Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClusterFluster" data-source="post: 8935622" data-attributes="member: 7040441">I don't understand your aversion to &quot;map-and-key&quot; resolution: any system with hardcoded class or career rules for character creation utilizes &quot;map-and-key&quot; principles in the abstract to build your adventurer. Edit: Published adventures and campaign settings utilize map-and-key principles as well, though its cleverly disguised through the introductions of these elements in a suggested order. It's clear that you're not opposed to it altogether for the sake of adventures, though you do think it's a lower order concern of the game, if I understand you correctly.However, so as far as I can tell, I'm not really proving your point. You seem to be misapplying the concept of &quot;role&quot; as a theatrical or literary student would implement the term, given your reliance on &quot;framing&quot; being the most important aspect of character choices. The idea of a character having a perfect--if not significant at least--authourity to &quot;frame&quot; the narrative as a default feature of any resolved choice, would broadly fit with the essence of the narrative style that I've termed as &quot;Rationale.&quot; This can be a sliding scale, whereby you could play a game of imagination with a 6 year old who always defeats the giants (this instance of authourity is absolute, but in this case granted for the sake of a child), then to something like what PbtA games implements through the architecture of bonds and hard/soft moves, which all contain necessary flavour to serve the setting (i.e. to &quot;play to the fiction&quot;), and furthermore to something far more bizarre like an &quot;Inception&quot; movie world, where the player is able to outright fold spacetime over itself in a non-Euclidian anti-paradox--at least within a specified area like dreams, but is also broadly compatible with warring gods in non-material planes.More odd about your priority to character &quot;framing&quot; as the principle of the setting driver, is that this is congruous with the essence of the Great Man Theory of history, whereby the circumstances of this world hinge on the social overtures and judicious use of resources by a movement's most charismatic leader. The main character of a traditional story itself is a &quot;Great Man&quot; by right, albeit only whenever the authour designates one character as the focal point of action for that setting's timeframe. It feels ironic that &quot;map-and-key&quot; resolution is far more egalitarian in principle, as no one player creates their characters to take on the mantle of a &quot;main character&quot; as such, not even to create a team of main characters as you find with the Avengers or the Justice League, due entirely to an absence of a choice resolution having the power to &quot;frame&quot; anything; they simply play their games to see what they can control, out of what they otherwise cannot, in order to meet their ends.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClusterFluster, post: 8935622, member: 7040441"] I don't understand your aversion to "map-and-key" resolution: any system with hardcoded class or career rules for character creation utilizes "map-and-key" principles in the abstract to build your adventurer. Edit: Published adventures and campaign settings utilize map-and-key principles as well, though its cleverly disguised through the introductions of these elements in a suggested order. It's clear that you're not opposed to it altogether for the sake of adventures, though you do think it's a lower order concern of the game, if I understand you correctly. However, so as far as I can tell, I'm not really proving your point. You seem to be misapplying the concept of "role" as a theatrical or literary student would implement the term, given your reliance on "framing" being the most important aspect of character choices. The idea of a character having a perfect--if not significant at least--authourity to "frame" the narrative as a default feature of any resolved choice, would broadly fit with the essence of the narrative style that I've termed as "Rationale." This can be a sliding scale, whereby you could play a game of imagination with a 6 year old who always defeats the giants (this instance of authourity is absolute, but in this case granted for the sake of a child), then to something like what PbtA games implements through the architecture of bonds and hard/soft moves, which all contain necessary flavour to serve the setting (i.e. to "play to the fiction"), and furthermore to something far more bizarre like an "Inception" movie world, where the player is able to outright fold spacetime over itself in a non-Euclidian anti-paradox--at least within a specified area like dreams, but is also broadly compatible with warring gods in non-material planes. More odd about your priority to character "framing" as the principle of the setting driver, is that this is congruous with the essence of the Great Man Theory of history, whereby the circumstances of this world hinge on the social overtures and judicious use of resources by a movement's most charismatic leader. The main character of a traditional story itself is a "Great Man" by right, albeit only whenever the authour designates one character as the focal point of action for that setting's timeframe. It feels ironic that "map-and-key" resolution is far more egalitarian in principle, as no one player creates their characters to take on the mantle of a "main character" as such, not even to create a team of main characters as you find with the Avengers or the Justice League, due entirely to an absence of a choice resolution having the power to "frame" anything; they simply play their games to see what they can control, out of what they otherwise cannot, in order to meet their ends. [/QUOTE]

Verification