Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7356532" data-attributes="member: 42582">This isn't quite what Edwards, Eero Tuovinen or most of those who describe their RPGing as &quot;story now&quot; have in mind. Eg the &quot;current adventure&quot;, including any combat, is the story - not an alternative to it.I agree that in GM-driven games a lot of the &quot;story&quot; and character development takes place in PC-to-PC interaction. Imagine having that permeate the whole game, and you start to get closer to &quot;story now&quot; RPGing.There may be non-accidental correlation here.It's not as if there is any genre reason why exploration should prioritise combat over social interaction (eg consider the bits of the LotR that take place in Rohan, or the REH Conan story People of the Black Circle).Yes. I posted about this something like 800+ posts upthread, and intermittently since. One way I have made the point is by contrasting between what is literally, and what is notionally, in the GM's notes.Triggering the GM to tell you stuff as if it was in his/her notes, although it is actually made up on the spot, is not an exercise of player agency over the content of the shared fiction. Triggering the GM to tell you stuff can affirm such agency if the GM is making that stuff up by reference to and/or incorporation of player-established theme and content (as per the &quot;standard narrativistic model&quot;).As far as the contrast between combat and non-combat resolution in D&amp;D (with 4e skill challenges, and some aspects of dungeon exploration in classic D&amp;D, as exceptions): it is pretty marked. There is no analogue to hit points, and the resulting finality of resolution, in (eg) 5e D&amp;D's system for ability/skill checks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7356532, member: 42582"] This isn't quite what Edwards, Eero Tuovinen or most of those who describe their RPGing as "story now" have in mind. Eg the "current adventure", including any combat, [i]is[/i] the story - not an alternative to it. I agree that in GM-driven games a lot of the "story" and character development takes place in PC-to-PC interaction. Imagine having that permeate the whole game, and you start to get closer to "story now" RPGing. There may be non-accidental correlation here. It's not as if there is any [i]genre[/i] reason why exploration should prioritise combat over social interaction (eg consider the bits of the LotR that take place in Rohan, or the REH Conan story People of the Black Circle). Yes. I posted about this something like 800+ posts upthread, and intermittently since. One way I have made the point is by contrasting between what is literally, and what is notionally, in the GM's notes. Triggering the GM to tell you stuff [i]as if[/i] it was in his/her notes, although it is actually made up on the spot, is not an exercise of player agency over the content of the shared fiction. Triggering the GM to tell you stuff can affirm such agency [i]if[/i] the GM is making that stuff up by reference to and/or incorporation of player-established theme and content (as per the "standard narrativistic model"). As far as the contrast between combat and non-combat resolution in D&D (with 4e skill challenges, and some aspects of dungeon exploration in classic D&D, as exceptions): it is pretty marked. There is no analogue to hit points, and the resulting finality of resolution, in (eg) 5e D&D's system for ability/skill checks. [/QUOTE]

Verification