Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6594679" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I was involved in at at the beginning (2.5 weeks ago to be exact) with <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?429542-The-Best-Thing-from-4E&amp;p=6577171&amp;viewfull=1#post6577171" target="_blank">this </a>post on (at least) 4 cognitive biases that pervade any table and any GM aiming at the &quot;naturalistic&quot; approach.&nbsp; Posted others back and forth with Saelorn a bit but I'm so firmly in&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=27160" target="_blank">Balesir</a>'s camp, and I've already posted on it, so I don't have much more to say.&nbsp; Suffice to say that (a) I believe it is all cost (GM-overhead and time consuming prep) and no benefit.&nbsp; The &quot;no benefit&quot; portion being because each party's cognitive and perception bias drift in real life...with their own 1st person conception...creates a mental model of any given situation that diverges, sometimes radically and/or in significant ways, from others around them.&nbsp; Consider that reality, then remove the 1st person conception and replace it with &quot;GM as proxy/conduit/filter&quot; (regardless of how good the GM is)...you get the picture.&nbsp; Long story short.&nbsp; I am a damn good GM.&nbsp; And I can do a hell of a job running scenarios with process-sim-intensive, &quot;naturalistic&quot; temporal and spatial considerations (and mechanics that support them).&nbsp; But that doesn't improve my players tactical/strategic agency over something like 4e, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, or Dogs.&nbsp; Their opinion as well as my own.&nbsp; What's more, the former absolutely is not as strong as thematic player agency (by intent).&nbsp; This is because &quot;narrative causality&quot; (as&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6775031" target="_blank">Saelorn</a> has put it) is anathema to the agenda...and consistent, proper consideration/testing of a protagonist's thematic material requires &quot;narrative causality&quot; as a primary input when a GM is considering the aspects (stakes, dimensions, form of antagonism, etc) of a conflict-charged scene opener and, further, its post-resolution fallout.I'd be really curious if Saelorn would examine my short DW play example above and scrutinize it for (a) player agency and (b) content generation...especially the generation of the conflict in the half-frozen bog.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6594679, member: 6696971"] I was involved in at at the beginning (2.5 weeks ago to be exact) with [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?429542-The-Best-Thing-from-4E&p=6577171&viewfull=1#post6577171"]this [/URL]post on (at least) 4 cognitive biases that pervade any table and any GM aiming at the "naturalistic" approach. Posted others back and forth with Saelorn a bit but I'm so firmly in @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=27160"]Balesir[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s camp, and I've already posted on it, so I don't have much more to say. Suffice to say that (a) I believe it is all cost (GM-overhead and time consuming prep) and no benefit. The "no benefit" portion being because each party's cognitive and perception bias drift in real life...with their own 1st person conception...creates a mental model of any given situation that diverges, sometimes radically and/or in significant ways, from others around them. Consider that reality, then remove the 1st person conception and replace it with "GM as proxy/conduit/filter" (regardless of how good the GM is)...you get the picture. Long story short. I am a damn good GM. And I can do a hell of a job running scenarios with process-sim-intensive, "naturalistic" temporal and spatial considerations (and mechanics that support them). But that doesn't improve my players tactical/strategic agency over something like 4e, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, or Dogs. Their opinion as well as my own. What's more, the former absolutely is not as strong as thematic player agency (by intent). This is because "narrative causality" (as @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6775031"]Saelorn[/URL][/U][/B][/I] has put it) is anathema to the agenda...and consistent, proper consideration/testing of a protagonist's thematic material requires "narrative causality" as a primary input when a GM is considering the aspects (stakes, dimensions, form of antagonism, etc) of a conflict-charged scene opener and, further, its post-resolution fallout. I'd be really curious if Saelorn would examine my short DW play example above and scrutinize it for (a) player agency and (b) content generation...especially the generation of the conflict in the half-frozen bog. [/QUOTE]

Verification