Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9082794" data-attributes="member: 71699">It may be that part of the difference in our views is due to our definitions of neutral/non-neutral or disinterest/interest. Without wishing to put words in your mouth (so very open to your clarifications) to my reading your definition employs one proper subject of interest (players) and one proper form of address (dramaturgical). Thus, I am "non-neutral" and "interested" just so long as my interest is in dramaturgically correctly addressing players, and neutral or disinterested otherwise.My definition employs a range of subjects and forms of address. Roughly, I would say that each mode of play prioritises some subset, and that to GM in a properly "interested" fashion is to bias choices, authorings and responses as fitting to that subset. Otherwise, as I have said, the labels just mean "we're playing in narrativist mode".The last sentence in the piece I quoted above must therefore be seen in a new light. In sitting down for sim play, the players have invited - insisted even - that their GM create opportunities for them to engage with their subject. They are looking to GM to present facets of subject for them to play off. The example that I quoted appears to be from an early session, maybe even session one. Players should increasingly take the lead as they grasp hold of the subject. (As an aside, in traditional sim it has often been the case that GM is GMing in large part on account of their stronger grasp of subject, but there is nothing intrinsic to sim that says players can't provide this impetus. Life paths and knowledge skills, that call for player to decide or say what they know, are examples of effective mechanics.)Remember that it is not the goal of sim to enable players to author their protagonism. Sims goal is to enable players to engage with subject, and a properly written sim text cannot leave players in doubt as to its subject. That's why RQ has the sorts of statements it has. On the other hand, sim won't tell players what problematic problems of human existence (premises) they need to address (through their protagonism).I don't know if you also read the rules for runes, which for me make the intent clearer (or perhaps, lead me to play it as I do). The starting set of passions is largely fixed by life path - although there are key choices player makes that end up making a difference - but runes give more choice.The player offers the game master the ability to push them in circumstances their character cares about, and when they mean it, the player asks for the augment. I see the GM agreeing as being equivalent to Torchbearer 2's rule on reaching. In earnest sim it matters that passions and runes are applied as fits subject - to elevate, not corrode, appreciation.This section assesses sim by nar standards. From a sim perspective, the implications of the bolded sentence look disappointingly disinterested. Players and GM together have sat down to engage with subject for the sake of achieving elevated appreciation. GM is very often a deep source of subject knowledge (again, as noted above, I see no reason at all why player can't be).To attempt a paraphrasing that might (or might well not) help explain the point. A player in a sim role-playing necessarily makes the investigative choices for a given player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person, it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another person's ability to do this.It might go something like this. What should sim GM never tell player? What questions to ask. What should nar GM never tell player? How premises are resolved. That's not yet quite right, but it's in the right direction.It's possible I have lost track of some thread of your argument. Here, I have been focusing on the topic of GM "neutrality" in a continuous line from my assertion thatAgain, apologies if I have overlooked some of your arguments.As I have explained, by my lights sim-player necessarily makes the investigative choices for a given player-character. Of course, individual groups may have all kinds of takes on any play mode. My view is that if the goal is sim play, then GM is obliged to use the PC's wife as an element of the investigation* performed by this PC.*This word can sound far too serious and studious. It's about getting into, finding out more about, engaging with, etc.Adjust to read "importance" as "of interest". Per observations about our potentially differing definitions above.One closing thought (at least for this post!) is that I have said that "internal cause is king" is more on the side of technique, than purpose. That entails that it serves purpose: not dictates it. GM must foremost be interested in what players want for their PCs (i.e., in their collaborative effort to appreciate subject) and then consider internal causes as required by that. Sometimes, causes aren't involved at all: static facts are (such as The Big Rubble is right next to the city of Pavis). GM must indeed work out what NPCs want and do, by "bringing that into deliberate relationship with what the players want for their PCs." The difference is in what players want.EDIT I have been mulling whether in each mode GMs exercise disinterest in specific ways that hand players the power to ludically pursue their creative agenda. Thus, nar GM is silent on how players resolve premises, and vocal on other things. Sim GM is silent on how players investigate subject, and vocal elsewhere. Gam perhaps silent on how players exploit system to overcome challenge, etc. The flipside being that a GM in one mode can and as appropriate should be non-neutral even where another mode would prefer neutrality.</blockquote>

Verification