NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9241455" data-attributes="member: 71699">Is the part that concerns you in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9240036" target="_blank">#270</a> thisThe facets of [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s two posts that I agreed strongly with were those  making a connection between narrativism and neotrad, which I understand to be to do with the lusory-duality which is fundamental to games and results in ludonarrative rather than by one means or another overlaying traditional narrative onto games. I claim that only through recognising player as simultaneously author and audience can one achieve the new mode of narrative which is ludonarrative. Assumptions about narrative that didn't fully grasp the new medium led for a time to a rift between ludologists and narratologists. While on the other hand, embracing this idea allows development of appropriate new theories (which of course take lessons from broader narratology.)On the other hand, this take about lowering difficulty... I don't see any convincing argument for it. As one example, the Year Zero Engine includes a push mechanic that can inflict attribute damage on characters. This is a death-spiral mechanic (you push because you need the success, or more successes, but then you become less likely to succeed next time.) I do not observe any lowering of difficulty in the resultant play. Or take the time to observe a lot of 4e play: there's no difference in difficulty between whether the group opts into neotrad or sticks with trad. (Perhaps someone can show rather than theorycraft it? but frankly, the community lacks sufficient, rigorous data on difficulty - or even an agreed construct for difficulty - to validate such a claim!) In the past I've heard folk suggest that storygames produce toothless consequences. Both are wrong.I see that comment simply as a claim that [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is making that has no relevance to my manifesto so isn't necessary to engage with. If it's intended to imply the superiority of some modes of play over others, that's patently rubbish. Is that on track, or is something else in [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s post concerning you? (As an aside, you're not taking up with me the words of another poster, are you?  Why not take it up with them?)</blockquote>

Verification