Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9228270" data-attributes="member: 71699">As you know, I distinguish between game texts and phenomenology of play. So I am asking myself - would it be possible to design or interpret a game text such that(a) game text requires GM to establish setting, situation, and goals/stakes that matter within them; players establish their characters
(b) game text systematizes the endpoint, so that when goals/stakes are resolved the scene resolves
(c) game text systematizes the payoff - impacts on setting/situation/characters4e skill challenges are a good example. I'm thinking of the DMG72 onward game text. What if I simply put weight on text instructing me as GM to set things up? In the 4e DMG is text addressed to GM like thisDefine the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. The goal has everything to do with the overall story of the adventure.Many folk back in the day appear to have made the sort of reading I propose here. Thus, if 4e skill challenges are an example of closed-scene-resolution, do they stop being closed-scenes given the game text is interpreted as I've said? No one has yet been able to say why. Rather they revert to building &quot;players set goals&quot; into their definitions.So now I have defined Manbearcatian-closed-scene-resolution, which I assume to require players to set goals/stakes, and Clearstreamian-closed-scene-resolution, which does not. In terms of gameflow, both can fit Harper's diagram.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9228270, member: 71699"] As you know, I distinguish between game texts and phenomenology of play. So I am asking myself - would it be possible to design or interpret a game text such that [INDENT](a) game text requires GM to establish setting, situation, and goals/stakes that matter within them; players establish their characters[/INDENT] [INDENT](b) game text systematizes the endpoint, so that when goals/stakes are resolved the scene resolves[/INDENT] [INDENT](c) game text systematizes the payoff - impacts on setting/situation/characters[/INDENT] 4e skill challenges are a good example. I'm thinking of the DMG72 onward game text. What if I simply put weight on text instructing me as GM to set things up? In the 4e DMG is text addressed to GM like this [INDENT]Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. The goal has everything to do with the overall story of the adventure.[/INDENT] Many folk back in the day appear to have made the sort of reading I propose here. Thus, if 4e skill challenges are an example of closed-scene-resolution, do they stop being closed-scenes given the game text is interpreted as I've said? No one has yet been able to say why. Rather they revert to building "players set goals" into their definitions. So now I have defined Manbearcatian-closed-scene-resolution, which I assume to require players to set goals/stakes, and Clearstreamian-closed-scene-resolution, which does not. In terms of gameflow, both can fit Harper's diagram. [/QUOTE]

Verification