Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8223193" data-attributes="member: 16814">When the statement made runs directly into observable inconsistence, the benefit of the doubt is waved.&nbsp; If someone is saying that the GM's notes hold as much permanence and &quot;real&quot;ity as the shared fiction, this is demonstrably false -- the GM's notes are far more malleable than the shared fiction, and can be changed at any time.&nbsp; Thus, I need not lend much credit to an argument that the GM's notes are equally &quot;real&quot; as the shared fiction.&nbsp; Nor must I lend credit to the argument that having notes makes for more real games, as this is also demonstably untrue by dint of other approaches that do &quot;real&quot; well.&nbsp; Instead, there's a specific thing that's being sought that's hiding behind &quot;real&quot; in these discussions, and is likely different for each person (although probably in some distinct camps in aggregate).&nbsp; Asking people to actually stop, put away the surface arguments that don't help, and look at what it is they're getting from play is not dismissing that there a valid way to play there -- it's saying that the given reason of &quot;real&quot;ness isn't really it.The GM needing notes to do a good job at presenting a real world is perfectly understandable.&nbsp; This differs from just saying prep equals &quot;real&quot; in that it allows the player to recognize areas they may be weak and they can then decide if this is something they want to work on.&nbsp; Hiding this behind &quot;prep makes for real&quot; means there's never a reason to consider this.The GM wanting to provide a keyed experience so that they can act the arbiter in play rather than a director (as with AP play) is also perfectly valid, and this difference from claiming &quot;real&quot; lets the GM better understand what's important to prep to get this experience because they're not evaluating prep by &quot;real&quot; but instead by how well it creates the environment that the players then try to &quot;solve.&quot;Or, some other question.&nbsp; If you stop at &quot;real&quot; you'll never examine your play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8223193, member: 16814"] When the statement made runs directly into observable inconsistence, the benefit of the doubt is waved. If someone is saying that the GM's notes hold as much permanence and "real"ity as the shared fiction, this is demonstrably false -- the GM's notes are far more malleable than the shared fiction, and can be changed at any time. Thus, I need not lend much credit to an argument that the GM's notes are equally "real" as the shared fiction. Nor must I lend credit to the argument that having notes makes for more real games, as this is also demonstably untrue by dint of other approaches that do "real" well. Instead, there's a specific thing that's being sought that's hiding behind "real" in these discussions, and is likely different for each person (although probably in some distinct camps in aggregate). Asking people to actually stop, put away the surface arguments that don't help, and look at what it is they're getting from play is not dismissing that there a valid way to play there -- it's saying that the given reason of "real"ness isn't really it. The GM needing notes to do a good job at presenting a real world is perfectly understandable. This differs from just saying prep equals "real" in that it allows the player to recognize areas they may be weak and they can then decide if this is something they want to work on. Hiding this behind "prep makes for real" means there's never a reason to consider this. The GM wanting to provide a keyed experience so that they can act the arbiter in play rather than a director (as with AP play) is also perfectly valid, and this difference from claiming "real" lets the GM better understand what's important to prep to get this experience because they're not evaluating prep by "real" but instead by how well it creates the environment that the players then try to "solve." Or, some other question. If you stop at "real" you'll never examine your play. [/QUOTE]

Verification