[Dead of Night] Nice Mr. Fitzgerald
David Berg:
I just realized my last post might sound nonsensical after asking "whose job is it to make the fun version happen?"
Let me see if I can phrase that differently:
1) Given that everyone present is there to have some sort of a fun time, and
2) given that Dead of Night is there to offer a specific sort of fun, and
3) given that Dead of Night offers systems (intended to facilitate said fun) which include assigning some tasks to the GM and other tasks to the other players,
then:
Does Dead of Night specify player or GM as primarily responsible for heading off unwelcome developments in the fiction? If it does, what does it say? If not, are any particularly developed skills necessary to fill in the gap, or will basic human communication suffice?
I believe this is moot, as my example of an unwelcome development actually isn't one, and no others leap to mind that aren't easily covered by basic human communication. But feel free to point out if I've missed something...
David Berg:
...and just when I think I've said my piece on this, more thoughts jump to mind.
I think many of my later questions in this thread regard Constructive Denial. In my past Sim play, this has often been present to a workable degree, but somewhat fragile and high-maintenance. Julie and Ron, it seems that your group's Constructive Denial was more easy, intuitive, and resilient. I'm inclined to attribute that to a blend of genre clarity and group play-history, and I suspect that that's the foundation upon which DoN's rules were free to do their thing.
jrs:
Hey David,
Can you explain what you mean by "constructive denial"? I don't think I know what that is.
Julie
David Berg:
Sure! I've found it kind of hard to get a handle on, so I've come up with a pretty scientific formulation of it.
From my thread on the topic:
We could say that Exploration is prioritized as Simulationism precisely when:
a) the constraints on player contributions to the SIS are dictated by the players' reference to a package of shared input-material, and
b) these constraints are the primary criteria in determining player contributions to the SIS, and
c) the process of dictating constraints is experienced as if the package itself was doing the dictating rather than the players, which is only possible if
d) the players deny that they themselves created, and continue to create, the shared package.
So, Constructive Denial (Part D) enables a certain type of natural-feeling play (Part C), as opposed to self-conscious "play my character like a moron" or "try really hard to do Cinema Horror right."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page