Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9031212" data-attributes="member: 42582">This seems to me to come back to a fundamental point about action resolution.&quot;No myth&quot; play, as [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] says, is compatible with thinking of things in advance.What &quot;no myth&quot; play excludes is using that stuff that was thought of in advance as a basis for deciding, in advance, how things go in the fiction independent of the action resolution mechanics.Now, this point has implications. If the action resolution mechanics can't be applied except by reference to stuff that has been thought of in advance, then the RPG in question will not work well for no-myth play.The most obvious case I can think of that raises this issue is the resolution of interaction with NPCs. If there is no social resolution system (eg the Classic Traveller reaction table), and the GM is expected to resolve how NPCs respond to the PCs by reference to their already-known personalities etc, then no myth probably can't work.That said, another distinction is relevant here: between framing, and secret backstory. The following could be an example of no myth: the GM narrates the NPC saying &quot;I don't really want to &lt;do such-and-such&gt;, but I would love for you to give me &lt;this thing&gt;&quot;. That's framing, and the player can respond to that: just as if the GM frames a scene involving a pit and a wall beyond it, and the player responds with some action declaration involving a rope, grapple and acrobatics.On the other hand, this is not an example of no myth: the GM makes a note to themself that NPC really doesn't want to &lt;do such-and-such, but would love to be given &lt;this thing&gt;. And now the success or failure of the players' action declarations is adjudicated by reference to this secret backstory.In passing, this also shows that nothing about &quot;no myth&quot; play precludes what has been described in this thread as &quot;simulationist&quot; reasoning. All it does is put additional limits on what the GM can extrapolate, and how they present that to the players.This is clearly not a no-myth game. You have all this secret backstory, and you are making hard moves by reference to it, bypassing any action resolution framework.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9031212, member: 42582"] This seems to me to come back to a fundamental point about action resolution. "No myth" play, as [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] says, is compatible with thinking of things in advance. What "no myth" play excludes is [I]using that stuff that was thought of in advance[/I] as a basis for deciding, in advance, how things go in the fiction [I]independent of the action resolution mechanics[/I]. Now, this point has implications. If the action resolution mechanics [I]can't be applied[/I] except by reference to stuff that has been thought of in advance, then the RPG in question will not work well for no-myth play. The most obvious case I can think of that raises this issue is the resolution of interaction with NPCs. If there is no social resolution system (eg the Classic Traveller reaction table), and the GM is expected to resolve how NPCs respond to the PCs by reference to their already-known personalities etc, then no myth probably can't work. That said, another distinction is relevant here: between framing, and secret backstory. The following could be an example of no myth: the GM narrates the NPC saying "I don't really want to <do such-and-such>, but I would love for you to give me <this thing>". That's framing, and the player can respond to that: just as if the GM frames a scene involving a pit and a wall beyond it, and the player responds with some action declaration involving a rope, grapple and acrobatics. On the other hand, this is not an example of no myth: the GM makes a note to themself that NPC really doesn't want to <do such-and-such, but would love to be given <this thing>. And now the success or failure of the players' action declarations is adjudicated by reference to this secret backstory. In passing, this also shows that nothing about "no myth" play precludes what has been described in this thread as "simulationist" reasoning. All it does is put additional limits on what the GM can extrapolate, and how they present that to the players. This is clearly not a no-myth game. You have all this secret backstory, and you are making hard moves by reference to it, bypassing any action resolution framework. [/QUOTE]

Verification