Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7841697" data-attributes="member: 7016641">ludonarrative dissonance is more often used in video games because that media does not require an interpreter to interpret in order for you as a player to then make interpretations from. a dm in some ways acts both like a game designer being given the idea of what the basic ideas of the game thats going to be made is going to be, while also the hardware that is used to run the game they create.that being said, the main ideas that the gm has to draw from are viable for criticism on the grounds of how well they relate to other mechanics in the game and what it tells you to create when you are generating the rest of the games content from the main idea. i think that ultimately what my thesis actually is criticizing though is not the in game definition of what hitpoints are, ive learned that in the process of arguing with people who are arguing about what the in game definition of what hitpoints are, and the in-game definition doesent really represent what i decided to argue against in my thesis. so your correct to say that there is no ludonarrative dissonance from the game itself outlined in my thesis because im not arguing with a game, im arguing with an interpretation of the game. however i think if that interpretation replaced the definition, then it would be the case, and maybe that interpretation is the definition of some edition of the game. to be frank im quite surprised how no one has yet pointed out that what im arguing against in my thesis is technically a strawman, though ill admit its an accidental one. i didint realize that until about page 10 of this thread. i should probably create an errata for my thesis to state that it does not argue accurately against the real definition of hitpoints in the game.i still feel strongly that i did however define and analyze damage well in the game, and while the definition i desired to argue against as the official definition of hitpoints isint what hitpoints are defined by in the rules, its an interpretation you can make if you narrow it down to "physical durability" plus the silent mechanic that hitpoints relies on but doesent actually tell you in its definition it relies on, which is experience points.</blockquote>the issue with taking the fabulist stance is a question of why it is necessary, if the rules of the game never define reasons to take the fabulist stance, and you and your players both read the rules, heck you and millions of people all read the rules, and the rules point in one direction, while you can adopt a broader perspective on what it can mean, if you act on that broader perspective especially as the gm you are then lible to present an interpretation to players who depend on you that runs counter to the way the game described itself without that wider perspective having any grounds to base it on. human imagination is naturally simulations, even when we imagine the fantastical we imagine it in relation to something we can understand because of our experiences. the mind seeks to rationalize what we experience, any game then becomes a simulation of some interpretation of a compromise between the real and fabulous by very nature of having any grounding at all.i still think its valid to interpret the game any way you want to mind you, but its worth keeping in mind how other people interpret it or dont interpret it and there reasons why, there reasons can be VERY valid.[/QUOTE]

Verification