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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8625967" data-attributes="member: 7026617">And I still think you're seeing a more narrow range of play options than the Dramatists of r.g.f.a. talked about.  Some did, indeed, view proper story as a cooperative process rather than than what you're referring to--but not all of them.  But some also  thought there was value in seeing where the story goes without putting their thumb on the scale.  They just thought the things acceptable to Simulationists (like dead ends) and Gamists (like anticlimax) were unacceptable.  If I had to point to a modern game that fits their mode, it probably would be some of the PbtA games.  I know those are sometimes considered primarily gamist, but that's again because GNS gamism is kind of borked up--fail forward and "failure is interesting" would have not played well with the few of us back then, and I still think most people focused on the game elements would look at one or both of those askance.  But that class of old dramatists would have found both of them very functional, not because they're cooperative, but because they avoid cooperation while still make sure that things move forward to some kind of conclusion.  I'm not sure how the intrinsic power sharing would have played (the only people who were really hardcore about GM authority were the hardcore simulationists, largely because they didn't want to engage with it at all as players, but a non-GM-top-down approach was kind of in its infancy conceptually at the time).</blockquote>

Verification