Search results

Yes. That's the way I'm generally advocating for. And as soon as you do that, you've gone from "playing the module" to "using the module as a campaign seed." I'm much more positively inclined towards the latter. Now, if the "political fallout" is just a detour, and the module goes right...

You really don't. Being a passive, receptive player compared to being a player with stronger authorial control (note: this is not a binary, it's a spectrum) are two different experiences; both are worth experiencing if you haven't tried one or the other.

I mean, that's just bog-standard play to me. If you can't even flip a combat scenario to non-combat through use of the resolution system, then that game has serious agency problems above and beyond issues with pre-plotting.

To be fair, there's a spectrum between the two. A player can have a greater amount of backstory authority than normal, and more metagame control; but if they don't have authority to frame new scenes and challenges they can't really be a co-GM.

I'm reasonably sure I haven't called out, or even specifically mentioned D&D in the last few days on this thread. Obviously, story/adventure path play is a D&D mainstay, but it's not a specific D&Dism. Plenty of D&D isn't that, and other systems also have adventure paths. I assume most people...

I mean, I’m fine with it if it carries meaning for you, or anyone else who feels the weight of the distinction. Just because it doesn’t have weight for me doesn’t mean others won’t find utility in describing those distinctions.

And I'm saying that adventure paths are popular, which shows that style of play is popular. I'm not talking about anything else. If you're playing a module, then the GM knows what the end-boss/endgame of the module is before characters have even been made. To me, that's PCs as...

The relative success of WotC and Paizo selling story path modules, and the number of DMs who run games that either use those modules directly or mimic their structure, is a pretty strong clue that the style is widespread. If the point of play is to experience the story of a module (or the DMs...

A sizable percentage of players want the DM to tell the story and for their role to be sit back and occasionally participate. The fact that people want that doesn’t change what the game is.

Agreed. My personal preference for casters would be to be more similar to the 3.5 "fixed list" casters like dread necromancer and beguiler, where the caster has access to a moderately-sized array of specific thematic effects. Class features can give something like bardic magical secrets or...

Fair enough. For me, the past 15 years of discussion here have helped me to try multiple new systems at my tables, and identify what practices lead to the best table experiences. Both my DMing and playing is better for the discussions I've had here.

I don't. These discussions are always about understanding how different game systems work, and what best practices are to get the best out of a system and a specific table.

Don't you run multi-billion dollar enterprise systems? I'm sure some 10th grade words ain't gonna hurt ya. :)

I think the issue is that sim play, especially in its "storyline play", adventure path mode, incentivizes bypassing resolution methods in order to keep the story "on track".

That would be more about encouraging thespian play; narrativist play does not prioritize thespian-style play at all (and it can be argued that it actually disincentivizes it.) Prioritizing thespianism, generally, is much more of a concern for games of a neotrad bent (like 5e, especially in its...

You're welcome to report thread drift to a moderator if you feel the purpose of a thread has been violated, of course.

Quite a few of us here are pretty strong advocates for the idea that you shouldn't play different systems in the same way. Fudging that's OK in one system doesn't mean fudging is OK in every system.

"Story over rules adherence" isn't something I would associate with narrativist play, as that kind of phrasing has an association (to me) with the GM shaping outcomes based on what they feel should happen. Narrativist play is intended that all outcomes are ultimately determined by the outcomes...

Agreed. A game where the players create freeform descriptors for their characters (like Fate Aspects, or Experiences in Daggerheart, or the One Unique Thing in 13th Age, off the top of my head) are about delegating the players more backstory authority to flag elements they want to see in play...

Then don't play with them? I don't need to prove myself to a group of players. Either they like how I DM, and the game works, or they don't like it and the game fails.