Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7917312" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] I would say that almost completely unstructured Free-form gaming where dispute mediation is table consensus and a simple coin flip to break ties can yield character-driven play if Force (as I've outlined above) doesn't emerge to co-opt thematic/tactical/strategic decision-making to control the gamestate and trajectory of play.Force (be it for or against the player's interests) is absolutely anathema to character-driven play.&nbsp; Its kryptonite.&nbsp; My opinion is just that table consensus will move towards play that is degenerate with respect to the goal of authentic, emergent character-driven play (because peoples' biases, unconscious or acknowledged, and then the propensity to assemble into tribes based on common aims).&nbsp; Consequently, a system that:(a) constrains GMing such that Force isn't on the table(b) makes it easy for awesome character-driven play to emerge as a byproduct of simply playing the game (c) has clear thematic PC build flags and incentive structures + feedback loops in place that press upon the players to coherently advocate for their PCs (d) while ensuring compelling, relevant opposition will consistently emerge to interpose itself between the PCs and their goals in conflict-charged scenes...that has the best chance of consistently achieving the goal of emergent fiction and character-driven play.Can you do so without b and c?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But (a) and (d) are pretty much mandatory in my opinion.&nbsp; And (b) and (c) makes the whole operation easier/more reproducible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7917312, member: 6696971"] [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] I would say that almost completely unstructured Free-form gaming where dispute mediation is table consensus and a simple coin flip to break ties can yield character-driven play if Force (as I've outlined above) doesn't emerge to co-opt thematic/tactical/strategic decision-making to control the gamestate and trajectory of play. Force (be it for or against the player's interests) is absolutely anathema to character-driven play. Its kryptonite. My opinion is just that table consensus will move towards play that is degenerate with respect to the goal of authentic, emergent character-driven play (because peoples' biases, unconscious or acknowledged, and then the propensity to assemble into tribes based on common aims). Consequently, a system that: (a) constrains GMing such that Force isn't on the table (b) makes it easy for awesome character-driven play to emerge as a byproduct of simply playing the game (c) has clear thematic PC build flags and incentive structures + feedback loops in place that press upon the players to coherently advocate for their PCs (d) while ensuring compelling, relevant opposition will consistently emerge to interpose itself between the PCs and their goals in conflict-charged scenes ...that has the best chance of consistently achieving the goal of emergent fiction and character-driven play. Can you do so without b and c? Yes. But (a) and (d) are pretty much mandatory in my opinion. And (b) and (c) makes the whole operation easier/more reproducible. [/QUOTE]

Verification