Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9317336" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don’t know if it is, honestly. I get why people are saying that… because it seems that the folks who are advocates of Narrativism/Story Now games are simply refusing to accept others calling that type of game “Narrative”. But it really isn’t that simple since so many different attributes are being attributed to “Narrative” games that aren’t present in Narrativism/Story Now. It makes things unclear. Are we talking about two different things? Or are people simply attributing things to a type of game that they shouldn’t be? I think it’s more the latter… but it’s not always clear. I think maybe examining the context of how Daggerheart may have used the word “narrative” in its promotion. I haven’t seen anyone post it, the OP just references it. I don’t recall how it’s used. Not necessarily. Think of Curse of Strahd, for instance. Who’s the protagonist? I don’t know. Perhaps we’re being a bit too specific about protagonist, but it’s about who drives the story. Whose actions propel things. In plenty of the RPGs I play in, I wouldn’t describe my PC as fitting that description. But isn’t this a key aspect? The game can be played (arguably is most often played) in this manner. That’s what play can be. So then should we describe a rules system that allows for that kind of play as being concerned with the same things as Narrativism/Story Now? I don’t think we can. Is it possible that folks start with such a system, and then approach play in a way that is more specific than given in the rules, and therefore play such a game in a more Narrativistic/Story Now type of way? I think that’s possible, to some extent, depending on the system and what changes are made.But that’s a different question.</blockquote>

Verification