Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9103466" data-attributes="member: 42582">First, your contrast is false. There is no aspect of the fiction that players in (say) Apocalypse World as per the book have control over, that players in my 4e D&amp;D game played as per the books don't have control over.I have made this point many times in this thread. But somehow &quot;D&amp;D&quot; keeps getting used as if all D&amp;D is how [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] or how [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] plays D&amp;D.Second, here is a typical example of how I have seen &quot;player narrative control&quot; being used in this thread:That is not a description of Apocalypse World, which involves no &quot;metacurrencies&quot;, nothing like inspiration or luck pionts, and which - as the rulebook says - divides up the conversation in a very traditional way.It is not mysterious how AW produces high player agency although it has a very traditional way of dividing up the conversation. It's because the GM is under certain obligations in respect of how they do their bit of the conversation. But in every discussion ever of Apocalypse World and similar games, that feature of the game seems to be ignored and instead we get nonsense about purely imaginary differences on the player side of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9103466, member: 42582"] First, your contrast is false. There is no aspect of the fiction that players in (say) Apocalypse World as per the book have control over, that players in my 4e D&D game played as per the books don't have control over. I have made this point many times in this thread. But somehow "D&D" keeps getting used as if all D&D is how [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] or how [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] plays D&D. Second, here is a typical example of how I have seen "player narrative control" being used in this thread: That is not a description of Apocalypse World, which involves no "metacurrencies", nothing like inspiration or luck pionts, and which - as the rulebook says - divides up the conversation in a very traditional way. It is not mysterious how AW produces high player agency although it has a very traditional way of dividing up the conversation. It's because the GM is under certain obligations in respect of how they do their bit of the conversation. But in every discussion ever of Apocalypse World and similar games, that feature of the game seems to be ignored and instead we get nonsense about purely imaginary differences on the player side of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification