Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8266398" data-attributes="member: 42582">When I made my post I wasn't thinking in terms of risk, just different approaches to play - including different ways of putting the &quot;myth&quot; (ie the pre-established setting elements) to work.In the situation you describe there is a possibility of a move from &quot;story now&quot; to GM-determined &quot;story before&quot;. In a typical D&amp;D game (I'm thinking especially AD&amp;D, 3E or 5e), I think this possibility is more likely to arise not from a lack of principles but a lack of resolution procedures that can work independently of a GM's prior conception of outcomes. (I don't know PF2 at all well enough to comment on it in this respect.)Just as likely, though, and maybe more likely - again I don't know the details of PF2 in this respect compared to those other versions of D&amp;D - is that the resolution procedures, which include a lot of map-and-key resolution, equipment lists and gold piece totals and the like, push play away from &quot;story now&quot; to a procedural focus and a more &quot;wargamey&quot; feel. This possibility is also present if the system being used is something like RM, RQ, Classic Traveller or similar.In either case I think the table would, or at least could, notice - so It would be ending up playing something different from what we set out to play. The opposite can happen, too - drifting from what was intended as &quot;procedural&quot; play to a more &quot;story now&quot; approach. I've done this using RM. And then you notice how all that procedural stuff starts to get in the way, or require particular &quot;tricks&quot; for working around it. Even Prince Valiant, a classic system for story now RPGing, has gold piece totals that occasionally rear their ugly heads!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8266398, member: 42582"] When I made my post I wasn't thinking in terms of [I]risk[/I], just different approaches to play - including different ways of putting the "myth" (ie the pre-established setting elements) to work. In the situation you describe there is a possibility of a move from "story now" to GM-determined "story before". In a typical D&D game (I'm thinking especially AD&D, 3E or 5e), I think this possibility is more likely to arise not from a lack of principles but a lack of resolution procedures that can work independently of a GM's prior conception of outcomes. (I don't know PF2 at all well enough to comment on it in this respect.) Just as likely, though, and maybe more likely - again I don't know the details of PF2 in this respect compared to those other versions of D&D - is that the resolution procedures, which include a lot of map-and-key resolution, equipment lists and gold piece totals and the like, push play away from "story now" to a procedural focus and a more "wargamey" feel. This possibility is also present if the system being used is something like RM, RQ, Classic Traveller or similar. In either case I think the table would, or at least could, notice - so It would be [I]ending up playing something different from what we set out to play[/I]. The opposite can happen, too - drifting from what was intended as "procedural" play to a more "story now" approach. I've done this using RM. And then you notice how all that procedural stuff starts to get in the way, or require particular "tricks" for working around it. Even Prince Valiant, a classic system for story now RPGing, has gold piece totals that occasionally rear their ugly heads! [/QUOTE]

Verification