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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8268032" data-attributes="member: 70468">I think part of the conversation is pedagogical in nature. I can see how that can be patronizing. At the same time, just like I agree with Edwards that “sandbox” is kind of a nebulous and ill-defined term, I also understand the same can be said of “living world”. It’s incredibly broad and can mean different things depending on what you are trying to do. Is it a setting with a rich history? Internal consistency? Does it have moving parts that operate in the background until they come crashing together (into the PCs or the vice versa)? Does it operate more at a status quo? Is the important thing really that the PCs’ actions have consequences, and it’s the fact that the PCs can change the world through what they do what makes it living?I think the source of this conflict is that there are different ideas (possibly or probably beyond what I posited above) that are viewed as intrinsic to that mode of play, and anything else just doesn’t resonate. It’s like neo-trad play for me. It doesn’t resonate on such a fundamental level that I simply don’t grok it. If someone told me we were going to play an OC campaign, I’d have to bow out. I already have a tendency to cause problems in trad campaigns (and I’m pretty sure I’ve broken at least one), so it’s only fair I don’t screw up people’s character arc thing they want to do. So, I think I understand how a Story Now approach to a living world would not resonate.I’ve been on both sides of the table in Story Now games with that approach. I’ve run Dungeon World, and we’re playing Scum and Villainy. Our Dungeon World game was fun, but the created setting was incredibly gonzo. I actually felt like everything got screwed up and proffered a restart, but my players seemed to be enjoying it. In retrospect, I should have had a firmer hand in curating things. I think it would have been more fun for me. I think that’s more akin to the “setting-centric” approach described in the <a href="http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/setting_dissection.pdf" target="_blank">essay</a> linked earlier. We were doing something character-centric, and it felt bad to me. In our Scum and Villainy game, there’s an established setting, so we’re adding details instead of fleshing it out. Because of the implied constraint (consistency with the established setting), it’s easier for players to make contributions that are more appropriate for the setting.While it’s true I want to do most or all of setting creation in my Worlds Without Number game because it’s something I enjoy doing, the practical reality is that my players don’t seem to be equally enthusiastic for it. In our Scum and Villainy game, I am the primary driver of setting contributions. How that works is I say something, and it becomes true (with curation from the GM). For example, I was hurt after our last mission, so I say I’m going to Hello Nurse (a medical clinic where every treatment comes with a happy ending), and now that’s a thing that exists in the setting. When we were looking for jobs, I reached out to one of the people who served under me when I was in the military who had joined the Vigilance (basically the Jedi). Now she is someone who exists, and we have a new contact.My reason for bringing up the Right to Dream is that I’m trying to avoid incoherence. I think I’ve stumbled into that in the past. We have done exploration games where I dialed in on a story thread that seemed interesting to the players, and then the feedback after the campaign is there was less exploration than they expected. I did what I thought they would like, but it apparently undermined the agenda. I’m trying to avoid that. I have been trying to work out principles to keep me honest, but it would be really helpful if someone had already done that thinking. Unfortunately, the discourse around the Right to Dream is pretty lacking.Take the <a href="http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/setting_dissection.pdf" target="_blank">essay</a> I linked. It frequently quotes Gygax because he writes some nice things, but the role-playing game itself is not about those things. Edwards variously identifies AD&D as Step On Up or incoherent. There’s some stuff on High Concept Simulation, but it feels like a grab bag of classic games. It also suggests that the Right to Dream can be about things like coping with childhood trauma, and then spend several paragraphs talking about reality simulation. That’s a frequent issue I see when trying to find other discussions on it.That feels wrong to me. The idea I’ve had is it’s game as science experiment. You take an initial situation, setting, plot, or whatever; and then you add PCs to it. After things go in motion, you need to let them play out without interference. Inspired by the idea of the impartial referee in OSR play, I think you need to disclaim any attachment to outcomes. Where Story Now expects you to be a fan of the characters, you need to be a fan of the experiment and its integrity. Based on that, I’d posit that the Right to Dream should be considered something distinct from Story Now even if it overlaps quite a bit (e.g., a story emerges through play even though that’s not necessarily the point).Update: I also want to add that I’d like to know that what I do is a thing. I can’t imagine that it’s particularly unique. There’s overlap with OSR, but I feel like there’s also some divergence.</blockquote>

Verification