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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9623141" data-attributes="member: 42582">So suppose that instead of referring to actions intended to prompt the GM to reveal what they have written in their notes I said actions intended to prompt the GM to reveal what they have imagined. Would that satisfy you?I don't care which expression is used, although I think the reference to notes is helpful because it emphasises pre-commitment. Just as the dungeon map and key pre-commit the GM.When I analyse a play, I am not trying to produce an experience of seeing it performed. That is what a performance is for.If my analysis of play produced the same experience as the play itself, it would be poor analysis.And you mistake my motives. I am not setting out to "downplay" anything. I have no doubt that you find your play immersive. For some reason you seem to think that, by describing the process as one of trying to find out what the GM is thinking, by declaring actions that prompt the GM to tell you some bit of that, I am denying that it can be immersive. I don't know why.I mean, I've played RPGs. I'm familiar with the difference between saying "I do <such-and-such>" and having the GM reply, comparing to reading a sentence describing some place or circumstance in more abstract and third person terms. You seem to think I'm not aware of this, but again I don't know why.To flip it around: when I quote the Burning Wheel rulebook which says, among other things, that "The GM is responsible for challenging the players. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players' priorities" (Gold Revised. pp 10-11), do you think that I (or Luke Crane) think that play is not immersive, because that description of how play works is rather dry and technical?</blockquote>

Verification