Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8936911" data-attributes="member: 42582">Does anyone not realise that there are both obvious and subtle differences between &quot;just in time&quot; and pre-authored fiction?I don't think anyone in this thread is confused about the difference between playing Keep on the Borderlands (as presented in module B2) or Tomb of Horror (as presented in module S1) compared to playing a session of Burning Wheel or Blade in the Dark.One obvious difference is that B2 and S1 both present some pre-authored fiction which is (at the start of play) secret to the GM, and that is intended to serve as a constraint on both framing and resolution in some reasonably familiar ways: it regulates the geographical elements of both framing and resolution (&quot;I move . . .&quot; &quot;I peek around the corner . . .&quot; etc); it provides answers to action declarations like &quot;I look for . . .&quot; or &quot;What do I see when . . .&quot;; it thus creates a framework or structure which the players can explore and come to know by means of action declarations such as the ones I've just outlined.At least in my experience, this sort of play procedure is not a prominent part of Burning Wheel play. Typically the answer to a question like &quot;What do I see when . . .&quot; is generated &quot;just in time&quot; by drawing on cues and signals (and mood and whim) that are not found in a pre-authored set of notes including a map and its key. (In this way it more closely resembles how a fight between the PCs and some Orcs might be resolved in a typical play through of B2.)But one thing that isn't different in either case is that the imaginary stuff is imaginary. Which is what I took [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]'s point to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8936911, member: 42582"] Does anyone not realise that there are both obvious and subtle differences between "just in time" and pre-authored fiction? I don't think anyone in this thread is confused about the difference between playing Keep on the Borderlands (as presented in module B2) or Tomb of Horror (as presented in module S1) compared to playing a session of Burning Wheel or Blade in the Dark. One obvious difference is that B2 and S1 both present some pre-authored fiction which is (at the start of play) secret to the GM, and that is intended to serve as a constraint on both framing and resolution in some reasonably familiar ways: it regulates the geographical elements of both framing and resolution ("I move . . ." "I peek around the corner . . ." etc); it provides answers to action declarations like "I look for . . ." or "What do I see when . . ."; it thus creates a framework or structure which the players can explore and come to know by means of action declarations such as the ones I've just outlined. At least in my experience, this sort of play procedure is not a prominent part of Burning Wheel play. Typically the answer to a question like "What do I see when . . ." is generated "just in time" by drawing on cues and signals (and mood and whim) that are not found in a pre-authored set of notes including a map and its key. (In this way it more closely resembles how a fight between the PCs and some Orcs might be resolved in a typical play through of B2.) But one thing that isn't different in either case is that the imaginary stuff is imaginary. Which is what I took [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]'s point to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification