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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8165047" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just so we're clear, I look forward to your contributions in these threads.  I see the name "prabe" and I think "this is someone I often disagree with on the particulars but I need to read this post."All the stuff you've written (before the last paragraph) is pretty much where I put you at.  Some, [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] in particular (though there have been plenty of others over the years), feel that setting incoherency inevitability (or at least "unpalatable drift") under such a play paradigm is an empirically provable claim.  On the bottom paragraph:I tried to make my thoughts as clear as I could on the matrix first principles and development.  As I wrote upthread, the idea is (a) not that there is no interdependence or bleed (its in fact, accepted a priori) but rather (b) there are, in fact, degrees of freedom.  (c) Sussing both (a) and (b) out is extremely helpful.  Further, (d) understanding that Protagonist Agency is (i) a HUGE part of this yet (ii) it is not necessary for play to achieve the requisite agency necessary to resolve the game's play priority (eg Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic dungeoneering is exhibit A...which was actually my very first collision with "YOUR RPGING SUCKS" in my life when WW/VtM players and LARPers would accuse myself and my friends of shallow NOT RPGING play).  Finally, (e) understanding how some of these mediums and forms of agency (Character, Setting, Situation, Tactical, Strategic, Protagonism) can collide to create at-tension (or worse) play priorities at any given moment of play is EXTREMELY helpful because it will help TTRPG participants resolve those tensions in ways that don't require one play priority being utterly subordinated to another (typically by way of GM Force).</blockquote>

Verification