Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 6726746" data-attributes="member: 16586">These days I prefer games like Apocalypse World, Circle of Hands, and Burning Wheel over D&D. When I was running D&D 4e I used play techniques taken from those games to drift it towards the type of game I prefer. What I feel often gets missed in the context of these discussions is the fundamental nature of the type of play engendered by these games. I think the way we talk about games like Apocalypse World, and way pemerton, Manbearcat, me, and others played D&D 4e is flawed because it misses the real point of play.I'll be using Apocalypse World as a stand in here for games that have similar goals of play.When I'm playing Apocalypse World I am not in it for the story or narrative whatever those things mean. Instead, I'm playing to advocate for my PC who I am required to play as if they were a real person with real wants, real needs, and real goals. When I'm running Apocalypse World I am required to make the Apocalypse World seem real, make the character's lives not boring, and play to find out what happens. Anything I say that is not in service to those three things means I'm cheating the players out of playing the game.Let's talk about what this actually looks like. As a player, I am playing a character who wants the sort of things that real people would want. That means food, security, emotional connections, a sense of community, whatever. It is my job to go after those things with intent. If I don't I am not playing the game. Now, we wouldn't want these things to be easy. That's where the Master of Ceremonies (MC - read GM) comes in. Their job is to make the world seem real, put obstacles in the way of what my character wants, and have the discipline to not have a stake in the way events unfold.At its heart Apocalypse World is about players playing real people making difficult decisions in difficult situations. Scene framing is simply a tool used to make that happen. We don't play out the boring bits because that's not what the game is about. Within the scope of play (scene, conflict, whatever) I'm making decisions for my character to get them what they want. Where Apocalypse World differs from AD&D is in scope and goals of play. Rather than the dungeon where I try to get treasure while not being killed by monsters, play exists in emotionally charged situations where I'm trying to get what my character wants. Whatever the differences might be I am still advocating for my PC. From my viewpoint, it is not a fundamentally different enterprise.The fundamental desire that sparked games like Apocalypse World was the desire to make games that were about something, games that reflected human experience in a meaningful way. They still wanted their games to be games.  The basic argument is that you can create emotionally compelling games that are still fun to play.I'll close with this quote from Apocalypse World that feel sums up the goal of play:</blockquote>

Verification