Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Walt Freitag, March 30, 2002, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: Mike HolmesJust as a point of clarification (which may, ironically, confuse the issue some), quite often the same decision can be made for different reasons. I know I point this out all the time, but it is important here. It is one of the reasons that it is hard to determine the nature of a decision by observation. Quite often through coincidence the same decision could have been motivated by more than one of the three motives. Not always, sometimes it's very obvious. But quite often.
QuoteI'm well aware decisions are key here. I know a dramatist can make Sim decisions. I just don't think the majority of a players' decisions are "significant" in terms of GNS. It really doesn't matter if I chose to eat in that inn to ensure I don't suffer from fatigue-related penalities, or because it's a logical thing to do in terms of the simulation, or because I'm deliberately providing a plot opening for the GM. All three play styles are fully compatible with the action. It's only when the play styles are IN CONFLICT that GNS comes into it.
Quote from: Ron Edwards2) I tend to include the entire spectrum from "atomic" GNS decision, to "molecular" GNS activity (observable), to "substance" GNS profile (very observable), all the way to "group" or "object" GNS profile when I discuss these things. Or more accurately, I tend to encourage discussion at the upper end and let the lower/finer end take care of itself. (I'm working on some material to clarify this issue, to myself as well as to anyone who's interested. I'll be posting that when it's done.)Now the real question is whether my own ease of combining techniques with outcomes in #1, as well as my inclination to discuss mainly the upper-end (observable, functional) of the spectrum in #2, have been causing problems in discussion. If so, then Congruency as a concept would be the perfect solution.
QuoteWhat I need to nail down is, if we use Congruency as you've defined it, what need is there for Coherence, as a term? I'm kind of chewing it over, personally, not goin' one way or another. Can you clarify that for me, or provide more examples of how the two terms might interrelate in practice?
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI have tried to stress that compatibility of goals, in practice, is the defining feature of Coherence. The fact that goals are most compatible when they are similar-to-identical, as well as the fact that I tend to prefer such play situations personally, are not relevant; any compatible mix of different goals ("convergence?") is Coherent too.
Quote- Specific gamemastering practices can often easily be described as promoting congruence or incongruence. I haven't seen much discussion here of effects of gamemastering practices on coherence or incoherence. (That doesn't mean it's not a viable concept; it's the nature of this forum to look at things from a system designer's point of view.)