Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7378673" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't care about magic or jump drives.My point is this: the real world is a real thing. I interact with it via causal processes.The fiction is fiction. I &quot;interact&quot; with it (that word is a metaphor in this context) by either (i) making it up, or (ii) having someone else tell me something they made up about it.If someone has made up dozens of facts about flagstones in that imaginary world then good for them, but I don't think I can envisage a scenario in which I want them to tell me about it!That is not quite right, because &quot;handed to you on a platter&quot; is not just metaphor but a pejorative one.Playing a RPG is playing a RPG. It's not noble struggle, or dingity-conferring labour. Working your way through the GM's dungeon and serendipitously finding that the GM wrote something in that you care about is not some more virtuous than playing through a sequence of challenging situations with the reward emerging (or failing to) at the end of it.Would my BW game have been better if the mage PC had inadvertantly blown his brother up with a fireball spell because his brother happened to be tied up in a niche down the corridor; rather than the PC seeing his brother slain before his eyes by an assassin who got there first, and all because the mage chose to travel through the catacombs and got lost in them? Personally I'm not seeing it.I'll paste it again:Where is the railroading meant to have happened? What choices were the players denied?Eero Tuovinen is describing a particular approach to RPGing - &quot;story now&quot;, as achieved by means of the &quot;standard narrativistic model&quot;. (There are other approaches to &quot;story now&quot; - eg Apocalypse World and its offshoots, which [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - of posters in this thread - is probably best qualified to expound on. But the &quot;standard narrativistic model&quot; is what I'm most familiar with, in part because I broadly worked it out for myself c 1987, although reading and play since then have helped me improve my technique somewhat.)It is possible to adapt D&amp;D to &quot;standard narrativistic model&quot; play - that's what I did in the late 80s - but some aspects of the system will push back. And it's very far from the default approach to playing D&amp;D, as Eero Tuovinen notes. And as this thread has brought out (if there was any lingering doubt).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7378673, member: 42582"] I don't care about magic or jump drives. My point is this: the real world is a real thing. I interact with it via causal processes. The fiction is fiction. I "interact" with it (that word is a metaphor in this context) by either (i) making it up, or (ii) having someone else tell me something they made up about it. If someone has made up dozens of facts about flagstones in that imaginary world then good for them, but I don't think I can envisage a scenario in which I want them to tell me about it! That is not quite right, because "handed to you on a platter" is not just metaphor but a pejorative one. Playing a RPG is playing a RPG. It's not noble struggle, or dingity-conferring labour. Working your way through the GM's dungeon and serendipitously finding that the GM wrote something in that you care about is not some more virtuous than playing through a sequence of challenging situations with the reward emerging (or failing to) at the end of it. Would my BW game have been [I]better[/I] if the mage PC had inadvertantly blown his brother up with a fireball spell because his brother happened to be tied up in a niche down the corridor; rather than the PC seeing his brother slain before his eyes by an assassin who got there first, and all because the mage chose to travel through the catacombs and got lost in them? Personally I'm not seeing it. I'll paste it again: [indent][/indent] Where is the railroading meant to have happened? What choices were the players denied? Eero Tuovinen is describing a particular approach to RPGing - "story now", as achieved by means of the "standard narrativistic model". (There are other approaches to "story now" - eg Apocalypse World and its offshoots, which [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - of posters in this thread - is probably best qualified to expound on. But the "standard narrativistic model" is what I'm most familiar with, in part because I broadly worked it out for myself c 1987, although reading and play since then have helped me improve my technique somewhat.) It is possible to adapt D&D to "standard narrativistic model" play - that's what I did in the late 80s - but some aspects of the system will push back. And it's very far from the default approach to playing D&D, as Eero Tuovinen notes. And as this thread has brought out (if there was any lingering doubt). [/QUOTE]

Verification