Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9330558" data-attributes="member: 71699">I don't think this is the right example. For one thing, Theoden can be viewed as the PC here. Having admirably played to their flaws and succumbed to Wormtongue, they are railroaded by Olorin, the Maiar primordial spirit in their magic-wielding Istari form. The whole thing plays out in accord with the GM's setup. Even tranferring this to the example being cited (ad arguendo accepting the PC as Gandalf), it's as if a PC with an entirely different standing and power were in the court, and in that case it's likely the GM would have directed NPC responses in a different way.I think what [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]'s contrast between content and nature could be about is whether player has agency not as to what happens in the scene, but in the scene setup itself. Say the GM has the King worked out and it makes sense that they'd react as they did? Can the player change the King's motivations here? Perhaps inserting a moment in the King's past where they stood before a Tyrant in a similar setting. With that history inserted, handing the King back to GM as an adversary that they manage, the GM will likely now direct their responses in a different way.Referring back to my discussion up thread of ludonarrative requiring establishing narrative potential without committing to a given story, that can be achieved in a couple of ways. And at least one of those ways you seem to be ruling out as non-narrativistA. GM (or game designer FTM) can set the scene up with terrain and actual and potential adversaries (NPCs whose stakes potentially conflict with those of players). PCs enter that scene and although they set nothing up, it plays out in response to what they do. Only through knowing what PCs do, can we know how it will play out. And that is true even though they didn't play any part in setting things up, and cannot modify the nature of those things. Although we must work with the stakes as set, it can involve genuine stakes-motivated-conflict, and as to what stakes matter here and now can be down to what players do. I believe that this is the kind of setup the cited quotation describes. B. GM and players can set the scene up. PCs enter and it plays out from there. Beyond setup, there is no editing of the nature of the scene. Only how things go out based on what the PCs do. C. GM can set the scene up, and players can be empowered to add to and edit the scene as they play it out. They can edit the King's nature to add that snippet of history at the moment it matters, so that GM will be inclined to direct their responses in a different way.There are a few other permutations, but that's probably enough to give the sense of it. The example of Gandalf and Theoden is at best a case of A. Gandalf is able to challenge Theoden in his own court due to facts already established. Over the course of the scene, the natures of Gandalf and Theoden are revealed but not changed. (I think arguing that their natures are changed, will be contradicting earlier posts about what counts as a "nature" change versus a "content" change.) Given it's authored up front, there's no possibility of a "nature" change.[USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] do I have it right that a "nature" change must mean changing elements of the scene such as the King's motivations during play of the scene? So things can turn out differently not simply because the GM responds at all times reasonably and justifiably, with a view to genuine conflicts within the terms of both system and fiction, but because the nature of the fiction itself can be altered during play. The King can turn out to have a memory of opposing a Tyrant, even though we knew nothing about that going in, and our reasonable/just GM must take that memory into account in saying what the King does. (Or it can be that they player simply tells the GM what the King would say, to make their intended change to nature clearer.)A note on B. On the one hand, I don't think a co-authored piece is playing to find out if it is authored up front any more than a solo-authored piece is. However, setting up the scene (nature + content) together means players have a stronger say in how it will go because after all, perhaps they will think to give the King that snippet of history that will turn out to matter. Suppose though, that it's set up that way but as it happens, when it's played this time the whole resisting-the-Tyrant thing never comes up... was it then just colour?</blockquote>

Verification