Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8314044" data-attributes="member: 16586">So I do think if you are either oriented towards GM as a war game referee or engaging in group storytelling (with a strong dose "Yes, And!" or "Yes, But") I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that within that particular context not having defined rules can be a boon and be considered more flexible for that particular purpose. However I think it's a failure of imagination to not realize there are other ways to play where not having rules have a definite impact on play is an imposition rather than affording additional flexibility.When I run D&D outside of combat scenes, overland travel, and some dungeon crawling tasks I am responsible for how things turn out because I have to decide if/when the dice are rolled, what the DC is, and what happens on success or failure. I have too much control over the outcome for my tastes.When I run Apocalypse World I get to be genuinely surprised by how things turn out, don't feel tempted to turn things this way or that way, and can focus on the fictional situation. I can make my moves and just let the players make theirs. I do not have to pace the game. I don't have to engage in spotlight balancing other than like just moving it around to give everyone a chance to act.I get that if you are engaging in a game of "Yes And!" basically the binding social mechanics of something like Go Aggro feel constraining. What's missing is if you are not interested in collaborative storytelling forcing the GM to make a bunch of decisions about how things will go can feel just as constraining. As a player having complete control of my characters thoughts and emotions can also feel constraining because that's far from my personal experience of life. It also means that I have a storytelling role instead of character inhabitation role.The other thing that does not make a lot of sense to me is why stuff like detailed combat mechanics, resources that recharge on a daily basis (forcing me to pay excessive attention to time and place), concrete tracking of distances in spells and stuff like light sources, assumed key and map resolution, specific defined spell effects, and the like are not seen just as constraining. Why doesn't Blades get credit for where it's flexible? Namely that time and place can be played loosely with no mechanical costs, that there are no detailed combat mechanics getting in our way, that I can epend on my understanding of the fiction rather than detailed stat blocks for NPCs. That attuning to the ghost field is more flexible and less dependent on defined rules than spells are in D&D.As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] can attest to in conversations we have had elsewhere I have some pretty strong sim tendencies myself. I just do not think they should be limited to just the physical dimension. Stuff that interfaces with psychosocial elements are just as suitable for simulation in my opinion. That's why I love Dogs in the Vineyard so much. It matches my impression of how conflicts can escalate from differences of opinion to violence. The mounting stress and trauma of Blades is another element that speaks directly to some of my own life experiences. I value a lot of these games from a primarily character inhabitation / simulation of inner life perspective.</blockquote>

Verification