Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8219391" data-attributes="member: 16814">100%, man, absolutely.&nbsp; But... it's not.&nbsp; It's still exactly as made up either way.Analogy to books don't really work for many reasons (difference in how they're authored being a major one), but, to lean into it, I don't really care how it's written -- my question is &quot;do I enjoy it.&quot;&nbsp; It's really about the story -- is a compelling story told?&nbsp; If so, I don't care how it's crafted.Again, what usually strikes me about these claims is that they really seem to go to being able to have the ability to embrace skilled play -- ie, that the players have a chance to excel because the fiction is largely fixed in place and they can work towards advantage with cunning action declarations.&nbsp; And, to be absolutely clear, this is 100% cool and fine!&nbsp; This kind of play has been around since the beginning, and it's 100% valid and not at all a bad thing.&nbsp; I'm not trying to say this is bad at all, just pointing out that the complaint about when fiction is authored goes to this play objective and not really to the many reasons that are usually cited.I'm betting it's because you felt like the GM made things up to thwart your actions and/or allow actions, and this felt unfair.&nbsp; Thing is, the GM is doing this in prep, too, they're just not reacting to your action declarations by making things up then, but rather evaluating against what they've already made up.&nbsp; And that's a 100% valid distinction, but the idea that it's because of when the fiction is written is not really the point.There are entire game systems where you cannot prep (like, really can't, the system will fight any prep), and they generate detailed, deep, immersive worlds, they just do it through play.The GM is a player as well.&nbsp; The same thing holds.This goes to a concept called advocating for the character -- you root the character in their desires and declare actions with that as a primary goal.&nbsp; It works for any player, GMs included.&nbsp; It's a tad orthogonal to division of knowledge, which, as I said, can't actually be eliminated.&nbsp; Sometimes, it's easy to &quot;separate&quot; things out, but that doesn't prove much -- easy cases are rarely strong cases.I don't really pay much attention, and just advocate for the character.&nbsp; Again, the goal of separation of knowledge is impossible, and I'm not sure much is gained by pursuing it rather than other principles of play, like advocating for character.100%!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8219391, member: 16814"] 100%, man, absolutely. But... it's not. It's still exactly as made up either way. Analogy to books don't really work for many reasons (difference in how they're authored being a major one), but, to lean into it, I don't really care how it's written -- my question is "do I enjoy it." It's really about the story -- is a compelling story told? If so, I don't care how it's crafted. Again, what usually strikes me about these claims is that they really seem to go to being able to have the ability to embrace skilled play -- ie, that the players have a chance to excel because the fiction is largely fixed in place and they can work towards advantage with cunning action declarations. And, to be absolutely clear, this is 100% cool and fine! This kind of play has been around since the beginning, and it's 100% valid and not at all a bad thing. I'm not trying to say this is bad at all, just pointing out that the complaint about when fiction is authored goes to this play objective and not really to the many reasons that are usually cited. I'm betting it's because you felt like the GM made things up to thwart your actions and/or allow actions, and this felt unfair. Thing is, the GM is doing this in prep, too, they're just not reacting to your action declarations by making things up then, but rather evaluating against what they've already made up. And that's a 100% valid distinction, but the idea that it's because of when the fiction is written is not really the point. There are entire game systems where you cannot prep (like, really can't, the system will fight any prep), and they generate detailed, deep, immersive worlds, they just do it through play. The GM is a player as well. The same thing holds. This goes to a concept called advocating for the character -- you root the character in their desires and declare actions with that as a primary goal. It works for any player, GMs included. It's a tad orthogonal to division of knowledge, which, as I said, can't actually be eliminated. Sometimes, it's easy to "separate" things out, but that doesn't prove much -- easy cases are rarely strong cases. I don't really pay much attention, and just advocate for the character. Again, the goal of separation of knowledge is impossible, and I'm not sure much is gained by pursuing it rather than other principles of play, like advocating for character. 100%! [/QUOTE]

Verification