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: 9633583" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is the fundamental move that you make here, the core assumption that I'm pointing out, that is the cornerstone of disagreement.  I could not disagree more. If the players don't understand the GM's decision-space, they don't understand the play meta because the play meta absolutely pivots upon that essential piece.If the players don't understand the play meta, there is not a sufficient gameful space for them to orient to, operationalize, and act upon to manage a decision-space of any potency whatsoever.But we circle back to "the GM's decision-space must be obscured, the play meta must be veiled (and certainly never referenced in the course of play in order to triangulate and clarify particulars; that would be self-defeating), and therefore the gameful space for players must be accordingly reduced/muted in order to maintain Sim-Immersionist prerogatives." Which is totally fine.  It has nothing to do with like/dislike.  It is super frustrating that we keep going back to this and trying to frame everything about preference rather than unpacking play dynamics.  It is absolutely a legitimate way to play and a legitimate apex priority for a table.  But the implications are a trade-off that includes (i) the intentional reduction/muting of gameful space for players + (ii) enduring a looming-over-play, significantly amplified space for player-signature-subverting GM Force (both covert and overt and both intentional and incidental) in order to achieve (iii) the desired amplification of an immersive space for particular minds + (iv) a preservation of GM's mandate over setting (and possibly, though not necessarily, story prerogatives).</blockquote>

Verification