Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8348101" data-attributes="member: 177">Sure.&nbsp; But, as I think we are seeing, &quot;PC build&quot; here has elements a traditional build doesn't.And that's the thing - there is an expectation that the next thing the GM does - frame a scene - is going to be relevant to one or more of these Beliefs.&nbsp; It is as if the building were the first move in play, and this is the second.Yes, but by description, that appears to be mostly a difference in scale - the Belief comes in on the scale of scenes, the action declaration on the scale of actions.&nbsp; But both are intended to shape the reality of the narrative.Yes.&nbsp; There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&nbsp; It was less a statement of value, as it was recognizing the sticking point upon which folks often do assess that value.Well, I think this is a space where folks who have issues are likely to use a bit of hyperbole, but that doesn't mean their point does not have merit.&nbsp; Even if it isn't &quot;must,&quot; in a broad or absolute sense, it may be extremely common, and that should not be dismissed.&nbsp; I don't think much of the discourse around this point has been geared to help folks with the issues - it is focused on whether the issues exist at all.&nbsp; &quot;Those things don't have to be a blocker,&quot; may read as &quot;So, it is really a you problem, and therefore.... your problem.&quot;&nbsp; If we instead accept that these issues are common, and help folks address them, the overall discussion might be more constructive.So, word choice could be generate another sticking point - an event happens, and now the character &quot;believes&quot; evidence of who did it exists in a certain place.&nbsp; Where does that belief come from?&nbsp; In &quot;no myth&quot; it doesn't come from anything the GM tells you, as we are agreed that the evidence doesn't actually exist, and isn't placed in the world, for the GM to speak about it yet..&nbsp; To many, it would seem that such belief without evidence rather does indicate something outside the character's thought processes is involved, as with the information in the narrative so far, there seems to be no basis for the belief.&quot;Hope&quot;, &quot;desire&quot;, or &quot;expect&quot; might change that perception.As above, all those things are fine, if the thing you want to reference is already present in the narrative.&nbsp; Invoking such a statement about things that aren't established yet, to some, may seem to implicitly include thoughts that the character can't have yet.&nbsp; I've seen some of this tension alleviated by changing the order slightly - like, in the Urban Shadows legwork or &quot;hitting the streets&quot; move, the player states that they're going out broadly in search of information on a topic, roll, and if they succeed then they describe the person who gave it&nbsp; (and, if playing no-myth, they decide what the information you gleaned was).&nbsp; Building from general to specific, rather than starting at the specific, can be an aid to those not used to the style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8348101, member: 177"] Sure. But, as I think we are seeing, "PC build" here has elements a traditional build doesn't. And that's the thing - there is an expectation that the next thing the GM does - frame a scene - is going to be relevant to one or more of these Beliefs. It is as if the building were the first move in play, and this is the second. Yes, but by description, that appears to be mostly a difference in [I]scale[/I] - the Belief comes in on the scale of scenes, the action declaration on the scale of actions. But both are intended to shape the reality of the narrative. Yes. There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. It was less a statement of value, as it was recognizing the sticking point upon which folks often do assess that value. Well, I think this is a space where folks who have issues are likely to use a bit of hyperbole, but that doesn't mean their point does not have merit. Even if it isn't "must," in a broad or absolute sense, it may be extremely common, and that should not be dismissed. I don't think much of the discourse around this point has been geared to [I]help[/I] folks with the issues - it is focused on whether the issues exist at all. "Those things don't [I]have[/I] to be a blocker," may read as "So, it is really a [I]you[/I] problem, and therefore.... your problem." If we instead accept that these issues are common, and help folks address them, the overall discussion might be more constructive. So, word choice could be generate another sticking point - an event happens, and now the character "believes" evidence of who did it exists in a certain place. Where does that belief come from? In "no myth" it doesn't come from anything the GM tells you, as we are agreed that the evidence [I]doesn't actually exist[/I], and isn't placed in the world, for the GM to speak about it yet.. To many, it would seem that such belief without evidence rather does indicate something outside the character's thought processes is involved, as with the information in the narrative so far, there seems to be no basis for the belief. "Hope", "desire", or "expect" might change that perception. As above, all those things are fine, if the thing you want to reference is already present in the narrative. Invoking such a statement about things that aren't established yet, to some, may seem to implicitly include thoughts that the character can't have yet. I've seen some of this tension alleviated by changing the order slightly - like, in the Urban Shadows legwork or "hitting the streets" move, the player states that they're going out broadly in search of information on a topic, roll, and [I]if they succeed[/I] then they describe the person who gave it (and, if playing no-myth, they decide what the information you gleaned was). Building from general to specific, rather than starting at the specific, can be an aid to those not used to the style. [/QUOTE]

Verification