Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8244284" data-attributes="member: 16814">What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called &quot;living world&quot; -- the GM decides that it is so.&nbsp; This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.&nbsp; 1) Characters do action A.&nbsp; 2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.3) GM narrates the consequence.When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar.&nbsp; The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea.&nbsp; Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players.&nbsp; Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out.&nbsp; Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis.&nbsp; I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8244284, member: 16814"] What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so. This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games. 1) Characters do action A. 2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence. 3) GM narrates the consequence. When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar. The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea. Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players. Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out. Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis. I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing. [/QUOTE]

Verification