Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6653500" data-attributes="member: 42582">Czege's principle is certainly not an axiom: it's meant to be an empirical generalisation that rests on understandable facts about human motivation and the experience of drama. Let's call an empirical generalisation that's grounded in that way a theoretical generalisation.Now, as we all know, when a theoretical generalisation is confronted with contrary evidence, the first thing a defender of the generalisation does is reinterpret (ie interpret away) the evidence! So here's my go at that:The Sorcerer-style kicker isn't really an instance of the player authoring his/her own adversity. It's true that it is more like that then (say) the player choosing that so-and-so is his/her PC's rival. In that latter case, the player chooses the antagonist but hands the antagonist over to the GM to use in scene-framing.But in the context of the kicker, it's still the GM who decides how the kicker event is located within the broader backstory of the game, and who is responsible for adjudicating and narrating the consequences of the kicker as play unfolds.In this way, the kicker is more like a formalised way for having the players make suggestions to the GM as to how to use his/her scene-framing authority. But it's not the player fully setting his/her own stakes.How'd I do?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6653500, member: 42582"] Czege's principle is certainly not an axiom: it's meant to be an empirical generalisation that rests on understandable facts about human motivation and the experience of drama. Let's call an empirical generalisation that's grounded in that way a [I]theoretical generalisation[/I]. Now, as we all know, when a theoretical generalisation is confronted with contrary evidence, the first thing a defender of the generalisation does is reinterpret (ie interpret away) the evidence! So here's my go at that: The Sorcerer-style kicker isn't really an instance of the player authoring his/her own adversity. It's true that it is more like that then (say) the player choosing that so-and-so is his/her PC's rival. In that latter case, the player chooses the antagonist but hands the antagonist over to the GM to use in scene-framing. But in the context of the kicker, it's still the GM who decides how the kicker event is located within the broader backstory of the game, and who is responsible for adjudicating and narrating the consequences of the kicker as play unfolds. In this way, the kicker is more like a formalised way for having the players make suggestions to the GM as to how to use his/her scene-framing authority. But it's not the player fully setting his/her own stakes. How'd I do? [/QUOTE]

Verification