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="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9697587" data-attributes="member: 6795602">There's a few different directions but probably not mutually exclusive directions.Kind of, but I think you have that backwards.  If I accurately understand what narrativist is then I can explain why my play either is or isn't narrativist and where specifically it diverges.  I don't want you to classify my play for me.If you are going to answer then at least address the meat of my question which was, why can't doing the inventory management be contained either at the start (low conflict) such that conflict rises from there or as part of the conflict is resolved phase.  If either of these framings are possible then the amount of table time spent on inventory management doesn't matter (in this specific way).  It's still part of the rising conflict.Again, my question there was why can't that room be treated holistically as one step in the rising conflict?  I'm laying aside the moral line question for a moment, because I'm examining whether this meets the rising conflict criteria first.  And if not, then why not.I don't mind adding an additional criteria in, but I'm struggling to see why either of those instances are regarded as player-authored conflict across a moral line.  Your talking about traits and whether the system or player gets to ultimately make a statement about the character.To clarify, I don't see the conflict in this description at all.   As to player authored I presume the difference is in player authored statement vs system authored statement (Side question - do systems author?  and if not then who is the author here?)  It's not clear where the moral line is either.This helps clarify what you mean by setting and situation (seem to be subsets of each other to me, but that's not super relevant at this stage).I'd note that living world sandbox play often predominately features exactly these kind of open ended situations and 'factions' that you can choose to help or not.  Often at the expense of others.  Do you keep the Axe of Good Fortune for yourself, give it to the Dwarves, or give it to the halflings who have fallen on hard times.  That is a moral question, right?  The game itself provides benefits for any of those 3 courses of action.  And while I would classify this kind of thing as a conflict, I'm not sure rising conflict can be applied to anything like this.  Or maybe you can explain how it can?  Note: This is essentially where I get the notion that your definition of narrativist uses a few different definitions of conflict within it - which is fine as long as if that's what's happening it's understood.The best summation is probably a greater understanding of the nuances around the definition of narrativist you gave so that I can classify things for myself.</blockquote>

Verification