Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5725962" data-attributes="member: 54877">My style overlaps somewhat with pemertons' style, but also has some differences.  The point he makes here is a major piece of the overlap:  It is not so much that 4E does a lot to force one into a narrative style, though it does hint at it rather pervasively.  If nothing else, the metagaming constructs create a vaccuum that, for anyone used to a narrative style, beg to be exploited by that style.  See for example, the original Come and Get It.  You have to really work to make that work in a traditional manner.  If you want to narrate a broad variety of results, as partially determined by the situation at hand, then the vaccuum created in the story begs for you to pull something into it, rather than the mechanic pushing you to do that.   But for those of us who wanted something more like this when we first played Basic D&D, it is more about the lack of narrative restraints than anything else.  Ignoring the Forge "narrative" in favor of a broader, earlier, literary conception mixed with gaming--"narrative" is about getting the story result consistent with what you want, versus following a process and hoping you get it. That is, this is for me not a traditional versus indy (Forge), Big Model, Creative Agenda question as much as it is a metagaming versus immersion question.  Immersion demands process, preferably at some risk.  The satisfaction is in experiencing the process.  Metagaming pushes a result, but preferably at some cost.  The satisfaction is in reaching the goal, or failing to do so in an interesting way. Of course, to be much of a story or a game, both methods need meaningful decision points.  In their purer forms (neither of which exists in any version of D&D), I'd say that the decision points for immersion involve "risk A for a chance to get X."  In contrast, the metagaming decision points involve "trade A for X, with a risk of consequence Y."</blockquote>

Verification