Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8157986" data-attributes="member: 16814">I see a possible place of disconnect.&nbsp; Let me expand these for &quot;mainstream&quot; games (ie, D&amp;D-sphere games):1a) the GM has notes that say the orc is killable.1b) the GM has notes that say the orc is unkillable.2a) the GM has notes that say a secret door is findable2b) the GM has notes that say a secret door is unfindable.These are the cases for &quot;mainstream&quot; games.&nbsp; I think the disconnect is that 1a is an implicit default judgement and not thought about as an explicit decision by the GM.&nbsp; This is further reinforced by the rarity of 1b -- most GMs do not consider rendering the orc unkillable because it violates their understanding of the game's social contract.&nbsp; However, 2 is the reverse:&nbsp; 2b is the implicit default assumption and it's 2a that's the exception.&nbsp; As such, when someone introduces 1c or 2c -- let the system decide -- then there's a massive disconnect because the assumed positions of 1 and 2 are inverse of each other and therefore cannot be the same.&nbsp; The reality is that there's only an assumption of what the default state is, and also the assumption that a default state must exist.I might, just might, be speaking from experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8157986, member: 16814"] I see a possible place of disconnect. Let me expand these for "mainstream" games (ie, D&D-sphere games): 1a) the GM has notes that say the orc is killable. 1b) the GM has notes that say the orc is unkillable. 2a) the GM has notes that say a secret door is findable 2b) the GM has notes that say a secret door is unfindable. These are the cases for "mainstream" games. I think the disconnect is that 1a is an implicit default judgement and not thought about as an explicit decision by the GM. This is further reinforced by the rarity of 1b -- most GMs do not consider rendering the orc unkillable because it violates their understanding of the game's social contract. However, 2 is the reverse: 2b is the implicit default assumption and it's 2a that's the exception. As such, when someone introduces 1c or 2c -- let the system decide -- then there's a massive disconnect because the assumed positions of 1 and 2 are inverse of each other and therefore cannot be the same. The reality is that there's only an assumption of what the default state is, and also the assumption that a default state must exist. I might, just might, be speaking from experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification