Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9331411" data-attributes="member: 71699">You have seen or linked the video of the interview yourself, either earlier here or in another thread.I agree with the above: it matches what I was talking about. It looks like we have slightly different meanings in mind for &quot;stakes&quot; that are getting in the way of understanding. Is it right that you want to reserve the word for the motives or desires of player characters? So even if you also talk about desires and motives of NPCs, you don't label those stakes. The reason being that you want the word to serve the purpose of labelling specifically what drives and in the end is resolved in conflicts.If right, that's a reasonable usage as it echoes stakes in other game contexts, such as in Poker. What players put at risk.One reason I include the desires and motives of NPCs is in part with in mind GM as player. Equipping them to let &quot;the game's fiction's own internal logic and causality, driven by the player's characters, answer it.&quot;In shocking news, we sometimes turn out to be interested in different things.Here perhaps the only difference between us is that I'm willing to say that techniques that have been associated with a movement sometimes self-identifying as narrativist, are available to play falling outside what that movement would count as narrativist. I get the sense folk generally agree, too, that groups can find themselves employing those techniques even without their being incorporated in game texts, even if there is equally a sense that designers do useful work incorporating them (researching, communicating, streamlining, testing in other contexts, etc) that can lead to their more probable, consistent and effective application. My view is very far from - game designers have nothing to offer!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9331411, member: 71699"] You have seen or linked the video of the interview yourself, either earlier here or in another thread. I agree with the above: it matches what I was talking about. It looks like we have slightly different meanings in mind for "stakes" that are getting in the way of understanding. Is it right that you want to reserve the word for the motives or desires of player characters? So even if you also talk about desires and motives of NPCs, you don't label those stakes. The reason being that you want the word to serve the purpose of labelling specifically what drives and in the end is resolved in conflicts. If right, that's a reasonable usage as it echoes stakes in other game contexts, such as in Poker. What players put at risk. One reason I include the desires and motives of NPCs is in part with in mind GM as player. Equipping them to let "the game's fiction's own internal logic and causality, driven by the player's characters, answer it." In shocking news, we sometimes turn out to be interested in different things. Here perhaps the only difference between us is that I'm willing to say that techniques that have been associated with a movement sometimes self-identifying as narrativist, are available to play falling outside what that movement would count as narrativist. I get the sense folk generally agree, too, that groups can find themselves employing those techniques even without their being incorporated in game texts, even if there is equally a sense that designers do useful work incorporating them (researching, communicating, streamlining, testing in other contexts, etc) that can lead to their more probable, consistent and effective application. My view is very far from - game designers have nothing to offer! [/QUOTE]

Verification