two_fishes you ARE speaking moon:

"fiction".

Fiction is a bullshit/ideology term in gaming. It is as if somebody said "surplus value" in a debate on economy.

All the more, your moon speak shows you actually stand behind the banner of "fiction". Which is why you and your games suck. q. e. d.

"Fiction" works fine for me, but only in the narrow technical sense that we as observer-analysts distinguish the game from "reality". Not at as a mealy-mouthed way of claiming that all rping is "collaborative storytelling".

Quote from: Peregrin;363479"... pushing the events toward more interesting conflicts..."

The problem with what you're saying, from my POV, is that this right here is what sounds uninteresting to me. I enjoy events that unfold through just playing the game. I don't want to "push" in any way to make "more interesting conflicts", if indeed the conflicts would be more interesting, about which I'm highly skeptical.

Quote from: two_fishes;363495Oh I'm totally a story guy, I'll cop to that--driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts and seeing how they fall out. And I like finding character while in play. You start with a sketch of a personality, run with it, build on it, and then something found in play strikes right to the heart of the character, profoundly changes them or drives home what's really important to them.

I hate to say it, but what you posted here sounds really pretentious to me. However, I am curious, so I'll ask. How, exactly, do you arrive at the point where you're "driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts"? The reason I ask is because even in regular 2e and 3e games I've found my character "driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts" as well, but I still somehow get the distinct impression that what you're talking about is different from what I have experienced. Also, I'm curious as to what you "found in play" that could affect a figment of your imagination so strongly as to make "profound changes" or even discover "what's really important to them" when "they" don't really exist outside of your own mind. What is it about these things that make them important and enjoyable to you? I'm honestly curious. If need be perhaps PMs or a separate thread would be more appropriate, although it's still tangential at least so I'll let you decide, if you choose to respond at all.

Quote from: Peregrin;363521Then couldn't the GM just handle it the way they would any other meta-aspect (a rules debate, dictating out-of-game procedures, etc.).  Sure, you'd get pulled out of game for a minute, but then once all is said and done, you could then progress back into an immersive mode, just like you would after finishing up a big tactical minis fight or something.  Determine the best course of action through discussion, then proceed back into RP.

They could, and in actuality probably would, but the point is that this is an example used in an official rulebook to illustrate a concept, and in the opinion of many here, including myself, does a very poor job of it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363534"Fiction" works fine for me, but only in the narrow technical sense that we as observer-analysts distinguish the game from "reality". Not at as a mealy-mouthed way of claiming that all rping is "collaborative storytelling".

Which of course, is exactly what it is.

Quote from: J Arcane;363563Which of course, is exactly what it is.

Yup, totally. It's not the word itself that's bothersome. It's the meaning ascribed to it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge.

I disagree. Adding a detail to a setting isn't bypassing it. Nor is it changing it per se.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting.

Creating elements of the setting isn't engaging it?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363529It seems more like the GM is being encouraged to incorporate anything the player improvises.

Even if the GM were required by federal law to incorporate every crumb that fell from the players' lips, he or she still could say, "That would impact some behind the scenes stuff. Can we do something else?"

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;363559The problem with what you're saying, from my POV, is that this right here is what sounds uninteresting to me. I enjoy events that unfold through just playing the game. I don't want to "push" in any way to make "more interesting conflicts", if indeed the conflicts would be more interesting, about which I'm highly skeptical.

Yeah, that's cool, and I get that.  Like I said, immersion-focused play is a play-style I enjoy, and one I often aim for.  It's not the only one that I enjoy, though.

FWIW, I agree with others here that the DMG2 does a poor job of explaining how you should incorporate player ideas.  Not enough stress on GM/group critique in order to avoid unnecessarily pulling other people out of the game-world.

I just realized that two_fishes is NOT Halfjack. Sorry, two_fishes, than I don´t know whether your games suck. but you do, for sure.

Quote from: Settembrini;363637I just realized that two_fishes is NOT Halfjack. Sorry, two_fishes, than I don´t know whether your games suck. but you do, for sure.

don't worry about it. your obvious idiocy dulls the sting of your words.

This thread is beginning to remind me of the chicken fights from Family Guy.  It just keeps going.

Quote from: Peregrin;363644This thread is beginning to remind me of the chicken fights from Family Guy.  It just keeps going.

Like Canada vs. USA on the ice right now. Over time!

Quote from: Benoist;363653Like Canada vs. USA on the ice right now. Over time!

... and Canada WINS.
The Gold is ours, baby!

Luck.