Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9333285" data-attributes="member: 71699">To reach this assessment (i.e. "same") is insufficiently sensitive to differences in the ludonarrative. The ludonarrative is not a summary or any sort of precis of the ludonarrative. It's not a retrospective of one linear traversal. Different players will offer differing performances: they'll say different things and load those things significantly differently.Similarly, this is insufficiently sensitive to features of and differences in the signifiers. It is not only what players say (signifiers they contribute and curate), buthow they say it (intonation, connotation etc) recollecting that signifiers are dynamic, how they update them (choosing, driving, leveraging and enacting) their expressions and movements including those that are to the side of what they say their live arguments or conflicts (such as in PVP), or conspiring and abetting (such as conferring and planninng), with other players their efforts to influence how other players play ...the list is endlessTaking the player away changes the supervening ludonarrative. Some have compared TTRPG to improv, where players are actors. They are actor/authors, fabricating the significance-laden game mechanism through wielding the game-as-artifact tools, and working with and within that mechanism.As I said in an earlier reply, don't conflate ergodic literature with what I am saying. It was a stepping off point... nothing more.Setting those points aside, I currently see the ludonarrative as the entire implied volume, while stories are the specific traversals within the volume viewed in hindsight (and perhaps at times envisioned or prepared by participants). Story then is linear (although stories can wind back and forth, entangle and cross over one another). Ludonarrative is dynamically non-linear.</blockquote>

Verification