Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7526250" data-attributes="member: 42582">The presence of the father is interesting because of the very many different ways it might factor into adjudication. Some examples:* Because the father is with you, persuasion is a superior option to what it otherwise might have been;

* Because the father is with you, persuasion is a viable option which it otherwise would not have been;

* Because the father is with you, when you try to persuade there are some moves open to you (eg playing on filial loyalty; threatening to executive him; etc) which otherwise wouldn't be possible.Different approaches prioritise different sorts of engagement with the fiction, and different approaches to play. Thus, the first approach tends to reward a sort of puzzle-solving or resource-maximisation style (&quot;Cool, we got the thing - in this case the dad - that will give us a bonus!&quot;). The second and third might reward that, if the possibilities that are opened up are mechanically advantageous. But they might also shift the emphasis to something else - eg making it possible to play on filial loyalty, or threaten to execute the father, might not change the maths but change the thematic weight of what is going on in play.I think that these different ways of thinking about the relationship between fiction and mechanics merit more attention on these boards than they typically get.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7526250, member: 42582"] The presence of the father is interesting because of the very many different ways it might factor into adjudication. Some examples: [indent]* Because the father is with you, persuasion is a superior option to what it otherwise might have been; * Because the father is with you, persuasion is a viable option which it otherwise would not have been; * Because the father is with you, when you try to persuade there are some moves open to you (eg playing on filial loyalty; threatening to executive him; etc) which otherwise wouldn't be possible.[/indent] Different approaches prioritise different sorts of engagement with the fiction, and different approaches to play. Thus, the first approach tends to reward a sort of puzzle-solving or resource-maximisation style ("Cool, we got the thing - in this case the dad - that will give us a bonus!"). The second and third might reward that, if the possibilities that are opened up are mechanically advantageous. But they might also shift the emphasis to something else - eg making it possible to play on filial loyalty, or threaten to execute the father, might not change the maths but change the thematic weight of what is going on in play. I think that these different ways of thinking about the relationship between fiction and mechanics merit more attention on these boards than they typically get. [/QUOTE]

Verification