Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6376135" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't think I disagree with either of you fully, but I'm much closer of a mind to Mishihari Lord than I am to KM here. The TLDR text is bolded.A fourth that I was considering, and in retrospect I probably should have included, was "mechanized." This would be rolling on tables for a random encounter, to populate a dungeon room/region, or for an NPC reaction. Ultimateily, this is distinct from any of the other 3, I think. In small part it is GM will, but in most part it is an organic, mostly objective, derivation of following rules procedures. You then assimilate it (which is wholly GM or player will) into the ecology as sensibly or as provocatively (this might be thematically or it might just be to stir up conflict and fill the PCs lives with adventure) as possible.Regardling KM's thoughts on free will, this gets way too deep for this conversation as Kant, quantum mechanics, and modern research within neuroscience all have a fair bit to say about the nature of free will and subconscious permutations/decision-making. Some of it is potentially extremely controversial (such as the locus of control being removed from internal to an external source). Putting all of that aside, I understand well the phenomenon you're aiming at KM. What you're depicting is the primary reason why I prefer minimal prep on my own end, low resolution settings, the availability of universal open (or at least broad) -descriptor PC resources, and conflict resolution schemes. I think it makes for more dynamic play as it demands deeper mental engagement for play to happen (and progress) at all. Further, the output of play is more satisfying as the majority of our creation is inevitably an organic outgrowth of our in-play efforts (rather than a railroad on the GM's metaplot or a carousel ride on the GM's "setting as theme park").That being said, I would never confuse the locus of control as being external to the party administering "what just happened" to the rest of the table. When I've been in "the zone" in sports, when I've been in "the zone" in an artful endeavor, and when I'm at the table running a game (with low prep and hefty demand for coherent improv), I'm certainly aware that what is spilling forth is a product of several, internal component parts interfacing with each other harmoniously. Those would typically be (a) formal training, (b) comprehensive understanding, (c) intensive practice, (d) experience in-situ, (e) natural ability, (f) and in-fill by my subjective preferences. Together, these create a routine that, while it may "feel" unconscious and/or cognitively disconnected from me, has no autonomy of its own (or even semi-autonomy). The wagon is still hitched to my own subconscious permutations, honed abilities, natural inclinations and biases that I'm unaware of.I mean, to extend this further, even complex global climate models don't have full autonomy. While well understood physics underwrites some parameters, each individual model is going to be parameterized with disputed inputs and some outright kludges (such as aerosols). Therefore, each respective run isn't going to be an expression of the automony of some organic and unbiased complex system because the "simulate" or "run" button was pressed and then the model was left alone to do its thing. The modeler's own inputs will absolutely influence (sometimes significantly) the outcome of the run.So, on the whole, a setting can't have autonomy. A world doesn't live and breath on its own. Every step of the way life is breathed into it by one party or another, one procedure or another. Perhaps it may feel like our collage is an organism with its own will and machinations. And I guess, in the end, that may be good enough. But, of course, its destiny is merely the contrivance of multiple parties and the output of their own will and the implementation of routines and play procedures (except for when that process is subordinated by considerable GM force).I mean, don't get me wrong here. When we're deeply into a well-developed game (with whatever system and whether it be a campaign or a few, short, conflict-packed sessions), its a beautiful thing. We've started with a fairly mundane canvass and, propelled by our play efforts, we've fleshed out a course of history and are entertaining the prospects of its future. We've created PCs with profound backstory and placed them into conflicts that matter to the players who are playing them. And those conflicts change the world we're developing through our will and play procedures. We've got all kinds of people and places and stuff that is our own. And we're thoroughly satisfied. And certainly, through that fleshing out process, the mobilization and presentation (and our own expectations of) aspects of this setting (people, places, stuff) will become more intuitive to all of us. But that "evolving intuitiveness" isn't to be confused by "living, breathing world." The moment we step away from the table and/or the moment we quit, the will that inclines it (us and our play procedures) ceases to exist and the world is relegated to packing chips and a cardboard box or the dustbin of history. </blockquote>

Verification