Search results

Definitely not interested in locking horns. I rarely ever engage in meta-conversations. I find them tedious and worse than useless (because they distract from actual analysis of play and related). But here I just wanted to register the disagreement with the framing that I saw in your posts...

Oh I know that is the hypothesis. But me say this: * Although I have been accused of it aplenty, I am no "adherent to a movement" (as you put it). Anyone who knows me at all (including those who have engaged with me on here to any degree) has to know that deep down. Because I don't denounce...

* You get complaints about the conversation being inaccessible if you engage a topic by intimately discussing a specific game engine's particulars (of which only some people are acquainted with and those that aren't clearly aren't curious about the game or the conversation). * You get...

Yup. Absolutely at the core of Narrativist design. I just think the commentary on these games sometimes lacks the stressing of this essential point to the frequency and magnitude that it deserves. Commentary might end up talking about broad agenda or a game’s aspirations in terms of finished...

On this third part I would add: how the mechanics + principled GMing generates compelling decision-points which in turn feeds into compelling gamestate evolution toward dynamic trajectories. This is an absolutely essential part that I try to frequently talk about in hopes that one day it will...

It really depends upon who the player is. I've had very little trouble explaining the particular novel gist of a given game that was designed around Narrativism to new players or players who have played other games that feature Narrativism in the past. So take Thousand Arrows. This would be...

You know I've run it. Since its release in 2017, I would be surprised if any individual on the planet has run it more than I have. So I'm slightly more confident in my credibility on that system than I am in yours. If you think setting Position and Effect is some kind of killshot of GM fiat...

Do you seriously not understand what I wrote Oofta? The only person that exchange (and beyond it) cites as being an Adversarial GM is ME CITING MYSELF (plainly) AS AN ADVERSARIAL GM. It explains the disagreement over the concept of Adversarial GMing is about smuggling in particular priorities...

This looks like you agreeing with what I wrote above, Micah. So...you agree that people smuggle in those component parts I mentioned above to "GM plays to win" and that is why they land on that particular formulation of Adversarial GMing. When I GM (whatever game it is), I "play to win," and...