Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7352250" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't think this character is unplayable in my type of game at all. I've seen them as well. They're usually all about loyalty and team spirit or something like that. I mean, there is going to be something in everyone's personality that makes them agonistic, right? There are things you like and don't like. Happy the Half-orc likes his friends. When they're in trouble he gets roused! It isn't just 'tears come when things go bad' its "I'm going to rescue my friends!" and now you have a story hook...OK, you want to declare your character's needs met and conflicts over, then so be it! I don't understand how this is a problem. A player in any kind of game could choose to switch characters, or at least lose interest in what they're playing. I suggest that there's no reason to think one way of playing makes this more fraught than another. Obviously it can cause some impact on the game, but in a case where the player's are largely driving things, it certainly isn't going to mess up all the GM's carefully laid plans... Yeah, I can accept that this could be true. I am only countering that 'fundamental concerns are eternal' in a sense. If your character's core motivation is true, then it can always be tapped in some way. Lets suppose you're motivated by a desire for revenge against a villain who's 10th level and you become his equal and gank him. There's still a more fundamental thing going on, your character is angry about injustice, he feels like something unfair happened, or maybe his attitude is just 'life sucks and then you die', but those are still highly suggestive of continued agenda that COULD drive you in higher level play. Obviously if the players only want to play to 10th level, then that's cool! I'm perfectly happy, in an aesthetic narrative sense, to do so. My point is that INFINITE narratives can be justified in any game situation due to the complexity of causative process. Its a fig leaf to say that the GM is bound by some one specific possible narrative or even by some finite number of possibilities. Nor can we even really judge, beyond the very shortest time scale, even the probabilities of different things being likely in any realistic sense. This is what I mean by "causality has no bite", it just isn't binding.OK, you make up an entirely implausible and silly-sounding example, but you must admit that 1000's of possible narrative outcomes of a sword swing can be generated. We could probably list 100 of them right here in this thread in the next half hour without breaking a sweat. That's enough for me! And if you want to get technical IN THE REAL WORLD the example you give is not forbidden by the laws of physics. Quantum mechanics doesn't rule out ANYTHING, it just states what the chances are of seeing different kinds of outcomes. That's rather trite given that we can be safe in assuming we'll never see the sword turn into flowers even in 100,000 goggleplex years, but my point is that causality is REALLY THIN ICE to skate on (and now Jethro Tull has stuck in my mind's ear).</blockquote>

Verification