Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7098339" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this relates to the idea of &quot;authenticity&quot;.To me, it also relates to this post I made upthread:In my 4e Dark Sun game, I have been inviting the bard player to speak the words that, in the fiction, correspond to his PC's powers (Vicious Mockery, Majestic Word). It makes a difference to play. And (I think quite obviously) it makes the player more vulnerable (eg, at a minimum, to contributing something to the fiction that others are not all that excited by).Obviously 4e has weaker teeth in this respect than BW - but I think I prefer it to the more traditional V,S,M approach, which through its sheer ubiquity of verbal components doesn't really require the player to speak anything at all. This is one of those cases where I find that 4e opens up a nice space for engagement with fictional positioning even though often (not always) it doesn't force that.Rereading your (Campbelll's) post and thinking about this reply also prompted another thought in response to [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]'s post about pre-written event-style modules: it seems to me that one function of pre-written modules is to provide a type of &quot;safety harness&quot; to ensure that authenticity doesn't lead to failure. So rather than require anyone to engage with consequences, the sequence of events is spelled out in advance so that no one has to stake the occurence of the &quot;story&quot; on his/her own efforts of play. It's as if the plot/story itself is in a &quot;Walled Off Garden&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7098339, member: 42582"] I think this relates to the idea of "authenticity". To me, it also relates to this post I made upthread: [indent][/indent] In my 4e Dark Sun game, I have been inviting the bard player to speak the words that, in the fiction, correspond to his PC's powers (Vicious Mockery, Majestic Word). It makes a difference to play. And (I think quite obviously) it makes the player more vulnerable (eg, at a minimum, to contributing something to the fiction that others are not all that excited by). Obviously 4e has weaker teeth in this respect than BW - but I think I prefer it to the more traditional V,S,M approach, which through its sheer ubiquity of verbal components doesn't really require the player to speak anything at all. This is one of those cases where I find that 4e opens up a nice space for engagement with fictional positioning even though often (not always) it doesn't force that. Rereading your (Campbelll's) post and thinking about this reply also prompted another thought in response to [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]'s post about pre-written event-style modules: it seems to me that one function of pre-written modules is to provide a type of "safety harness" to ensure that authenticity doesn't lead to failure. So rather than require anyone to engage with consequences, the sequence of events is spelled out in advance so that no one has to stake the occurence of the "story" on his/her own efforts of play. It's as if the plot/story itself is in a "Walled Off Garden". [/QUOTE]

Verification