Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arilyn" data-source="post: 7412340" data-attributes="member: 6816042">Hey, thanks for the numbering.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />1. Yes, I agree mostly, but having players with agency over the fiction is still more agency. Whether that's desirable is subjective.2.Yes, can't argue with that! I think Story Now could be harder to run properly, although maybe kids would have less trouble with it, as its more or less how they play. Minus the squabbling, of course.3. Maybe? I think there can be exploration in both styles, just one is pre-built, and the other unfolds during play. 4. It is fun. Don't know about long term campaigns. Have to ask pemerton about that, or maybe he's already said. These threads are getting really long. I think it might be important in Story Now gaming to weave the player plots together as much as possible without getting silly. And if player B's story is exciting, there is no reason for player A to get detached. Another question for pemerton, but doesn't all the player goals kind of merge together, anyway? Kind of like watching Avengers or Leverage. It's happening in our current campaign. We have different drives and long term goals, but we form a cohesive unit against the baddies, and are more than willing to help each other further their individual arcs. Sometimes this causes some inter-character strife, but that's cool.5. Oh definitely. I didn't mean to imply agency isn't important or meaningful. I was just trying to point out that having the most isn't some kind of &quot;I win!&quot; badge. I have been in some tightly focussed GM driven stories that were awesome, and have played in wide open sandboxes that were excruciatingly dull. I get a little tired of hearing about sandboxes actually, but that's off topic.Anyway, hello to a fellow British Columbian.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arilyn, post: 7412340, member: 6816042"] Hey, thanks for the numbering.:) 1. Yes, I agree mostly, but having players with agency over the fiction is still more agency. Whether that's desirable is subjective. 2.Yes, can't argue with that! I think Story Now could be harder to run properly, although maybe kids would have less trouble with it, as its more or less how they play. Minus the squabbling, of course. 3. Maybe? I think there can be exploration in both styles, just one is pre-built, and the other unfolds during play. 4. It is fun. Don't know about long term campaigns. Have to ask pemerton about that, or maybe he's already said. These threads are getting really long. I think it might be important in Story Now gaming to weave the player plots together as much as possible without getting silly. And if player B's story is exciting, there is no reason for player A to get detached. Another question for pemerton, but doesn't all the player goals kind of merge together, anyway? Kind of like watching Avengers or Leverage. It's happening in our current campaign. We have different drives and long term goals, but we form a cohesive unit against the baddies, and are more than willing to help each other further their individual arcs. Sometimes this causes some inter-character strife, but that's cool. 5. Oh definitely. I didn't mean to imply agency isn't important or meaningful. I was just trying to point out that having the most isn't some kind of "I win!" badge. I have been in some tightly focussed GM driven stories that were awesome, and have played in wide open sandboxes that were excruciatingly dull. I get a little tired of hearing about sandboxes actually, but that's off topic. Anyway, hello to a fellow British Columbian. [/QUOTE]

Verification