Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9330705" data-attributes="member: 71699">Agreed, however I was following your example that for the sake of argument required then to have that status.That really depends on what the given players choose to drive. Challenging play is generally strongly player driven, but surely that wouldn't amount to the sort of "player-driven" you have in mind.Can they establish what is at stake for NPCs?There is a sort of play that follows an adventure path that lays out what's going to be at stake in each scene. I witness very little of that sort of play. I can imagine it has its adherents. That's not what I'm discussing here. Included in what I'm discussing are projected possible modes of play, as well as current ones. I'm relying on the reader's own stock of game texts and examples of play, as well as their ability to imagine what projected modes of play could be like. The rough problem I'm trying to solve is - what is the difference between the nature of the fiction and its content? [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] wroteThe court and the King are presumably content, so what must nature refer to? Ordinarily in sandboxes, players decide what's at stake in a scene... otherwise the scene doesn't occur. Surely the concern cannot be solely that GM mapped the physical geography, seeing as that will imply the distinction can be dissolved by giving players a say over said geography. Which is underwhelming (hopefully I'm wrong.)The meaing of ludonarrative is that it is the sort of narrative organic to games, as distinct from that organic to other mediums such as books or films. As for advocating, let me quote Baker once againI don't advocate narrativist RPGing because it's a chimera. A convenient but inevitably-inaccurate label. That noted, I do advocate play that possesses properties historically associated with that label. Among them, that players establish stakes is crucial. Of course, I then go and ruin it by including GM among players...Yes, I agree it can go many different ways.I mean that they decide together if there is a court, and if there is a King, and what the King's motives are, and so on.In a sense that's perspicacious. Fiats over a scene via game mechanics can effectively edit the scene. For example, a spell that changes the Kings predispositions. But what I meant was more what [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] touched on, which was stepping out of play and making OOC or metaplay edits to the scene. An example is the Devil's Bargain. Or a flashback.We just have different approaches to figuring things out. It unfortunately causes a lot more head-butting than possibly we either would intend or desire. My interests are also more in analysis than explanation, and I'm very interested in abstract or universal patterns.I don't think how it would be resolved is under contention. Is it? It's the setup itself. The King's motives. How they respond to the PC's actions. Whether player will communicate to GM some stakes with the expectation that GM will adjust the scene if needed to respect and center on those stakes? And whether that can be done in the moment, or must be part of setup going in.As I read that OP, it fits A. GM set up the scene or it was written into an AP. I'm fairly disinterested in that. I'm more interested in what power players must have, at what level (play or metaplay) and moments (during the scene, prior to it) in order to make the scene count within [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]'s definition of "nature".</blockquote>

Verification