Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8969321" data-attributes="member: 82106">This thread arose, presumably, out of another thread in which [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] touched on the idea of having 2 completely disconnected processes, yes. One in which a game, as pure game, would be played, and another in which the outcomes of that game would be mapped onto the fiction post hoc. There's no reason the two would 'not agree with each other' that I can see, and plainly one would presumably MAKE them agree. However I think the goal was to break away from the idea where the character's fictional actions are dictated by what is expedient in a game sense (IE that a character with 'high strength' will naturally always leverage that) or maybe more accurately that RP could be more free from gamist considerations if the two are largely independent. But yes, I think there's a set of questions about exactly how one can go about this in such a way that one or the other of game or narrative doesn't become largely perfunctory. Certainly if there is a game at all, and the two are connected in any way at any point (which I assume they must be to form an RPG) its difficult to see how RP (the fiction) will entirely escape from gamist constraints. However, I think this thread is also kind of going in its own direction which maybe doesn't espouse such a deep disconnect between the two in the first place. I personally favor closing the loop fairly quickly so that the two things are highly connected. Frankly I think 4e D&D, played in the way [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] seem to be running it, really hits the mark pretty well. You can play a combat, and 4e will pretty well support keeping narrative in the background for that if you want, but its also endowed with a rich set of ways to link the two in a fashion that will make sense to all the participants.</blockquote>

Verification