Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4230011" data-attributes="member: 42582">This sounds like sandbox-style purist-for-system play: some approaches to AD&D (especially 1st ed) are like this, and I think that Rolemaster is also played in this fashion from time to time.The difficulty with this approach is that if the GM won't provide a story, the players have no way to do so within the rules (because they have no way of shaping the gameworld other than by having their PCs respond to the elements that the GM introduces).In narrativist play, the character build mechanics should build in a story for each PC, and the encounter design mechanics should (ideally, at least) respond to this (that is, the adversity introduced by the GM correlates appropriately with the story aspects built into each PC). At least in non-vanilla narrativism, the action resolution mechanics should also respond to each PC's story (eg TRos Spiritual Attributes or HeroWars Relationships). Superficially, therefore, it can look like sandbox play, but the difference is that there is overt metagaming on the part of both GM and players - at least at the level of character build and encounter design, if not at the stage of action resolution - which ensures that a story will emerge and be developed.What you're describing there sounds like dysfunctional sandboxing, in which the GM has a predtermined idea of the world and wants the players to go out and discover it. Analogous to railroading, except at the level of story generation rather than story resolution.That sounds like gamist play with comparatively little exploration of any of the game elements (ie the flavour text didn't really matter, with players adopting "pawn stance" towards their PCs all the way).This is the sort of game I really don't enjoy.I think this is really hard to achieve - a plot that is yours, but that you discover rather than create. Maybe consensual illusionism can deliver it - so the "high concept" is delivered by the GM, but in such a subtle fashion that you don't notice it's not emerging from your play.Most of this is about giving power over the game, and over the deployment of the rules, to the players rather than the GM. This is good for both gamism and narrativism.In terms of narrativism vs illusionism, the question is "Who will do the narrative interpretation"? If it's the GM, we're back in illusionist (or, if badly done, railroading) territory. If by the players, then we might be looking at reasonably vanilla narrativist play.Even in an obviously narrativist game like HeroWars/Quest, the dice are still there to produce surprise, and to produce mechanical outcomes on which narrative can be hung. So maybe 4e played in this style might give you the sense of discovery (as the dice tell you things that you didn't already know about the story) without having to hand control to the GM.Interestingly, the fact that D&D - the biggest RPG - is apparently attempting to devlop a set of rules that are able to consistently deliver a certain (non-simulationist) play experience has actually made me more interested in GNS theory. Because it can now be used to shed light on one of the most important discussions for all RPGers (namely, the future of D&D).</blockquote>

Verification