Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4511829" data-attributes="member: 3192">I don't think we're going anywhere here as the difference you are referencing is only makes sense outside of role-play.&nbsp; We both agree this isn't role-playing a character.Game prep is not the same as running a game. This is one of the biggest leaps of logic the Big Model makes. Storytellers have to claim that designing a module is the act of role-playing because it's the specific element they must distort and redefine to qualify as RP.&nbsp; &quot;Creating the world&quot; is not an in-character action.&nbsp; Nor is it necessarily a desirable action for a GM.&nbsp; Do some improvisationally create the world on the fly?&nbsp; Yes, but I'd hope they were designing as playable a world as any module writer.&nbsp; Do Players during a role-playing session get to create the world too?&nbsp; Not if they want to consider that action &quot;playing in the role&quot;.&nbsp; Rather, they are gaming the world to win.&nbsp; Their successes are that less meaningful.&nbsp; More &quot;NAR&quot; rules means less meaningful in-character success.&nbsp; It amounts to &quot;just saying&quot; you did something.You're still making the basic mistake that #2 role-playing is #3 acting &quot;in character&quot;.&nbsp; Again, if I play Chess not by calling out the &quot;big piece to A4&quot; but, &quot;My King takes your Bishop&quot; I am telling a story by your above definition.&nbsp; But rationally, even that's too narrow for the &quot;what counts as NAR rules design&quot; designation.&nbsp; &quot;Referenced fiction&quot; is not needed to tell a story by any of these qualifiers.&nbsp; Doing qualifies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4511829, member: 3192"] I don't think we're going anywhere here as the difference you are referencing is only makes sense outside of role-play. We both agree this isn't role-playing a character. Game prep is not the same as running a game. This is one of the biggest leaps of logic the Big Model makes. Storytellers have to claim that designing a module is the act of role-playing because it's the specific element they must distort and redefine to qualify as RP. "Creating the world" is not an in-character action. Nor is it necessarily a desirable action for a GM. Do some improvisationally create the world on the fly? Yes, but I'd hope they were designing as playable a world as any module writer. Do Players during a role-playing session get to create the world too? Not if they want to consider that action "playing in the role". Rather, they are gaming the world to win. Their successes are that less meaningful. More "NAR" rules means less meaningful in-character success. It amounts to "just saying" you did something. You're still making the basic mistake that #2 role-playing is #3 acting "in character". Again, if I play Chess not by calling out the "big piece to A4" but, "My King takes your Bishop" I am telling a story by your above definition. But rationally, even that's too narrow for the "what counts as NAR rules design" designation. "Referenced fiction" is not needed to tell a story by any of these qualifiers. Doing qualifies. [/QUOTE]

Verification