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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8424183" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think you can just declare me to not be able to use an idea.  You need to present a case.The issue I'm having with the invisible rulebooks, and that is part of that article, is where authority interacts with them.  In the article, it's clear that these invisible rulebooks are open for consensus seeking -- it's explicitly said in the article that comparison and getting on the same page are very important.  But, there's an undercurrent in the article that it's the GM's ideas that are the ones that matter, that the purpose of the GM's invisible rulebooks (which are really genre emulations but rather a conception of how things should play out and can disagree wildly on what's important in a given moment -- as mentioned by the article) is to be the heuristic by which the game is governed.  And you've explicitly said this just a few posts back -- that consensus seeking is not the point; it's the GM's game.So, with all of this, we're back to the fact that, as it's being used by you, the only invisible rulebook that matters is the GM's, which takes this somewhat out of genre emulation because the GM's ideas may not match the genre or there may be a difference in understanding as to which genre is at play.  This can be good, I mean Coen brothers movies are pretty much all about dissonance in genres.  But it's not clear that there's a pathway that leads to this via principles of play.  This isn't coherent, and borrowing (poorly) Forge stances doesn't aid the argument.  For one, your conception of a character is not the only possible or even best conception of a character.  There's no causal process here, it's more about what you're thinking than actually inhabiting the character.  The dig that some people can't do this is very poor manners -- I've been doing this for years and have lots of fun inhabiting a character.  What I don't do is confuse my fun for an actual, independent, causal process.  I am still making decisions -- the character is a figment of my imagination.  So, when faced with a dilemma, what happens is I decide on a course of action and then filter it through my character.  The character does not direct anything at all, because, again, imaginary.  This means that a choice you're making about the fiction is arbitrary and not actually better than a mechanically driven choice that is then roleplayed out.  It's different, sure, the process is different, and you're never faced with having a choice be confusing or upsetting to you because you're always making the choices.  This doesn't present a better model of people, or how real people react, though, because everyone is often confused, surprised, or upset by the choices others make, and we generally don't have the ability to predict individual responses all that well.What makes either method -- you acting or using mechanics -- work well are principles of play and how those work.  These are what I'm trying to get from FKR.</blockquote>

Verification