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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8500454" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's not what valency means, though.  Your use of this word here is counterproductive to understanding -- it's downright confusing.As for my or [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s argument, I have no idea where you've come up with this conjecture, as I've said nothing to that effect.  [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s points, which have been explaining Edward's model, don't align to this, either, because Edward's model is a cohesive one that includes all parts discussed -- cues, rules, fiction, etc.  The point I gather you're making is that the cues are functionally creating a "progessive" fiction.  Here, I can only surmise that you mean that it creates some fiction that follows itself because this is an ill-formed or ill-described concept so I have to guess what you mean.  That this is true -- cues by themselves, as physical pieces, do not create any fiction that then grows or expands.  They cannot.  I can stare at the tokens and map on my table for hours an no fiction emerges from them.  Even when you add rules this doesn't happen.  I have have rules for how to move tokens and how to do combats in 5e, and also the tokens and the battlemap and still nothing happens, no matter how long I stare at them.  No fiction is being produced, here.  I need player imagination to make that happen, at which point the cues and rules provide structure to how and what and when we imagine.  They can be important to a game -- nothing I or [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has said says anything otherwise!  In fact, a large part of [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s posts have been showing how cues interact to help create fiction.  No, rather, the point has been that I can separate a cue from the fiction because they are different things.  The cue isn't the fiction, just like the token on the gridmap isn't the character.  And just like the character sheet isn't the character.  And cues cannot be as responsible as you're claiming because I can forgo them and still have an RPG!The arguments you're making seem to be more aligned to you having a very specific RPG in mind, played a specific way, with specific agendas, and then claiming that the general model allows for things that the specific idea you have does not.  No, it's saying that the game isn't built to do story the way that the reviewer and their players tried to play the game.  They tried to play Risk on a Monopoly board and blamed the Monopoly board for why it was so easy to get out of jail.  Do you have any experience with Brindlewood Bay mechanics?  I do.  And that review, especially part 4 (you linked to part 5), is pretty much fully of the same set of misunderstanding and usual boogeymen that crop up from anyone taught and only used to games where the GM is the only allowed storyteller when they try games that forsake this approach.The model you've cited and the one [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has been discussing separates this.  If you're lumping things together in the discussion of a model that explicitly separates them, yes, this is a big issue and needed to be "teased out" long ago.  You've cluttered the discussion, although, in the end, I don't think it makes that much of a difference as your approach is a flawed understanding of the model anyway.I think it might be a very good idea for you to produce your own model, and do so with exaggerated clarity, because you've referenced a model, and are arguing from/towards it, but have already abandoned that in favor of an as yet unexplained model you have.  It makes for poor discussion to do this.If you're describing "productive" as you've done above -- we're still largely apart.  If you mean it in the clear sense of how the Lumpley model describes it (which I feel is a useful model, but not the only one possible), then I'm utterly confused as to this entire discussion and what you're aiming for at all.</blockquote>

Verification