Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ron Edwards, November 27, 2008, 11:09:28 AM
QuoteAt this point, the best that I can figure is that our group has a lot of experience together, as discussed in this thread, which has resulted in a synchronizing of our aesthetic vision. Hmm. "Synchronizing" might be too strong. Perhaps "harmonizing" of our aesthetic vision might be a better way to put it. At this point, we generally know what the group will accept and what it won't. I'm guessing that Ron's group is similar.
QuoteI wonder if applicability rulings on Traits is something that needs to be vested in a GM with the understanding that he is speaking for the group. I'm thinking here of a Sorcerer GM's responsibility to hand out bonus dice. Sure, this is the GM's job, but he is supposed to be aware of the "sense of the table" and respond accordingly. Perhaps Trait adjudication for "before" style games needs to be formally stated in this way.
QuoteAnd to make it more difficult, clearly the process occurred a long time ago while playing some other game, so it's probably not possible to observe us now to see how such an understanding can be brought about.
QuoteI'm seeing a connection between this discussion of group understanding of how Traits get applied being arrived out organically through experience and my notion that a good design can help facilitate this with clear procedures for how to resolve different perceptions.
Quote from: Markus on September 20, 2008, 02:19:35 PM*Now* I see that maybe there are other functional ways of looking at this traits stuff. Another idea I'm considering is this (and it's my attempt to 'fill the gaps' in the system, effectively transforming it in *another* system however). So the idea is as follows: when you use a trait, just state it. No dialogue about if and how the trait is 'relevent' and so on. You get your bonus. However, the narrator (you, if you chose a MoV, but maybe the GM) will be the one responsible for integrating the trait in the narration, after resolution is rolled.
Quote from: Markus on December 10, 2008, 07:27:44 AMI must confess I found this thread by chance... I was lucky, because it's a fascinating discussion, and it surely helps me a lot to clarify/rationalize some aspects of the problems I experienced with traits.
QuoteSeth, Ron, you seem to agree about 'after' traits being somehow problematic, in a different way than 'before' traits of course, but problematic nonetheless. I think I have just a glimpse of what the 'after' problems could be, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this specifically. Of course I'm using the word 'problem' in a very loose way, maybe 'feature' could be a better term for now (both for before and after traits). I foresee that this will be very useful to me, so thanks in advance!
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 13, 2008, 04:20:26 PMGiven the depth of the discussion (I hope everyone coming to this one is reading the prior ones too), I will think for a while over what you wrote. The only thing I'll say now is yes, your comparisons are relevant, and yes, it's fine right here in this thread insofar as Seth, the moderator of this forum, agrees.