Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9221767" data-attributes="member: 71699">Seeing as my post was quoted, I can say that this contains a few misapprehensions about what I have said, but the key one is that I read Baker to have been well aware both of assertive play and the nature of preagreements sustaining it precisely because of his examples.I'd draw a distinction between modes I observe D&amp;D approached in. Assertive play and strong versions of its sustaining principles are often most observable in OSR approaches. 3d6 DTL actual play of Dolmenwood supplies hours of examples.Neo-trad approaches to D&amp;D are normally more concerned that character abilities work as players imagine. So by contrast concerns such as those [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] outlined can prompt negotiation during play. That said, once the play of a mechanic is settled, it can operate more as a fiat: allowing the controlling player to make assertions.Note too my thoughts regarding the different perspectives and experience of design versus play, up-thread. At this point, my curiousity is beginning to redirect toward questioning if the crucial lusory-attitudes observed are, solely, negotiation and assertion? We've talked about clarification, but I see that as playing a part in those attitudes rather than in itself forming an instrumental attitude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9221767, member: 71699"] Seeing as my post was quoted, I can say that this contains a few misapprehensions about what I have said, but the key one is that I read Baker to have been well aware both of assertive play and the nature of preagreements sustaining it precisely because of his examples. I'd draw a distinction between modes I observe D&D approached in. Assertive play and strong versions of its sustaining principles are often most observable in OSR approaches. 3d6 DTL actual play of Dolmenwood supplies hours of examples. Neo-trad approaches to D&D are normally more concerned that character abilities work as players imagine. So by contrast concerns such as those [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] outlined can prompt negotiation during play. That said, once the play of a mechanic is settled, it can operate more as a fiat: allowing the controlling player to make assertions. Note too my thoughts regarding the different perspectives and experience of design versus play, up-thread. At this point, my curiousity is beginning to redirect toward questioning if the crucial lusory-attitudes observed are, solely, negotiation and assertion? We've talked about clarification, but I see that as playing a part in those attitudes rather than in itself forming an instrumental attitude. [/QUOTE]

Verification