NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9697576" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER], I am not sure where you are hoping to go with this.If you are trying to work out whether or not your D&D play is narrativist, I don't know if that is something that anyone else can help you with, in the absence of significant accounts of actual play.If you're unclear why spending an hour of table time doing the maths and inventory management of resting and re-equipping is not rising conflict across a moral line, I'm not sure what more I can add, other than to ask: Where is the conflict? How is it rising? What is the moral line? I'm not saying that it's a prior impossible to have a narrativist game of rest and restock: I just don't know of one, and at the moment am at a bit of a loss as to what it would look like.The same is true for things like the frictionless room in WPM. There's no rising conflict there: the pressure on the PCs does not step up, the room has no active opposition, it's a puzzle that is primarily logistical in its solution; and there is no moral line. If you see some rising conflict and moral line there, you're going to have to tell me more clearly what it is that you're seeing.As for the difference between player-authored conflict across a moral line and following along with the workings of the system to reach system-dictated conclusions, I can't do better than (again) adduce the difference between Pendragon and something like The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel. In Pendragon, the system generates changes in the traits, and the traits then (help) shape how the player is to play their PC. The traits are a type of "model" of the PC.Whereas in TRoS or BW, the player establishes their Spiritual Attributes or Beliefs based on their own priorities, and is able to control how they change and how they impact play. For instance, BW expects Beliefs to be broken as much as adhered to, and has a "reward system" for both possibilities. The system doesn't ask the player to faithfully portray their PC, but rather to make a statement by portraying their PC a certain way.The same contrast applies in the context of setting-based or situation-based rising conflict across a moral line. For setting, contrast a setting that more-or-less prescribes a path or orientation for how the players play their PCs (eg Dragonlance, at least as conventionally played) to one which invites the players to pick a side, and picking a side means escalating a conflict across a moral line (this was what I found in the 4e D&D setting). For situation, contrast a situation that comes with an expectation as to player response (eg many of the "hooks" into D&D modules, which involve rescuing someone or otherwise intervening in some in media res situation), to one that invites the players to act, but leaves that action open - but whatever it is, the players' choice will escalate conflict across a moral line. (Good Prince Valiant scenarios are like this.)Anyway, as I said, I'm not sure where you are wanting to go with this.</blockquote>

Verification