Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6726874" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Putting these together as they dovetail with my position on this.  I am understanding of (but not sympathetic to) the purity (with respect to decoding the causal logic of the system and then making informed extrapolations) that howandwhy has been advocating for some time.  However, my problem with his thesis is the disproportionate signal to noise ratio of a classic D&D game.  It makes consistently sussing out information and then using it in a wieldy fashion (to make predictions/extrapolations with a high level of confidence) a losing proposition a fair portion of the time.  There seems a built-in assumption on his part that a skilled GM is capable of moving those proportions deeply in favor of the signal.  I agree that part of the job of a quality GM is (a) maintaining a level of internal consistency (temporally, spatially, continuity, et al) despite the deep abstractions inherent to the system and (b) properly telegraphing/foreshadowing (either at the build stage or impromptu in the moment as required).  However, there is a hefty portion of gameplay (both in the content generation/"introducing elements into the shared imaginary space" phase and in the long-term maintenance of continuity phase) that is subject to factors external to the GM (eg various player input and varying degrees of attentiveness by all of the tables' participants).  Finally, (and likely most important) there are a large number of cognitive biases that the GM may unwittingly introduce into the fiction (again either at the build stage or the impromptu stage) that in turn introduces noise which must be sifted through and/or may compound prior established noise.  There are a lot of physics and biological anomalies (or utter incoherencies) embedded into the genre of a D&D setting.  GMs regularly handwave these or exacerbate them (by introducing further incoherence due to extrapolating from them) due to their complete misunderstanding of how mundane phenomena/interactions work in the real world.  How is a player who is bent on tightly constraining causal logic (rather than just going with it and using genre logic) supposed to "break this code?"  Part of the beauty I have found in recent game design is the honesty and transparency (of which Baker was at the forefront of).  Honesty about the implications of a singular GMing technique/resolution mechanic/play procedure on the aesthetics of play and on the participants' disposition toward one another, honesty about the complete requirement of the usage of genre logic and the (sometimes tangled) mesh of it with causal logic, transparency about where and how abstraction aids in the facilitation of functional play, how/when/why to properly telegraph, how simple system coherency can support a paradigm rather than forcing the players to fight against/work around the system.Most of it puts the RPG issues of "Every GM, regardless of how amazingly proficient they might be, is fallible so how can we help reduce their cognitive workload during play?" and "how do we design games so we can consistently say that we got what we were looking for/expecting after an RPG session" at the forefront.  Those are admirable and proper design goals in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification