Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9332068" data-attributes="member: 85870">That's all fine and good. But the point of mechanics that point to fiction-first, non-&quot;diegetic&quot; conflict resolution in games like Ironsworn are to keep the character stakes relevant.So, the player is ambivalent to the fate of the princess. Okay, so, why is the player putting so much at stake for the character to be involved with her? There's a disconnect there. The player isn't playing toward thematic character intentions and stakes. Or if the player is playing toward those stakes, then (s)he's doing so playing a character that (s)he isn't comfortable with. (S)he has built a character that (s)he isn't interested in exploring. So why is (s)he playing that character?I can see the point, being that &quot;Believe it or not, I was helping out the player avoid a rabbit hole of a plot development that (s)he wasn't interested in at all.&quot;But in narrative-style RPG-ing, this is a clear fail state. If interacting with the princess isn't of interest to the player, (s)he shouldn't be investing character stakes into it. If those are the only stakes of interest made available to the player, it's a additionally a fail state by the GM for framing scenes and situations that don't speak to the character's evinced thematic intentions and stakes. It's even further a fail state because it seems like neither the player nor GM are communicating through character build, world building, out-of-character discussion what they want the themes and stakes to be.If the solution to the problem is, &quot;I as GM am going to arbitrarily kill off this NPC character we've invested significant play time around evincing character intent and stakes, because the player is bored / disinterested,&quot; then the question of &quot;What kind of game are we really aiming for?&quot; is strikingly misaligned between GM and player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9332068, member: 85870"] That's all fine and good. But the point of mechanics that point to fiction-first, non-"diegetic" conflict resolution in games like [I]Ironsworn [/I]are to keep the [I]character[/I] stakes relevant. So, the [I]player[/I] is ambivalent to the fate of the princess. Okay, so, why is the [I]player putting so much at stake for the character[/I] to be involved with her? There's a disconnect there. The player isn't playing toward thematic character intentions and stakes. Or if the player is playing toward those stakes, then (s)he's doing so playing a character that (s)he isn't comfortable with. (S)he has built a character that (s)he isn't interested in exploring. So why is (s)he playing that character? I can see the point, being that "Believe it or not, I was helping out the player avoid a rabbit hole of a plot development that (s)he wasn't interested in at all." But in narrative-style RPG-ing, this is a clear fail state. If interacting with the princess isn't of interest to the player, (s)he shouldn't be investing character stakes into it. If those are the only stakes of interest made available to the player, it's a additionally a fail state by the GM for framing scenes and situations that don't speak to the character's evinced thematic intentions and stakes. It's even further a fail state because it seems like neither the player nor GM are communicating through character build, world building, out-of-character discussion what they want the themes and stakes to be. If the solution to the problem is, "I as GM am going to arbitrarily kill off this NPC character we've invested significant play time around evincing character intent and stakes, because the player is bored / disinterested," then the question of "What kind of game are we really aiming for?" is strikingly misaligned between GM and player. [/QUOTE]

Verification