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: 9344313" data-attributes="member: 42582">To add to my preceding post:Posters can post about "emergent story" and "writers' rooms" all day long, and all night as well if they like. But that is not going to change the fact that the process of play used in the Burning Wheel game that I described, and in the Stonetop game that [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] described, is pretty different from some other common ways of playing RPGs.It's obviously different from a map-and-key approach, where the framing of scenes and much of the consequence depends on the interplay between (i) what the GM has prepared in the drawing up and keying of their map, and (ii) *what decisions the players make about where their PCs move on the map.It's also obviously different from an approach where the GM has prepared, or is independently imagining, a series of scenes or events that they will present to the players for the players to engage with via their PCs.And it's also different from an approach where the GM has a collection of setting notes, and uses these to determine what happens to the PCs and extrapolate the consequences of the players' declared actions. I think this is obviously so for the Burning Wheel example; it's more subtle in the Stonetop example, but the key differences are the way the emergence of the enemy is "triggered" as an event in the fiction (by the players' failed action involving their PCs somewhere else doing something else) and also the way the thread is centred on things that are dear to the PCs (their followers and their ally).Now in this post I've contrasted techniques, not goals of play. But I think we can see how these differences of technique are suited to differences of goal. Mushing it all together doesn't help anyone improve, or get more fun out of, their RPGing!</blockquote>

Verification