Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9499210" data-attributes="member: 6696971">It really depends upon who the player is.  I've had very little trouble explaining the particular novel gist of a given game that was designed around Narrativism to new players or players who have played other games that feature Narrativism in the past.  So take Thousand Arrows.  This would be how I would present it:"Alright, so you know Warring States Japan where a weakened shogunate leads to provincial warlords vying for unification of Japan under their rule?  Political turmoil, war, rebellions, riots, social upheaval of every sort.  Have you ever seen any of Kurosawa's Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai?  You've got the genre gist. The game features specific characters (our PCs) and scenes that give expression to what beliefs and motivations drive them (their Drive), who they care about (their Attachments), and whether their bodies and minds can weather the storm (their Self) of this cruel and unforgiving theater.  Characters will lose control of themselves and through that, players will temporarily lose control of their characters.  Those same characters will change, sometimes subtly, but often dramatically.  It is meant to be relentless as scenes are framed that threaten those Drives and Attachments, as players lean hard into those things and we all find out whether their alliances, poetry, inspiring speeches, emotional outbursts, stratagems, weapons, and squads/platoons of officers/troops see them through the death and despair or whether the character comes undone (perishing or retiring in obscurity or ignominy).  The game zooms around, in, and out at a pretty intense pace.  One scene is a charge down the hill where two or more Sections of Samurai clash to the death.  Maybe in the middle of that scene we zoom into the mind of one of the PCs embroiled in the deadly conflict as they reflect upon the speech to their warriors the day prior...or their marriage a decade before.  Then we zoom back out and resolve the terrible fighting and we find out what one of the PCs will risk/do to save their friend (or what they won't risk/do).  Then we cut to the end of the fighting with intimate scenes of ceremony, dedication, lives coming to an end.  Then we cut to related political negotiations, ramifications of the outcome of the fight above, with another PC in a far-off place; what will they demand for increased power and status...what will they give up for peace or those they love?"[HR][/HR]Then a brief show of the truly core moves of the game that generate the most work and folks have their heads around it.However, there are longterm TTRPG players who (i) detest hard situation-framing, scene-zooming, cutting to various action, (ii) briefly losing control of their PCs, (iii) the systemic expectation of a GM relentlessly attacking what the player has signaled they care about through the build of their PC (Drives, Attachments, Affiliations), (iv) the expectation that the player will engage aggressively with those scenes rather than turtling, and (v) the inevitability of a character evolving beyond the scope/nature of their preconceptions.  NET: You really have to know who your audience is.  The above pitch and the attendant game engine will excite the hell out of some people and will be a natural fit for them...a seamless move from pitch to play.  Others who are more consternated than curious and excited by the above pitch and attendant game engine?  I've found (in both conversation and actual play) that the uphill battle to try to make it worth the emotional and cognitive effort is vanishingly low on the "worth it" scale.</blockquote>

Verification