Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 9840149" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I agree with you, but I think we need to be careful to keep player habits separate from best practices for a given style. I've played in very traditional dungeon crawlers where everyone is highly invested and PbtA games where everyone was sitting back (ouch). I only bring this up to head off a tangent where people argue about how committed their table is etc etc. I don't think that, for example, traditional dungeon crawling mitigates for any specific kind of play vis a vis the characters and what you identify (usefully) as a moral dimension. Rather it mitigates for a certain kind of tactical thinking in terms of exploration and resource management. Some newer OSR-adjacent game layer on that moral dimension of course and more character driven and focused concerns. The impetus in the former case for action by the player comes from without - from the environment. I think this can reasonably by indexed to a play style that allows things to come to you. Very (very) generally, of course.Baker wanted something different (as did other designers, Rein-Hagen for example, Baker wasn't the first on the ground there). Baker wanted more of the impetus for action to come from what the characters believed and what they cared most deeply about. We might call this impetus from within. In this case the player has to actively engage with their character's inner mental, ethical, and moral dimension to answer the call to action. One aspect of PbtA's design that was perhaps better than Vampire's was the extent to which the GM is incentivized or even forced to also engage with some aspects of the character's inner lives. For example, by providing opportunities for the players to meet certain experience beats, or by finding ways to include various character backstory elements (like friends and enemies).I can clearly see how this might lead us to describe how different games use the character and character mechanics as a rubric for interacting with the setting. I think taking the next step to describing play at the table level, with both GM and player sides of the conversation accounted for is a little bit more complicated as there we need to account for a significantly larger set of mechanics and design elements.</blockquote>

Verification