Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9504491" data-attributes="member: 70468">The issue I have with this is I don’t really care about the narrative aspect of RPGs. There was a thread a while ago that asked you to rank game, character, and story; and my ranking was something like “game &gt; character &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; story”.My game is structured around the PCs’ pursuing and completing goals (individual, group, and campaign). That’s how they receive EXP. One could argue that goals provide a scaffolding for the narrative structure, but goals are picked by the players, and there’s nothing that requires them to pick goals that result in a coherent story (beyond causality being a thing).The game that comes to mind when I think of PvP is Dogs in the Vineyard. In that game, conflicts are structured around a series of raises. As the conflict goes on, the stakes get higher. Eventually, they end in violence unless one of the parties withdraws. That’s also the only way to opt out. If you don’t want to be party to a conflict, you withdraw.As a player, I don’t like having content authority beyond what my character knows or is about, so my game reflects that. If the players want to alter the game world, they have to go out and do stuff to it as their characters (e.g., the players in my game’s campaign are building up their settlement and are working on controlling the area around it).However, I know it’s popular though to prompt players for stuff like that, so that’s cool if you can make it work in your game. It’s just not something I personally like. I remember playing a game at Origins where the DM asked me to describe how the monster I killed died, and my mind blanked. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😅" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png" title="Grinning face with sweat&nbsp; &nbsp; :sweat_smile:" data-shortname=":sweat_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 9504491, member: 70468"] The issue I have with this is I don’t really care about the narrative aspect of RPGs. There was a thread a while ago that asked you to rank game, character, and story; and my ranking was something like “game > character >>>>>> story”. My game is structured around the PCs’ pursuing and completing goals (individual, group, and campaign). That’s how they receive EXP. One could argue that goals provide a scaffolding for the narrative structure, but goals are picked by the players, and there’s nothing that requires them to pick goals that result in a coherent story (beyond causality being a thing). The game that comes to mind when I think of PvP is Dogs in the Vineyard. In that game, conflicts are structured around a series of raises. As the conflict goes on, the stakes get higher. Eventually, they end in violence unless one of the parties withdraws. That’s also the only way to opt out. If you don’t want to be party to a conflict, you withdraw. As a player, I don’t like having content authority beyond what my character knows or is about, so my game reflects that. If the players want to alter the game world, they have to go out and do stuff to it as their characters (e.g., the players in my game’s campaign are building up their settlement and are working on controlling the area around it). However, I know it’s popular though to prompt players for stuff like that, so that’s cool if you can make it work in your game. It’s just not something I personally like. I remember playing a game at Origins where the DM asked me to describe how the monster I killed died, and my mind blanked. 😅 [/QUOTE]

Verification