Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9316500" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I think that games like, say, Dungeon World --a PbtA game-- define things a bit differently: 1) The resolution mechanics provide for the GM to frame an obstacle/setback/consequence/cost on some outcomes, and the player to define what they're doing and what success will look like. Some negotiation and potentially table-wide discussion of both is allowed for in case of a disagreement about what exactly forms a principled and genre appropriate adjudication. The GM also determines which specific move is triggered when action declarations are made, giving them a handle on how the mechanics are employed.2) The game initiates without any presuppositions about what direction and content will appear in play, there's no preexisting milieu or setting. The players generate characters in accordance with the process given in the rules, and then session 0 is used to hash out things like bonds between PCs, and the GM asks questions, using the answers, to frame some sort of initial scene. The rest of the game follows from this in a highly character centered fashion. The GM is allowed, at this point, to prepare material in the form of fronts, which can be introduced according to the strictures of agenda/principles/techniques in following scenes. All of this is VERY centered on player input and cues.3) The entire orientation of the game is to generate a kind of escalating, snowballing situation where the GM's moves push the players, and the GM's questions plus outcomes push framing to include specific fictional elements. The game very heavily emphasizes the sorts of things these are, fantastical world elements, dangerous situations, opportunities for heroic action, etc. There is NO freeform resolution at all in PbtA, particularly. Dungeon World has no 'breaking mechanics' of any sort, and this is also not particularly a thing in PbtA-based design. Dungeon World certainly includes many admonishments along the lines of 'Narrative Presentation', but these are not simply suggestions and guidelines, they are presented with the force of definitional rules that are intended to define what [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] might call the 'lusory attitude' or orientation of play. It is not that the GM is ASKED to "ask questions, use the answers" it is literally presented as a part of the process which any DW GM must go through if they are to run the game as-written. I haven't read Daggerheart, maybe I will, so I don't really have an opinion on where it falls in terms of the sorts of things described above, but IMHO 'Narrativist' games MUST put the players centrally in terms of where play is going at some level. Some of the stuff you mention may be useful in that, and does exist in some Narrativist game designs, but it isn't really what defines it. Finally, there can definitely be games that are mixed in some sense. Narrativist games, for instance, could very highly constrain the core premise of play. Like in BitD the PCs are absolutely always a group of criminals forming a gang and confronting the Doskvol milieu. It is still Narrativist, firmly so, because, within the bounds of the premise, the players formulate the trajectory of play along with the GM. The fundamental difference with trad play being this. A game is not Narr if it puts the GM in charge of the significance of and relations between the fictional elements and steers the general direction of play based on that. This is why 'module play' can't be Narrativist, because the structure of activity is directed by the GM and organized around the adventure. In this model the PCs are then conceived in a way that provides the needed orientation towards the activity. In Dungeon World it is the opposite, a 'dungeon' might exist because it serves the interests of the players, allowing the fiction to take a form they want, and the orientation of the characters DECIDES what that will be, not the other way around. Again, no opinion on where Daggerheart is falling on this currently.</blockquote>

Verification