Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9378285" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My main problem with the latter analysis is that an emphasis on teamwork and mutual understanding is pretty much essential in every &quot;new school&quot; group I've ever participated in. That's why we have things like Session Zero, the X and O cards, lines and veils, Dungeon World's bonds, etc.You need only look at the big-name (and, heck, even small-name) 5e D&amp;D game podcasts like Critical Role and The Adventure Zone to see this stuff. It's absolutely NOT about five (or whatever) individual, deeply selfish people who exclusively care about their own story and NOTHING else. It's about five teammates who are working together on both their communal goals, and on their personal stories, both in how those stories work individually and how they braid together, how the characters change one another.Part of why, when I was asked earlier (I presume incredulously) whether it was like being a method actor, I answered simply, &quot;Yes.&quot; Because that is what it's like. The character is a role I'm stepping into, immersing myself in, wearing almost like a second skin. I need to have the what-it's-like to be that person. Jumping to an entirely different character, I lose that, and have to rebuild it--which takes a long time. Weeks, perhaps months.So I guess I'd phrase it as, &quot;The story is about us, and how the adventure relates to our characters.&quot; Old school in-character play is like a genealogical or anthology story, where we follow the torch as it passes from bearer to bearer; the individual bearers are far less relevant than the torch itself. New school in-character play is like a TV show with a core cast, where we get deeply invested in these characters and what they're doing.It's the difference between Foundation (or at least the first book, with its many shorter stories) and Babylon 5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9378285, member: 6790260"] My main problem with the latter analysis is that an emphasis on teamwork and mutual understanding is pretty much essential in every "new school" group I've ever participated in. That's why we have things like Session Zero, the X and O cards, lines and veils, Dungeon World's bonds, etc. You need only look at the big-name (and, heck, even [I]small[/I]-name) 5e D&D game podcasts like Critical Role and The Adventure Zone to see this stuff. It's absolutely NOT about five (or whatever) individual, deeply selfish people who exclusively care about their own story and NOTHING else. It's about five [I]teammates[/I] who are working together on both their communal goals, and on their personal stories, both in how those stories work individually and how they braid together, how the characters change one another. Part of why, when I was asked earlier (I presume incredulously) whether it was like being a method actor, I answered simply, "Yes." Because that [I]is[/I] what it's like. The character [I]is[/I] a role I'm stepping into, immersing myself in, wearing almost like a second skin. I need to have the what-it's-like to be that person. Jumping to an entirely different character, I lose that, and have to rebuild it--which takes a [I]long[/I] time. Weeks, perhaps months. So I guess I'd phrase it as, "The story is about [I]us[/I], and how the adventure relates to [I]our[/I] characters." Old school in-character play is like a genealogical or anthology story, where we follow the torch as it passes from bearer to bearer; the individual bearers are far less relevant than the torch itself. New school in-character play is like a TV show with a core cast, where we get deeply invested in [I]these characters[/I] and what they're doing. It's the difference between [I]Foundation[/I] (or at least the first book, with its many shorter stories) and [I]Babylon 5[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification