@Crimson Longinus
A player cannot give the GM "ingredients" without (what you have called) "setting editing powers".
A player cannot give the GM "ingredients" without (what you have called) "setting editing powers".
The 5e designers appear to have successfully followed an alternative analysis, based on their own systematic research, that showed that an RPG will be more functional if it incorporates multiple play priorities.I think you can make a strong argument that post-Gygaxian D&D is the poster child of GNS incoherence, and that the history of edition wars and arguments over GM fudging are primary symptoms of that. You have essentially two sides, both of which have seen what D&D 'should be' and have drifted or cultivated their own implementation to make that vision work. Both sides are playing functional games, but they cannot necessarily see the work they have done to get there and are thus not talking a common language when they speak to the other side.
Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.) I don't think it is wise to just casually muddle all this together. And personally I feel that for dramatic needs establishing the emotional and dramatic significance of the matter is far more important than establishing the specific material parameters related to it.@Crimson Longinus
A player cannot give the GM "ingredients" without (what you have called) "setting editing powers".
This is an important point. What incoherence means is "doesn't align." When you have two different goals of play -- like high-octane challenging combat and a storyline where characters are tightly integrated -- you get competing agendas: challenge the players but keep characters alive. Usually, this incoherence gets resolved by choosing one or the other in play, so the fact you have these two competing agendas is most often solved without problem in play by the table choosing one or the other in the moment. They "toggle" as they need to. But the incoherence is pointing out that you cannot do both things at the same time -- there has to be a choice.Incoherence =! Dysfunctional
If the player cannot have any input into the setting, then they have to get the GM's setting information to describe their trauma, or their desires, or etc, because they can't create anything in regard to this, right? They have to go to what the GM has provided, find a bit in there that they think they can use, craft something around that, and then submit it to the GM for approval and rewrite as needed according to GM feedback. How can this process then be described as giving the GM ingredients? They can only select from the GM's pantry, or submit a request for the GM to figure out what ingredients are available or even for the GM to just do it for them.Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.) I don't think it is wise to just casually muddle all this together. And personally I feel that for dramatic needs establishing the emotional and dramatic significance of the matter is far more important than establishing the specific material parameters related to it.
Why? Why is it "narrower" to want play to be about authoring fiction with a "point", rather than to want it to be about "winning"? I don't even know how one would begin to judge what is broad or narrow here.And we can instantly see that the last is not like the others. It is much narrower and more specific.
Well, there seem to be a number of people posting in this thread who knew nothing of the theory, and then read it and understood all three. I know that I was such a person, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago.If you gave these to some random person who knows nothing off the theory, they would grok the first two
Simulationism means enjoying the fiction for its own sake. This is not the goal of story now play.How doesn't a high-concept sim have 'a point?' Do participants of narrativism not enjoy the fiction they produce?
Edwards has used various sorts of descriptions.What are these 'points' like?
Here is the actual text from the 4e PHB, p 258:Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.)
What is your measure of the functionality of 5e? Or of designer success?The 5e designers appear to have successfully followed an alternative analysis, based on their own systematic research, that showed that an RPG will be more functional if it incorporates multiple play priorities.
Because they have chosen the direction of the game. The story is now about that thing. The thing may have in theory existed in the setting, like "here be dragons" on the map, but because the player chose their quest to be related to that, now it matters.Here is the actual text from the 4e PHB, p 258:
Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . . .Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. . . . Other times, you figure out your quests while adventuring. . . .You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.
I don't see that this has anything to do with the PC's traumas or desires. The ingredients are clearly things like the existence of the bow, or the presence of the mother's remains in the fortress. You seem to resolutely disregard that a quest is the fundamental story framework of an adventure, and that the system encourages players to create these. I don't see how you a player is going to create a fundamental story framework if they don't get to choose any story elements except those the GM has revealed to them.