Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 9034145" data-attributes="member: 7036985">You said:You are saying that partial successes reduce the likelihood of a GM having to &quot;manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward&quot;.Your statement already assumes a bunch of things about gameplay namely:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">That there is a thing that needs to be moved forward.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">That the GM determines whether that thing is being moved or needs to get moving.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">That the GM may at any point chooses to or chooses not to manipulate things behind the scenes.</li>
</ul>So, even if agree with your rebuttal about how this would get implemented, and agree to see it in its best light: Partial, but known outcomes, that we will all agree to abide by...is this expanded set of outcomes truly a substantial deviation of play style when the three things that I mentioned above are still maintained?We have been talking about differences in rules that allow for such vast differences in play styles; those that restructure the kind of contributions that are expected of the GM.With all that in mind, how are we expected to accept that rules that trade one narrow way of performing illusionism with a less, but still narrow, way of performing the same kind of illusionism are creating substantially different experiences of play?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="deleuzian_kernel, post: 9034145, member: 7036985"] You said: You are saying that partial successes reduce the likelihood of a GM having to[B] "manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward".[/B] Your statement already assumes a bunch of things about gameplay namely: [LIST] [*]That there is a [I]thing[/I] that needs to be moved forward. [*]That the GM determines whether that thing is being moved or needs to get moving. [*]That the GM may at any point chooses to or chooses not to manipulate things behind the scenes. [/LIST] So, even if agree with your rebuttal about how this would get implemented, and agree to see it in its best light: Partial, but known outcomes, that we will all agree to abide by...is this expanded set of outcomes truly a substantial deviation of play style when the three things that I mentioned above are still maintained? We have been talking about differences in rules that allow for such vast differences in play styles; those that restructure the kind of contributions that are expected of the GM. With all that in mind, how are we expected to accept that rules that trade one narrow way of performing illusionism with a less, but still narrow, way of performing the same kind of illusionism are creating substantially different experiences of play? [/QUOTE]

Verification