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: 9835655" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I hope you aren't disagreeing with me as there's no declarative statements there to really disagree with. The playstyle I mention exists described as I have by the people who play it (and [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] immediately recognized my description). I don't actually completely agree with most of those folks in terms of how they try to frame their playstyle within broader conversations about how RPGs work. I think it has a lot more in common with other playstyles then most of them care to admit. However, in this case I'm not interested in that special pleading but more specifically in the use to a game of that sort for broad mechanical base that cover a lot of ground and aren't narrowed in a bespoke way for a slimmer notion of 'what game are we playing'.As far as the rest of your reply, I generally agree, for example that RPGs need resolution mechanics and a framework for deciding on the consequences of actions. The term framing is a bit sticky though. Not because it's not useful, but it often gets a bit kludged up in the narrative/not-narrative argument. Setting that aside, I think it's trivially obvious that what GMs do is frame scenes (or encounters, or moments, or whatever one chooses to call them) and allows the players to respond. This is the essence of RPG play, of the conversation that drives recursive alterations of the diegetic frame.However, I also think that the above is perfectly possible without any reference to specifically narrative terms like rising action. Is that an aesthetic choice? Probably, yeah, I think that sounds correct. What that tells us though is that the options involved in that aesthetic choice aren't fundamental to RPG play, but rather interchangeable.</blockquote>

Verification