Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6227034" data-attributes="member: 27160">I very much agree with    [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION], here. With A, I can see either the player surprised (shocked, even) when the "cowled warrior" throws the dagger into his back as he runs out the door, or the GM wondering wht the PC doesn't flee when the player sees that as suicidal with a throwing-dagger armed enemy behind. B leaves no such room for a crucially mismatched pair of pictures to emerge.The Pool is interesting; it has a simple and naturalistic character creation method, but the "paragraph" is used to create resources ("traits") that the player elects when to use. It has very much fortune-in-the-middle resolution of conflicts rather than actions and the player has the option of determining outcome ("monologue of victory") on a win. Those features are what allow the light touch on character definition to work, I think.This depends how you define "mechanical process". I would say this:a) Player envisions what they want the character to do.b) Player communicates what they want to do to the GM.c) GM envisions what they think the character does, based on the description given by the player.d) GM decides what they consider the range of plausible outcomes, given how they see their model of the game world playing out the attempted action by the character, and selects some means of choosing from among those plausible outcomes. GM selects an outcome.e) GM communicates what they envision as the outcome to the players.f) Players picture what they understand the outcome to be, given the GM's description....is a mechanical process. There may or may not be written codes for the communications and written guidelines regarding the selection of the essential features of the outcome, but these don't, in themselves, make the sequence any more or less a "mechanic"; it's a mechanic already.Where the written rules can help seems to me to be in steps (b), (d) and (e). Having "codes" for the use of specific resources or for specifically defined and understood character techniques helps to ensure that the player's and the GM's understanding of what is expected in terms of outcome is congruent (steps b and e). Written rules regarding the selection of outcomes (stage d) gives players some view of the "physics" of the game world that their characters would have an instictive and natural understanding of. Without written (or at least well explained and understood) context for at least stage d, the players are making mere arbitrary selections based on no useful information.I see this as analogous to the difference between "motivation" and "values". "Motivation" is what makes you want to act - what you "like". "Values" are what you consider to be praiseworthy, admirable or virtuous. These two do not necessarily align for a single individual, never mind for a society or group. What is more, different people will almost assuredly have different sets for both of them. Motivation is an instinctive and natural thing; it is what it is and you generally can't fake it for any length of time even if you try. Values, on the other hand, are more intellectual things, and as such may be changed and/or faked with some effort. They are susceptible, also, to social pressure to have the "right" values and acceptance of particular values often denotes (or is used to simulate) membership of a specific culture or group.Is any one set of motivations ("likes") somehow "correct"? Most would say "of course not"; you like what you like. But what about values? Most people would argue strongly that the values espoused by their culture are "correct", but I'm not really convinced. In cases where specific values have some consensus accross cultures maybe the argument could be made that the specific value concerned is "more virtuous" - and a scant few values are supported by rational argument - but I don't think any complete "set" of values can be claimed as "superior". A few might arguably be "universal", but that would have to be adjudged case-by-case.</blockquote>

Verification