Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9331493" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think spectrums are vastly over-used as tools of analysis.For instance, when it's cold outside I can put on a scarf, or not. And I can put on a beanie, or not. It doesn't follow that there's a bare-scarf-beanie spectrum!You seem to be saying that sometimes play can be driven by the GM, and sometimes by the players. I personally have my doubts about this, because my experience is that if a game has tools (formal or informal) that permit players to drive play, and if it's understood at the table that the players can use those tools, then the players will use those tools.And I don't think this is just about player energy or inclination, either. I think it's about a systemic tendency. Once the players set what is at stake, then the consequences of the actions they declare for their PCs pertain to those stakes - resolving them, establishing new player-determined stakes, whatever. And so then the next bundle of actions the players declare for their PCs still pertain to player-determined stakes. The process goes on in a virtuous circle, with no obvious point for the GM to intrude with their favoured conception of what should be at stake.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9331493, member: 42582"] I think spectrums are vastly over-used as tools of analysis. For instance, when it's cold outside I can put on a scarf, or not. And I can put on a beanie, or not. It doesn't follow that there's a bare-scarf-beanie spectrum! You seem to be saying that sometimes play can be driven by the GM, and sometimes by the players. I personally have my doubts about this, because my experience is that [I]if[/I] a game has tools (formal or informal) that permit players to drive play, and [I]if[/I] it's understood at the table that the players can use those tools, [I]then[/I] the players [I]will[/I] use those tools. And I don't think this is just about player energy or inclination, either. I think it's about a systemic tendency. Once the players set what is at stake, then the consequences of the actions they declare for their PCs pertain to those stakes - resolving them, establishing new player-determined stakes, whatever. And so then the next bundle of actions the players declare for their PCs still pertain to player-determined stakes. The process goes on in a virtuous circle, with no obvious point for the GM to intrude with their favoured conception of what should be at stake. [/QUOTE]

Verification