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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9632222" data-attributes="member: 75787">I do have a strong preference for systems that are either strongly narrative or strongly gamist. In a strongly narrative system, you don't make as many rolls, so it makes more sense for the rolls to take more thought to adjudicate and to work out the outcome. In a gamist system you are often making many rolls and the mental effort to imagine is high, so I do like the default to be pretty much defined outcomes, with narration the exception.One game that does the latter well for me is 13th Age. It's basically a gamist 3E/4E style game where the designers have removed a lot of the cruft of those systems. Skills are strongly narrative, but combat is gamist ... unless you deliberately pick powers that require narration. They are called out in their descriptions and so one player might jump at taking a power that allows you to "narrate something cool you do with the terrain" and another will emphatically reject it.For me, PbtA doesn't work well because in my play experience, you do make a lot of rolls, and a lot of narration is needed, so repetition and loss of imagination is an issue. It's also frankly annoying when you are asking someone a simple question and end up with so good a success you have to invent new questions you don't really care about. I wish I liked the system more, and I've had fun playing in some games, but it is relentless in its desire to force narration in a way that Fate and AGON have not been when I've been in extended campaigns with them.I get the point of view espoused in the article quoted by the OP. Too much require imagination is a burden, but I don't think only using binary outcomes has any effect on that aspect of a game.</blockquote>

Verification