Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9333015" data-attributes="member: 85870">I can definitely confirm that Ironsworn and Ironsworn: Starforged have mechanics that either explicitly or implicitly ask players and GM to prioritize intent over &quot;hidden backstory.&quot; That once agreed-upon stakes and fictional positioning align with the result of invoking the mechanics, that the player can and should expect to receive the benefit outlined in the intent of his/her action.But it isn't a free-for-all. Without valid fictional positioning, as agreed between GM and player(s), and giving the system its say via mechanical resolution, considerations of the character's intent and stakes are null and void.When you have the confluence of all three, then and only then is the GM expected to adhere to the intent.I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;the intent tends to drown out the immediate diegetic conflict.&quot; What exactly is this claim?By the same token, how does altering the state of the fiction to account for player intent---by agreement of being bound by the rules of the game---&quot;inoculate&quot; (if I'm reading this right, you mean it in the sense of &quot;preventing outside alteration or brooking argument&quot;) a specific view of the fiction and the creative relationship?My initial reading is that it suggests that fiction-first/narrative style gaming, when enacted via rule, creates a contrariwise view of the fiction that the GM can no longer gainsay.&nbsp; And my response to that would be, &quot;Well yes, because that's really rather the point,&quot; but I am very much curious to hear your thoughts on that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9333015, member: 85870"] I can definitely confirm that [I]Ironsworn[/I] and [I]Ironsworn: Starforged[/I] have mechanics that either explicitly or implicitly ask players and GM to prioritize intent over "hidden backstory." That once agreed-upon stakes and fictional positioning align with the result of invoking the mechanics, that the player can and should expect to receive the benefit outlined in the intent of his/her action. But it isn't a free-for-all. Without valid fictional positioning, as agreed between GM and player(s), and giving the system its say via mechanical resolution, considerations of the character's intent and stakes are null and void. When you have the confluence of all three, then and only then is the GM expected to adhere to the intent. I'm not sure what you mean by "the intent tends to drown out the immediate diegetic conflict." What exactly is this claim? By the same token, how does altering the state of the fiction to account for player intent---by agreement of being bound by the rules of the game---"inoculate" (if I'm reading this right, you mean it in the sense of "preventing outside alteration or brooking argument") a specific view of the fiction and the creative relationship? My initial reading is that it suggests that fiction-first/narrative style gaming, when enacted via rule, creates a contrariwise view of the fiction that the GM can no longer gainsay. And my response to that would be, "Well yes, because that's really rather the point," but I am very much curious to hear your thoughts on that. [/QUOTE]

Verification