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: 9617659" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Sorry I haven't been able to answer prior posts (and I'm still not doing it).  Rather short on time presently and the amount of work required for me to engage with some of these points would be more than I'm willing to devote right now (and I have plenty in the past so some of this feels like something of a retread for me and therefore of waning interest).  But this caught my eye and I want to engage with it:* "...the GM realizes"* "It is legit..."* "It's not legit..."Importantly here, I wonder aloud (suspecting that I know the answers, but I'd like to hear them confirmed and discuss them) the following:What exactly are the governing parameters of this realization for the GM in which "Jackson would have got one of his assassin friends to track them down and take them out."  I can think of lots of "Jackson-types" that would (a) not have had a hit put out on the group because they are too dangerous and "live-and-let-live" rules the day, (b) not had the means (time, coin, contacts with requisite facility in the matter, other logistical demands) to have a hit put out, (c) been preoccupied by other vendettas or occupation-hazards such that the hit didn't take priority, (d) any number of other things.So I'm wondering (i) what superposition-altering parameters ensure one fictional Jackson emerges rather than another alternative?  Then I'm wondering, (ii) what is the agenda that governs this?  The (iii) language of "realizes" and "the question of legitimacy" leaves me thinking it is a Sim-Immersionist agenda whereby the apex priority of play is for the GM to attempt to internalize with themselves a "legit simulation of Jackson" and then attempt to render this "legit simulation of Jackson" onto an external, shared imagined space such that the players are somehow privy to the dynamics of the GM's "realization" and the GM's attendant conclusion of "legitimacy."[HR][/HR]Now, some thoughts on the above that are relevant to the dynamics of play and how alternative models to the (what I suspect are) answers of (i) - (iii) above:* B/X D&D has answers that systemitize "the great Jackson question" above.  I think the best (and hopefully most common) answer would be that the GM populates the follow-on dungeon's Wandering Monster table with Jackson's hired assassin and, if that "hits," the NPC Reaction roll is eschewed (because we know what the NPC's motivation around the PCs is already).  Now we have a combat or a guerilla cat-and-mouse game for the rest of the dungeon.The alternative would be that when the GM generates the dungeon, one of the rooms is automatically stocked with Jackson's assassin.  Should the PCs enter this room, then the encounter "goes off" and we handle the typical procedures for encounters.  I don't like this one as much as the first, but it is another way to do it.B/X is not a Sim-Immersionist game.  It is squarely a challenge-based game (Gamism in Forge parlance).  The machinery around "the great Jackson question" centers around generating an assassin-based threat which invigorates and enriches the challenge-based decision-scape and is embedded within the system architecture of the game.  There is no "GM realizes" nor is there "legit/not legit" in play here.  There is "there is an imagined world out there in which the great Jackson question comes up as yes, he would hire an assassin...let's do that because (a) the game can handle it and (b) that handling entails a rich, challenge-based decision-scape that is easily rendered onto play."* Torchbearer (to harken back to the lead post) can handle this as B/X does and for the same reasons expressed in (a) and (b) above but also another reason; (c) the Story Now parameters of play (centering PCs as protagonists with an Enemy such as Jackson at character creation or an Enemy such as Jackson which emerges through play) which demand of the GM to invest the situation-state with PCs-as-protagonist trajectory.Now Torchbearer can handle this in the following ways (none of which are an exact analogue to B/X's "Wandering Monster table hit", but some procedural DNA is shared):1)  The best way is as a Twist.  When a failed Test hits, the GM brings in Jackson's (a PC Enemy) Assassin.  Now we have a conflict of the GM's choosing.  This would be my preferred way.2)  The Adventure's obstacles/map entails one situation with the assassin.3)  The assassin becomes a part of the Camp Events table.Like B/X, this isn't about "GM realizes" or "legit/not legit."  Again, "there is an imagined world out there in which the great Jackson question comes up as yes, he would hire an assassin...let's do that because (a) the game can handle it and (b) that handling entails a rich, challenge-based decision-scape that is easily rendered onto play, and (c) the Story Now parameters of play (centering PCs as protagonists with an Enemy such as Jackson at character creation or an Enemy such as Jackson which emerges through play) demand the GM to invest the situation-state with PCs-as-protagonist trajectory.[HR][/HR]I have more to say on the matter that is related to my extreme skepticism over Sim-Immersionism's ability to either (1) generate a gameable decision-scape or (2) consistently center PCs as protagonists.  My skepticism around these (2) is because GM-based setting extrapolations inexorably put extreme pressure upon play to be "real/legitimate" based upon the GM's, imo extremely fallible, causality-based extrapolations + sense of continuity and that formulation has a tendency to "backseat PC protagonism" as Sim-Immersionism is foregrounded.  Further, because "table-facing play/machinery" is historically anathema to Sim-Immersionists, the GM's ability to articulate/render all of these offscreen matters (which are just GM internalizations) upon play in a way that players can readily recognize and index as they orient to situations and engage in their attendant decision-scape is paramount.  The frequency with which I've seen this (live or on various fora) fail is extreme.  This is because it embeds so many damn failure-points (from the mental modeling complexities to the generation of a functional and coherent User Interface for players to effectively engage with) onto the play paradigm.So, imo, while the Sim-Immersionist approach can absolutely generate a preferred dynamic for certain folks who are predisposed to needing this paradigm to be immersed (and who place their particular brand of Immersionism as the paramount priority of play), I see it failing to reliably generate a gameable decision-scape for challenge-based play (for Gamists) and I see its particular formulation around "legitimacy" puts extreme pressure on PC protagonism (Narrativism where the premise of PC dramatic needs and relationships are centered).</blockquote>

Verification