Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8630698" data-attributes="member: 71699">Artifact or The Ground Itself could be other examples. Journalling games are pretty diverse.I certainly acknowledge that for some cohorts of players what you say is subjectively true. I've been trying to find analogies to speak for some other cohorts. One is Alan Calhamer's Diplomacy (not an RPG, but bear with me.) There is no chance in Diplomacy - everyone equally judges the situation and decides their moves - and yet every Diplomacy session is one of "play to find out what happens". The analogous case in RPG is that no one player decides the judgements and moves of all the players. What happens emerges only on consideration of all those judgements and moves taken together. Each player "plays to find out what happens", GM included.Notice the built in definition here. What amounts to principled? Only something transparent and encoded? Transparency is not negated by players decide. Encoding will be a mixture of regulatory and constitutive. As to the former, an ethos grasped deontically can fill that same requirement. As to the latter, anything constitutive said up front is a pre-established constraint on Now, and yet not at odds with Now. Just as it is not at odds with Now to enjoy fabrication in the moment. Can I meld flowers into flower-bombs. Maybe so! Tell us how those work?Authority distribution is orthogonal to Now, as it can be asymmetrical (unequal) without harm to it.Any good system is biasing the outcomes: that's the point. In choosing Weird +2 in MotW I am biasing my outcomes to make my Weird-related stuff figure more highly in our play. The issue is not the bias, and I do not agree that other means by which biased outcomes may be achieved of necessity negate Now.Agreed on Now. Nothing I have said negates it. It's just selection of an option for Story. A kind of Story that is very exciting, but not the only kind of Story, not the only location for Now, and not the only way to achieve Now. Definitionally, you can say my Story Now must have Story and Now. I'm not denying that.I understand that is what some cohorts of players experienced and developed opinionated positions about. They had some bad experiences with Force I am guessing. But is your commitment on this diluted to saying what can help achieve Story Now, or is it what is necessary for Story Now?</blockquote>

Verification