Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9032720" data-attributes="member: 82106">To be perfectly honest, I'm very much not concerned with this whole logic chopping 'norm/rule/mechanic/whatever' thing. If a bit of setting material in a game like Stonetop (which I would consider 'low myth', not 'zero myth') says X, then X will be held to be the case. Whatever it is, norm/rule it is binding on the people at the table, at least unless they mutually agree that it isn't. Its also possible that some sort of rule/mechanics is in conflict with X. Lets take X to be your statement about the mundanity of the Barrier Folk. Now lets imagine a playbook move which says something like "Whenever you enter a community and try to recruit a follower" and one of the outcomes is "you recruit a unique NPC of unusually high capability." Now clearly that outcome contradicts X. There isn't some completely clear resolution to this, as the move in question is not written as a sub-rule or exception to X. So we now have to decide, on our own, which one we honor, X or the move. This is simply a very common everyday task in RPG play.Now, I'd question how the heck you do this with integrity in a simulationist paradigm! Its not clear there are objective standards for what is plausible, and that would logically be the criteria for whether or not you can or cannot recruit a unique NPC amongst the Barrier Folk. I would find it likely that the outcome of that adjudication would favor whatever the underlying agenda is of the person making the determination, certainly to be colored by it. In the case of narrative play, this is all up front! Different participants might indeed choose differently, but even if there's something coloring that choice you can clearly articulate questions of "what will contribute to the drama inherent in this narrative?" and come up with some sort of answer. I just think sim is a lot more, maybe too much more, slippery than that.So, I guess in the final analysis I'm more concerned with 'process of play' and how agenda is expressed through that and much less about fairly esoteric questions about philosophical differences between written and unwritten rules. If I had to comment on that, I'd say specific concrete statements must supersede assumptions. At least if you want to actually play a game that someone wrote instead of just authoring your own. I tend to play games as-written, at least as much as I find feasible.</blockquote>

Verification