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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9774216" data-attributes="member: 7044566">A few things:What I've found as a player and GM in a game like Apocalypse World (or more trad games generally), is that changing character backstory from what I thought it was is unsatisfying.In those games I want to advocate for a characters worldview. How does their worldview work out for them? That's the important bit to me, the central core that determines the meaning of play. Changing it up is...eh. Not conducive to emergent stories about human meaning, in my opinion.Which doesn't mean the technique itself is no good. For instance Showdown relies very heavily on that exact dynamic being in play (are you who you thought you were?) but all the other mechanics interface with that to allow thematic decisions. I've found in Showdown you end up playing the board as it were, as opposed to just your character. There's a type of remove you have with them. Which makes sense because in the end it's you the player who decides whether they live or die. Based on whether you think they deserve to live or die.Or Inspectres. Same deal. Your character can have attributes thrust on them mid-play. There's the same sense of playing the board as opposed to world-view advocacy. Its mechanics also seem to support this far better than PbtA games generally do when played that way.Is it just preference? maybe but I'm not sure.[USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER]  I mean from memory the text says three things about prep. It says 'it gives you interesting stuff to say.' Which might fit or infer your interpretation about the canonicity of the prep.It also says 'binding decisions' and 'prep demands', which clearly do not fit what you're saying and state the opposite. Clocks only seem to work if they're canon.But to some degree it's besides the point. I don't think you get good gameplay by following a text. A lot depends on assumptions going in. For instance I absolutely reject roleplaying having anything to do with theatrical improv. On the other hand, if you're coming from that point of view then your interpretation is obviously working out for you. I know for instance that Brandon Leon-Gambetta approaches PbtA that way. Including stuff like 'no and' 'yes but', that sort of stuff. Or the idea that we're really passing story control. Both those concepts really turn me off, so it stands to reason I'm going to take a more 'trad' approach. At least as it pertains to PbtA.To me the important part isn't necessarily which one is better, or which one is more correct according to the text, it's that there is a difference and it's the result of something more fundamental that speaks to different approaches to play.</blockquote>

Verification