Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7413697" data-attributes="member: 42582">But I think we can talk meaningfully about processes of establishing constructs of the imagination. We can - and people often do - talk eg about how a film was scripted, filmed, etc.I think talking about mental activity is not that productive in the sort of conversation we can have on these boards! That's why I tried to focus on talking, which is the shared, social manifestation of that mental activity.The "embodied in the GM" claim is obviously controversial eg [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] described it as worse than a "red flag" (a "red neon sign" I think was the phrase used).But again the notion of "embodiment" heads towards imponderables. That's why I've tended to focus on narrating or telling. These, again, are shared, social events.As you present it, but with my translations into terms of talking, it seems to look like this: a player says "I do X", where "I" denotes the PC; the GM narrates results/consequences, having regard to the parameters of the world.I think there are three main types of X in RPGing.(1) I go to . . . .. The relevant parameters are the world map/key/encyclopedia-like description. The GM tells the player what his/her PC see/encounters. There is a difference between this and just reading the notes/description the GM is working from. What underpins the difference? I've conjectured that second-personality is part of that. (2) I look for/recall information about . . .. Knowledge and search checks are the paradigm here. This is more likely to involve a check than (1). If things go according to plan, the GM tells the player what it is that his/her PC discovers or recalls. Again, there is a difference between this and just reading the description the GM is working from. Is it related to fact that the player is seeking the information so as to solve a problem? (3) I inflct condition PQR on such-and-such a part of the gameworld. This includes attempts to attack, to persuade, to demolish, etc. In this sort of action declaration, the outcome is extrapolated by some combination of application of the mechanics and GM intuition about the "physics" of the situation. The more the GM is relying on intuitions about the "physics", the more this can start to resemble (1) and (2). The more there is reliance on mechanics, the less it will resemble those.Even if the above was reasonable as a starting sketch, there's a lot more to be said - eg what motivates the player to declare an action for his/her PC? How does the GM's narration of results/consequences feed back into that motivation?But any analysis has to start somewhere!</blockquote>

Verification