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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8625592" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it is very easy to exaggerate here, and I see those exaggerations put forward quite a bit. To the detriment of sound analysis. I think you are at risk of exaggeration in your post: hence my post!The capacity that a 4e martial daily power gives to a player to add to the fiction is no greater than the capacity that a player in Chainmail had to add to the fiction by saying "My wizard casts Cloudkill". And probably less than the capacity of a player in AD&D who says "My wizard casts Monster Summoning I". Any player action declaration has the potential to add to the fiction, and will do so if it is successful.The capacity of a player in Dungeon World to oblige the GM to say things - eg via Discern Realities - doesn't seem much greater, to me, than the capacity of a player in Moldvay Basic to oblige the GM to say things by saying "I open the door - what do I see?"The difference lies in the principles that govern how the GM responds. What distinguishes narrativist from high-concept sim play, as a general rule, is not the authority structures over PCs and backstory, but rather the principles that govern how that authority is to be exercised. Even Burning Wheel is pretty conventional most of the time, although of course it has Wises checks and Circles checks (which do not exist in AW or DW). The GM frames scenes, handles backstory, manages pacing, and narrates consequences of failure. That's not wildly different from 5e D&D!But the principles that govern how this is done - including but certainly not limited to the role of GM prep - are wildly different.</blockquote>

Verification