Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9331374" data-attributes="member: 71699">One thought I had been following up is whether it depends on if one pictures NPC motivations to be sort of free-floating and revisable during play. It could go that the player says they want to put at stake resisting a Tyrant so now the King's motivations are revised to some sort of tyrannical leanings in order to drive that conflict.I think "realists" want their scene set up that the included in placing a King in the scene (a piece of content) are that King's motivations. So the piece of content includes motivations. That's common in games: the properties and possibilities of the pieces are built into the pieces. Fully implied through including those pieces in the list of contents for the scene.So then if you don't want the King's motivations to be present, don't have the King present. Seeing as the players are present in every scene, their stakes are always in the spotlight. They're what we care most about, still, to paraphrase not to at all denigrate what you are saying but to offer a mirror to it (and without making commitments in that direction, either)Why is it so difficult for some to appreciate that the presence of certain pieces of content within a scene implies what is at stake in a scene?Perhaps my paraphrase captures it. When the players decide to confront the King, there is conflict if and only if their stakes are at odds with those of the King. If motives are all in harmony, the scene will be most likely short and friendly, perhaps a bridging scene to move things along in some direction (will you? why I most certainly shall my dear friend! oh thank you).Reflecting on the way I defined rules in another thread, as emphasising, extending and overriding norms, when we say that there are no mechanics to compel a GM to X, well, there are no mechanics for skipping in D&D but one supposes many GMs are going to say yes to skipping.That said, I do agree that written mechanics in the game text will help things along, and that in their absence what you say could turn out to be right. What is far more interesting though, is the question of whether some players prefer it that way and if so what they find satisfying about that?That comes back to what I said up thread relating to DH and GM moves, that if we really want GMs to follow the rules, we need rules that apply to GM. Both in principle (the game text has to say the rules apply to the GM) and as mechanics (there are GM mechanics and/or what the GM does is incorporated into other mechanics.)But D&D has committed itself so far as I can see to leaving it open, saying little on principles, and high GM-curation. Meaning who can really say what will go on at each D&D table. Presumably (and hopefully) something each group finds satisfying!Low stakes is a preferences thing, I think. Players can sometimes prefer it, too.</blockquote>

Verification