Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9318970" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Well its not like there can't be multiple perpindicular issues at the root of why these games were created. Its just in terms of why the tyrant GM argument is reoccurring is because defensive arguments keep pointing at it as the problem. Thats as true here as it still is when you read the Forge, and historically, the context is clear on that. GMs in the 90s were, even at there best, all becoming tyrants because it was trendy to try and do the sort of thing Dragonlance made popular, and it wasn't long before the Forge came out and all these people were said to be suffering brain damage. It still isn't the only reason the Forge showed up nor why its creators went down the paths they did, but it is a strong recurring theme throughout the last 20-30 years of indie TTRPG design. The GMs input isn't really the issue here, unless we've come to a point where just describing a room is somehow a problem if the players don't get first dibs. In COC, exploration is much of the point. Your set into a tense, moody world and will eventually find yourself compelled to address the strange occurrences in this world. But until then, you're just in it, and depending on the scenario this can lead to all sorts of things.My first run at COC, we spent IIRC around 3 sessions worth just exploring a haunted house that had nothing to do with the actual mystery. It was just there as an impetus to bring the characters together, and while not known at the time, the Keeper was basically just making things up as we poked and prodded and got lost in that damn house lol that, as it turned out, was just a crappy old house. Despite making no real progress on anything of note, I would never say that experience was wasted. It perfectly set the tone and even when we all came to the conclusion that it really was just a crappy old house, the mood was still tense going into what we were actually there for, because we didn't know what to make of what we went through.That's where the idea of story making game really shines, because when a game facilitates story making, your real life experience is as much a part of the overall narrative as the in-game events are. The line between Player and Character blurs because we were completely synchronous. Mr. Archibald was just as stumped as I was. There's nothing inherently stopping the PBTA style of game from doing this (Ironsworn does it, and I've had good experiences with how Fellowship works), but they are, on the whole, not very careful about how their ludonarrative elements merge with the intended story telling that comes from the player themselves. As I mentioned earlier, thats the crux of how my Events system works. Players have a lot of agency to spontaneously create and collaborate on elaborate side adventures, but the way it is designed aligns the system much better ludonarratively speaking. I feel like that last part got a little word salady, so let me rephrase: while Players can input their own narratives, the game guides the integration of these new narratives into the gameworld through carefully designed ludonarrative mechanics. The impetus to introduce a new narrative is diegetic, the prompt nudges the player towards a likely distraction in their task, and their input is then converted through improv mechanics into a more concrete part of the gameworld. Even when the Player wants to be cheeky and try to conjure a pile of gold into the forest, the means by which that becomes a real part of the gameworld is what tempers the amorphous nature of its creation. The pile of gold is now cursed, and makes for one heck of a curiosity, especially when the Bandit chasing my friend faceplants into the pile and turns into gold himself.</blockquote>

Verification