Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9533370" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. Even in those games, though, fictional position matters. Players aren't expected - for instance - to try and argue that their fully-armoured warrior can float across the river by clinging onto a tiny twig. Players are expected to take the fiction seriously.And once again, <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/" target="_blank">this</a> seems relevant:The key assumption throughout all these games is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent . . . then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya, with this book, how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy." . . . The Explorative, imaginative pleasure experienced by a player - and most importantly, communicated among players - simply doesn't factor into play at all . . .What I keep reading, in this thread, is that if the players are allowed to make "big" moves based on their PC's backgrounds - moves like "I ask around to find out who can get a message back to <my criminal contact>" - then the integrity of the shared fiction is in jeopardy, and that only the GM can be trusted to make sure that things don't degenerate into implausible nonsense.This is also why I don't share the opinion that the best, or only, way to create a rich, immersive sense of the fiction is the sort of GM control that is being advocated. Because if players are ignoring fictional position and pushing the fiction towards implausible nonsense, that suggests that they're not immersed at all, but are actually experiencing the fiction as nothing but a shallow veneer.</blockquote>

Verification