Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7338976" data-attributes="member: 957">I think there is another important distinction.&nbsp; And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority.&nbsp; It is all about what is fun to who.But there is a lot that can be said about &quot;NO&quot; in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting.&nbsp; To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person.&nbsp; You may be a &quot;god among men&quot; or little nothing just trying to make ti day to day within the game.&nbsp; But whatever the case may be, the interaction within the world while constrained to being that character and nothing more is a lot of fun.&nbsp; With no definition hard-wired to what &quot;fun&quot; needs to be.&nbsp; It may be just the glory of the experience, or it may be the virtual empowerment of killing a slew of orcs.&nbsp; It can be as wide as an imagination.But &quot;yes and&quot; undermines that.&nbsp; Again, someone else may find that &quot;yes and&quot; creates a great deal more dopamine in their brain.&nbsp; It isn't a value statement I'm making.&nbsp; But it objectively changes the context of how the player experiences the world if they have a &quot;yes and&quot; GM or a &quot;depends on your character's capacity to make that change happen, so quite possibly NO&quot; GM.&nbsp; I have players in my games who are very much actors and not at all spectators.&nbsp; The running side joke is &quot;how are you going to destroy all my prep this time?&quot;&nbsp; And I love that.&nbsp; They absolutely take control.&nbsp; And yet they do that ONLY within the constraints of their characters.&nbsp; &quot;NO&quot; is an important part of the joy of success.I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh.&nbsp; I've discussed this specific idea with players.&nbsp; But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years.&nbsp; Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd even very much call myself a &quot;yes and&quot; GM in more typical circumstances.&nbsp; But it would be &quot;yes and&quot; within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 7338976, member: 957"] I think there is another important distinction. And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority. It is all about what is fun to who. But there is a lot that can be said about "NO" in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting. To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person. You may be a "god among men" or little nothing just trying to make ti day to day within the game. But whatever the case may be, the interaction within the world while constrained to being that character and nothing more is a lot of fun. With no definition hard-wired to what "fun" needs to be. It may be just the glory of the experience, or it may be the virtual empowerment of killing a slew of orcs. It can be as wide as an imagination. But "yes and" undermines that. Again, someone else may find that "yes and" creates a great deal more dopamine in their brain. It isn't a value statement I'm making. But it objectively changes the context of how the player experiences the world if they have a "yes and" GM or a "depends on your character's capacity to make that change happen, so quite possibly NO" GM. I have players in my games who are very much actors and not at all spectators. The running side joke is "how are you going to destroy all my prep this time?" And I love that. They absolutely take control. And yet they do that ONLY within the constraints of their characters. "NO" is an important part of the joy of success. I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh. I've discussed this specific idea with players. But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years. Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration. I'd even very much call myself a "yes and" GM in more typical circumstances. But it would be "yes and" within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation. [/QUOTE]

Verification