Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5689504" data-attributes="member: 3820">I've always felt that one of the big draws of RPGs is felt when you're experiencing a book or a movie or some sort of story, and you say &quot;Aargh, if it were me, I would do this instead.&quot; And I quite understand the desire to model RPGs in a more literary/cinematic/storytelling fashion. That's where it comes from: the desire to experience the sort of situations you enjoy in stories, then to take control of the reins. To see how it plays out differently.Thing is, it just needs to be understood that the players are the ones taking control of the reins. Yes, the GM can indulge a little bit of that: after all, there's nothing wrong with taking a basic premise in one story and then asking &quot;So what if the antagonists did this instead of that?&quot; But in all cases, good story gaming is generally about that premise and that context, not about predetermined results. Seeing how it plays out, not dictating how it plays out.That said, I'm also not against some metagaming in an RPG, used with discretion. If a player says &quot;I'd like you to set up an excuse for my character to have a religious experience,&quot; there's nothing innately wrong with doing so. In such a case, the player is interested in what the character may become, and less interested in just seeing if he gets to play that character out of simple chance. I see that as pretty similar to writing out a character for a session due to player absence with a metagaming tweak to events; the purity of the organic experience isn't in itself sacred. It is only if the players would be less comfortable with its absence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5689504, member: 3820"] I've always felt that one of the big draws of RPGs is felt when you're experiencing a book or a movie or some sort of story, and you say "Aargh, if it were me, I would do [I]this[/I] instead." And I quite understand the desire to model RPGs in a more literary/cinematic/storytelling fashion. That's where it comes from: the desire to experience the sort of situations you enjoy in stories, then to take control of the reins. To see how it plays out differently. Thing is, it just needs to be understood that the players are the ones taking control of the reins. Yes, the GM can indulge a little bit of that: after all, there's nothing wrong with taking a basic premise in one story and then asking "So what if the antagonists did [I]this[/I] instead of that?" But in all cases, good story gaming is generally about that premise and that context, not about predetermined results. Seeing how it plays out, not dictating how it plays out. That said, I'm also not against some metagaming in an RPG, used with discretion. If a player says "I'd like you to set up an excuse for my character to have a religious experience," there's nothing innately wrong with doing so. In such a case, the player is interested in what the character may become, and less interested in just seeing if he gets to play that character out of simple chance. I see that as pretty similar to writing out a character for a session due to player absence with a metagaming tweak to events; the purity of the organic experience isn't in itself sacred. It is only if the players would be less comfortable with its absence. [/QUOTE]

Verification