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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5500979" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think this particular claim is true, and I'm not sure what you have in mind - the Andy Collins quote about game elements?World and Monsters, which talks about how to us the fictional game elements to run an engaging RPG, seems to me to talk exactly about how the 4e fiction incorporates thematic material.I took it to be a shared assumption between LostSoul's post and my reply that we're talking about narrativist play where the warlock is part of it. If that assumption isn't true, then the sort of approach I talked about would be less appropriate.GMing intragroup conflict in a mainstream party playstyle is tricky. As I've experienced it, it relies on a range of techniques and understandings - mostly informal and developed via familiarity among the players at the table. Done well, it lets "supporting the group" be consistent with "conflicting with the group" (eg via "the enemy of my enemy", or obligations of honour or loyalty that override the lack of friendship).I know of Sorcerer, but don't know it. I find what you say easy to believe.I was talking to my play group this afternoon before our actual gaming started, and making the point that to try and explain on the internet how we play 4e I have to draw comparisons to games (and GMing techniques, like my favourite quote from Paul Czege) that are the avant garde of RPGing, if it makes sense to talk about RPGing having an avant garde. Whereas our game is in most respects pretty mainstream fantasy.(Incidentally - on the reward side I use minor quest XPs fairly regularly to make sure that thematic play doesn't cost in terms of the pacing of PC advancement, and it also gets the non-mechanical reward of engaging the table.)</blockquote>

Verification