Well, then we’re back to non-narrativist not adequately describing my “agenda.”
I'm fairly confident that Charlaquin's post is alluding back to this:I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
In character-exploration play, the character develops by "extrapolation" from the fiction. "What would make sense for this character?"If you come to the table with a character already in mind you’re not really developing them. The development already happened, when you were coming up with their motivations, desires, personality, and backstory. What you’re doing is thrusting a fairly well-developed character into a still-developing situation so as to showcase what you’ve already decided about them. Whereas in the “character exploration” focused scenario, you’re coming to the table with little to nothing decided about the character, and thrusting them into an already-developed scenario in search of opportunities to test them and find out, rather than show off, who they are.
In character-oriented narrativist play, the character develops by thematic or emotional response to the fiction. The player is making a commitment.
Which one a given table is doing in play isn't an a priori thing! I think some tables do a bit of the second from time to time, but do more of the first. For lack of a better word, it can be "safer" or "easier" or less conflictual.