thread: 2012-11-14 : Emily on Fictional Positioning

On 2012-11-15, Tim Ralphs wrote:

At some point, I expect this conversation about fictional positioning to turn into this conversation about how you can use unreliable currency to get players to invest in concrete fictional details.


This makes R go "It's weird that I have to "get players to invest" in that."
I'd rather expect people to already be excited about "concrete fictional details", or why are we playing this kind of game together? But this might be an elitist view.

This makes TR go "Sure! But then..."
I've seen a lot of games descend to "roll to hit, roll to damage" with no fictional details given.

This makes R go "Which needs to be addressed on multiple fronts"
beginning with the very basics of what the activity is about, and what each participant wants out of it. But the conversations being had here are all very interesting and I have no intention of derailing them.

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

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