Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6062680" data-attributes="member: 42582">What I had in mind is that &quot;plot-driven&quot; without railroading requires rather specific techniques - roughly, the techniques that the Forge calls &quot;story now&quot; and &quot;narrativisim&quot;. And those techniques are (at least as best I can tell) contentious. Consider, for example, the next quote:I much prefer it when the goal comes from the players. As a GM I see my role being to provide antagonism and conflict that puts pressure on the PCs (in part by following the hooks that the players have built into their PCs) but how the PCs respond to that pressure, and the resolutions they seek to the conflict, aren't for me to decide.For me, this issue of authority over the plot, and the PC goals, is a key point of contrast between GM-driven plot (which I think of as railroading) and plot that emerges from play (which is what &quot;story now&quot; is about).I'm not certain, but I think I disagree with you on some of this. I don't think there is anything especially intuitive about simuationism. And I think good &quot;story now&quot; design can be just as intuitive.I do agree that many people want a relaxed game. But &quot;story now&quot; doesn't have to be hard work - my game certainly isn't! (it's pretty generic fantasy stuff) and of more cutting edge narrativist games, The Dying Earth shows what a clever, light but clearly non-simulationinst design can look like. It's a bit heavier than Moldvay Basic or Tunnels &amp; Trolls, but much, much mechanically lighter than 3E or 4e, and pretty intuitive in its point of play.No, though I've heard good things about it on these boards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6062680, member: 42582"] What I had in mind is that "plot-driven" without railroading requires rather specific techniques - roughly, the techniques that the Forge calls "story now" and "narrativisim". And those techniques are (at least as best I can tell) contentious. Consider, for example, the next quote: I much prefer it when the goal comes from the players. As a GM I see my role being to provide antagonism and conflict that puts pressure on the PCs (in part by following the hooks that the players have built into their PCs) but how the PCs respond to that pressure, and the resolutions they seek to the conflict, aren't for me to decide. For me, this issue of authority over the plot, and the PC goals, is a key point of contrast between GM-driven plot (which I think of as railroading) and plot that emerges from play (which is what "story now" is about). I'm not certain, but I think I disagree with you on some of this. I don't think there is anything especially intuitive about simuationism. And I think good "story now" design can be just as intuitive. I do agree that many people want a relaxed game. But "story now" doesn't have to be hard work - my game certainly isn't! (it's pretty generic fantasy stuff) and of more cutting edge narrativist games, The Dying Earth shows what a clever, light but clearly non-simulationinst design can look like. It's a bit heavier than Moldvay Basic or Tunnels & Trolls, but much, much mechanically lighter than 3E or 4e, and pretty intuitive in its point of play. No, though I've heard good things about it on these boards. [/QUOTE]

Verification