Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7914955" data-attributes="member: 42582">The systems that some others have mentioned in this thread as relevant to the OP - to reiterate, BW, Sorcerer, DitV, etc - might be seen as adopting but formalising and prioritising this sort of approach.But they often also reverse some of the direction of fit - so instead of the players feeling things out for the first few sessions to get a feel for the GM's priorities, the players establish priorities via the build and play of their characters and the GM feels those out and respond to them.That last dot point is absolutely true. As I said, the idea of &quot;the adventure&quot; has to go. Though I don't think it requires as great an abnegation on the GM's part as you suggest.The first two (sub-)points, in my experience, are not as straightforward as you suggest. The X-Men are a team and yet have character arcs. It's not great literature, but it's certainly as good as I could ever aspire to at my table (none of us is a professional creator of fiction). A different model that might work for some tables is Doctor Who.That's not to say that &quot;the party&quot; is mandatory. Plenty of RPGs eschew it. But it needn't be a total stumbling block.The bit about screen-time is also less stark, I think. The real issue here is who is talking and interacting, at the table. There are ways of handling this so that it doesn't have to be much more brutal on the group activity than running around the table in a D&amp;D-style combat round.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7914955, member: 42582"] The systems that some others have mentioned in this thread as relevant to the OP - to reiterate, BW, Sorcerer, DitV, etc - might be seen as adopting but formalising and prioritising this sort of approach. But they often also reverse some of the direction of fit - so instead of the players feeling things out for the first few sessions to get a feel for the GM's priorities, the players establish priorities via the build and play of their characters and the GM feels those out and respond to them. That last dot point is absolutely true. As I said, the idea of "the adventure" has to go. Though I don't think it requires as great an abnegation on the GM's part as you suggest. The first two (sub-)points, in my experience, are not as straightforward as you suggest. The X-Men are a team and yet have character arcs. It's not great literature, but it's certainly as good as I could ever aspire to at my table (none of us is a professional creator of fiction). A different model that might work for some tables is Doctor Who. That's not to say that "the party" is mandatory. Plenty of RPGs eschew it. But it needn't be a total stumbling block. The bit about screen-time is also less stark, I think. The real issue here is [I]who is talking and interacting, at the table[/I]. There are ways of handling this so that it doesn't have to be much more brutal on the group activity than running around the table in a D&D-style combat round. [/QUOTE]

Verification