Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7407720" data-attributes="member: 82106">The point of it is to channel the characters, and thus the players, into solving the problem via some specific set of actions, which is exactly what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] objects to. Note that there is a somewhat subtle point here. Pemerton doesn't object to the existence of only certain 'puzzle solving steps' and not others, he objects to the whole forced characterization of the situation AS A PUZZLE. His objection is to the limits on the player's agency to direct the fiction into other 'channels', to alter its thematic significance in order to align with the interests of the player instead of the GM. Both Max and Pemerton (and I assume all of us here) are perfectly OK with the existence of 'fictional positioning' creating constraints on the options available, but Pemerton only sees those as valid when they are effectively chosen by the player's engagement with those elements. For Max its a matter of what the GM wants to impose, which is different. Pemerton, as a GM, will ALWAYS frame the next scene in a way that reflects what was communicated by the players as their current agenda (not the character's agenda, the players). By not adhering to such a rule assiduously and by substituting hidden elements of backstory as a framing tool, in at least some cases, Max diverges from Pemerton's techniques of play. Well, it gets murky because Pemerton might well have such a forcefield, on the understanding that the player desires to find solutions to such obstacles, as well as some confluence of verisimilitude, genre logic, pacing, etc. Both of them might admit to a variety of solutions to the problem of the forcefield. In both cases this might be characterized as 'puzzle solving'. In Max's case that would be simply because he considers an obstacle of this type 'worthy', that it forms a 'wall in the maze', the circumventing of which establishes player skill and, by its value as an obstacle, tension.Pemerton might allow for a puzzle solving solution to the forcefield as a way of explicating a character's portrayal as a puzzle solver (maybe a McGyvver type character for instance). He might instead admit of a different solution, say firing a blaster at the forcefield, which might be a highly reckless action (IE Dune where it could provoke something similar to a nuclear explosion). That would be a choice where recklessness is a topic being explored perhaps. Which of these solutions is presented would depend on what the player wants. In fact it could be decided on the spot by the player via his action declarations (analogous to the oft-presented searching for a secret door giving it a chance to exist example). It is murky simply because you cannot determine by pure examination of the resultant narrative what the process of play was. This is why Pemerton asserts that you cannot analyze RPGs based on 'results'. You have to take into account process.</blockquote>

Verification