Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9241774" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't want to get bogged down in it, but G is about challenge, you're not playing to find out what happens, you are playing to find out who wins/if the player can achieve their win cons. S is about the concept but not PRIMARILY about what happens. So you might be simulating characters traveling in Middle Earth, or whatever. N is really uniquely PURELY about 'what happens', where nobody knows what will happen, the outcomes are unplanned and exploring them is the primary goal of play. I mean, sure, TRIVIALLY we always find out SOMETHING.Trad play is fundamentally a process of revealing pre-authored fiction to the players. We WILL discover what aspects of that fiction are revealed, and there may be varying degrees of 'extemporization' which lead to previously not imagined fiction. Anyway, I don't disagree with you here in some sense, but we don't generally use 'finding out' in the sense of revealing something already determined.Well, it clearly was not sufficiently satisfying for many of us. I recall all through the years when trad play was essentially all that was known being disappointed by the lack of any kind of reliable dramatic coherence to play.Well, I am not sure all of what is NOT said here... That is, I see Narrativist play as fundamentally different from Neo-Trad in exactly the way that is meant by Narrativists when they talk about 'Play to find out what happens'. That is, the 'what' is UNKNOWN and requires a process of play to elucidate. Neo-Trad play, by contrast, involves the players ALREADY HAVING that answer, and TRAD play involved the GM ALREADY HAVING that answer. Now in both of those later modes there may well still be SOME things unresolved as to how the situation plays out (IE do the PCs survive White Plume Mountain or are they slain). But the premise of a trad game is never something that we fundamentally learn about, nothing is staked on it. In Narrativist play the nature of the characters and/or their relation to the premise or the nature of the what is premised are fundamentally in doubt. Neo-Trad again this is not in doubt, the players define the nature of the characters or other thing of interest and and play is simply about enjoying it or highlighting it, or watching it 'be itself' in some fashion.And, again maybe this is simply outside the scope of what you are discussing, Story Now is closely related to much of Narrativist play as it defines very little and thus leaves a LARGE field of things to be discovered, making play unusually flexible and able to evolve in various required directions as appropriate. I don't, for instance, at all understand your statement that Story Now is 'ludonarrative + trad' as this entirely misses the point! Story Now has nothing of trad in it!</blockquote>

Verification