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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6203073" data-attributes="member: 2303">I wasn't trying to say anything about Sorcerer ´(or about any of my examples), I was just looking for examples to show the breadth of samples and how each of us might label them differently - Sorcerer was a convenient example on the "Forge narrative" end of the scale.I think that if you did the check, you'd find that fire eats oxygen something fierce - if you are in the same enclosed room as an open fire, you're in trouble right quick. It is smoke and carbon monoxide that kills, the fire just destroys the evidence. As a story teller GM, I completely understand what this Traveler GM was doing (unless he was really trying to kill you all). I suppose he was trying to force you into some situation by having you rendered unconscious like that? If so, he probably thought it was best to get over that part so the story could continue without a fuss.In this respect, Forge is right about storytelling, it is part illusionism - you need to make your plot contrivances believable, even if they are there to serve the plot. A story needs verisimilitude and player impact, or it is just a poor novella read aloud. It is a very delicate balance, and since you remember this as a bad example, I suppose it failed there. Part of art of storytelling/illusionist mode is how much the GM is prepared to bend to let the players view of reality prevail. A good story is also a fairly good simulation, because anything less realistic is jarring and breaks immersion.  A trick I have grown into here is to make the players the ones who have to fight for the story. By making the story a "gamist" challenge, by forcing the characters to fight for clues and making a sport of it, you can lead them on to follow the plot, because that's where the challenge lies. Call it consensual illusionism, if you will. In this example, it would be more satisfying for the players to hold their breath and escape the burning house, only to confront the villain all out-of-breath and vulnerable in the next incident. Then it is the players that instigate the next event, not the GM. At least not overtly. The trick for the GM is to avoid the lash and insert the carrots discreetly.This is completely different form the "players set the agenda" of narrative play, but to me it is a valid and fun playstyle, one suitable for long campaigns that run regularly over several years. Adventure paths fit this model, and considering how those are selling, I can't be alone in thinking this.</blockquote>

Verification