Amazing Series of Sorcerer Threads on SG
Yokiboy:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 07, 2008, 06:18:17 PM
Sorcerer Unbound finally sees the light.
Jesse, I'll pay an artist to illustrate the whole text, if you want to beef it up a tad and publish it. Art direction is all yours, of course - this would be a donation.
I loved Jesse's threads, and would love a "Sorcerer Unbound" book. Please make it so?
TTFN,
Yoki
jburneko:
Ron,
I reviewed the thread you linked to and the problem I'm having articulating to people who still don't "get it" is where #3 and #4 comes from. They seem to be of the opinion that if system does not extend into at least #3 then all you have is GM fiat cleverly hidden behind some social maneuvering.
I know that's not the case because I've played the game so many times and *felt* the phenomenon at work. But I can't describe it in words.
Jesse
greyorm:
Quote from: jburneko on March 11, 2008, 02:52:49 PM
I know that's not the case because I've played the game so many times and *felt* the phenomenon at work. But I can't describe it in words.
I admit I just don't understand Ron's post about Stakes or what he means, but despite that, I think I know what you mean. As such, could this help: come up with a way to describe what fiat ISN'T and maybe you'll be able to create a description of #3 at work?
For example: Fiat isn't any player at the table, including the GM, making a decision that affects the shared fiction. This seems to be the subconscious go-to definition of fiat for many folks: "Oh, but you wanted that to happen, so it's fiat."
No one would have spoken up unless they wanted something to happen, one way or another, good or bad, so everything stated is fiat, even things that are a negative for a given character. Obviously, then, that isn't a useful definition of fiat.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Jesse (and Raven),
One of my points in the thread is that #3 and #4 are not part of the resolution mechanics, so they must come from elsewhere - that is true. However, that is not the basis of your clash/dialogue with Josh. I'll post about that later. I have read all of the threads and really don't think the embedded wrangles need to be repeated or paraphrased here at all. Let's hold off on that for now.
Less immediately important but nevertheless not trivial: I noted that I'd failed to complete my sentence in the relevant paragraph in that thread. I say that it's OK to say "I cow him with my fierce gaze," as an acted-upon intention, or intention-in-motion, then the sentence and paragraph ends with "but there's no need to" ...
That typo is highly misleading - the sentence was intended to be finished with, "but there's no need to describe the target's reaction and subsequent events prior to the roll." The typo might lead the reader to think that the sentence "I cow him with my fierce gaze" is not necessary, but that would be wrong - that sentence (or, less specifically, perhaps, "I gaze fiercely at him" and grab my dice) is required.
Best, Ron
jburneko:
I posted one more this morning.
The Bigger Design Picture
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6008
Jesse
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page