Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9084695" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I think we're really circling a question about an impartial, fictional world motivated by internal causes unrelated to the PC, which is in theory being run as software on the GM's brain.This is obviously a flawed process, and we're essentially dealing with two reactions to that. Acceptance as the best possible expression of that setting that can be achieved with the technologies we're working with, or acceptance that such a thing is intrinsically flawed and abandoning the goal in favor of another.The concern is either the GM might slip up and not in fact, rigorously work from internal causes (or, seeing as that is impossible, do their best to fake it to an appropriate level of abstraction), and if that's the case, then surely it's better to just let players get involved in creation so that events are at least collectively agreed upon. Doing so immediately means that events can't actually be the result of internal causes. The game state morphs from a fictional world being explored to a shared fiction being authored. Preserving that state, is fundamentally I think why players cede authority to a GM; it's possible for a GM to use player choices/desires as the basis for world events, but it isn't guaranteed and the whole professional responsibility of the role more or less lies in not doing so (or only doing under some other criteria that everyone agrees will meaningfully improve the game).So, dilemma: do you set up an agent to do their best to do a probably impossible thing for you, or do you change what you want to something else, which is possible?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9084695, member: 6690965"] I think we're really circling a question about an impartial, fictional world motivated by internal causes unrelated to the PC, which is in theory being run as software on the GM's brain. This is obviously a flawed process, and we're essentially dealing with two reactions to that. Acceptance as the best possible expression of that setting that can be achieved with the technologies we're working with, or acceptance that such a thing is intrinsically flawed and abandoning the goal in favor of another. The concern is either the GM might slip up and not in fact, rigorously work from internal causes (or, seeing as that is impossible, do their best to fake it to an appropriate level of abstraction), and if that's the case, then surely it's better to just let players get involved in creation so that events are at least collectively agreed upon. Doing so immediately means that events can't actually be the result of internal causes. The game state morphs from a fictional world being explored to a shared fiction being authored. Preserving that state, is fundamentally I think why players cede authority to a GM; it's possible for a GM to use player choices/desires as the basis for world events, but it isn't guaranteed and the whole professional responsibility of the role more or less lies in not doing so (or only doing under some other criteria that everyone agrees will meaningfully improve the game). So, dilemma: do you set up an agent to do their best to do a probably impossible thing for you, or do you change what you want to something else, which is possible? [/QUOTE]

Verification