thread: 2006-05-17 : Six straightforward examples
On 2006-05-18, Matt Wilson wrote:
This is kinda tangential, but I'm not sure where to put it. The whole idea of "I'm trying to throw you off a building" being maybe just absolutely push regardless of mechanics (whether it is or not) takes me back to that discussion round these parts about deconstructing ownership of character.
Imagine:
"Okay, I'm mad, and I'm trying to do something bad to your character. What am I doing?"
"Ooooh, you're totally trying to throw me off the building."
"I like that. That's cool. That's what I'm doing."
This makes WMW go "Not tangential at all"
I think there's some assumptions about ownership and control that aren't being examined by a bunch of the discussers.
This makes ecb go "agreed."
lines of ownership are what make push & pull matter.
This makes mneme go "I actually..."
don't think I agree. Or at least, don't think this is essential. I just don't see much of a difference between variations of pull with ownership on one, the other, or both sides.
Now re push, I think it's -investment- that matters, not ownership. Tony's comment (on the "we broke capes" thread of either the Forge or story-games) about taking pants away is really, really push-ish; he's all about forcing someone to defend what they care about.
This makes WMW go "Show me conflict"
that isn't about that. Is pull conflict avoidance?
This makes WMW go "I should say that"
I don't think Pull is conflict avoidance (when functional).
This makes CS go "yes"
Pull is (or can be) player-player conflict avoidance, which is totally unconnected to character-character conflict avoidance. Good stories need character- character conflict, good games need player-player conflict.
There is a reason pull heavy/ push light play is often called RPing, rather than RPGing.
