Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9630470" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I think that's actually the source of nearly all the major disagreements that have been had in this thread and all the other mega-threads.Years ago I worked reviewing credit card application.  There was a systemic process in place, but for a subset of applications meeting certain requirements we would do a judgmental review.  There was no algorithm for determining approval/counter/decline once we got to the judgmental review stage, but we would reach justifiable decisions based on the facts we would gather during our review.  These weren't fiat decisions.  But there also wasn't a process a computer could follow to make these decisions.The point being, there's more than just process or fiat.  There's also judgement.  Which is one reason why trying to analyze RPG play solely through processes fails.  So much of the gameplay relies on judgement (and that seems to be true for any style, but especially so for many non-narrativist games).*Note one thing I notice you do above is present the term "GM extrapolates from established facts", but that happens in narrativist games too, it's just more of their facts get established differently and at different times than in a typical non-narrativist game.  Which highlights part of the problem - different RPG Games are similar enough that the same 'natural language' used to describe one can also be used to describe another, just with different meaning.  We've encountered this with agency, with 'real mystery', and countless other discussion terms.  Currently there just doesn't seem to be adequate language to both speak plainly while also providing clarity.  I would love to do that, but the tools for it just don't seem to be present.</blockquote>

Verification