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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9609577" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sorry, I don't see those points made in the post I was responding to. I get the impression this is all referencing other discussions you all are using as context which I've not read. Anyway,...I'm not entirely sure we're on the same wavelength here. Getting back to the topic introduced in the OP, my understanding is that games like 5e (D&D generally) focus on things related to the fictional space itself, time, space, physical situation, etc. Games like TB2e (or PbtAs and such) focus on the narrative development of play, the who, what, and why.This foundational difference has very different implications for the nature of the process of the GM saying stuff. Both of these approaches rely on some type of GM framing of situation. In [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] 's alarm example we see 2 different sets of constraints and concerns.In the 5e version the GM is concerned about explaining the fiction in terms of describing a scenario in which causality is the constraint. If a monster attacks camp during the duration of the alarm, then X must result, and certain procedures are followed. If the GM has some agenda related to narrative, they're going to utilize their framing/authorial power over time, space, etc. to move it forward. Indeed they must make these determinations.TB2e assumes that the narrative is purely discovered. Some mechanics will establish the outcome in a mechanical sense, and the participants are relatively free to describe that, with potential for the fiction to further shape the downstream narrative.I think the one point of contention is really about GM agendas. The two processes, IME, provide very different points of interaction, with TB2e providing much less leverage, and less directed narrative.</blockquote>

Verification