Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9847333" data-attributes="member: 7044566">Here’s where I’m at.One: Creating fiction in response to each other is trivial. The player does something and the GM makes up whatever. Rinse and repeat.Two: Constraints are what makes role-playing fun. So if you prep an adventure with fictional stuff, you have your constraints. This is broadly the trad model.Three: Constraints, trajectory and purpose work together to allow us to play the fiction and find out what happens. The constraints are the thing that give rise to the imagined causality of role-play, as if the fiction has a life of it’s own. The trajectory is the mutual thing, we as a group want to find out. A question(s) we want the answer to.Four: if there is no or very minimal myth, then the constraints AND trajectory must come from elsewhere. Usually formal structure and mechanics.So the question ‘what integral design elements support that?’ is very broad. I’m not a fan of either Blades or low myth PbtA. Blades tends to work when the GM is being very attentive to the consequences and currency. I’ve seen this work but because it’s popular it’s held up as an exemplar when in fact it requires a specific skill set.I think the three best places to start with the low-myth family of games are Trollbabe, Inspectres and Showdown. It’s far easier to see how the different constraint and structural mechanics work.</blockquote>