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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 4233660" data-attributes="member: 43283">Well, you'll notice that I didn't make any claims about "Narrativist". I tried to stay more towards a "rules-medium" area, shading down a bit into the lighter side with something like Qin or The Shadows of Yesterday.And I woudn't say that there's "confusion" over the categories. It's that the categories/terms mean different things to different folks. And like it or not, the majority defines what something means. While the whole GNS thing has been around for a while, it hasn't been adopted by a majority of anyone. The people most likely to even know what GNS is are those that are online, and an entire chunk of them outright reject/loathe the whole thing. Many of those that don't reject it outright spend all their time not just arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of pins, but what kind of dances these angels are doing.I mean, let's be honest here... despite some folks frothing hatred of World of Warcraft, it bills itself as a roleplaying game. It doesn't matter that it doesn't match up to how some (or even many) people run their games. The majority has defined an "rpg" to mean [x], and that's how it's used. Someday, perhaps folks will have an agreement on the whole GNS thing (or whatever other pet rpg theory there is) and what the different terms mean. Until then, people are going to use the terms in the way that makes sense to them, even if others think they're "confused". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Personally, I have a love-hate thing with rpg theory and the terms everyone likes to toss around. I really like the potential help it can offer someone to figure out how to tune a game to match the kind of play that they want to get. There's some pretty sharp thinkers out there that have managed to zero in on some pretty groovy things.I hate how almost all the theory discussions are more about mental masturbation than actually being useful. Arguements over how to define something, whether you're really playing a game "right", people bashing everyone else's playstyle that isn't their own pet favorite... it's an awful lot of static to sort through, just to get to something that's actually going to be applicable to my games.That's another reason why I said the OP really needed to give up some additional information. Plenty of people for example could take exception to the idea of there being crunch to play around with, and yet still calling a game "Narrativist". For better or worse there's a pretty strong link with "narrativist" and "rules light" in many places.The O.P. is going to be served far better by simply describing what they're after in terms of rules doing this or that, and not doing this other thing. In my opinion whether something is "narrativist" is completely beside the point.</blockquote>

Verification