Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9664071" data-attributes="member: 7044566">I'm maybe not communicating what I (and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]) are saying.In the 'moment' of making an NPC decision, you're not thinking about the players, you have total disregard for them. If you were thinking about them, then you'd be warping the world in relation to them right?Say I'm playing a Narrativist game and I'm thinking about what the Countess should do next. If I think 'well on Sam's character sheet it says they obey and respect the nobility, how about I have the Countess order them to clear the beggars off the street, that's a sweet moral choice.' My decisions are based on an end goal, create a moral quandary.But, it will be plausible. So our Narrativist is using plausibility + moral quandary FOR THE PLAYERSOr there's another type of Narrativist play where the decision is plausibility + statement about the human condition (note that this has nothing to do with the players)When you make a decision, there is nothing 'but' the plausibility, which is why it's an exclusion criteria.Plausibility + (nothing)Yes of course on a group level you and your players find this fun and interesting otherwise you wouldn't be doing it.Disclaiming responsibility is a term of art, I meant it as shorthand for taking the decision out of your hands, it's not meant to be read in a negative way and Apocalypse World considers it a vital part of the process when playing to find out.On emergence for emergences sake. You got me there and I stand corrected. It's the players ability to set goals without the world 'forming itself around them', such that they 'get what they get.' + the joy of exploration of a lived in world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thefutilist, post: 9664071, member: 7044566"] I'm maybe not communicating what I (and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]) are saying. In the 'moment' of making an NPC decision, you're not thinking about the players, you have total disregard for them. If you were thinking about them, then you'd be warping the world in relation to them right? Say I'm playing a Narrativist game and I'm thinking about what the Countess should do next. If I think 'well on Sam's character sheet it says they obey and respect the nobility, how about I have the Countess order them to clear the beggars off the street, that's a sweet moral choice.' My decisions are based on an end goal, create a moral quandary. But, it will be plausible. So our Narrativist is using plausibility + moral quandary FOR THE PLAYERS Or there's another type of Narrativist play where the decision is plausibility + statement about the human condition (note that this has nothing to do with the players) When you make a decision, there is nothing 'but' the plausibility, which is why it's an exclusion criteria. Plausibility + (nothing) Yes of course on a group level you and your players find this fun and interesting otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. Disclaiming responsibility is a term of art, I meant it as shorthand for taking the decision out of your hands, it's not meant to be read in a negative way and Apocalypse World considers it a vital part of the process when playing to find out. On emergence for emergences sake. You got me there and I stand corrected. It's the players ability to set goals without the world 'forming itself around them', such that they 'get what they get.' + the joy of exploration of a lived in world. [/QUOTE]

Verification