Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7404301" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I think that's a very interesting question. Honestly that seems to me to be the most natural response to the OP, though maybe we needed to go through some steps to get there, I'm not sure...So, I'd say the process would then be that the players make up their characters and pick some high level 'campaign goal' somehow, and then the GM generates the settings and etc. needed to play that out. I think this might be a feasible approach for at least some subset of narrativist play. It might even be better if the GM and the players agreed ahead of time on this and then the players went off to make the PCs and the GM to do some world building/adventure design. This is not far from some things I've done, like the Arthurian Knights game we played that I described here a few posts ago. It does work. Now, I think there's something to be said for a more dynamic and less scripted game. There is less incentive to create a 'Wizard of Oz Game' out of it where there's basically one 'yellow brick road'. The focus tends to fall more towards the PLOT, (IE finding the seven swords) vs CHARACTER (IE testing the PCs reasons/dedication/moral compunctions about/etc finding the seven swords). I think each one delivers a slightly different product. I think they do form part of a continuum between 'classical' and 'standard narrative method' of the 'Pemertonian' type. I think that you can find a lot of games, including ones written/espoused by the forgite story now people, that fit all different points in this continuum. In this sense I am not opposed to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s proposition that such a continuum exists, though I think there are points he seems hazy on at times (and at other times not so much, threads are not the best way to communicate).</blockquote>

Verification