Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8417014" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay?&nbsp; This is like, after explaining how Monopoly plays, being asked, &quot;sure, but how do I invade Australia?&quot;&nbsp; The answer to this is that this isn't something that's a thing in this game.&nbsp; To me, this statement is essentially asking &quot;how do I use this new system to play the same way I play now.&quot;&nbsp; The answer is you don't.&nbsp; It's not meant for that, so don't try it.If you've successfully run DitV, then there really should be little mystery (heh) to PbtA.&nbsp; Dogs has the same structure, with a premise that's explored and developed through play -- you cannot script a Dogs game and play it as it is presented.&nbsp; You can only prep the town and some of the issues there, but play's going to quickly go in unexpected directions due to the nature of resolution and fallout.&nbsp; It's the same conceptual framework PbtA rests on.Yes, you should not use PbtA for a scripted game where the primary point of play is getting the GM to reveal more information about the plot.&nbsp; That's not a dig at that play, by the way, it's exactly how I play 5e so I'm not adverse to it at all.Why?&nbsp; PbtA seems excellently positioned to tell the stories one expects from Avatar.&nbsp; Avatar is entirely about the characters and their struggles and not about procedurally solving mysteries.&nbsp; The only difference is if you want a specific plot for the players to follow, then, yeah, PbtA isn't going to support that at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8417014, member: 16814"] Okay? This is like, after explaining how Monopoly plays, being asked, "sure, but how do I invade Australia?" The answer to this is that this isn't something that's a thing in this game. To me, this statement is essentially asking "how do I use this new system to play the same way I play now." The answer is you don't. It's not meant for that, so don't try it. If you've successfully run DitV, then there really should be little mystery (heh) to PbtA. Dogs has the same structure, with a premise that's explored and developed through play -- you cannot script a Dogs game and play it as it is presented. You can only prep the town and some of the issues there, but play's going to quickly go in unexpected directions due to the nature of resolution and fallout. It's the same conceptual framework PbtA rests on. Yes, you should not use PbtA for a scripted game where the primary point of play is getting the GM to reveal more information about the plot. That's not a dig at that play, by the way, it's exactly how I play 5e so I'm not adverse to it at all. Why? PbtA seems excellently positioned to tell the stories one expects from Avatar. Avatar is entirely about the characters and their struggles and not about procedurally solving mysteries. The only difference is if you want a specific plot for the players to follow, then, yeah, PbtA isn't going to support that at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification