Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9676982" data-attributes="member: 42582">What [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] said. &quot;Exciting&quot; is a useful shorthand for &quot;interesting, exciting, emotionally resonant, etc&quot;.'[USER=7044099]@zakael19[/USER] got at something similar when referring to amazement (I think that was the word - sorry, I didn't hit quote and haven't gone back to check) at what might be said or revealed in &quot;downtime&quot; PC interactions.I aspire to play being exciting, engaging, interesting, surprising, tragic, hilarious or otherwise moving, as much as possible. Of course there are breathers after dramatic moments, chatter, breaks to pour drinks or whatever. But I don't need what I have called upthread &quot;low stakes&quot; action declaration and what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] recently called &quot;conflict neutral&quot; action declaration, where the PCs are just &quot;poking&quot; at the setting so that the players can elicit further information from the GM about what the ingame situation is. Nor do I need extended periods of no-stakes colourful in-character narration (eg someone upthread talked about half an hour of play choosing outfits for a ball - maybe [USER=6906980]@AlViking[/USER]?).Let's suppose that your game goes x,x,x,x,H,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,H,. . . .&nbsp; - where the &quot;x&quot;s represent non-highlight events, and the &quot;H&quot;'s represent highlight events. And let's suppose that this is verisimilitudinous.&nbsp; Now suppose someone else's game elides all those &quot;x&quot;s - they are understood to happen offscreen, or are narrated through quickly via saying &quot;yes&quot; to no-stakes action declarations, and only the &quot;H&quot;s actually get time and attention at the table. That second game is all highlights, but its setting and fiction are just as verisimilitudinous, because idential to, the setting and fiction of the first game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9676982, member: 42582"] What [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] said. "Exciting" is a useful shorthand for "interesting, exciting, emotionally resonant, etc".' [USER=7044099]@zakael19[/USER] got at something similar when referring to amazement (I think that was the word - sorry, I didn't hit quote and haven't gone back to check) at what might be said or revealed in "downtime" PC interactions. I aspire to play being exciting, engaging, interesting, surprising, tragic, hilarious or otherwise moving, as much as possible. Of course there are breathers after dramatic moments, chatter, breaks to pour drinks or whatever. But I don't need what I have called upthread "low stakes" action declaration and what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] recently called "conflict neutral" action declaration, where the PCs are just "poking" at the setting so that the players can elicit further information from the GM about what the ingame situation is. Nor do I need extended periods of no-stakes colourful in-character narration (eg someone upthread talked about half an hour of play choosing outfits for a ball - maybe [USER=6906980]@AlViking[/USER]?). Let's suppose that your game goes x,x,x,x,H,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,H,. . . . - where the "x"s represent non-highlight events, and the "H"'s represent highlight events. And let's suppose that this is verisimilitudinous. Now suppose someone else's game [I]elides[/I] all those "x"s - they are understood to happen offscreen, or are narrated through quickly via saying "yes" to no-stakes action declarations, and only the "H"s actually get time and attention at the table. That second game is all highlights, but its setting and fiction are just as verisimilitudinous, because idential to, the setting and fiction of the first game. [/QUOTE]

Verification