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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8291130" data-attributes="member: 5142">There are several points here: (1) what "getting in the way" entails undoubtedly varies from person to person, and (2) the purpose of the stream.(1) In the Way: There is an obvious point here that when and how the rules "get in the way of play" varies from person to person, and the idea that some games inherently have rules that get in the way of play is clearly false. For example, this line of discussion was started from Reynard claiming in this thread that PbtA games had rules that got in the way. In another Critical Role thread, however, Whizbang Dustyboots referred to CR's one-shot game of Monsterhearts 2 (a PbtA-based game) as riveting, and in this thread he also referred to it as a system that puts a focus on improv. So what extent can we say that the PbtA rules actually get in the way of play or that 5e D&D is somehow set apart from PbtA in this regard? Or this a classic case of culture shock and personal game preferences rather than some innate "in the way" quality to these games? I suspect that for people with a lot of familiarity and enjoyment of playing/running Fate and PbtA, the claim that the rules get in the way seems a bit odd, especially since both games hammer on about "fiction first" play. Vincent Baker, for example, created Apocalypse World, in part, because his wife Meguey Baker preferred more freeform roleplaying. I also recall hearing that one of its design influences was as a reaction against players in D&D 3e who were requesting to roll skills (e.g., "Can I make a Perception check?") rather than engage the fiction first. (2) Streaming Purpose: One of the reason why I sometimes enjoy watching play streams is to learn about new game systems or see how ones I am familiar with are played differently than I do. If I am wanting to learn a new game system, then I actually want the rules to get in the way or at least be relevant for play in the stream. Otherwise, I feel as if I am just watching play acting in which the system's actual contribution to the cultivated experience is fundamentally negligible, which offers me next to no insight on the particular draws, strengths, or weaknesses of the system. I want to see the rules work and how the rules help produce meaningful or fun game experiences that are unique or peculiar to the gaming system. For a number of streams out there, particularly for non-D&D games, these streams can serve as (1) a game tutorial and/or (2) product marketing. For example, I found the stream that Jason Bulmahn ran for PF2 around the time of its release to be enjoyable. While it was also entertaining to watch, the stream was obviously meant to showcase the rules. The same was true for Ryan Macklin running Fate for Wil Wheaton's Tabletop, which was a game (as far as I can tell) empowered quite a bit of improv on the part of the participants. Or, again for example, Fandom's streaming of their Cortex Prime system: e.g., Hammerheads, Dragon Prince, etc. Or even John Harper's streaming of his Blades in the Dark campaign. However, if the purpose is purely entertainment value regarding the characters, then having the game get bogged down in rules discussions may obviously not be particularly fun to watch. But this also varies depending on the familiarity the people have with the system or what liberties that they may take with the system or procedures thereof for the purpose of their stream.</blockquote>

Verification