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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9623386" data-attributes="member: 6785785">The immersion and playing your character and all of the experiential qualities of play… those are all present in both styles of play we are talking about. So yes, I agree that they are important… but they are common to both types of games, so they can be set aside for the purpose of comparison. So what we are left with is the actual process of play. Not how players will feel when they are playing it… you’re bringing that in the try and maintain the mystique of things. But we need to get past the mystique and examine what is being done by the GM and by the players. The GM has made decisions prior to play. Things like “there are four primary suspects” and “suspect 2 is the culprit”. And also likely things like “suspect 3’s kerchief was found at the scene” and “suspect 4 was overheard talking to the victim and threatening him” and so on. The players then declare actions for their characters to learn these bits of detail, in the hope of learning enough to draw the correct conclusion.That’s what play consists of. If you’re going to place importance on how the solution to the mystery is determined… that the how of it is so important… then you can’t say that the notes are bot the goal. The notes are everything… the suspects, the clues, the red herrings, the solution… all of that stuff has been determined by the GM, and is revealed to the players through the course of play, assuming they make the right moves or ask the right questions.But not unique to this method. I don’t know… calling one form of make believe real and another not real seems reductive to me. Describing what’s actually happening at the table doesn’t seem reductive… it seems accurate. That you seem somehow put off by such a description doesn't change that.</blockquote>

Verification