Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9499799" data-attributes="member: 85870">So a couple of things that I wanted to capture/summarize that's been discussed so far--<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">To discuss narrative-style play in &quot;natural terms&quot;, it seems to lead to a discussion of character. I think that's because talking about character is a natural pivot point to looking at how fiction is constructed in relation to the game. It's easy for a player to connect the idea that &quot;my character is a fictional construct&quot; with the idea that the game at large is the same--something constructed via play. It's a very obvious thing on the surface, but it's something that isn't always connected within the group.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Once you've made this connection, the conversation moves to thinking about how individual player attitudes and drives feed into how the construct is shaped. I think maybe that's something I can talk to my whole group about. The idea is to generate some consensus as a group about what kind of construct we're building.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A third part is looking at how mechanics intersect between character conception and how it layers over the game fiction. I think most players don't really think about this. They assume that mechanics exist at face level. They're just the things they read and manipulate to spit out the numbers on their character sheet. Talking through how the mechanics create differences in the actual fictional approaches can be a way to talk about play style.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9499799, member: 85870"] So a couple of things that I wanted to capture/summarize that's been discussed so far-- [LIST] [*]To discuss narrative-style play in "natural terms", it seems to lead to a discussion of character. I think that's because talking about character is a natural pivot point to looking [I]at how fiction is constructed in relation to the game[/I]. It's easy for a player to connect the idea that "my character is a fictional construct" with the idea that the game at large is the same--something constructed via play. It's a very obvious thing on the surface, but it's something that isn't always connected within the group. [*]Once you've made this connection, the conversation moves to thinking about how individual player attitudes and drives feed into how the construct is shaped. I think maybe that's something I can talk to my whole group about. The idea is to generate some consensus as a group about what kind of construct we're building. [*]A third part is looking at how mechanics intersect between character conception and how it layers over the game fiction. I think most players don't really think about this. They assume that mechanics exist at face level. They're just the things they read and manipulate to spit out the numbers on their character sheet. Talking through how the mechanics create differences in the actual fictional approaches can be a way to talk about play style. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification