Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7448077" data-attributes="member: 16586">Sorry for disappearing. Been in the middle of a career transition while ramping up my training regimen.  Here is my basic contention: The different expectations, culture of play, and specific play techniques in utilized in game like Sorcerer provides an experience that does not easily arise when playing modern Dungeons and Dragons. The same is true for Moldvay B/X. although modern D&D can come closer there. I am also contending that mainstream games have a highly specific culture of play, expectations, and set of play techniques that most of do not normally look at with a critical lens because they represent the default of what most of us consider a role playing game to be. This is even seen in when [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] criticizes indie games from the prism of that culture. It's all about the experience the GM provides and satisfying individual kicks as seen through the prism of Robin Laws' Player Types. Story as seen as something the GM provides.Here's why I find this analysis flawed: It is done with zero reference to basic features of the culture of play that makes Sorcerer the game that it is. When I play Sorcerer I am not looking to the GM to provide me with an experience or a story. We are all exploring these characters together. I am not just invested in my character. I am also invested in what everyone else brings to the table, the definition of Humanity we worked on together, and finding out how human our characters are. I would be very interested in going into more detail about this culture of play if there is real interest.  Note: I never meant to imply that mainstream games were less fun than OSR and Indie games. I only meant to convey that they are not somehow contained within and represent a narrowing of the basic experience of playing a role playing game. Difference of kind. Not a narrowing of experience.</blockquote>

Verification