Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8497424" data-attributes="member: 16814">This feels like a false dichotomy, to me, in that these categories don't really apply in any consistent way to the play of RPGs.  I could not separate out a given moment of play into either, or rather, I could make arguments in either direction for a given moment of play.  To follow along with [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s arguments about the secret door in his response to me,  his arguments don't track.  Of course someone knew about the door, but it doesn't follow that anyone alive or nearby knew about it.  Ancient secret doors or forgotten ones are common tropes in the genre, and there's nothing special here that requires that this door be one that current participants are aware of.  That argument just fails out of the gate due to a forced narrow focus.  As for not noticing it earlier -- this is routine in even classical/trad play.  You didn't notice it going past the first time, but when you search for it, you can find it.  No, [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s argument is the same old one -- it's about prep's value as a game truth even when not yet revealed to the players.  It's essentially arguing that SYORTD doesn't work because you don't want to play SYORTD but instead a different way.  That's a valid decision, but how the different way works doesn't impinge at all on SYORTD's approach.  It's like saying that apples cannot exist because fruit is orange, and that's because the only fruit is oranges.  I mean, valid within it's circular premise, but not actually a valid argument against the existence of apples.And that wraps back around to your dichotomy here -- it's not a matter of causal versus acausal, but a matter of when cause is established.  All RPGs are both ludic and dramatic, in differing amounts, but one cannot escape the other because all RPGs are dealing in fiction, not actual causal systems.  We trick ourselves into thinking they are causal because we imagine a series of steps, but often forget that most of this rationalization of causal chains starts as often by imagining the effect and working back to a cause.  I mean, if I sit down to prep a session for a game of D&D, and decide to do a dungeon, I usually don't start way back in the causal chain and work forward to find out where the dungeon is, how it's laid out, what history it has, and what it's current state is!  No, I establish a dungeon is here and some facts about this dungeon (it has goblins!), and then blend it into what has already been established, often working backwards and forwards along the causal paths during iteration in design.  The end result of this normal prep is a site that is both dramatic and ludic.  Same with SYORTD.  If something is already established, that doesn't change -- it's established, and can be used to ludically walk forward in play.  If not, we can establish it through play, and that will also establish some causal pathway.  It's not at all true that SYORTD is unconcerned with causation -- this can be a key impactor of play!  It is true that the manner of determining causation is much closer to the establishment of fiction, and not at all tied to the GM's off-table play during prep.  The GM establishing details prior to play, and the manner those are established, are not really any different in these terms than how things are established in SYORTD play -- there's no real causal chain, only rationalized ones, and often order of rationalization is inverted.  If anything, SYORTD is slightly more honest about this facet of how fiction is created than the mythology that has built up around prep and worldbuilding.</blockquote>

Verification