>From: Doug Bonar <dbonar_at_...>
>I do find it hard to imagine a play style that is built on
>constant digressions into which attribute might apply or whether the
>GM understood the player's intent correctly.
I don't know whether or not to take this seriously or not, but I'll bite.
The play style in question doesn't include "constant digressions" into that sort of thing, because nobody is worried about "fairness" or the like. That is, for the most part, everybody simply takes what others say as OK. If player X says that they want to use ability Y to augment, pretty much everyone just nods in agreement. There's no 'abuse' or wrangling about these things because nobody is trying to overcome personal challenges posed by the game. Everyone is just trying to make a good story, so they don't have any incentive to activate something that stretches anyone's belief at all. So there's very little digression of this sort at all. It does happen, but when it does it's merely to ask the person in question how their augment makes sense in terms of the action. Nobody ever questions the narrator, because he's on the side of the players in making a good story. Any quibbling that happens there is solely giving suggestions on an even cooler narration.
>But I do understand that
>it works for you, and, because I like many things about the system, I
>want to see if there is a way it might work for us.
I hope it works out for you.
Powered by hypermail