Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9040017" data-attributes="member: 71699">Oh right. I agree, It's all make believe. The choice of those processes is part of prioritising a playful purpose somewhat different from the dramatic. Where the success of that specific playful purpose is connected with the success of the GM's application of those processes. I've called it above the &quot;uncaring world&quot;. That is part of what the feeling should be.Well, it is &quot;external&quot; or &quot;objective&quot; to the extent that it is not reliant upon the characters. For the mode of play there does need to be some process by which facts about the world are not established by characters; excepting those facts that reside in the characters or are brought about by actions they take.An example of the difference in GM-centric versions of that mode is that a player could make it a fact that their character has brown eyes and they could make it a fact that there is no longer a solitary tree growing on One Tree Hill - by cutting that tree down - but they could not make it a fact that there existed said hill unless they had powers that enabled them to take a &quot;make hill&quot; action. They can't make centaurs appear on One Tree Hill by taking an action to look for them. Players or rules can just as well pick up the GM-centric lifting here.Why insidious? Other than a preference that it not be that way? I'm not arguing the merits of that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9040017, member: 71699"] Oh right. I agree, It's all make believe. The choice of those processes is part of prioritising a playful purpose somewhat different from the dramatic. Where the success of that specific playful purpose is connected with the success of the GM's application of those processes. I've called it above the "uncaring world". That is part of what the feeling should be. Well, it is "external" or "objective" to the extent that it is not reliant upon the characters. For the mode of play there does need to be some process by which facts about the world are not established by characters; excepting those facts that reside in the characters or are brought about by actions they take. An example of the difference in GM-centric versions of that mode is that a player could make it a fact that their character has brown eyes and they could make it a fact that there is no longer a solitary tree growing on One Tree Hill - by cutting that tree down - but they could not make it a fact that there existed said hill unless they had powers that enabled them to take a "make hill" action. They can't make centaurs appear on One Tree Hill by taking an action to look for them. Players or rules can just as well pick up the GM-centric lifting here. Why insidious? Other than a preference that it not be that way? I'm not arguing the merits of that. [/QUOTE]

Verification