NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8497710" data-attributes="member: 71699">In Baker's model there is fiction, players, and game. (Game includes map.) [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] might be thinking of fiction as Baker does. The dichotomy you call false is in that model, or can you clarify what you mean?They seem to have suggested that in SYOR ludic state doesn't produce stakes: only dramatic state drives them. (Apologies if I have that wrong!) I'm saying that ludic and dramatic states get to play ball! They don't have to be separated. Perhaps you are saying that in an RPG they actually can't be? That would be in agreement with what I am saying, although I might hedge on shouldn't be.The genius of the model is it's beguiling focus on player-characters. Think of the Baker-Care Principle. It's had amazing results that speak for themselves.One might see it like Chess, in which foregoing moves will matter to subsequent moves, and the players between them decided what the foregoing moves were as they came to them (taking a naive, pre-AI, view.) If each fact becomes thus established - adding to the game-state - then positioning matters to the return journey, right? The awful cliffs once established as awful are an ongoing barrier, which can then be addressed procedurally.In my case, that's not it. I don't think it is for others either. What I care about is a persisted and living world. In my experience, there is a certain amount of bootstrapping required to make that work. A critical mass of pieces in play. Relationships emerge. DW acknowledges the value of DM solo preparation to organise their thoughts. In DW that is clearly envisioned as secret: things players shouldn't know yet.The fruit bowl contains both. I believe some are just expressing what they like about the orangey flavour of oranges. I am questioning whether some oranges aren't found even in our crate that we wrote "Apples" on the side of.So I say they cannot escape one another because game as game (state and system) will be causal. And you say they cannot escape one another because both are fictional. Either view makes a case for preferring to say dramatic and ludic, rather than narrative and fictional.Combat. So long as we use the grid and follow the rules, the next position of a participant is constrained by their current. The present HP of their foe is decrement by their damage die which they rolled only because they hit.To be fair what you say has truth in it. Prep for an RPG tends to be sketchy rather than rigorously systematic. Still, there can be worthwhile forethought that is systematic to a useful extent. A trap marked on the map is just another way of expressing stakes.Likewise. What is made extant is benefiting from that working backwards and forwards.In what sense is fiction used here?Given that established facts are respected the same way, one can ask<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Are dramatic and ludic states separable? And ought they to be, even if so?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is more gained from forethought than player participation in establishing game state?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is hidden knowledge valuable enough to prefer sometimes say "no"?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Same question, regarding ludic constraints or limits?</li> </ul>I don't find either more honest, although where they are each more honest certainly differs.</blockquote>

Verification