Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9230891" data-attributes="member: 71699">The two long posts, and many preceding them, to my reading drew attention to the following(i) Information that matters to play but is not the focus of play can be simply disclosed. Why not? They're not what anyone at the table cares to put in doubt or spend time on. Thus, if the demonic papers are to be found between the leaves of the Brother Jo's Book of Life, that won't nullify a player character act. I think it could conceivably be narrated as part of a conflict. (ii) Low-no-myth (I believe everyone accepts that putatively "no-myth" games start with something sketched out, even if only to the extent implied by the kinds of characters that can exist, so perhaps one can just say "no-myth" and mean "but really the barest necessary myth".) No-myth then, can be distinguished from (i) above. With (i) I have myth, but following principles of play it can't get in our way. Whilst with no-myth, I do not have myth that could get in the way of our play. I have observed no myth groups taking care to preserve myth as they establish it. One might assume that everyone is privy to such locked in truths, but I've observed edge cases in which GM decides on hidden information as prompted by play, that has implications not limited to those at stake in the moment. It seems to me generally accurate to say that no-myth transitions to myth over time, given enough sessions of play. (iii) High-myth, such as is ordinarily prepared for traditional modes of play. Even here, there are differences in the kind of commitments made by prep. Are we committed to plot, or only to people and places? Suppose players are investigators and while we commit to people and places, we make no commitment on clues. Perhaps abstracting them mechanically and providing narrative moves to drive progression. In this case, high-myth can't get in the way of our focus of play. This is really just a restatement of (i) to show that what is entailed by high-myth isn't cut-and-dried.The above boil down to one principle, which is "don't commit to fact that which should be found out through play". Anything it is not the focus of play to find out, you can write a Bible on. And ought not hide under a bushel. Contrast the alternative principle "commit to fact that which you intend players to find out through play." It's the latter that can obstruct conflict resolution. Analysis of cases formed under one principle often won't transfer to cases formed under another. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] tagging you here as this is to some extent responsive to your detailed comments upthread. Also my immediately following.</blockquote>

Verification