Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4513855" data-attributes="member: 3192">I have no desire to badmouth 4E or its' design.&nbsp; I think the hobby's better with Wizards' success and do not want to get into a debate about their game's merits.&nbsp;&nbsp; For what it's worth, IceFractal does a nice job of explaining the difference between a system where the Player narrates the world, one that does its' best to model a world, and one where the model leaves the explanation up in the air - like using Chess rules in an RPG: you have to &quot;skin&quot; the player's actions in order for them to make sense in the imagined world.I do not wish to build a model or RPG Philosophy.&nbsp; Nor am I saying anyone should exclude certain types of playstyles, RPGs, or RPG designs.&nbsp; I am as simply as possible trying to explain how certain terms are actually defined and how role-playing isn't the telling of a story, no more than living one's life is telling a story. Rules that remove one from role-playing exist because folks want a story where one can't possibly exist.&nbsp; (Hence we get plotline adventures, world warping DMs, and more)&nbsp; The point you may have missed given your response (and this has been a lengthy discussion) is that Players never narrate what their PCs do because they are directing them.&nbsp; Saying something, even in a narrative mode, doesn't mean fictional narration is going on.&nbsp; All direction is successfully resolved as it would be under any game system.&nbsp; But narrative authority is never resolved unless you have the power to be an author.&nbsp; As has been pointed out before, for Big Modelers there is no distinction between &quot;NAR&quot; rules and any other kind of game rules.&nbsp; It amounts to &quot;story enough&quot; and &quot;intent&quot;.&nbsp; It's a confusion between playing an author/God to the world and playing a role.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4513855, member: 3192"] I have no desire to badmouth 4E or its' design. I think the hobby's better with Wizards' success and do not want to get into a debate about their game's merits. For what it's worth, IceFractal does a nice job of explaining the difference between a system where the Player narrates the world, one that does its' best to model a world, and one where the model leaves the explanation up in the air - like using Chess rules in an RPG: you have to "skin" the player's actions in order for them to make sense in the imagined world. I do not wish to build a model or RPG Philosophy. Nor am I saying anyone should exclude certain types of playstyles, RPGs, or RPG designs. I am as simply as possible trying to explain how certain terms are actually defined and how role-playing isn't the telling of a story, no more than living one's life is telling a story. Rules that remove one from role-playing exist because folks want a story where one can't possibly exist. (Hence we get plotline adventures, world warping DMs, and more) The point you may have missed given your response (and this has been a lengthy discussion) is that Players never narrate what their PCs do because they are directing them. Saying something, even in a narrative mode, doesn't mean fictional narration is going on. All direction is successfully resolved as it would be under any game system. But narrative authority is never resolved unless you have the power to be an author. As has been pointed out before, for Big Modelers there is no distinction between "NAR" rules and any other kind of game rules. It amounts to "story enough" and "intent". It's a confusion between playing an author/God to the world and playing a role. [/QUOTE]

Verification