Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9303430" data-attributes="member: 82106">This is a fair analysis in terms of trad play, which is something that 4e certainly aims to allow. However, this sort of argument/problem/solution doesn't really matter in terms of Narrativist play. That is, there's no 'plot' which can be 'spoiled' by the players doing A or B in a game that I or [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] (I'm pretty darn sure) would be running. OK, the players are clever, they have an exodus knife, they use it to get them past an obstacle in their self-assigned quest. That's great! Now there's a new situation, new obstacles, whatever. Maybe they attain their goal this way, OK. They're now level X and it's on to the next thing, probably driven by some larger overarching thematic elements of play. Again, looking at MBC's PBP thread we can easily pick out these themes and it is really very little effort to imagine what happens if the characters employ such a device.Ugh! I mean, I don't particularly object to the concept &quot;what is good for the goose is good for the gander&quot;, by all means give the bad guys an exodus knife and see what happens. OTOH it would be a bad idea not to give the players a shot at figuring it out and countering it too! Nor should every shtick the players employ in play be automatically countered like it is some 'loophole in play', you are falling into the adversarial classic D&amp;D play trap of us vs them. 4e is much more potent a game as a means to explicate all the rich thematics of its elements and let the players really bring them out and play it up, than as something where the GM is trying to out clever the players and 'block their exploits'. That sort of play works, for a while, but it is pretty limited in its scope, IMHO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9303430, member: 82106"] This is a fair analysis in terms of trad play, which is something that 4e certainly aims to allow. However, this sort of argument/problem/solution doesn't really matter in terms of Narrativist play. That is, there's no 'plot' which can be 'spoiled' by the players doing A or B in a game that I or [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] (I'm pretty darn sure) would be running. OK, the players are clever, they have an exodus knife, they use it to get them past an obstacle in their self-assigned quest. That's great! Now there's a new situation, new obstacles, whatever. Maybe they attain their goal this way, OK. They're now level X and it's on to the next thing, probably driven by some larger overarching thematic elements of play. Again, looking at MBC's PBP thread we can easily pick out these themes and it is really very little effort to imagine what happens if the characters employ such a device. Ugh! I mean, I don't particularly object to the concept "what is good for the goose is good for the gander", by all means give the bad guys an exodus knife and see what happens. OTOH it would be a bad idea not to give the players a shot at figuring it out and countering it too! Nor should every shtick the players employ in play be automatically countered like it is some 'loophole in play', you are falling into the adversarial classic D&D play trap of us vs them. 4e is much more potent a game as a means to explicate all the rich thematics of its elements and let the players really bring them out and play it up, than as something where the GM is trying to out clever the players and 'block their exploits'. That sort of play works, for a while, but it is pretty limited in its scope, IMHO. [/QUOTE]

Verification