Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9675793" data-attributes="member: 7025577">I think the way this is to be interpreted is very different in the two playstyles though. In the narativistic context something new should be introduced. The common result of failing in trad is however often the oposite - a posibility that was once there is now no longer pressent. Both are consequences that changes the situation. However one is a complication while the other is in one way a &quot;simplification&quot;. The complication is of course much more &quot;engaging&quot; and &quot;interesting&quot;. But the removal of the obvious options through failures could foster more creative problem solving.Take opening a door trough lockpicking. The trad way would be failure - you recognize this lock is beyond your abilities. This is a consequence, as you just learned something new about the situation - the situation has changed, and the pacing are still moving forward. The problem is still the same, but less desireable options like noisy breaking down the door, trying to find a way around, knocking on the door hoping anyone on the other side gets curious and opens it, or maybe expend a spell slot to put the door on fire are suddently things that should be considered more carefully.In a narativistic game a failure is generally introducing some new complications - the classic being guards rounding the corner while lockpicking. This also causes the situation to change. However suddently the problem isn't the door but the guards. The entire focus of the scene has shifted. This is definitely more dramatic, but much more conductive to fun reactivity than contemplative proaction.So again this might seem like a common principle, but claiming it is just &quot;codified&quot; in PbtA and similar games is missing the point. Those games codifies it, but in a way that is very spesific to the kind of experience they seek to produce.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim, post: 9675793, member: 7025577"] I think the way this is to be interpreted is very different in the two playstyles though. In the narativistic context something new should be introduced. The common result of failing in trad is however often the oposite - a posibility that was once there is now no longer pressent. Both are consequences that changes the situation. However one is a complication while the other is in one way a "simplification". The complication is of course much more "engaging" and "interesting". But the removal of the obvious options through failures could foster more creative problem solving. Take opening a door trough lockpicking. The trad way would be failure - you recognize this lock is beyond your abilities. This is a consequence, as you just learned something new about the situation - the situation has changed, and the pacing are still moving forward. The problem is still the same, but less desireable options like noisy breaking down the door, trying to find a way around, knocking on the door hoping anyone on the other side gets curious and opens it, or maybe expend a spell slot to put the door on fire are suddently things that should be considered more carefully. In a narativistic game a failure is generally introducing some new complications - the classic being guards rounding the corner while lockpicking. This also causes the situation to change. However suddently the problem isn't the door but the guards. The entire focus of the scene has shifted. This is definitely more dramatic, but much more conductive to fun reactivity than contemplative proaction. So again this might seem like a common principle, but claiming it is just "codified" in PbtA and similar games is missing the point. Those games codifies it, but in a way that is very spesific to the kind of experience they seek to produce. [/QUOTE]

Verification