Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8440018" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe. To use a culinary analogy - everyone's favourite - some people just don't feel comfortable sitting down at a table where all the food is spicy.Based on my (admittedly limited) experience, those people are going to be out of luck in Seoul, where everything on offer is spicy.A RPGing table which is not comfortable with situation-first might have to play backstory-first. That's obviously their prerogative. But it doesn't mean that there is no difference between the two approaches!My only addition to this: it is possible to play "situation first" and "story now" without using formal processes of this sort. The Forge called this "vanilla narrativism" -  vanilla because no fancy, formal methods are being used - just table understandings and practices.In 5e, after everyone has built a PC with a background, you might spend 10 to 30 minutes having everyone discuss how their PCs' backgrounds intersect, and clearly establishing one relationship/loyalty for each PC to a NPC or some other entity/faction in the setting. Then the GM frames a scene that speaks to these concerns (maybe if there are 4 or 5 players the initial scene foregrounds some but not all, depending on the details of the PC backgrounds and the deftness of the GM). And then action declarations commence!I don't see any a priori reason why that can't be done. Is 5e the best system for it? In the abstract, probably not - I'd suggest Burning Wheel! But if that's the system for which everyone sitting around the table has books and is familiar with the PC build and resolution rules? Then suddenly it's claim to optimality at that table has strengthened quite a bit!</blockquote>

Verification