Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9316904" data-attributes="member: 42582">To add to [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s reply: how can the essay be wrong about the agenda of play that it, as much as anything and anyone else, carved out as a thing we could think and talk about in the world of RPG play? As far as analysis goes, for the RPGs that it mentions and that I am familiar with or have played - The Dying Earth, HeroWorld/Quest, Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, Wuthering Heights - it is spot on. Does you experience with those RPGs tell you otherwise?And the agenda that it is concerned with - thematically-oriented player protagonism -&nbsp; is a natural one to emerge in the RPG medium, and one that - to some or other extent - I had been aspiring to for about 15 years before I read that essay. The essay crystalised, for me, what I was trying to do; and also explained why AD&amp;D and RM had been relatively unpromising vehicles for achieving it.As far as the claim that it is counterproductive, I already noted upthread that, on p 288 of Apocalypse World, Baker says that:The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.Given that AW has been the most influential thing in RPG design in a long time, perhaps since RuneQuest; and given that the game this thread is about, DaggerHeart, is an offshoot of Baker's design; how can you possibly assert that the essay was counterproductive?And is this based on your play experience with Apocalypse World, or the other games mentioned by Edwards, or self-consciously influenced by his writing?As is ignorance.I don't cite Edwards because of faith. I cite it because it is insightful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9316904, member: 42582"] To add to [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s reply: how can the essay be [I]wrong[/I] about the agenda of play that it, as much as anything and anyone else, carved out as a [I]thing[/I] we could think and talk about in the world of RPG play? As far as analysis goes, for the RPGs that it mentions and that I am familiar with or have played - The Dying Earth, HeroWorld/Quest, Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, Wuthering Heights - it is spot on. Does you experience with those RPGs tell you otherwise? And the agenda that it is concerned with - thematically-oriented player protagonism - is a natural one to emerge in the RPG medium, and one that - to some or other extent - I had been aspiring to for about 15 years before I read that essay. The essay crystalised, for me, what I was trying to do; and also explained why AD&D and RM had been relatively unpromising vehicles for achieving it. As far as the claim that it is [I]counterproductive[/I], I already noted upthread that, on p 288 of Apocalypse World, Baker says that: [indent]The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.[/indent] Given that AW has been the most influential thing in RPG design in a long time, perhaps since RuneQuest; and given that the game this thread is about, DaggerHeart, is an offshoot of Baker's design; how can you [I]possibly[/I] assert that the essay was counterproductive? And is this based on your play experience with Apocalypse World, or the other games mentioned by Edwards, or self-consciously influenced by his writing? As is ignorance. I don't cite Edwards because of [I]faith[/I]. I cite it because it is insightful. [/QUOTE]

Verification