Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9508222" data-attributes="member: 7040941">I think a concise way to put it, if vague, is that the ideal I see is a game that utilizes its two halves to their best potential, whilst interwining them in a way that elevates them both. I think it was actually only natural that throughout my design work and research I ended up gravitating towards a mechanical blend of improv and systemic world design, because these two really complement each other very well as they're rooted in the same dynamics. Relatively minimal components with high interactivity leading to unpredictable gameplay. Blending these two together, and finding ways to have them interact with each other is the key to reaching the ideal, and ideally speaking what would result is a game that is as wide as it is deep, but its also super accessible, because that emergence is honed to avoid having to hard define too many baseline gameplay elements. I don't think I'm quite there yet, but I'd definitely say many aspects are getting there. My Magic system as an example is essentially 15 Spells and a couple Rules, and through them you can do not just anything you could have done in DND, DCC, or even Ars, but also virtually anything you can think of, and the game is structured in and out of combat such that it embraces anything you come up with in a way that maintains its own depth. Its an improvisational depth that goes toe to toe with systemic depth, but in a way that lifts the floor for them both, as they empower Players who interact with them from either side to embrace both sides simultaneously. Metagaming is Roleplaying is Metagaming is Roleplaying. Surprisingly, it wasn't all that stark of a difference going into it for the first time. I think the most critical difference I saw was the willingness of all the newcomers to power through issues and mistakes in a way I seldom see with folks trying out RPGs, even if they're coming from being fans of Critical Role or Dimension 20. I would probably attribute that to something intrinsic to people who'd be willing to go do improv in public. Exactly right. Event writing thus far has been an exercise in mirroring the same ways the Keeper had in terms of generating Complications, Encounters, and Boons (CEB), where different themes are baked into each permutation. The They Are Coming Event is obviously correlating to a Combat-type CEB, whereas we also have "Roleplay" and "Lore" CEBs, which the GM uses, in part, to prompt exploration of these internal and external motivations. In the scheme of things, the game will have a default listing of Events to use, but I think the expectation will be to tailor new lists to where the party goes off to adventure in, and the same CEB generator I'm constructing for them can be used for that, alongside some general guidelines for how to phrase an Event. Not to get snippy, but you do see the word "If" in that sentence no? I don't see how or why you're doubling down on this when I already clarified what you're asserting isn't what I was saying. I think these questions are non-sequiturs stemming from whatever miscommunication is going on here that has you refusing to accept what I tell you I'm not saying. The miscommunication may be on me, and thats fine, but doubling down when I've literally told you I'm not saying that is kind of absurd. I would refer you to the section on Narrative Improv, which is all you're describing here. You're also overstating the limits of the possibility space even in this niche example, by taking the idea of "open-ended" too literally; its as though you're reading that and thinking "infinite" when that's not right. You're conflating two different things. I'm talking about the choices you make that aren't laid out on a character sheet or in the rulebook, and which, outside of the highly structured Module or Adventure Path (but even then, see Narrative Improv), aren't possible to define beforehand. In a way it seems you don't actually believe in the idea of improvisation at all, given the lengths to which you went to try and discredit Spolin for some reason. Viola Spolin is specifically recognized as popularizing the idea of modern improvisational theater and codifying popular approaches to participating in it. At least there I can understand where the miscommunication came from on that one, seeing as you took what I said and took it far too literally. Saying that improv in general has its roots in Spolin's work isn't me saying she invented improv, its me being unspecific because I generally trust that people can understand the point of what I'm saying. I was still clearly elaborating on where our modern perception of what Improv is comes from; that isn't in commedia, its in Spolin's work in the American theater scene 100 years ago.</blockquote>

Verification