Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7090593" data-attributes="member: 48965">I find that off putting since it was exactly this characteristic... you can create/do whatever you can imagine that was one of the major selling points of role-playing games to me as a kid.Well that's not a tagline that's going to go over well with me and my group...lol!  But more seriously why don't we want an experience where that is possible vs. one where it is accepted that it is not possible?I'm not really speaking to creative ownership, I don't think a well run traditional game can happen if there is total creative ownership of setting or characters.  I don't think the GM coming to play with a vision of play, a detailed setting and/or created adventures or a player coming to the game with a strong character concept, expectations for the hopes and dreams of his character or even for an overall story for his character precludes letting the creative process of play do it's work.  What precludes the creative process of play doing it's work is the inability to allow for those things to be changed through gameplay and that in and of itself is not inherent to individual creativity or traditional play.  If anything I think as a player or DM I would have an issue caring enough to enjoy a game where the setting is ill-defined, there is a lack of defined adventures, the characters have little to no concept and the players themselves have no expectations (and thus IMO no drive to advocate) for their characters.  This isn't a value judgement on whether it serves the purpose you have stated it does since I wouldn't know from actual play but a statement of my initial reactions to the description of what comprises this type of play.  It doesn't seem to offer much that I find appealing... and I'd wager pitching it like that wouldn't elicit much excitement with the average person.Again I think you are mistaking preference for certain results and preference for certain methods as one and the same when they aren't.  We always collaborate and create when we play the game the question is in how we go about doing it. In my traditional D&D game we collaborate and create through play using the traditional tools afforded to us... the players use their characters to affect and change the world and the DM/GM in turn uses the world to affect and change the characters.  I think this differs from your method in that players and GM's are afforded different and distinct tools (I won't try to go into depth here as I am still unclear on what the dividing line between GM/player would actually be in your playstyle if it's totally collaborative and no one owns anything).I agree with the first statement... but I don't agree that in order for it to be achieved we must all have access to the same tools in equal measure.  This example of advocacy is, after your earlier statements, a little confusing though... if no one owns anything why does it still seem that advocacy splits exactly where it does in traditional gaming (i.e. GM= NPC's and world while players= characters)?  And that the system is a means for resolution... just like in a traditional game?  I'm trying to get a grasp on what the practical as opposed to philisophical differences in play styles are but I'm not getting a clear picture here.  Again I am failing to see the difference here vs. traditional games...Ok now I'm more lost... D&D allows for more that physical consequences.  Conditions can be imposed... NPC attitudes can be changed...and well I'm not sure what "conceptual violence" entails but I think my point that you are not regulated to physical damage in the biggest traditional game out there stands at this point.But players can, through their characters enact these same things in a traditional game... with the possible exception of trusting the system to deliver a compelling shared experience (of course the system needs the right people and the rigt type of GM to run it in order for the game to function... very similar though admittedly not identical to having the right GM for the right group of people).</blockquote>

Verification