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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6992921" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Let me elaborate. In naturalistic logic, each event has pretty much one outcome defined by the parameters. Uncertainty as to the exact nature of that outcome is based on logical limitations of knowledge of the natural world--which are often integrated via dice or DM's judgement call. However the parameters of possible outcomes are obvious enough that you can anticipate and make choices without being surprised at the outcomes.In fairy tale logic, each event can have an indefinite number of possible outcomes that are thematically appropriate. You, as the player, cannot know what the range of outcomes is, because what is thematically appropriate isn't quantifiable. It is based on a subjective feeling. All you can do is have certain possible outcomes that occur to you--none of which necessarily overlap with those thought of by the DM.Naturalistic Logic: I can anticipate the possible outcomes and choose my actions based on probabilities, and will not be surprised with the results.Fairy Tale Logic: I cannot anticipate the results unless I can read the DM's mind, so I might not know any possible outcomes at all.Now, here is what I think is going on, based on the play example from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's campaign: It is being assumed that players are being given narrative control in the fairy tale logic, and that they are not in naturalistic logic. This is an entirely different consideration than the point that I am addressing (which is the point that I interpreted the OP to be talking about).Well of course the players have more narrative control of the story if they are given it! I might even say that fairy tale logic is more amenable to giving players narrative control. But I maintain my position that narrative control is a consideration independent of fairy tale logic. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's play example already gave us a fun account of fairy tale logic + player narrative control, so there is no need to create an example of that one. Examples of naturalistic logic + minimal player narrative control are the standard for simulationist play, so no examples needed. An example of naturalistic logic + player narrative control is a simulationist world where players have a resource that lets them make things true in the world by override. Usually this is represented by some sort of points that are spent to gain rerolls, or better yet, just buy stuff like a contact, or a lucky break, or whatever. Many systems have something like this, so we don't need an example.Here is the example we do need, that of fairy tale logic with minimal player narrative control:The players confront the Faerie Princess who has been creating some sort of mischief for humans. The GM knows that the theme of this is about her sorrow causing her to transfer her pain to others with similar mindsets, and that she is afraid of offending the Frog King. If the players know about these parameters and act on them in thematically appropriate ways, within the boundaries of the story's assumptions, the GM is likely to rule that they succeed (perhaps with the help of dice) in the same manner as he would if they made appropriate choices in naturalistic logic. So the player says that he allows himself to feel the Faerie Princess's pains rather than fighting against the bewitchment, and tried to sympathize deeply with her, and to love her rather than fear her. He addresses her with true empathy, and offers some great sacrifice to free her from her suffering (perhaps volunteering to face the wrath of the Frog King for her). The GM rules (with or without dice) that this is awesome, and the faerie princess, feeling the sincerity and love of this person she hardly knows, finds hope, which breaks the spell her mood had inflicted on others, and leads to a happy ending. On the other hand, the player might say that he draws his sword, seeking to smite down the Faerie Princess with his might and bring her reign of terror to an end. Well, that isn't really part of the story's theme. The faerie princess, you see is an otherworldly creature who can't be prevailed upon by such will of mortals. The GM rules that the Faerie Princess traps him under her spell, leading to an unhappy ending that takes the player completely by surprise.The reason this took the player by surprise is that the particular fairy tale logic in an individual story is harder to predict than naturalistic logic. A child can hear a story and feel how the ending is "right" (or not, like that scene in the Princess Bride where the kid says that the storyteller is ruining the story), but if you ask a child to jump in and tell you what the character does, they are likely to go off theme entirely. So they might "get it", but that doesn't mean they know how to tell it (ie, play the protagonist).The objection is going to be that if the GM were clearer about the thematic elements of the story, the players wouldn't find themselves going off theme and not being able to reasonably predict the outcome, and that the same issue could happen in a naturalistic story if the players were dealing with laws of physics, technology, or magic that weren't correctly explained to them. This is of course true. However, my assertion is that it is significantly easier to get everyone on the same page with regards to naturalistic logic, in such a way as to avoid such unpredictable outcomes, than it is in fairy tale logic. The advantage that I'm seeing this thread grant to fairy tale logic in regards to player agency is really just this:Fairy tale logic + player narrative control + clear GM communication of themes = less prep time for the GMcompared toNaturalistic logic + minimal player narrative control + clear GM communication of laws of nature = less player narrative control and more GM prep timeI don't have any disagreement with that, but I thought it was worth bringing out that if this is the end point to be arrived at, it was not easy to find.I'll have to discuss it in my essay that I will write some day in the hopefully not imaginary future, but I contest the idea that role-playing games, as played by many people, actually constitute either games or stories. Some can be one, some can be both, and some can be neither, but I think the assumptions no longer hold true (and perhaps haven't since the earliest days of RPGs), and that even when it does constitute a story, "telling a story" is generally an inaccurate way of describing the experience.So basically, in situational agreement with a similar argument used against a different position of mine of a while ago, I don't think we can always compare what works in an RPG with what works in a story.Absolutely, in this sense in which we are talking about it.You're apparently doing an excellent job, but you may be giving your skills too little credit compared to the ease of the task. Just because you can do it well, doesn't mean it is a more accessible method. I'm apparently really good at spontaneously using established parameters to set situational specifics. For example, I love the clear but loose guidelines for setting ability check DCs in 5e. I can just get a feel for the right sorts of DCs and set them on the fly and am very comfortable with my results. But a lot of good GMs aren't comfortable with that sort of thing at all. In this specific scenario, keeping everything within such a relatively small area really helps out because everything is just "a few days" away from everything else.I'm probably in danger of rambling on (some would say way past in danger of) at this point.</blockquote>

Verification