Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9333422" data-attributes="member: 7044566">You’re probably better off asking specific people for their takes rather than seeing them as representatives of a theory. As you pointed out, people have genuinely different views.For instance, I do consider Critical Roll as Narrativist play (at a rough estimate about half of all role-players are trying achieve Narrativist fun). It’s just been busted by role-play culture.I’m even open to debating this point. Given that I think Narrativist play is anti-genre, it may actually be an open question as to whether people secretly want to achieve it if only they knew better v they are actually happy with genre emulation.Anyway you were asking about what ‘play to find out means’. In it’s broadest sense it means play to find out how this situation resolves. Vincent coined it to refer to the purpose of a specific game.So in Sorcerer you play an arrogant sorcerer who has called upon soul destroying demons to help him get what he wants. The initial conditions of the game mean there are going to be four different endings.They get what they want but at the cost of their soul.They get what they want, soul intact.They don’t get what they and lose their soul.They don’t get what they want, soul intact.We play to find out which one happens. Although the specifics of the situation are going to throw up additional questions.Will Alicia get with Mari?Will Bernard get over his grief?Will Sarah become C.E.O?We play to find out.This is usually contrasted with someone (mostly the GM), knowing the answers to these questions and play is about how we get there.I don’t think it has great utility when we get to the nuts and bolts of play.</blockquote>

Verification