Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8774900" data-attributes="member: 42582">Or (B)?Because there's no &quot;kicker&quot; in there, is there? But there are embedded, motivated PCs.To me it still seems (B)-ish: the players have built these connected, embedded, motivated PCs and then you're framing them into situations that speak to that. The handler is just one of your devices to that end (if I've followed properly).To me, this sounds pretty solidly (B). The players build their PCs with relationships, embeddedness, motivations, etc. Then you frame them into a situation that speaks to that.The contrast with (A) is no &quot;kicker&quot;. And the contrast with (C) is that, in (C), the GM isn't authoring the situation to directly engage with established PC motivations/context.Of course the taxonomy is a bit porous, or at least wobbly around the edges. But what you are describing seems to me pretty consistent with Burning Wheel, which is in turn a (B)-ish game by default, I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8774900, member: 42582"] Or (B)? Because there's no "kicker" in there, is there? But there are embedded, motivated PCs. To me it still seems (B)-ish: the players have built these connected, embedded, motivated PCs and then you're framing them into situations that speak to that. The handler is just one of your devices to that end (if I've followed properly). To me, this sounds pretty solidly (B). The players build their PCs with relationships, embeddedness, motivations, etc. Then you frame them into a situation that speaks to that. The contrast with (A) is no "kicker". And the contrast with (C) is that, in (C), the GM isn't authoring the situation to directly engage with established PC motivations/context. Of course the taxonomy is a bit porous, or at least wobbly around the edges. But what you are describing seems to me pretty consistent with Burning Wheel, which is in turn a (B)-ish game by default, I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification