Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8937487" data-attributes="member: 71699">My thought is that it is done in view of a shared fiction. Picturing the sequenceT0 Some GM play occurs in view of GM and player playT1 GM and player play occursT2 GM play occurs in light of GM and player playetc(Mutatis mutandis where and to the extent that authorial power is differently distributed.)Here, I felt that RPGs like "The Ground Itself" are suggestive that the experience is something more than a bare mechanical process like shuffling and dealing. I'm thinking too of testimony I hear from folk, describing arcs of satisfying solo play situated among sessions of group play.When folk use an example like B2, they are (perhaps unintentionally) invoking a received work. A map and key prepared by nobody at the table. Time has stopped in its regard, and the artifact will not be responsive to the group's play (although of course their notes might supplement or overwrite it.) Conclusions I might draw from B2's received or static nature - for example about possibly different distributions of authorial power - could be different from those I might draw picturing an ongoing arc of play, in which any solitary moments are seen to be within its boundaries.I have this in mind because - inspired by "The Ground Itself" - I am mid-design on a ruleset to place map and key moments of invention within guide and player play.</blockquote>