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: 5607338" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think some parts of the analysis could be better developed. The discussion of narrativism, for example, seems to me to focus too much on moral/political questions and not enough on other dimensions of value/theme - although in practice games which are focused more on aesthetic than moral value, like The Dying Earth, are properly identified as supporting narrativism.And the difference between purist-for-system simulationism and high concept simulationism is arguably as great as the difference between gamism and narrativism.And like I said upthread, the notion of "techniques" strikes me as a bit of an analytical catch-all.Still, the Edwards's essays, plus affiliated material like the occasional Lumpley blog or Forge thread, have proved more helpful to me in reflecting on and improving my GMing than anything else I've ever read - and by quite a margin.This is true. And it creates puzzling rules text.In practice, I think that the idea is that all the metagame is frontloaded - in world and PC building - and then in actual play everyone subordinates themselves to the fiction.Here's an example of that, from another current thread:To me, the most natural reading of this is that in telling the GM what my PC does, I'm doing my best to be faithful to the pre-established fictional reality; and the GM in having the NPCs react, is doing his/her best to be faithful to the pre-establishd fictional reality.I don't see any sense that the GM might deliberately play the NPC so as to introduce complications, or that the player might deliberately play the PC so as to make a point, or win the game. (And, of course, once one thinks that such metagame-driven interventionism might be wanted, than the idea of rules to mediate or regulate it starts to make more sense.)</blockquote>

Verification