Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7400892" data-attributes="member: 16814">You're backsliding into claims of superiority rather than advocacy.  Just a note, if you care, that saying things like 'proves to be more interesting to most players, ' even if caveated by an IME, is a claim of style superiority, and one not backed by anything other than your opinion.  So, too, is calling the other viewpoint 'two dimensional thinking' and implying that you're engaged in three dimensional, and therefore better, thinking.To the larger point, narrativist style games require a large conceptual hurdle to be overcome, at which point it clicks and you understand that most of the traditionalist arguments against really don't apply.  The problem, at that point, is being able to vault back over the hurdle and see that many of the narrativist criticism of traditional player also don't really apply.  It's apples and oranges, chess and checkers.  The concepts and points of play are arranged differently and given different weights, so trying to judge the other style using your style weighting is going to end up being incorrect, and it's not a matter of 2-D vs 3-D thinking -- one isn't a dimension superior.  Rather, it's more like X-axis vs Y-axis thinking, different, one has trouble understanding the other, but one isn't superior to the other.  Actually, I like this, as most arguments in this thread really seem to boil down to 'but you only have 1 value! No, I don't, you do!' which is appropriate because a horizontal line has only 1 value on the Y axis, and vice versa.Regardless of my own opinions of my cleverness, it occurs that the argument about no-myth vs myth games is that there are things missing in the analysis.  Most myth in games is there to set up theme and conflicts, yes?  Well, as [MENTION=43157]caliburn[/MENTION] notes, this role is taken over by the player backstory and goals in no-myth play, meaning that the role of establishing themes and conflict exists in both systems, it's just a matter of who has authority in which parts.  Traditional play has the GM authority in establishing this and narrativist allows player authority.  After that, the DM still has authority to set scenes and the players still have action authority in both.  But, the role of myth in the game is the same between the two, it's just who gets to introduce it.  That can have huge difference in play, sure, but it's a bit premature to claim that no-myth play really is no-myth; it uses a different arrangement of authority to generate the myth that the game operates by.  All games are, then, at best, low myth, because players establish myth for the game before play starts through their backstories and goals/traits/flaws.Hopefully, discussing the relative benefits as each sees them of these two models without yelling back and forth over which has myth and which doesn't might prove more fruitful.</blockquote>

Verification