Russell Wallace discusses the difference between a story oriented
approach and a world oriented one in terms of preferential selection
of Everett branches.
I think this is a good analysis of the difference between the two
approaches. One thing I would add is that the fact Russell uses each
setting once only is significant, for when one makes multiple
decisions in the same preferential way - whether that be "for a better
story" or "for the benefit of the players" - the amplitude of the
combination of events approaches zero in a coherent way, when one
would expect decoherence.
Given half my wife's gaming group majored in physics, I think they'd
understand the explanation; unfortunately, there's a reason it may not
be that useful in her particular cir***stances. Her situation differs
from mine in two ways.
The first is that the issue doesn't have to do with combat or physical
effects; rather, they have to do with social ones. The society the
player characters operate in is highly stratified, and the player
characters come occasionally come into contact with the King. The
player characters, however, tend to act according to the players' more
egalitarian societal expectations, which can result in gaffes which
should have severe consequences. I'm not sure the Everett amplitude
for the King overlooking such gaffes is higher than negligible.
The other is that, as I mentioned, she's not as strict about the
simulation as I am; in fact, she normally overlooks such gaffes. This
of course has resulted in their becoming more common - perhaps even
becoming the rule rather than the exception. That greatly detracts
from her enjoyment of her game, and results in friction with players
who don't understand why their characters' behaviors are in fact
gaffes within the context of her game world.
I should probably have included those details in my original post.
Given those additional details, though, are there more suggestions?
Warren J. Dew
|
