Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9080489" data-attributes="member: 71699">When players sit down for some earnest sim-play of RQ, they're there for the subject. What is important to their PC is their siting and acting within subject, exploring in directions they're curious about (including emotionally curious). In a sense, each player choice can be framed as a question. One that every RuneQuest character should have in mind is "can I become a Rune hero?" which for the player translates to "what does it mean to become a Rune hero?". That's put plainly in introductory text to the 2nd edition (1979)7th edition (2018) expands upon the core explorationI think the world and cultures of Glorantha are all part of subject, all worthy of exploration. Although the magical relationship of person to god is central, players might just want to find out "what it's like to live in a bronze-age citadel, such as Dykene." Wherever the focus falls, the approach is almost always more playful than academic.Such interests make the bolded text up to the comma inaccurate. GM is assiduously sensitive to how important each action is to the player characters. The difference is in the allowing of what counts as important. In no surprise to anyone who has read our exchange to this point, I will say that we can't tie the label to just one take on what's important, unless we narrow it to "just our label for that play in which X is important to PCs" which to me only works from the perspective of some preferences, in the way they are of interest to one mode of play. The label then just implies that we're playing in that mode.Here's testimony from an earnest, new RuneQuest GM (7th ed I believe)Possibly this doesn't give enough evidence on the responding side, but if this care in feeding interests in subject is pursued faithfully I'd expect that to fall in line. If the player characters decide to grasp hold of some of that forwardness, then that sets our direction for play. Righteous sim-GMing must be sensitive to player character engagement with subject; which will amount to players saying what's important to them... what they are curious about, want to stress, get involved with, gather up.Parallel advice would be entirely appropriate in RuneQuest, taking into account the differing purposes of play. If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. What obligations might marriage entail in the Gloranthan subculture that play is situated in? That's at the heart of sand box GMing: explore your subject in the directions your players have chosen. I want to be clear though, that it's not the specific goal to dramatically engage with problematic features of human existence.Elevated appreciation certainly includes emotional appreciation, possibly falling often into Tuovinen's category of "subjective experience".So regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, coming after the comma, the concern isn't really how emotionally laden it is for the player character, but whether it has the potential to elevate our appreciation of the subject. Either way, GM is far from disinterested. It strikes me at this point that something sim-leaning GMs often say about their prep is that they enjoy doing it for its own sake. I take this to be a sign of something Tuovinen also comments on, which is that sim-GM sits down with the group with the same if not more curiousity about subject as those who decide to play characters do. They're invested: holder of interests and responding to players in light of them.By my lights, the mistake is to say it's neutral if it's not solely about player character, i.e. when it's about player character as situated within and engaged with subject. Truth be told, I don't think narrativism is solely about player character either: it's about player character dealing with this particular problematic feature of human existence (I'm thinking of Apocalypse Keys as I write this.) I'm not forgetting that our scope of play could encompass multiple problematic features or even serve as an engine for generating them!This again to my reading is just narrowing the list of what interests are the right ones. It also - to my reading - makes assumptions about what players want for their PCs that exclude that they might want to be situated within and engaged with subject in particular ways meaningful to simulationism.I unfortunately don't own and haven't played IAWA. If you have time to quote the text that'd be appreciated. Or I suppose I will buy it at some point. (I'm always very happy to contribute to the continuation of Vincent's work!)I feel unsure if you intend a switch here? If you're attributing "neutrality" or "disinterest" to ideal sim-GMing, then count me resolutely opposed for reasons I hope I have outlined sufficiently well.</blockquote>

Verification