Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zakael19" data-source="post: 9325788" data-attributes="member: 7044099">Do you think that &quot;IC&quot; back and forth &quot;chatting and joking&quot; is an inherently more meaningful way of constructing character connections and shared desires then a focused chargen session via guided Q&amp;A that establishes a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts? Because narrativist games ranging from PBTAs through Daggerheart do OOC work up front to anchor your characters to each other and the world in a very metagame way. Then, in actual play,&nbsp; you have all this fiction to grab and rely on when the GM tests the characters, or you conflict with each other.As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, the goal is establishing actionable fiction. When my players used teh questions to construct things like &quot;there's a guy courting me in the village, not sure how I feel about it, he's eager to prove himself &amp; in the militia&quot; I can grab that and deploy it to create a moment. When the players established in creation that &quot;Kiet is the one who stood beside me [Zel, the Judge] against a creature of chaos,&quot; I can flip around and ask said character what in their visions of impending doom made Kiet come to them, what reminded them of the dangers they were in together, and then the two of them have a moment of focused RP + metagame mixed that deepens their relationship as characters while defining the upcoming conflict.Every moment of GM/player back and forth is either deepening or extending the shared fiction. And then players always have space to invoke unstructured moments outside of the focused scenes to chat. Hell, there's a literal move in Stonetop called Keep Company, which puts the idea in the player's heads that they themselves can go &quot;hey, so we're in camp around the campfire and I'm really curious Zel - when Kiet charged heedlessly forward despite your warning what did you think?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zakael19, post: 9325788, member: 7044099"] Do you think that "IC" back and forth "chatting and joking" is an inherently more meaningful way of constructing character connections and shared desires then a focused chargen session via guided Q&A that establishes a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts? Because narrativist games ranging from PBTAs through Daggerheart do OOC work up front to anchor your characters to each other and the world in a very metagame way. Then, in actual play, you have all this fiction to grab and rely on when the GM tests the characters, or you conflict with each other. As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, the goal is establishing actionable fiction. When my players used teh questions to construct things like "there's a guy courting me in the village, not sure how I feel about it, he's eager to prove himself & in the militia" I can grab that and deploy it to create a moment. When the players established in creation that "Kiet is the one who stood beside me [Zel, the Judge] against a creature of chaos," I can flip around and ask said character what in their visions of impending doom made Kiet come to them, what reminded them of the dangers they were in together, and then the two of them have a moment of focused RP + metagame mixed that deepens their relationship as characters while defining the upcoming conflict. Every moment of GM/player back and forth is either deepening or extending the shared fiction. And then players always have space to invoke unstructured moments outside of the focused scenes to chat. Hell, there's a literal move in Stonetop called [I]Keep Company, [/I]which puts the idea in the player's heads that they themselves can go "hey, so we're in camp around the campfire and I'm really curious Zel - when Kiet charged heedlessly forward despite your warning what did you think?" [/QUOTE]

Verification