Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9002154" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Is this a new claim that is trying to stick?&nbsp; AW Custom Moves aren't a principally &amp; structurally constrained piece of transparently codified game tech?&nbsp; Therefore stealth Rule 0?If whoever out there actually believes this could kindly raise your hand and point me to your take on this, I'd be curious to how you arrived at that!This is a misread of what you read based on an information deficit would be my guess.&nbsp; NPCs and the setting in these games have codified dramatic needs and have codified means to put them into effect.&nbsp; They're (the antagonists and obstacles) just not PC-agnostic.&nbsp; The point of their existence in the game is to create a vital play-space which brings about opposition to the players and the protagonists they're playing.I know you like to spend a lot of time on your game with conflict-neutral, PC-agnostic content.&nbsp; These games aren't about that.&nbsp; If you feel like that (spending all of play on conflict-forward, PC-relevant conflict) makes them not &quot;living world-ey,&quot; then that is an autobiographical testimony of one Lanefan of ENWorld.&nbsp; But its not a truism about these games.&nbsp; The percentage of gameplay that is devoted to collisions of wills (both embodied and disembodied) and related fallout in these games is extreme.&nbsp; IME, that makes these games as &quot;living world-ey&quot; as it can get.Given the past of these conversations in this place and moments like this, I'd reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally rather have this speculation not become an ENWorld ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED moment that is then cemented into circulation.Did this get sufficiently answered so that its amply clear that DM decides is not how this works?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9002154, member: 6696971"] Is this a new claim that is trying to stick? AW Custom Moves aren't a principally & structurally constrained piece of transparently codified game tech? Therefore stealth Rule 0? If whoever out there actually believes this could kindly raise your hand and point me to your take on this, I'd be curious to how you arrived at that! This is a misread of what you read based on an information deficit would be my guess. NPCs and the setting in these games have codified dramatic needs and have codified means to put them into effect. They're (the antagonists and obstacles) just not PC-agnostic. The point of their existence in the game is to create a vital play-space which brings about opposition to the players and the protagonists they're playing. I know you like to spend a lot of time on your game with conflict-neutral, PC-agnostic content. These games aren't about that. If you feel like that (spending all of play on conflict-forward, PC-relevant conflict) makes them not "living world-ey," then that is an autobiographical testimony of one Lanefan of ENWorld. But its not a truism about these games. The percentage of gameplay that is devoted to collisions of wills (both embodied and disembodied) and related fallout in these games is extreme. IME, that makes these games as "living world-ey" as it can get. Given the past of these conversations in this place and moments like this, I'd [I]reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally [/I]rather have this speculation not become an ENWorld ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED moment that is then cemented into circulation. Did this get sufficiently answered so that its amply clear that [I]DM decides[/I] is not how this works? [/QUOTE]

Verification