Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9702136" data-attributes="member: 7025577">Yes, the examples were picked due to the interesting relationships with the 3 concepts (player principle, GM principle and FF technique). Even if SBY and NY is seemingly quite similar, the difference makes all 3 concept "behave" very differently in the context of the play. Introducing RRY into the analysis was mainly to introduce a "baseline" highlighting the key contrast between SBY and NY. But I found it a bit facinating how both NY and RRY contrasted with SBY in terms of fail forward.I find it really interesting how you identify SBY as no autonomy, no-myth PbtA/ironsworn though. My modelling idea for it was to take an aspect of living world D&D and amp up to 1000. None of these was meant to be realistic playstyles, but rather to be used as tools illustrating how even moderate differences in play can have major influence on how a concept would be interpreted into the playstyle.I introduced the short form to allow some mild association with real world play styles for comprehension, while using the abrevations to try to ephasize distancing it from real play styles. Not sure how well that attempted linguistic trick worked.</blockquote>