Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 6104742" data-attributes="member: 99817">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23935" target="_blank">Nagol</a>  and  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=3400" target="_blank">billd91</a> Thanks for the answers. I get where you're both coming from. My follow up question would be - given the changes you feel would happen, would you expect anything positive to come from adhering to the Burning Wheel statement? And what do you feel you would lose?I certainly agree that it's a statement which could have multiple interpretations. So I don't disagree with yours, but I think maybe there are alternatives.It's not saying that the world beyond the bounds of what the characters  can see and hear is in stasis, waiting till they get within eye and  earshot.is interesting to examine. Because it could be said that 'the world' in any rpg is only present while it is being jointly imagined - ie while play is happening. And that it comes into existence by people proposing things and having them affirmed or denied by the group. In that sense 'the world' is made up of the focus of group imagination at a particular time and the collective memory of past proposals being accepted or rejected. Is 'the world' ever moving or in stasis? Or does it remain undefined up until the moment someone focuses attention on some part of it during play?I think billd91 was quite subtle (I mean that in the sense of perceptive or astute) in saying he wants 'the impression' of a 'larger, ongoing concern'. Can anyone say where these impressions come from or are they part of what we mean by creative agenda or playstyle preference?It's saying that changes to the game world that are not meant to poke  and prod at the characters, and especially the characters' beliefs and  instincts can be ignored by the game master.Yes, I think it can mean that. But again, I think it can mean something else. Because we could ask the question 'Who decides if a player character is involved?'I would suggest it is the player. So I think you're correct that if the GM can offer 'hooks' with a 100 per cent success rate you end up with play in which the Burning Wheel statement is adhered to.An alternative is to let the player make the first move and thereby dictate the direction of play. I see this as distinct from what is commonly seen as a 'player offers the GM a hook'. I'd suggest Beliefs allow the player to launch directly into action without the GM saying anything or offering anything beyond what was established by the group during set-up. Play can be driven by pro-activity or reactivity on the part of the players. I read the BW statement as a call for players to be pro-active from the very start of Act 1 Scene 1, and for GMs to react, to make them fight for what they believe.</blockquote>

Verification