Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4260249" data-attributes="member: 15538">I do not, for a number of reasons.1. &quot;Create a situation&quot; implies either an authorial GM or collaborative mega-gaming. 2. &quot;... players are forced&quot; : Which players? What do you mean by forced? Is the GM forcing? Do players force each other?3. Interesting choices are necessarily meaningful choices. If the choices are meaningful, the players have the freedom to choose &quot;incorrectly&quot; from an authorial standpoint. If the players have choices, they have the choice to make un-interesting choices, which leads to a contradiction. While interesting choices are good, I don't think they can be presupposed by any design. What is &quot;interesting&quot; varies from one person to the next. I think your formulation is fine for a certain style of game. It does incorporate the idea of game (unknown outcomes, lack of information about the future) and it does at least imply meaningful choices. But I think it implies an authorial GM; I believe players are authorial for the characters. A GM can tell them where a character might be from, but they can't tell a player what a character must do unless that particular authorial decision is delegated to the action resolution system. I think your formulation falters when the PCs are resistant to &quot;the plot.&quot; The freedom principle, as I describe it, allows the PCs to wander off the map, and once that happens, any ability to &quot;force&quot; them evaporates. Impelling PCs to do interesting things I consider a matter of GM technique, not game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 4260249, member: 15538"] I do not, for a number of reasons. 1. "Create a situation" implies either an authorial GM or collaborative mega-gaming. 2. "... players are forced" : Which players? What do you mean by forced? Is the GM forcing? Do players force each other? 3. Interesting choices are necessarily meaningful choices. If the choices are meaningful, the players have the freedom to choose "incorrectly" from an authorial standpoint. If the players have choices, they have the choice to make un-interesting choices, which leads to a contradiction. While interesting choices are good, I don't think they can be presupposed by any design. What is "interesting" varies from one person to the next. I think your formulation is fine for a certain style of game. It does incorporate the idea of game (unknown outcomes, lack of information about the future) and it does at least imply meaningful choices. But I think it implies an authorial GM; I believe players are authorial for the characters. A GM can tell them where a character might be from, but they can't tell a player what a character [i]must do[/i] unless that particular authorial decision is delegated to the action resolution system. I think your formulation falters when the PCs are resistant to "the plot." The freedom principle, as I describe it, allows the PCs to wander off the map, and once that happens, any ability to "force" them evaporates. Impelling PCs to do interesting things I consider a matter of GM technique, not game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification