Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8604653" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Presently I'm running 3 weekly games and 2 other intermittent games (somewhere between bimonthly and monthly).  If I get some breathing room at some point in the future, I'll see if I can't run a game for you.  I'm just putting this out there as a possibility, because (as I've written above) I can't confirm the ability to make some kind of commitment on any timetable.  However, I've generally followed through on these kinds of requests as I very much like to introduce folks to indie games.So I'm going to throw some disagreement out there on this to give folks something to think about (or dispute if they wish).I don't agree that playbooks are "classes" in the traditional D&D TRPG parlance sort of way.They're not an in-fiction equivalent to "careers."  They're not a common noun.  They're not a part of an in-fiction, systematic classification to bin characters into types and subtypes.  They're not a packet of abilities that gives expression to (or cares about) niche protection.So what are playbooks and why did Baker formulate them in that way (using his own words):1) They're one of a kind.  Why?  Two reasons:* A simple matter of handling and expedience built into the design; so the MC/GM doesn't have to have 2 of the same playbook!* Because they're giving expression to a very specific archetype of which we play to find out how this specific archetype manifests during play.  How does this archetype impact setting/situation/external characters and how does setting/situation/external characters impact it.  Through consequential action taken during play (particular to archetype), how does this expression of character change and develop during play.2)  What do playbooks do?* They foreground/signal dramatic needs and arenas of conflict by way of expressing both the fictional content of a character and the game content of a character.  The who, the why, and the how.  Its personal.* They give expression to novelty of play experience (not niche protection).  This is related to that second point in (1) above, but not quite the same.  Its mostly the game version of that point (but its still inextricably linked to the fictional inputs and outputs...because that is how these games function).3)  Design-wise, playbooks answer 3 important questions (and I'll just quote VB directly from lumply <a href="https://lumpley.games/2020/06/22/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-4/" target="_blank">here</a>):* When you sit down to play an rpg, what do you have to establish about your character in order to begin play?* When you play an rpg, what about your character remains constant throughout play, and what changes over the course of play?* What about your character do you leave for play to decide? What about your character do you play to find out?[HR][/HR]So anyway, I think playbook is a very good nomenclature.  You make plays as a player.  This is what those plays do (and this is how they're operationalized in play; fictional triggers + "if you do it, you do it").  This is how their novelty manifests both at the table (as an experience for all participants to engage with) and in the fiction that we’re imagining.  Here is the why and here is the what we're playing to find out about (each respective playbook).When there is one Gunlugger or one Fighter or one Judge or one Delinquent, its a different deal than traditional Classes (certainly D&D) in both design impetus and the downstream impact upon the fiction of play.So I'm quite glad Vincent purposefully chose playbook.  It’s not the same thing as classes in a number of consequential ways which are not remotely pedantic.</blockquote>

Verification