Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 9517659" data-attributes="member: 2303">If I'm to take this seriously, I think the result would not be what we conventionally call a role-playing game, it would be collaborative storytelling. If a group of people come up with a common conceit of a situation and agree to collaborate on what is essentially a letter novella, it can surely work. It might even work with one participant having responsibility for the world and the other players taking on specific character roles. But the shared concept is absolutely necessary, and each participant needs to control themselves to stay within the agreed-upon conceit. In most cases this will not include "I leap over the moon" in a literal sense, but if the shared conceit is absurdist or that the player characters are gods, it could.Essentially, I believe that if we remove the GMs ability to say no, then each player must internalize saying no to themselves so as to stay within the consensual reality of the story. I say above that this would not be a "conventional" RPG, but there is no need for RPGs to be conventional as long as this is part of the social contract of the game.I have participated in some games that leaned in this direction and must admit I was not very good at it. My problem is that without rules, my thinking tends to run a bit too much out of the box, to the point where I go off the rails.</blockquote>