Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9332142" data-attributes="member: 85870">See, this is one of those things that until you give narrative mechanics an honest try, feels like it should be the absolute right move. Before I really, truly embraced what Ironsworn had to offer, I was just as terrified of &quot;breaking the plausibility of the living world&quot; as the most traddiest of trad GMs out there. But the thing you discover very quickly is that it's an absolute myth. There are thousands upon thousands of ways, minor tweaks, tiny adjustments to the &quot;living world&quot; that maintain total fidelity and plausibility AND totally and completely engage with the thematic character intentions and stakes. It is emphatically NOT a zero sum game, an &quot;either or&quot; proposition.&quot;The player doesn't have to cater to what I want&quot;? Apologies, but, well, LOL. Really? You, the trad GM, with absolute utter power to do anything and everything to the &quot;living world&quot; any time you choose, regardless of effect it has on player stakes and intent, and somehow it's a good thing that &quot;the player doesn't have to cater&quot; to your wants?Again, apologies, but this is a rather absurd statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9332142, member: 85870"] See, this is one of those things that until you give narrative mechanics an honest try, feels like it should be the absolute right move. Before I really, truly embraced what [I]Ironsworn[/I] had to offer, I was just as terrified of "breaking the plausibility of the living world" as the most traddiest of trad GMs out there. But the thing you discover very quickly is that it's an absolute myth. There are thousands upon thousands of ways, minor tweaks, tiny adjustments to the "living world" that maintain total fidelity and plausibility AND [I]totally and completely engage with the thematic character intentions and stakes. [/I] It is emphatically NOT a zero sum game, an "either or" proposition. "The player doesn't have to cater to what I want"? Apologies, but, well, LOL. Really? You, the trad GM, with absolute utter power to do anything and everything to the "living world" any time you choose, regardless of effect it has on player stakes and intent, and somehow it's a good thing that "the player doesn't have to cater" to your wants? Again, apologies, but this is a rather absurd statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification