Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9234555" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm not saying I have entirely judged YZE, or MYZ specifically, only on that basis. I haven't judged it at all, really. At best I commented on what the quotes sound like, that's all. Believe me, I'll play most anything enough to find out what it is and what I think about, assuming I have the bandwidth. MYZ probably isn't high on my bucket list, but that could always change. As for AW, DitV, DW, etc. I've played 2 of the three, one of them quite extensively, and I'm aiming for at least a DitV one-shot. I think I know them reasonably based on the terminology/taxonomy in use there, but of course I might be a bit off on DitV.Well, you obviously have your ideas about that which differ from mine. Neo-trad IMHO says almost nothing about design. I mean, you may define the play style of people who like a certain game as 'neo-trad', and see servicing that as a trend in design. I don't. It is at best a very loose and ill-defined term which can be applied to a lot of modernish play (IE post-mid-1980s).But mechanisms which align player and character intent are certainly part and parcel of many Narrativist designs, though not all. Nor do many games which I see people calling neo-trad, even including 5e in some play at least, consistently do these things. I just think the agenda-focused Forge-inspired style of analysis is much more effective. That's just my experience. Its not like I believe any specific framework is the last word in terms of understanding play, game design, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9234555, member: 82106"] I'm not saying I have entirely judged YZE, or MYZ specifically, only on that basis. I haven't judged it at all, really. At best I commented on what the quotes sound like, that's all. Believe me, I'll play most anything enough to find out what it is and what I think about, assuming I have the bandwidth. MYZ probably isn't high on my bucket list, but that could always change. As for AW, DitV, DW, etc. I've played 2 of the three, one of them quite extensively, and I'm aiming for at least a DitV one-shot. I think I know them reasonably based on the terminology/taxonomy in use there, but of course I might be a bit off on DitV. Well, you obviously have your ideas about that which differ from mine. Neo-trad IMHO says almost nothing about design. I mean, you may define the play style of people who like a certain game as 'neo-trad', and see servicing that as a trend in design. I don't. It is at best a very loose and ill-defined term which can be applied to a lot of modernish play (IE post-mid-1980s). But mechanisms which align player and character intent are certainly part and parcel of many Narrativist designs, though not all. Nor do many games which I see people calling neo-trad, even including 5e in some play at least, consistently do these things. I just think the agenda-focused Forge-inspired style of analysis is much more effective. That's just my experience. Its not like I believe any specific framework is the last word in terms of understanding play, game design, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification