Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8938747" data-attributes="member: 85870">This is absolutely true, and one of the things that struck me about the difficulty of doing &quot;deep critique&quot; of RPGs generally, is that most RPG sessions aren't recorded or transcribed for future review. This is an enormous problem in being able to revisit the kind of &quot;viewer critique&quot; that can be done as the article does. Also true, if you look at any given campaign or session within a campaign. There's going to be friction between &quot;narrative&quot; and &quot;game&quot;, and &quot;PC psychology&quot; and &quot;needs of the group.&quot; But I think the broader point still stands, which is that those frictions are a natural outgrowth of the competition between the needs of developing the narrative and the needs of creating a playable game in the first place.The larger the scope of the game --- rules, interactions, exceptions, combinations --- the greater the need to interact at the game level, and the greater the impulse, I think, to engage in the mindset of &quot;caring FOR&quot; the character --- &quot;I just need to get the character through this next round of combat / next test.&quot;I think it's also indicative of why most of the &quot;narrative&quot; driven TTRPGs of late lean dramatically toward the rules light end of the spectrum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 8938747, member: 85870"] This is absolutely true, and one of the things that struck me about the difficulty of doing "deep critique" of RPGs generally, is that most RPG sessions aren't recorded or transcribed for future review. This is an enormous problem in being able to revisit the kind of "viewer critique" that can be done as the article does. Also true, if you look at any given campaign or session within a campaign. There's going to be friction between "narrative" and "game", and "PC psychology" and "needs of the group." But I think the broader point still stands, which is that [I]those frictions are a natural outgrowth[/I] of the competition between the needs of developing the narrative and the needs of creating a playable game in the first place. The larger the scope of the game --- rules, interactions, exceptions, combinations --- the greater the need to interact at the game level, and the greater the impulse, I think, to engage in the mindset of "caring FOR" the character --- "I just need to get the character through this next round of combat / next test." I think it's also indicative of why most of the "narrative" driven TTRPGs of late lean dramatically toward the rules light end of the spectrum. [/QUOTE]

Verification