Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thormagni" data-source="post: 2651543" data-attributes="member: 13637">OK. I got through most of it. My first thought is that he went an awful long way to say that he thought that AD&amp;D and Champions were failed role-playing systems.My second thought is that I disagree with him completely on the idea that trying to tell stories through RPG is a moronic goal for playing. I concede that I am possibly the moron he is talking about, but I very much think that role-playing games are at heart a joint story-telling enterprise. The GM and players agree upon a setting and some ground rules of genre (used here as a description of the conventions and mores of the joint game world.) Then the GM sets a plot in motion, detailing the goals, motivations and schemes of the various non-player characters and points of conflict between the NPCs and the PCs. The PCs are then introduced to the plot and the &quot;game&quot; is all about deciding jointly how the two groups of characters interact and how those interactions affect the plot.Rather than thinking this is stupid, I think this is the heart of what I enjoy about role-playing. It is a joint enterprise, requiring a give and take between the players and the GM to develop a plot and story. I mean, he ridicules the entire idea of this sort of give and take.I can't believe he found hundreds of disaffected players who just sit on their hands saying &quot;My character does nothing.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thormagni, post: 2651543, member: 13637"] OK. I got through most of it. My first thought is that he went an awful long way to say that he thought that AD&D and Champions were failed role-playing systems. My second thought is that I disagree with him completely on the idea that trying to tell stories through RPG is a moronic goal for playing. I concede that I am possibly the moron he is talking about, but I very much think that role-playing games are at heart a joint story-telling enterprise. The GM and players agree upon a setting and some ground rules of genre (used here as a description of the conventions and mores of the joint game world.) Then the GM sets a plot in motion, detailing the goals, motivations and schemes of the various non-player characters and points of conflict between the NPCs and the PCs. The PCs are then introduced to the plot and the "game" is all about deciding jointly how the two groups of characters interact and how those interactions affect the plot. Rather than thinking this is stupid, I think this is the heart of what I enjoy about role-playing. It is a joint enterprise, requiring a give and take between the players and the GM to develop a plot and story. I mean, he ridicules the entire idea of this sort of give and take. I can't believe he found hundreds of disaffected players who just sit on their hands saying "My character does nothing." [/QUOTE]

Verification