Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6398105" data-attributes="member: 2067">So where we have a different understanding here is that the motivation behind doing these actions is not to find out whether or not they can be done. Rather, the setting's assumption is that these things can be done (and the reason they can be done is because the PCs want to do it, and the players should be aware of this -- belief is power, your belief shapes the multiverse, belief is a key part of character creation because of it, etc.). The motivation to doing them is the same motivation that a PC in a "standard" D&D setting has for going out from the turnip farm and raiding the local mad wizard's ruin: they're the kind of person who responds to such a call to action (for whatever reason). The conflict comes, in large part, from the fact that the antagonists are doing the same. I'm not entirely sure what "real world value/significance" brings to bear on the topic. I see the real-world value being the same real-world value that any game of D&D brings, which is engagement and entertainment. Again, maybe an example of the alternative would be useful for contrast, because I'm not sure I have a clear picture of what other issues of real-world value and signfiicance, aside from pleasure, result from any particular game of RPGs.So internal consistency = a limitation on player authority? Interesting take. I don't know that I'd disagree, but I also don't know that I'd enjoy a game that lacked that limitation (and thus lacked internal consistency). I don't see the link between any of those things and a limitation on the player's ability to declare character actions and have the DMs resolve them. Looks like I missed that reference, care to encapsulate? And by your criteria, that is different from witnessing the consequences of player actions in the setting? Because it really looks the same from here. Heavy Setting Exploration:Player (at some point in play): "To further the beliefs of my Xaositects, I rip a hole in the fabric of the multiverse."DM (at some other point): "The Guvner looks at you with a mixture of awe and horror, recognizing you as the origin of the breach, as the glistening steel Inevitable strides forth with an earth-shaking INVALID."Not Really Setting Exploration:Player (at some point in chargen): "I have a strong connection to my wife in the village."DM (at some other point): "The vampyr's trail leads right to your doorstep, and you realize, with a sinking sensation, that your wife is sleeping inside..."Is the above an accurate representation of your case? If so, can you tell me what you see as the significant difference? I can see a few minor points of divergence. The latter situation has the player "taking an action" in character creation, rather than in play (in which case, simply adding more explicit goals to character creation would remove/relieve the issue). The proper nouns are a little different ("the multiverse" / "the village"; "Xaositects/Guvners/Inevitables" / "vampyrs"), but I don't imagine you'd begrudge settings different scales and NPC protagonist/antagonist groups. I might be getting your position wrong still, so I don't want to examine it too closely, but this is what I'm coming to understand.In both cases, we have a player picking something that has some meaning to them (and in the PS example, demonstrating that meaning in play), and the DM then threatening that thing with people who would like to destroy it. In the PS example, it's an ideology, versus the BW example of a spouse about to be Damsel'd, but in both cases it's something that the PC is explicitly or implicitly willing to fight and die to preserve, protect, and advocate for. ...and if one of the PC's is a Xaositects, their antagonists will include Guvners or Mercykillers. And if one of the PC's is a Guvner, their antagonists will include some Xaositects or Bleakers...So, like, Harmonium (loyalty) vs. Fated (freedom), Mercykiller (vengeance) vs. Guvner (efficiency), Signer (what price to avoid the end of your world?), and, well, any game where a party of 5 is going to each individually have a stake in transforming reality?</blockquote>

Verification