautiously to keep their character safe from misadventure, then usually because they've been accustomed to a style of player where the GM is stingy with information until various actions to pry it loose are taken.  Again, I'll grant this is fairly common, but it's a mistake to assign this to a player preference when it's learned behavior.  I had the hardest time deprograming one of my players of this playstyle when I switched to providing information much more freely.  Secondly, the focus on death as the primary consequence to avoid is a very narrow focus.  The worst things I've ever done to characters and the worst things ever done to mine didn't involve character death at all.  No amount of being careful around the deathtraps is likely to mitigate these kinds of harms because they stem from failure at larger resolution things, not lack of care in the moment.You're right, I did, apologies.  I did because this, I find, is really hard to grasp.  You're effectively saying that, from the outside, there's zero indication of stance -- I couldn't tell an actor stance portrayal from either of the IC versions because all are faithful representations of the character.  Even internally, I think it would be hard to tell (if not impossible, see my continued disagreement with the foundations of IC stances) the difference -- you're imagining how the character would react to a thing and doing that.  I suppose the counter is that the actor is weighing various choices while the IC is doing it impulsively, but that's just saying that IC is the impulsive version of actor, not actually calling out a serious difference.  I mean, can I tell the difference between being conflicted over how to react to a thing in IC stance and being conflicted over how to react to a thing in actor stance?These hairs are getting increasingly fine.  Rather than continue to split them, feel free to have the final word on the matter.</blockquote>

Verification