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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9493290" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I've written in this thread and elsewhere that the biggest differences I see between Neotrad and Narrativism is the pivot points of how much say does the system have over the nascent trajectories of play?* If players come to play with a high resolution to immutable conception of their PC and that is expected to be mapped onto play, then that is a Neotrad orientation to play.* If a GM comes to play with a high resolution to immutable conception of plot points/way-stations/nodes or a course that charts inexorably (even if not exactly sequentially) toward a high percentage endpoint, then that is a Trad orientation to play.  However, this becomes a Neotrad orientation to play if the expectation is the players' preconception of character is woven into this GM metaplot (or Adventure Path) with roughly codified character arcs.* Important to both of the above agendas is that system does not have the means to perturb that player preconception of PC nor that GM charted course or in-woven character arcs.* Now what if system does have the means to perturb the conception of Player Character to significant degree such that its an inevitability that participants find out through play who these characters are?  What if system does have the means to perturb all trajectories for play such that charting a course is a fool's errand...whereby situation-states cascade emergently as a matter of course and the nature of the pieces in play have to be, at least in significant part, discovered.  That is a Narrativist orientation to play.[HR][/HR]So by my reckoning, its always the magnitude and frequency of "system's say" that is the demarcating influence here.  You'll hear a principle like "hold on lightly" or a directive like "generate conflict-pregnant situation, provoke, then react...there is no the story" in one form of systemization.  You'll hear a lament like "I just want the rules to get out of the way" or "the tyranny of rules" or a principle like "the rules should be in service to fun and to the story...not the other way around...you're the final arbiter of what happens, so overrule the rules when there is a clash with fun and rewarding story" in another form of systemization.There is one other axis here though (and I've mentioned it upthread).  Its how gamable the system is.  Fate where minor complications can be trivially endured to buy-off major complications later, thus ensuring a desired trajectory is one form of this.  4e D&D with easy encounter budgets and/or Skill Challenges that aren't sufficiently threatening/punishing (and therefore don't infuse play with dynamism) is another.  The contrast between low Tier Blades in the Dark and end-of-Tier 3 and beyond is another contrast.  These contrasts generate a pretty stark divergence in both the experience of play and its attendant outcomes between a game that is a powerful vehicle for Narrativism and the same game that suddenly becomes a powerful vehicle for Neotrad priorities.</blockquote>

Verification