Sure, but from the way you talk and describe the process, it doesn't seem like you've mastered that art. You know the brush strokes, but not the intangibles that bring it to life.
I don't remember which page it was, let alone what post number. This thread has been moving faster than a pyroclastic flow.
Not wanting to do something doesn't mean not knowing how to do something.
Again, the mistake you're making is thinking we're not perfectly aware of that. And again, most of us toggle between these playstyles. I just think you or Bedrockgames or Emerikol would be incapable of running a good PbtA or BitD game because you haven't tried and have some mental blinders on as to what RPGs should be like.
I'm not really interested in a term, because the phenomenon is largely a spurious one.
This. It's been a while since I've done a heavy prep campaign, but Worlds Without Number has inspired me to do for one of my next games.
narrative power is a common term in sandbox circles. It usually refers to mechanics that enable players to narrate or control setting details but also refers to any mechanic intended to help the game play out more like a story. It is broad and probably fails to capture what is going on in a game like dungeon world (which I read more based on your descriptions as placing firmer limits on GM power and on formalizing into moves things that are often treated more informally. I do think narrative mechanic accurately describes hill folk, which both has mechanics for imbedding drama (characters have dramatic pokes, you map out relationships before hand and have to establish details like what you want from other characters but why they won’t give it to you). In drama system players take turns framing scenes (which grants them narrative powers a typical sandbox would reserve for the GM). There are mechanics for objecting to framing. Mostly a scene is characters talking and in the course of that dialogue you can introduce setting elements that haven’t yet been introduced (‘but Josephus, what will the myrmidons of kale do if you March south’). It is a fun game. I find it very immersive. But if I were pitching it to a sandbox GM they would certainly see those things as not belonging in a living world sandbox
That isn't what I said, though. He's describing his method as producing living, breathing worlds, but his method is unable to produce them. He may know how to do it, and he may want or not want to do it, but what he is describing isn't it.
I'm going by what he is describing, not what I assume about what he knows. What he's describing isn't it. If he's aware of what makes a world a living, breathing one, then why is he describing something that isn't one and claiming that it is?
I don't have any conception of what RPGS "should be like." I accept that there are many ways to play them and not all of them are my cup of tea. I do know preparation is a requisite for achieving a living, breathing world, though. So claims that they are achieved in a non-prep game aren't accurate. Please note that I'm not saying that what is achieved in non-prep play isn't satisfying to those playing the game.
Yes, because everyone else plays him robotically and passively.thst isn’t living world. Living world is more about playing the chamberlain actively and responsively after he has been introduced. And it’s like, wicked spiritual man
