Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9334913" data-attributes="member: 42582">You mean like AD&amp;D and Rolemaster?I have no idea whether you are doing narrativist RPGing or not. I mean, you seem to repeatedly deny that you are, and so I take you at your word. I don't know enough about the details of your play to form a considered view.One thing that I notice, though, is this: when I read Edwards, Czege etc talking about techniques for scene-framing, narrativist play and the like I was blown away. Not all of it made sense at first - because I lacked the experience of a sufficient variety of RPGs and techniques - but the core ideas shed amazing light on my own RPGing. It helped me understand what had been so great about (say) my AD&amp;D OA and thief campaigns, and what I had been going on in the best moments of our RM play. It also helped me work out why following advice in books like the Wilderness Survival Guide and the RM Campaign Law seemed to hurt my game, even though this was presented as the way to play.Whereas you seem to find all commentary on narrativist play, discussion of techniques etc as being at odds with your own play. That makes me think - tentatively - that your play is predominantly high concept sim. And that the addressing of theme and moral conflicts that you refer to are closer to the way this comes up in DL, ie with pre-established answers, rather than via player decision-making about the meaning of what is at stake.Perhaps I'm wrong? As I said, I'm just inferring from your posts.Who is the &quot;we&quot; who never battled the cult? Why would the warlock PC be battling his own cult? I'm a bit confused.The weather stuff sounds like colour, plus the GM sending you information about elements of the fiction they have prepped but not yet revealed. I'm not seeing the player-authored rising conflict across a moral line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9334913, member: 42582"] You mean like AD&D and Rolemaster? I have no idea whether you are doing narrativist RPGing or not. I mean, you seem to repeatedly deny that you are, and so I take you at your word. I don't know enough about the details of your play to form a considered view. One thing that I notice, though, is this: when I read Edwards, Czege etc talking about techniques for scene-framing, narrativist play and the like I was blown away. Not all of it made sense at first - because I lacked the experience of a sufficient variety of RPGs and techniques - but the core ideas shed amazing light on my own RPGing. It helped me understand what had been so great about (say) my AD&D OA and thief campaigns, and what I had been going on in the best moments of our RM play. It also helped me work out why following advice in books like the Wilderness Survival Guide and the RM Campaign Law seemed to hurt my game, even though this was presented as [I]the way[/I] to play. Whereas you seem to find all commentary on narrativist play, discussion of techniques etc as being at odds with your own play. That makes me think - tentatively - that your play is predominantly high concept sim. And that the addressing of theme and moral conflicts that you refer to are closer to the way this comes up in DL, ie with pre-established answers, rather than via player decision-making about the meaning of what is at stake. Perhaps I'm wrong? As I said, I'm just inferring from your posts. Who is the "we" who never battled the cult? Why would the warlock PC be battling his own cult? I'm a bit confused. The weather stuff sounds like colour, plus the GM sending you information about elements of the fiction they have prepped but not yet revealed. I'm not seeing the player-authored rising conflict across a moral line. [/QUOTE]

Verification