Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6155812" data-attributes="member: 27570">I'm discussing the same thing. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether someone is making decisions based on meta game or in game knowledge because it's still a player making a choice on what justification they're using to make character decisions. It's only relevant to which method the group as a whole is using to justify character actions. If a player is saying they're doing what their character would do based on some character concept (I'm going to ignore my meta data on my character sheet and make a decision based on how i feel my character would act) but the rest of the group is making decisions based on survivability odds of remaining HP, there's a conflict of justification, not on narration, since all player narration is a result of player choice and the method of justification doesn't change whether an action is narrative or not. It only makes an impact on group dynamics, which was what tuft's post was about whether or not that was the intention. His decision to choose to have his character act a certain way was both informed by meta game components, knowing his character had low HP and by what he felt was the logical action for the character. He chose to ignore the meta game components, which was the groups method for justification of character action, and focus on gut feeling. Just because a player chooses not to place importance on a piece of information he is aware of does not negate it from the decision making process, it simply ranks lower on the priority list.  It was still a factor. Now to tie it back to the purpose of the thread, otherwise the purpose of the discussion is not important to the overall theme of the thread; It doesn't matter. Narration is still happening. It doesn't influence the narrative any more than any other justification for character action.</blockquote>

Verification