Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9357224" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there is a defensible reason for drawing the distinction, namely, because of the way that mainstream RPGing (and for clarity, a game like Apocalypse World or In A Wicked Age is well within this mainstream) allocates particular bits of the fiction to particular participants: one group of participants primarily &quot;own&quot; and control the doings of particular characters; while another single participant (the GM) &quot;owns&quot; and controls all the other stuff; and the &quot;plot&quot; is the result of some interaction between and adding to these various bits that the various participants &quot;own&quot;.If you emphasise &quot;plot&quot;, you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the GM &quot;owns&quot;: NPCs, events involving the environment or large social groups, etc.If you emphasise &quot;character&quot;, you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the non-GM participants &quot;own&quot;: PCs, and some of the stuff that orbits around them and the PCs' emotional/thematic/moral/etc orientations towards that orbiting &quot;stuff&quot;.These two different sorts of emphasis, because of the difference places where they put control or ownership under pressure or require it to be exercised in certain ways, tend to invite different techniques (and not just mechanics like - say - rolls to hit and damage; but techniques around, say, how situations and stakes are established, how consequences are established, etc).Hence why I think it is defensible to differentiate the, both when looking at &quot;cultures of play&quot; and when analysing the various possible technical components of RPGing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9357224, member: 42582"] I think there is a defensible reason for drawing the distinction, namely, because of the way that mainstream RPGing (and for clarity, a game like Apocalypse World or In A Wicked Age is well within this mainstream) allocates particular bits of the fiction to particular participants: one group of participants primarily "own" and control the doings of particular characters; while another single participant (the GM) "owns" and controls all the other stuff; and the "plot" is the result of some interaction between and adding to these various bits that the various participants "own". If you emphasise "plot", you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the GM "owns": NPCs, events involving the environment or large social groups, etc. If you emphasise "character", you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the non-GM participants "own": PCs, and some of the stuff that orbits around them and the PCs' emotional/thematic/moral/etc orientations towards that orbiting "stuff". These two different sorts of emphasis, because of the difference places where they put control or ownership under pressure or require it to be exercised in certain ways, tend to invite different techniques (and not just mechanics like - say - rolls to hit and damage; but techniques around, say, how situations and stakes are established, how consequences are established, etc). Hence why I think it is defensible to differentiate the, both when looking at "cultures of play" and when analysing the various possible technical components of RPGing. [/QUOTE]

Verification