Search results

My feeling is that all, or most, of this is negotiable. Much like @robertsconley and @Bedrockgames both say there are 'many flavors' of living world (and I have no reason to disagree) there are equally many flavors of Narrativist play, maybe more. Some of them I probably don't like! In the end...

I think you are both rules lawyering AND nitpicking the question of granularity of action resolution. The rules say you "Hesitate" I don't think it says when this happens or how. The intent of the Steel rule is CLEARLY to allow the dice to adjudicate whether or not your mental state is...

Right, and that makes perfectly good sense in terms of what you are doing. It is just a bit different from the Narrativist process where beating up some ruffians might also be leveraged by the GM later on to 'bring on the heat', and (say in DW) it may even be the case that the ruffians are part...

You're definitely more generous than I am with this whole plausibility thing. Honestly, I think it is a very weak plank to build on. First of all we're discussing Fantasy games (or similarly fantastical SF etc.). So, there is no defined way to say what is or is not possible, or even how likely...

I don't agree with this. I think that, granted I've never played BW itself, just TB2e and Mouseguard, it would be a violation of the principles of abiding by the spirit of play. The dice just told you that your character isn't going to do X, and now you are going to rules lawyer into just going...

But again, think of X as an affordance, not unlike a tool. I used my imagination to picture a world in which X is manifest (the nature of that manifestation being related to the nature of X). That PROCESS OF IMAGINATION, a thought process, then led me to consider doing Y, and my imaginings of X...

Well, I suspect that play would veer off in directions that were dictated by plausible events that arise out of the hidden backstory of the setting itself. So, in the Narrativist play I am familiar with, if an issue was settled, the Fighter goes and beats up the ruffians threatening Smirk the...

Hmmmm, interesting. So all this kind of got me thinking. There IS a way to get around the points you just made. That is by simply making the world mundane. That is, the argument becomes "well, other worlds are just a fantastical imagining, they don't REALLY exist in this setting, it's basically...

Play to Find Out can, IME describe two related things. One is simply playing to find out what happens in a narrative sense. Does Skyler fall out the window and break his neck, or not? All RPGs basically do some form of this, if they didn't they'd have to be entirely free narrative such that...

Right. I personally, not to harsh on it, just find the sort of endless long-winded setting exploration play that is my experience with living world as TEDIOUS. It also tends to be pretty restricting, as the 'plausibility' thing tends to come down on the heads of any players who aspire to have...

Cromulent prose, nicely evocative. Anyway, this is a good point. I make another point that goes with it but is slightly different. That is the 'paucity' or 'insufficiency' one. There's just not enough detail in any practical fantasy world description to create any significant constraints. Most...

I think you would be amply rewarded by actually playing something like Dungeon World or better yet Apocalypse World, with some people that have a handle on it. There are a number of misunderstandings that you seem to be laboring under about Narrativist play. For Example: Dungeon World does not...

OK, my list of questions about the Hardholder was a pretty superficial description in the sense that it didn't delve into the rest of the process and how it all hangs together: The player chose to use the hardholder playbook, a playbook which specifically casts the character as at least an...

Well, it IS an interesting question! WHY any particular setting? WHY any particular decision as to what is there or how it would logically progress or interact with other things, like PC 'stuff'. But lets start with the why of the setup of the setting itself. Having developed several of these...

I rolled some dice. I was simulating my own brain, and that's what came out. It is simulation, so it MUST mean something, right?

I'm not so sure about that... I think there's a fairly significant element of deliberate and 'eyes open' kind of design in many quarters. 'Blorb' for example is NOT Narrativist, but it is surely a taking stock of RPGs as they are and not being obtuse about them. 4e D&D, while it can be played as...

Human beings are a murderous lot. Some fear murder, and often don't commit it. Others overcome their fears. A few have no fear at all and if they wish they kill again and again. I think that's a pretty reasonable reading of history...

The playing to find out that happens in Apocalypse World is, however, qualitatively different from that which happens in classic OSR games. In Apocalypse World there is no pre-established fiction, and the nature of the characters themselves is likewise to be discovered, not pre-established in...

This is the old "only roll once" thing. In the formulations I've seen (widely used outside of BW and long predating it) the GM should not require an additional roll for as long as the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. So, if some new situation arises which makes the circumstances...

Nobody is trying to be insulting or obtuse or anything else. I'm an engineer and a scientist, I get to the ground truth of things, what is real, actual, tangible, and does the actual doing. Look at it from this standpoint. It is the brain of the person making a decision which makes that...