Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9099580" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. Which post do you have in mind?This has nothing to do with what I mean by "narrativism", which is the same as what [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] means by the terms (I think he may have been the first poster to use it in this thread). It's a technical term coined by a particular RPG designer and critic (Ron Edwards). It has nothing to do with "each player being a little GM". And not every game can support it.Here's a game system: The player declares what their PC does, and then the GM replies with whatever they think makes sense to them.That system will not support narrativist play, because it does nothing to put player priorities at the centre of play. Of course you could change it, into something like The player declares what their PC does, and then the GM replies by either narrating how their PC achieves it, or introducing some complication which stands in the PC's way whether as threat or conflicting opportunity. Now you've got something in the neighbourhood of Apocalypse World without dice, which is a thing Vincent Baker has talked about.By having regard to, and building on, the things I talked about in this post:</blockquote>