Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2428466" data-attributes="member: 7240">This is interesting. It is very different from the motivations that tend to power my campaign, though. Generally, in my games, adventurers are responding to danger, threat or crisis that someone else is causing rather than pursuing their desires, thereby bringing themselves into conflict with others. At the level of character, most great stories seem to be about people doing one thing because they are obliged to and then doing something else because a higher calling or obligation must be fulfilled or because some danger threatens them discharging their obligations. There are also stories about people pursuing their unfulfilled desires and then choosing to reject this path and then pursue a higher calling or respond to some threat instead. Although our culture has morally internalized capitalism so that human motivation can be conceptualized in the terms you describe, I think we are fortunate that our stories have yet to internalize this morality. Aside from sports movies or movies about women's professional advancement, fulfilment of goals/desires is not a predominant theme in popular culture. Given that most games are set in pre-modern societies, how does this psychological capitalism actually manifest in the stories your games produce?Being a strict narrativist -- unlike most who claim the title you seem to understand and practice Edwards' theory as described -- do you find that thematically focusing the system on individual character egos tends to inhibit party cohesion?Out of curiosity, do you think this &quot;getting to the meat of the characters&quot; is the main appeal of narrativist-style gaming? Or do you think people use it for other reasons. I ask because the style has little appeal for me and I would like to get a better sense of some of the things that attract people to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 2428466, member: 7240"] This is interesting. It is very different from the motivations that tend to power my campaign, though. Generally, in my games, adventurers are responding to danger, threat or crisis that someone else is causing rather than pursuing their desires, thereby bringing themselves into conflict with others. At the level of character, most great stories seem to be about people doing one thing because they are obliged to and then doing something else because a higher calling or obligation must be fulfilled or because some danger threatens them discharging their obligations. There are also stories about people pursuing their unfulfilled desires and then choosing to reject this path and then pursue a higher calling or respond to some threat instead. Although our culture has morally internalized capitalism so that human motivation can be conceptualized in the terms you describe, I think we are fortunate that our stories have yet to internalize this morality. Aside from sports movies or movies about women's professional advancement, fulfilment of goals/desires is not a predominant theme in popular culture. Given that most games are set in pre-modern societies, how does this psychological capitalism actually manifest in the stories your games produce?Being a strict narrativist -- unlike most who claim the title you seem to understand and practice Edwards' theory as described -- do you find that thematically focusing the system on individual character egos tends to inhibit party cohesion?Out of curiosity, do you think this "getting to the meat of the characters" is the main appeal of narrativist-style gaming? Or do you think people use it for other reasons. I ask because the style has little appeal for me and I would like to get a better sense of some of the things that attract people to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification