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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9814819" data-attributes="member: 7044566">Let me back up and break down my objection a bit further.I was thinking in terms of what makes sense for the character as seen from a third person perspective. If you were watching a movie does it make sense for the character to do this? I submit that if you’re chasing story the action has to make sense. Although it’s possible that’s not what Micah means because it’s so obviously a given that it should.Mechanical incentives and currencies are a whole different thing. Different players interact with them differently and it’s possible they’re muddying the waters here.Do you remember or are you aware of the old ‘torch dropper’ conversations?There’s this GM talking about how his party went into a dungeon. They’re in the depths and this one character is holding the only torch. They hear this terrifying roar and the character holding the torch flings it to the ground in terror and tries to flee. The whole party is subsequently murdered.There’s a lot of division as to whether that constitutes good play. If the player holding the torch decides that’s what makes sense for his character to do, given who the character is and the situation at hand, then that’s that right?The problem is ‘makes sense to do’ is meaningless. Me, you, Micah, and Pemerton probably have moments where it’s obvious that a character ‘would just do that’. We’re inhabiting the character, feeling what they’re feeling, all that stuff. I think this is the tip of the iceberg though. There’s a whole load of orientation toward play. Cognitive understanding of character action and motivations, Norms and expectations. That go on under the surface.Anyway I’m not really bringing any conclusions to the conversation, just saying that I think it’s kind of complicated</blockquote>

Verification