thread: 2009-05-07 : Explaining the Right to Dream

On 2009-05-11, Josh HB wrote:

There are two thoughts that occurred to me while mulling this over, over the weekend.

First, about the idea of affirming someone's "badassness" (or whatever) even if they aren't trying to play a convincing badass.

In my own experience, when I'm playing in this way, the other participants have a responsibility to affirm my stated trait, that is connected to my own responsibility to play out that trait as well as I can. If that trait is "secret agent," I need to make a good-faith effort to act in a way that a "secret agent" would act. (If I don't do so, or I have an idea of what a "secret agent" does that's totally incompatible with what everyone else thinks, I am likely to cause problems, the same way that someone who makes self-sabotaging decisions might be problematic in the context of Step On Up.)

Second. Josh W, in my experience with this style, the "win," the final affirmation is less about the narrative climax and more about the OOC postgame. It is less like setting up an easy challenge for yourself so you can declare that you've "won" and more like being satisfied that you just freestyled a great verse about some guy's amazing victory. I am suspecting that it is different from Step on Up and Story Now in terms of where the challenge is taking place.

Vincent, am I on a track that lines up with what you are talking about here? This conversation feels like it is making sense of something that has consistently confused me until now, but I want to be sure I am getting at the same things you are talking about.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":