NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5787717" data-attributes="member: 42582">Other than the fact that I don't agree it's a complete mess, this overlaps quite a bit with my post upthread (#52):But (in my view) it's not as if Edwards has made some sort of simple error here. Rather, it's a point of deep interpretive disagreement. From Edwards' perspective (which, on this point, I share), there is a radical difference between a GM making a decision because it makes for a good story (which is "dramatism") and the game being designed so as the agency of all participants, channelled in a certain way by the rules, will produce a good story. The first subordinates the agency of the players to the choices of the GM. The second doesn't. The first has the players exploring the GM's story, not creating their own.But from the point of view of those who enjoy adventure path play "for the story", or who enjoy illusionist play, but who dislike RQ or RM or similar purist-for-system games, then I'm sure that the "simulationist" classification spanning both approaches to play is unsatisfactory.That's the nature of interpretation and criticism - it's evaluative, and hence controverisal.TL;DR: GNS subordinates or marginalises a certain sort of play - which, in D&D terms, I think of as 2nd ed era play. But that's not an oversight. It's a key feature of the system, which was designed to try and understand the balance-of-power issues that some see that style of play as particularly prone to.</blockquote>

Verification