Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4028319" data-attributes="member: 386">I'm having trouble communicating in this thread! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; That example was to show what narrativist play could look like, that it's not something totally different that wouldn't be recognized as &quot;playing D&amp;D.&quot;Could be.&nbsp; But in nar play, the point of those encounters would be to allow the player a chance to use his authorial power in order to make some kind of thematic statement.&nbsp; (His &quot;authorial power&quot; is something like, &quot;I attack the kid who tried to cut my purse.&nbsp; I hit AC 18, 12 damage.&quot;)&nbsp; Then you play off of his decision: the cleric approaches the PC and asks him what the hell he's doing.&nbsp; &quot;That kid was a thief.&nbsp; He got what he deserved.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;But it's not his fault!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;That's life.&nbsp; You gotta make your own way, no one is going to help you.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;I helped you!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;That's because you're a sucker.&quot;In other words, the gameworld exists in order to give context to the theme.The DM made those decisions, in nar play, in order to give the player a chance to make a thematic statement.&nbsp; In sim play, he might have done the same thing just because it was what naturally is supposed to happen in the gameworld.It's hard to show the difference when you're posing hypothetical examples over teh intrawebs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; What I think is really important is when you get the &quot;awesome&quot; moments in play: When do those moments happen?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Whose choice led to that moment?&nbsp; Do you always cheer those moments, or just once every couple of sessions?&nbsp; Those sorts of things will help clarify the difference between simulationist, narrativist, and gamist play more than anything else.The DM doesn't need to talk about how he feels about stuff.&nbsp; (Don't forget that the players are also making the same sort of thematic statements.)&nbsp; He could, but he doesn't need to, just like the author of a novel doesn't need to talk about the theme in order to get it across.&nbsp; What everyone does need to do is to react to those choices.&nbsp; Usually what I see is attention, engagement, and &quot;That's cool!&quot; when someone is going to address theme; and less of: &quot;So you, personally, feel that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and no one has any responsibility to help their fellow man?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 4028319, member: 386"] I'm having trouble communicating in this thread! :) That example was to show what narrativist play [i]could[/i] look like, that it's not something totally different that wouldn't be recognized as "playing D&D." Could be. But in nar play, the point of those encounters would be to allow the player a chance to use his authorial power in order to make some kind of thematic statement. (His "authorial power" is something like, "I attack the kid who tried to cut my purse. I hit AC 18, 12 damage.") Then you play off of his decision: the cleric approaches the PC and asks him what the hell he's doing. "That kid was a thief. He got what he deserved." "But it's not his fault!" "That's life. You gotta make your own way, no one is going to help you." "I helped you!" "That's because you're a sucker." In other words, the gameworld exists in order to give context to the theme. The DM made those decisions, in nar play, in order to give the player a chance to make a thematic statement. In sim play, he might have done the same thing just because it was what naturally is supposed to happen in the gameworld. It's hard to show the difference when you're posing hypothetical examples over teh intrawebs. ;) What I think is really important is when you get the "awesome" moments in play: When do those moments happen? Why? Whose choice led to that moment? Do you always cheer those moments, or just once every couple of sessions? Those sorts of things will help clarify the difference between simulationist, narrativist, and gamist play more than anything else. The DM doesn't need to talk about how he feels about stuff. (Don't forget that the players are also making the same sort of thematic statements.) He could, but he doesn't need to, just like the author of a novel doesn't need to talk about the theme in order to get it across. What everyone does need to do is to react to those choices. Usually what I see is attention, engagement, and "That's cool!" when someone is going to address theme; and less of: "So you, personally, feel that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and no one has any responsibility to help their fellow man?" [/QUOTE]

Verification