NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8593874" data-attributes="member: 82106">And yet, here we are successfully analyzing TB2 in light of it! I'd point out that TB2 was designed in light of it as well, as Vince Baker is most certainly well aware of, and has participated in, these kinds of discussions many times as a matter of record. Now, I won't pretend to be so close a follower of all this, and where it has led in the almost 20 years since this essay was written, to say EXACTLY what the opinions of the TB2 authors are on GNS or how they would apply it to analyzing TB2 themselves. Still, surely their work bears the marks of being in the wake of RE's writing.I mean, my own game is designed much in terms of the discussions that have been had here in this forum. Extensive discussions which have covered the whole gamut of topics germane to RPGs in theory and practice. First hand experience tells me this kind of analysis works! You can reason from the way RE looks at and parses RPGs to ways to structure the mechanics, play aids, game play process, etc. of actual games to successfully produce desired results. Beyond TB2 you see this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, with games like Dungeon World and other PbtAs, BitD and its variations, as well as games like BW and its siblings, Cortex, FATE, etc. in all their variations and on and on. It is even pretty clear that 4e D&D was designed at least with an understanding of this whole analytical school (and I believe it is a matter of record that MM participated in some of the discussions back in the day). It seems extremely hard, based on observation of the state of the RPG industry, to sustain your position here.</blockquote>

Verification