Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9317343" data-attributes="member: 82106">You CAN try, and to some degree of course you may succeed. However, 5e is still built around GM architected plots, for example. You can try to eschew that, but then you will run into issues like the resource management architecture of 5e working against you. The core 'task' based binary pass/fail resolution system doesn't do the sort of snowballing that PbtA or FitD games rely on, etc. It is a poor fit.As for working from the example of a module, that is what 99.99997% of all 5e play is coming from. That's the real lived experience of play in that system. I mean, I've played a fair amount of 5e, with a skilled GM."A protagonist is the main character of a story. The protagonist makes key decisions that affect the plot, primarily influencing the story and propelling it forward, and is often the character who faces the most significant obstacles." None of this sounds like RPing a day of muffin baking. Yes, sure, the conflicts can be local, even personal, but there needs to be a conflict to be explored, and it needs to be weighty enough to concern us, at least at the scale of the protagonist, or it isn't really going to make very interesting play. I mean, sure, tastes vary, if your enthusiasm for RPing whether or not you can get the souffle to turn out or not is great enough then go for it!We can TALK ABOUT problematic human issues, but without protagonism we are not going to be able to engage with them at the level of imagining playing them out. I find that trying to deny that there is a specific kind of play which puts these things in the central position and relegates other considerations to the periphery is what is 'just weird'.Nonsense. Look, you have your preferences, but if you are going to claim I'm 'hijacking' a word, then tell me how my definition, which I have taken from credible sources, isn't justified. Trad play is de-protagonizing in several ways, and I'm FAR from alone in coming to that conclusion, nor have I used any unusual language or leaps of logic in doing so.Yeah, well, read it. I just went back and read the whole "Narrativism: Story Now" essay, and your characterization of it is completely off base. There are a number of areas that are discussed and it all hangs together quite well. To call it 'blathering' is simply silly, and if you call ordinary writing 'toxic', I think that's not a reflection on the writer in this case. <a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">The Forge :: Narrativism: Story Now</a></blockquote>

Verification