Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7392398" data-attributes="member: 82106">But, this, as I interpret the text, is clearly an example of something that is not Story Now, or at least violates certain principles which Eero Tuovinen is expounding. I would say its not Story Now, its 'free narrative', the players invent things to add to the fiction whole cloth. I see no indication that the thing added was relevant to an agenda, had dramatic consequence, or was in some way mediated by some mechanic which was intended to produce such. It was just "narration-sharing", which Tuovinen also denigrates (in an unstructured form) as 'conch-passing'. I'm completely mystified by the significance of this. It has no relation to Tuovinen's definition of Story Now, nor anything [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] nor I have discussed. I mean, I remember reading it, someone quoted it up thread before. I don't consider it to be a very coherent idea either. It certainly has nothing to with player agenda. I might put it a different way and say that it should be up to the GM to choose the purpose and nature of army high command. The GM is in a position to make this choice speak to the dramatic themes of the specific game. However, I think 3:16 is a game where the agenda is largely inherent, there's a question to be examined, but it is, at its core, built into the game and its single assumed setting. This is common with this type of game.Yes, this was another quote from upthread IIRC. I think you need fairly savvy players for this one, but it can be done. If they're really into the whole Cthulhu Mythos concept then its not actually THAT hard to build a story that is consistent with the tropes involved. I mean, there's going to be some sort of cosmic horror, its somehow related to some weird happenings, strange location, potentially world-destroying events, etc. In that kind of a situation a GM who frames scenes with some adroitness can emplace these elements in a suggestive enough way to allow for a thematic solution to a mystery to evolve. In terms of players using 'points' to invent backstory, as long as its in keeping with the mythos tropes and not a deliberate attempt to unravel the story, it PROBABLY will work out. I wouldn't just try this with some random group, and I think there are ways I trust more to get this right, but its not inherently terrible, and it could be 'Story Now' and seems like a 'No Myth' (kind of odd to use that term WRT to C.M. but....) kind of thing.I think there is a substantive difference. If I 'pay' then I get what I pay for, right? If I have to pass a check to get what I want (and even then its what the GM is willing to consider story appropriate, no laser weapons in the Duke's Bathroom) I could get nothing, and not having paid for something, I am not necessarily ENTITLED to anything. When I pay, then its a lot like getting ripped off if you don't get exactly what you thought you bought. Harder for the GM to regulate, though Cortex+ uses the Doom Pool concept in a similar way. Here the GM gets to push back harder if the player takes control of the narrative.Its STORY when it makes it into the story in an active way. Sure, PCs talk about what they know, but the backstory as a thing is not part of the in-game reality. Not in the way it is in OUR reality, where it is a piece of paper, some dice and charts, a wiki, etc.</blockquote>

Verification