Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8459017" data-attributes="member: 85870">I disagree with this. Prior to 2015 or so, I was completely blind to any theory that didn't directly play into my preconceptions about &quot;the way RPGs are supposed to work&quot;---rules had to &quot;process simulate&quot; the game world. Dissociated mechanics were &quot;bad&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;, and not only that, were going to be the ruination of D&amp;D and roleplaying as we know it. Anything that goes against these maxims is no longer even categorically &quot;roleplaying&quot; at all, etc., etc. I was on the absolute forefront of arguing against fiction first / &quot;Story Now&quot; play. RPGs can't possibly work the way this is being described. This is completely against the way things work, and I can't believe that there's any valid theory that would support this. But finally, after hearing over and over that no, this stuff really does work, I went out and read some of the Forge theory on GNS. And even though I think a lot of the particulars are lost and muddied in the Forge discussions, the main idea that stuck through all of it was finally recognizing that, yes, all of the fiction of an RPG is constructed by a participant, it's only a question of by who and when.I couldn't conceive of &quot;Story Now&quot; play before that realization, because I had simply not accounted for the fact that &quot;traditional&quot; RPG play merely prioritizes RPG fiction generated by the GM participant, prior to its public introduction to the rest of the play group. &quot;Simulationist&quot; play merely prioritizes one form of fiction introduction, by one particular participant, over other forms of fiction introduction. The &quot;theory&quot; of &quot;Story Now&quot; play suddenly became clear --- it becomes wholly possible by altering the placement along the related spectra of timing of introducing elements to the fiction + participant authority.So you're correct in that my initial declarations around &quot;RPG theory&quot; were not &quot;explorations.&quot; They were declarations of &quot;Story Now play doesn't work, and can't possibly work, and it's bad to even try.&quot; And the responses from many posters who rightfully disagreed were, &quot;No, it works great. Here's why, and here's some related game theorizing that supports the premises.&quot;So is that an exploration of the theory? Not per se. We're not exploring the nuances and ins and outs of the theory. We're not poking holes in it, making new extrapolations, etc. For all of its flaws, that's a lot closer to what the Forge was really trying to get at.Discussions about theory on EnWorld more gravitate toward elucidation and education than exploration. It seems most participants aren't trying to build upon game theory. But they are trying to provide context and perspective.And believe me, I will now 1000% go out of my way to elucidate my experience with coming around to what &quot;Story Now&quot; play can do. Having an understanding of what it is and what it does has improved my group's level of play and enjoyment. Because I greatly care about finding new, fun, exciting, and innovative ways to get better at and maximize enjoyment from play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 8459017, member: 85870"] I disagree with this. Prior to 2015 or so, I was completely blind to any theory that didn't directly play into my preconceptions about "the way RPGs are supposed to work"---rules had to "process simulate" the game world. Dissociated mechanics were "bad" and "wrong", and not only that, were going to be the ruination of D&D and roleplaying as we know it. Anything that goes against these maxims is no longer even categorically "roleplaying" at all, etc., etc. I was on the absolute forefront of arguing against fiction first / "Story Now" play. [I]RPGs can't possibly work the way this is being described. This is completely against the way things work, and I can't believe that there's any valid theory that would support this[/I]. But finally, after hearing over and over that no, [I]this stuff really does work[/I], I went out and read some of the Forge theory on GNS. And even though I think a lot of the particulars are lost and muddied in the Forge discussions, the main idea that stuck through all of it was finally recognizing that, yes, [I]all of the fiction of an RPG is constructed by a participant, it's only a question of by who and when.[/I] I couldn't conceive of "Story Now" play before that realization, because I had simply not accounted for the fact that "traditional" RPG play merely prioritizes RPG fiction [I]generated by the GM participant, prior to its public introduction to the rest of the play group[/I]. "Simulationist" play merely prioritizes one form of fiction introduction, by one particular participant, over other forms of fiction introduction. The "theory" of "Story Now" play suddenly became clear --- it becomes wholly possible by altering the placement along the related spectra of [I]timing of introducing elements to the fiction + participant authority[/I]. So you're correct in that my initial declarations around "RPG theory" were not "explorations." They were declarations of "Story Now play doesn't work, and can't possibly work, and it's bad to even try." And the responses from many posters who rightfully disagreed were, "No, it works great. Here's why, and here's some related game theorizing that supports the premises." So is that an [I]exploration[/I] of the theory? Not per se. We're not [I]exploring[/I] the nuances and ins and outs of the theory. We're not poking holes in it, making new extrapolations, etc. For all of its flaws, that's a lot closer to what the Forge was really trying to get at. Discussions about theory on EnWorld more gravitate toward [I]elucidation and education[/I] than [I]exploration[/I]. It seems most participants aren't trying to [I]build upon[/I] game theory. But they are trying to provide context and perspective. And believe me, I will now 1000% go out of my way to elucidate my experience with coming around to what "Story Now" play can do. Having an understanding of what it is and what it does has improved my group's level of play and enjoyment. Because I greatly care about finding new, fun, exciting, and innovative ways to [I]get better at[/I] and [I]maximize enjoyment[/I] from play. [/QUOTE]

Verification