Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 5342989" data-attributes="member: 53">I disagree with something like this being &quot;not a traditional roleplaying game.&quot;&nbsp; IT's something of a sliding scale, as mentioned before.&nbsp; I know of a few roleplaying games I would consider &quot;traditional&quot; that use some level of player control over the narrative.One of my favorite RPGs is James Bond.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some of the rules allow some control for the players in order to simulate the genre.&nbsp; At the lowest level, if the players do something like knock out a guard and use his uniform to infiltrate the enemy base, the clothing always fits.&nbsp; That's sort of a passive amount of narrative control.At a higher level, players can always try to spend one or more hero points to modify the environment in small, appropriate ways.&nbsp; The GM determines how many points need to be spent (mostly based on appropriateness) or even if it is possible.&nbsp; For example, it might only cost one point to have a suit of armor with sort in the high class mansion, it might cost 2 or 3 to have a revolver in the desk drawer open in front of you (and that might not even be allowed).In pretty much all other ways, James Bond plays as what most here would consider a traditional RPG.&nbsp; In my mind, it is.At another level, Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant has a chapter in the advanced section recommending that players take over as the GM for periods of time.&nbsp; For example, if the adventure calls for a sea voyage, perhaps one of the players takes over for the duration of the voyage.&nbsp; His character is indisposed (perhaps seasick, if in character) and the GM takes over a temporary character (say one of the sailors).The game can player straight and&nbsp; very traditional, but it has this one element that definitely allows a certain amount of player control (in fact, the reward for taking over this duty allows a bit more) if it is used.&nbsp; I do feel that if you have a group that expects a very &quot;GM is in control of the world&quot; style of game, and you want to try to move in that direction, you probably want to start small.&nbsp; In my experience, most players are open to trying at least some of this, once they become used to the option being on the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Glyfair, post: 5342989, member: 53"] I disagree with something like this being "not a traditional roleplaying game." IT's something of a sliding scale, as mentioned before. I know of a few roleplaying games I would consider "traditional" that use some level of player control over the narrative. One of my favorite RPGs is [B]James Bond[/B]. Some of the rules allow some control for the players in order to simulate the genre. At the lowest level, if the players do something like knock out a guard and use his uniform to infiltrate the enemy base, the clothing always fits. That's sort of a passive amount of narrative control. At a higher level, players can always try to spend one or more hero points to modify the environment in small, appropriate ways. The GM determines how many points need to be spent (mostly based on appropriateness) or even if it is possible. For example, it might only cost one point to have a suit of armor with sort in the high class mansion, it might cost 2 or 3 to have a revolver in the desk drawer open in front of you (and that might not even be allowed). In pretty much all other ways, [I]James Bond[/I] plays as what most here would consider a traditional RPG. In my mind, it is. At another level, Greg Stafford's [I]Prince Valiant[/I] has a chapter in the advanced section recommending that players take over as the GM for periods of time. For example, if the adventure calls for a sea voyage, perhaps one of the players takes over for the duration of the voyage. His character is indisposed (perhaps seasick, if in character) and the GM takes over a temporary character (say one of the sailors). The game can player straight and very traditional, but it has this one element that definitely allows a certain amount of player control (in fact, the reward for taking over this duty allows a bit more) if it is used. I do feel that if you have a group that expects a very "GM is in control of the world" style of game, and you want to try to move in that direction, you probably want to start small. In my experience, most players are open to trying at least some of this, once they become used to the option being on the table. [/QUOTE]

Verification