Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9258004" data-attributes="member: 7808">I have some experience with improv (admittedly, not for a number of years now).&nbsp; Improv stuff works fine for the story part, but I don't think it meshes as well with the game part.&nbsp; IMNSHO, the biggest rift is that improv is &quot;Yes, and...&quot; while TTRPGs are &quot;No, but...&quot;Player: I attack the goblin, do I hit?DM: No, but you can still move or do something else.DM: The orc throws a spear at you.&nbsp; He hits!Player: No!&nbsp; But I'll cast [protective spell].&nbsp; Does he hit now?DM: No, but he does move behind a protective rock.&nbsp; You've lost sight of him.&nbsp; What next?Player 1: I'm down!&nbsp; Does anyone have any healing magic left?Player 2: No, but I have a potion.&nbsp; I'll get to you as soon as I take care of this wizard.&nbsp; I hit!&nbsp; Does he fall?DM: No, but he casts a spell that sets fire to the ground, separating you from Player 1.Player 1: No!&nbsp; But now who will save me?The central game mechanics of (almost all) TTPRGS are based in conflict.&nbsp; The dice.&nbsp; The attacks.&nbsp; The rules.&nbsp; The crunch.&nbsp; Combat (and many other forms of RPG conflict) is not in line with a lot of the cooperation that improv teaches.&nbsp; And, frankly, that conflict is the part I like.&nbsp; It's what separates TTRPGs from being just stories.&nbsp; We play TTRPGs because we want conflict resolution and rules, not just freeform fiction.That being said, TTRPGs still have cooperative parts, obviously.&nbsp; That's why it's so important not just end with &quot;no&quot;.&nbsp; It's the &quot;but&quot; that keeps it going.&nbsp; The next round, the next reaction, the next solution.&nbsp; RPGs need big buts.&nbsp; And they cannot lie (you other player's can't deny).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9258004, member: 7808"] I have some experience with improv (admittedly, not for a number of years now). Improv stuff works fine for the story part, but I don't think it meshes as well with the game part. IMNSHO, the biggest rift is that improv is "Yes, and..." while TTRPGs are "No, but..." Player: I attack the goblin, do I hit? DM: No, but you can still move or do something else. DM: The orc throws a spear at you. He hits! Player: No! But I'll cast [protective spell]. Does he hit now? DM: No, but he does move behind a protective rock. You've lost sight of him. What next? Player 1: I'm down! Does anyone have any healing magic left? Player 2: No, but I have a potion. I'll get to you as soon as I take care of this wizard. I hit! Does he fall? DM: No, but he casts a spell that sets fire to the ground, separating you from Player 1. Player 1: No! But now who will save me? The central game mechanics of (almost all) TTPRGS are based in conflict. The dice. The attacks. The rules. The crunch. Combat (and many other forms of RPG conflict) is not in line with a lot of the cooperation that improv teaches. And, frankly, that conflict is the part I like. It's what separates TTRPGs from being just stories. We play TTRPGs because we want conflict resolution and rules, not just freeform fiction. That being said, TTRPGs still have cooperative parts, obviously. That's why it's so important not just end with "no". It's the "but" that keeps it going. The next round, the next reaction, the next solution. RPGs need big buts. And they cannot lie (you other player's can't deny). [/QUOTE]

Verification