"Thematic Causality": What, why and how?

[xenopulse]

This is a highly interesting topic, so I support moving it to the Theory forum.

I don't think it's all about one GM or many, though that aggravates the differences.

It seems to me we're talking about accepting facts and mechanisms at different stages of a game. By adopting Charisma 6 and all its implications, we're establishing expectancy at the social contract level that this will be adhered to. In Capes, maybe that establishing of facts happens during play instead of during contract negotiation, which leads to less reliable expectnacy and more spontaneous creativity.

So--more adopting of mechanisms, facts and rules at the social contract level=higher level of reliable expectancy of in-game events. The flipside is that in that case, there's less room for creative interpretation and spontaneity, because those things are already set in stone.

[John Harper]

Now that I understand, Christian! I fully agree with that.

Is that what you meant, Ralph? If so... great! We're actually coming to terms.

[WiredNavi]

It sounds to me like Chris is looking for a game which encourages past events, and their associated meanings, to be relevant to present and future events (and theirs).  I think that Capes can support this, but it doesn't explicitly do so - it's up to the players to do that, and more importantly, it's not that difficult for a player to deliberately choose not to.

[C. Edwards]

Christ on a pogo stick.

Xenopulse, Jinx, that's all I've been saying. Well, that and that there is specific agenda that those mechanisms support.

Also, I don't believe that instituting constraints effects the level of spontaneity and creative interpretation. When you're working under constraints you have to get creative.

-Chris

[TonyLB]

Some folks have suggested this merits wider discussion in RPG-Theory.  I agree.  I've created the thread Meaning in the beginning, middle and end.