Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5789072" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. Given that I run a pretty vanilla narrativist game, these cues are important - it's not as if their are funky narrativist mechanics that my players are using to show what they're interested in.Nice example. And to me, illustrative of the limits of any interpretive theory - it's meant to be an aid to interpretation and understanding, not prescriptive of practice. In this particular example, the line between gamism and narrativism is thin. For example, Edwards characterises The Dying Earth as narrativist, not gamist, but it also is aimed at producing humour (and I imagine this was also true of some T&T play back in the day). One difference between narrativist humour and gamist humour might be that narrativist humour is built out of the situation in a more intimate way than gamist humour (and The Dying Earth certainly aims at this).But I don't see this as a point against GNS (nor for it), I just see it as an example of how interpretive theories can help frame critical thought and generate critical discussion.If I can suggest a point, it's an illustration of how GM-adjudicated play in a shared imaginary space can be a terrific venue for a type of gamist play. Playing ToH is not like playing a board game!</blockquote>