Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8969101" data-attributes="member: 4937">There is a big difference between a system using fortune in the beginning and producing a transcript of play by pure narration, and a system using fortune in the middle and producing a transcript of play through process of play.&nbsp;&nbsp; In one situation we know that a character hid behind a pillar to get cover because we know a priori that they must have done something to succeed and we chose &quot;hid behind a pillar&quot; from free narration because we had authorial permission at that moment.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the other system we know that a character hid behind a pillar because they choose that as a literal move within the fiction as it was being constructed, and we won't know until after the move how it impacted the chances of success.&nbsp; You seem to be arguing that we can play a system that produces a transcript of play through process of play and then afterwards ignore the transcript of play and narrate it how we wish.&nbsp; And I suppose you could do that.&nbsp; No one is going to stop you.&nbsp; But you'll end up with two whole transcripts of play, which won't agree with each other.&nbsp; And only one of those transcripts will be produced by the game.&nbsp; The other is optional and occurs wholly outside of the game.&nbsp; This from my experience means that the latter is highly unlikely to occur, and that in fact the transcript produced by the process of play will dominate because the other transcript is useless unless you are really attempting to novelize your game into a piece of literature - which is a wholly different process than the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8969101, member: 4937"] There is a big difference between a system using fortune in the beginning and producing a transcript of play by pure narration, and a system using fortune in the middle and producing a transcript of play through process of play. In one situation we know that a character hid behind a pillar to get cover because we know a priori that they must have done something to succeed and we chose "hid behind a pillar" from free narration because we had authorial permission at that moment. In the other system we know that a character hid behind a pillar because they choose that as a literal move within the fiction as it was being constructed, and we won't know until after the move how it impacted the chances of success. You seem to be arguing that we can play a system that produces a transcript of play through process of play and then afterwards ignore the transcript of play and narrate it how we wish. And I suppose you could do that. No one is going to stop you. But you'll end up with two whole transcripts of play, which won't agree with each other. And only one of those transcripts will be produced by the game. The other is optional and occurs wholly outside of the game. This from my experience means that the latter is highly unlikely to occur, and that in fact the transcript produced by the process of play will dominate because the other transcript is useless unless you are really attempting to novelize your game into a piece of literature - which is a wholly different process than the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification