Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7594429" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Performance is a loaded word with way too much to be meaningful here.It can mean &quot;its acting&quot; but it can also mean most any measure of success. You seem to want to protest it on the &quot;its acting&quot; level, but I know for me and I anpm pretty sure for Hussar its being used in the more quantitative aspect. That's the little dance that seems to have been going on when these issues get discussed.Many pages back you highlighted an actual play session that you brought up to spotlight the benefits of goal and approach and went thru this long example of escape room like (to me) play where not one PC &quot;stats&quot; even got worth being mentioned. It was all player vs scene as you described it and really carried with it (to me, maybe not others) a sense of it having been played out much the same with totally different PCs. The PCs were irrelevant to the scene. Pretty sure that is what Hussar was referencing above, not performancing as Shakespearean dialog.But it's an easy swerve to always try and defend as if that's the claim.Did the player say it right, as in, include enough ticks to hit &quot;gm declares auto success&quot; score and avoid a reference to character stats at all?Now, it does seem some want to claim proudly yep, that's how approach works - keep it from getting to referencing stats cuz stats only matter if you dont get high enough on auto-success score. Seems others take it a bit back down, where stats apply even at that auto score stage, but then they may post this big highlight scene to show the differences and never once bring a PC stat in. To me, and perhaps Hussar as well, when &quot;Jim the player&quot; can get &quot;Jorune the character&quot; an auto-success on a challenge that matters without reference to Jorune's definition within the game world, it makes Jorune irrelevant and all those choices that went into defining Jorune pointless and that is not what we might see as the middle ground.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7594429, member: 6919838"] Performance is a loaded word with way too much to be meaningful here. It can mean "its acting" but it can also mean most any measure of success. You seem to want to protest it on the "its acting" level, but I know for me and I anpm pretty sure for Hussar its being used in the more quantitative aspect. That's the little dance that seems to have been going on when these issues get discussed. Many pages back you highlighted an actual play session that you brought up to spotlight the benefits of goal and approach and went thru this long example of escape room like (to me) play where not one PC "stats" even got worth being mentioned. It was all player vs scene as you described it and really carried with it (to me, maybe not others) a sense of it having been played out much the same with totally different PCs. The PCs were irrelevant to the scene. Pretty sure that is what Hussar was referencing above, not performancing as Shakespearean dialog. But it's an easy swerve to always try and defend as if that's the claim. Did the player say it right, as in, include enough ticks to hit "gm declares auto success" score and avoid a reference to character stats at all? Now, it does seem some want to claim proudly yep, that's how approach works - keep it from getting to referencing stats cuz stats only matter if you dont get high enough on auto-success score. Seems others take it a bit back down, where stats apply even at that auto score stage, but then they may post this big highlight scene to show the differences and never once bring a PC stat in. To me, and perhaps Hussar as well, when "Jim the player" can get "Jorune the character" an auto-success on a challenge that matters without reference to Jorune's definition within the game world, it makes Jorune irrelevant and all those choices that went into defining Jorune pointless and that is not what we might see as the middle ground. [/QUOTE]

Verification