Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 9667966" data-attributes="member: 7029930">I'd like to second [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER]'s appreciation of [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s post upthread which beautifully illustrated the differences between the playstyles.I also appreciate [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER]'s response with that example from his game.My take is that part of the attempt to create a Living World game is that a certain amount of detail, logistical and otherwise is used to assist in creating that immersive experience (which is always being chased) at the table. This is just but one method in that attempt (others include, first-person speaking, props, visual and hearing aids etc). Given Robert's LARPing background it makes a lot of sense.But just focusing on that Living World detail, for some this level of granularity engagement provides little to no return and may be considered an unnecessary time consumption, for others, it feeds into their immersive experience and they appreciate the slower pace.I think games such as the ones run by [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] see a faster return on character development since the focus of play is to prioritize the character tension, have them face this crucible (as its been referred to sometimes in this thread) and to answer those greater questions about self and ideals.In Trad games these issues are certainly slower to materialise as the plausible content generated by the GM prioritises their vision of the setting rather than ensuring they create plausible content which ties to characters.Coming from the Trad sandbox play background, I had this internal conflict that all I was doing was illusionism and thus put effort into creating a homebrew system to heighten Traits, Bonds, Ideals, Flaws for my game and injected some player facing techniques as I tried to lessen the impact of GM Decides/Adjudicates for the setting. But that is my personal journey.There are pro's for a slower pace which don't always seem to be highlighted as we tend to focus on the negative. To give you 1 example from our attempt at our hybrid game last nightParty met with an eminent archmage of the underdark, the exiled drow from OotA for those that know the reference. At one point just after the formal introductions, the archmage extended his hand, prompting the party Artificer&Academic who has an ego of his own, to move forward in an attempt to shake it (player declaration) only for the archmage in the last moments to move his own arm to direct them towards the table and refreshments, leaving an awkward looking artificer with a 1/2 way extended hand in air, while the archmage turned to take a seat at the table head. It was a deliberate attempt and a show of dominance. Of course every other player at the table loved this scene, where their snooty aloof companion got up-classed.In a slower form of roleplay you can create a greater amount of engaging scenes like this given the campaign pace.And to be clear I'm not saying the above is not created in the Narrative games but playing through scenes at a glacial pace is more Living World than games which are concerned about framing.But as there are pro's there are also cons with this style of play. We know these cons as many of us have spoken about these over the years.As always you find styles that are comfortable for you to run (at your best) and which work with your table/s.</blockquote>

Verification