Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4842258" data-attributes="member: 3820">That's an interesting way to look at a campaign. I don't think I agree, though. It assumes a presence of &quot;modules&quot; that seems fairly specific to a given style of campaign but might be utterly irrelevant to another. I'm curious what you're using &quot;module&quot; to mean. It's not a terribly common phrase outside old-school D&amp;D. None of the WoD games refer to &quot;modules,&quot; for instance, and neither does HERO System. Do you see most RPGs as possessing &quot;modules&quot; even if they have few to no pre-packaged adventures or setting books? Are people who make up their own settings (like doing their own city for a Vampire game, or a homebrew D&amp;D world) doing &quot;roleplaying games&quot; or &quot;story games&quot;? I'm also curious how you look at &quot;story games&quot; with no prepackaged plot. It is a very, very common method of play to create situations rather than plots, and to see what happens. For example, a game might have as its trigger the idea that crimelord A is attempting to expand his presence, or that there's a wedding going on between two feuding families and everyone has a stake in it, and so on. Story is something that's totally emergent in these games; each player essentially defines his or her own goals. Improvisation is key. The concept of &quot;player skill&quot; matters, but not as measured against prepackaged challenges that a designer has set up: the challenges emerge naturally, and the skills involved might be diplomacy, politics, and people sense. I don't think most people roleplaying today think in terms of &quot;modules.&quot; It's a style of play too reliant on prepackaged materials, be they purchased or created ahead of time in a vacuum. Improvisational play lends itself better to chat rooms and LARPs, to one-shots and changing game systems on a regular basis. People game a lot of ways. I think it would be considerably more accurate if you were to mark out &quot;modular play&quot; as a subset of roleplaying, and not the assumed default. Where's Piratecat? Man needs to drop that story of the PCs collapsing a dungeon with an earthquake and still winding up having a fine adventure — just one that was extrapolated from his notes and information rather than directly programmed by them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 4842258, member: 3820"] That's an interesting way to look at a campaign. I don't think I agree, though. It assumes a presence of "modules" that seems fairly specific to a given style of campaign but might be utterly irrelevant to another. I'm curious what you're using "module" to mean. It's not a terribly common phrase outside old-school D&D. None of the WoD games refer to "modules," for instance, and neither does HERO System. Do you see most RPGs as possessing "modules" even if they have few to no pre-packaged adventures or setting books? Are people who make up their own settings (like doing their own city for a Vampire game, or a homebrew D&D world) doing "roleplaying games" or "story games"? I'm also curious how you look at "story games" with no prepackaged plot. It is a very, very common method of play to create situations rather than plots, and to see what happens. For example, a game might have as its trigger the idea that crimelord A is attempting to expand his presence, or that there's a wedding going on between two feuding families and everyone has a stake in it, and so on. Story is something that's totally emergent in these games; each player essentially defines his or her own goals. Improvisation is key. The concept of "player skill" matters, but not as measured against prepackaged challenges that a designer has set up: the challenges emerge naturally, and the skills involved might be diplomacy, politics, and people sense. I don't think most people roleplaying today think in terms of "modules." It's a style of play too reliant on prepackaged materials, be they purchased or created ahead of time in a vacuum. Improvisational play lends itself better to chat rooms and LARPs, to one-shots and changing game systems on a regular basis. People game a lot of ways. I think it would be considerably more accurate if you were to mark out "modular play" as a subset of roleplaying, and not the assumed default. Where's Piratecat? Man needs to drop that story of the PCs collapsing a dungeon with an [I]earthquake[/I] and still winding up having a fine adventure — just one that was extrapolated from his notes and information rather than directly programmed by them. [/QUOTE]

Verification