Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7384336" data-attributes="member: 82106">But this still makes my point #1, the GM may block these actions on the basis of some GM-established fictional setting parameters which are of no consequence or interest to the player. Now, if the genre simply doesn't admit of 'northern barbarians' as a concept (there could be a couple flavors of these possibly) then its not a possible goal. This speaks more to the advantages of No Myth than anything else, IMHO. Though even in No Myth I could see a general genre &quot;this just isn't part of the milieu&quot; happening. Still, its a problem most identified with established settings. Middle Earth for example has no viking analogs. It could, but it is established cannon that there are none.And to that extent your concept of social contract at the table is consonant with Story Now, and we agree. That is still not a commonly, or certainly at least universally, held position though. I mean, when I discuss with you or other participants, I assume this is a broader discussion than [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s process of play vs AbdulAlhazred's process of play.Again, I think this is like point 2, we agree. Still, there are many, probably MOST GMs who play in a fairly 'classic' process who would not agree with this. It certainly raises questions about sandboxes and such things for instance (though I think there are some nuances here too).See, we really agree on a number of things. I still don't really agree with your notion of insisting that the game be a largely continuous narrative filled with lots of extra details that don't relate to anything immediately interesting, nor that skipping such is forcing choices on players. Otherwise we can agree on many things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7384336, member: 82106"] But this still makes my point #1, the GM may block these actions on the basis of some GM-established fictional setting parameters which are of no consequence or interest to the player. Now, if the genre simply doesn't admit of 'northern barbarians' as a concept (there could be a couple flavors of these possibly) then its not a possible goal. This speaks more to the advantages of No Myth than anything else, IMHO. Though even in No Myth I could see a general genre "this just isn't part of the milieu" happening. Still, its a problem most identified with established settings. Middle Earth for example has no viking analogs. It could, but it is established cannon that there are none. And to that extent your concept of social contract at the table is consonant with Story Now, and we agree. That is still not a commonly, or certainly at least universally, held position though. I mean, when I discuss with you or other participants, I assume this is a broader discussion than [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s process of play vs AbdulAlhazred's process of play. Again, I think this is like point 2, we agree. Still, there are many, probably MOST GMs who play in a fairly 'classic' process who would not agree with this. It certainly raises questions about sandboxes and such things for instance (though I think there are some nuances here too). See, we really agree on a number of things. I still don't really agree with your notion of insisting that the game be a largely continuous narrative filled with lots of extra details that don't relate to anything immediately interesting, nor that skipping such is forcing choices on players. Otherwise we can agree on many things. [/QUOTE]

Verification