Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8979567" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think we all generally agree (unless its some unusual game like my goto example of Toon, or my weird way of envisaging the 4e Feywild) that things once established, by whatever means, are then established and don't suddenly alter simply because it would be narratively convenient. This is one reason we have things like 'zoom factor' that come more into play in narrative games, were time and distance are not focused on. This DOES happen in more trad or old school play too, mostly as a way of simply making the game more playable (IE once you have cleared a path to the dungeon you are unlikely to play out the journey back and forth to town dozens of times over). However, nobody would dispute that old school Gygax was very into time and space as hard resource/setting constraints. I think this comes straight out of TT Wargaming! Back then we really didn't envisage the concept of narrative, or character literally driving play, those ideas are much more modern, and arose gradually. I don't see any reason why one game MUST be more or less consistent than the other though. Blades in the Dark is perfectly consistent in its depiction of Doskvol, and you can indeed base position and effect on things like &quot;the street is quite wide here by the bridge&quot; and that is derived straight from a map. Again, you MIGHT not have that kind of information in Dungeon World, although it DOES task the GM with making (partial) maps... So, I think there's a pretty broad middle ground. Its just if you go too far in the direction of pushing setting onto situation in, say, DW, you will potentially lose the character focus.So, we might see the treatment of time and space as being an outgrowth of the needs of the specific focus of the game in question, but that is hardly a revelation to anyone here I'm guessing!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8979567, member: 82106"] I think we all generally agree (unless its some unusual game like my goto example of Toon, or my weird way of envisaging the 4e Feywild) that things once established, by whatever means, are then established and don't suddenly alter simply because it would be narratively convenient. This is one reason we have things like 'zoom factor' that come more into play in narrative games, were time and distance are not focused on. This DOES happen in more trad or old school play too, mostly as a way of simply making the game more playable (IE once you have cleared a path to the dungeon you are unlikely to play out the journey back and forth to town dozens of times over). However, nobody would dispute that old school Gygax was very into time and space as hard resource/setting constraints. I think this comes straight out of TT Wargaming! Back then we really didn't envisage the concept of narrative, or character literally driving play, those ideas are much more modern, and arose gradually. I don't see any reason why one game MUST be more or less consistent than the other though. Blades in the Dark is perfectly consistent in its depiction of Doskvol, and you can indeed base position and effect on things like "the street is quite wide here by the bridge" and that is derived straight from a map. Again, you MIGHT not have that kind of information in Dungeon World, although it DOES task the GM with making (partial) maps... So, I think there's a pretty broad middle ground. Its just if you go too far in the direction of pushing setting onto situation in, say, DW, you will potentially lose the character focus. So, we might see the treatment of time and space as being an outgrowth of the needs of the specific focus of the game in question, but that is hardly a revelation to anyone here I'm guessing! [/QUOTE]

Verification