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="Imaro" data-source="post: 5462411" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it), as it pre-supposes in an extreme example, no type of base for anything since then the players wouldn't be able to, according to pemerton's posts so far, explore their own definitions of a particular theme or whatever. In a less extreme example it forces the question of what should and shouldn't be defined and who decides it. However after reading up on narrativism I am convinced this is untrue and his own narrowing of what is necessary for narrativist play. I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting. However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting. In other words I feel pemerton's argument is really about him perferring the 4e cosmology to previous editions and perhaps his own ideas on how he wishes to tweak narrativist play as opposed to what hinders or helps base narrativist play in various editions.</blockquote>

Verification