Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9334994" data-attributes="member: 42582">My arguments are fairly simple:I think Edwards has a helpful classification of three aesthetic goals for, or orientations towards, RPGing. I think he is correct that many different techniques can be used in pursuit of these various goals, but some techniques are better suited for some than for others. I also think he is correct that some resolution procedures - in particular, GM fiat at the moment of &quot;crisis&quot; - are not well-suited to gamist or narrativist play. (NB. &quot;not well-suited&quot; is not synonymous with &quot;cannot be used for&quot;.)I also argue that certain very well-known and widely-used techniques - map-and-key, and the associated but not quite identical method of the GM determining consequences by reference to and extrapolation from hidden fiction that only they know - are not easily reconciled with narrativist play, because they tend to collide with the player-authored rising conflict across a moral line.I also argue that posters who associate &quot;narrativist&quot; RPGing with particular techniques - such as eg &quot;player narrative control&quot; - are mistaken. The mistake is a general one, of confusing a technique with a goal. It also leads to misleading taxonomies, where a game like Fate gets grouped with a game like Apocalypse World, even though (i) AW has basically no &quot;player narrative control&quot; and (ii) Fate and AW are not well-suited to the same creative/aesthetic goal. (In Edwards' terms, Fate is well-suited for high concept simulationism, whereas AW is self-consciously designed to support narrativism.)A final argument that I will mention is that - when looked at in the context of ordinary, conventional RPGing with a typical GM-player divide - the most important thing to do to achieve narrativist play is to change the way the GM makes decisions from the sorts of approaches that are set out in &quot;mainstream&quot; RPG books (like, eg, most D&amp;D DMGs). The relevant changes include having regard to player thematic cues, allowing players to set the goals for their PCs (and not asking them to pick from a GM-authored menu), and having regard to those thematic cues in establishing situations (= framing scenes) and establishing consequences. This in turn requires departing from &quot;neutral GMing&quot; as well as &quot;follow the story board&quot; GMing, and is apt to cause friction with some fairly common approaches to action resolution and to the establishing of consequences (eg rules around healing of injuries or recovery/replenishment of gear).I have no idea what makes this particular bundle of arguments &quot;modalist&quot;. It's a series of arguments about the relationships between technique, play procedures, expectations/convention, and various aesthetic goals one might have while RPGing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9334994, member: 42582"] My arguments are fairly simple: I think Edwards has a helpful classification of three aesthetic goals for, or orientations towards, RPGing. I think he is correct that many different techniques can be used in pursuit of these various goals, but some techniques are better suited for some than for others. I also think he is correct that some resolution procedures - in particular, GM fiat at the moment of "crisis" - are not well-suited to gamist or narrativist play. (NB. "not well-suited" is not synonymous with "cannot be used for".) I also argue that certain very well-known and widely-used techniques - map-and-key, and the associated but not quite identical method of the GM determining consequences by reference to and extrapolation from hidden fiction that only they know - are not easily reconciled with narrativist play, because they tend to collide with the player-authored rising conflict across a moral line. I also argue that posters who associate "narrativist" RPGing with particular techniques - such as eg "player narrative control" - are mistaken. The mistake is a general one, of confusing a technique with a goal. It also leads to misleading taxonomies, where a game like Fate gets grouped with a game like Apocalypse World, even though (i) AW has basically no "player narrative control" and (ii) Fate and AW are not well-suited to the same creative/aesthetic goal. (In Edwards' terms, Fate is well-suited for high concept simulationism, whereas AW is self-consciously designed to support narrativism.) A final argument that I will mention is that - when looked at in the context of ordinary, conventional RPGing with a typical GM-player divide - the most important thing to do to achieve narrativist play is to [I]change the way the GM makes decisions[/I] from the sorts of approaches that are set out in "mainstream" RPG books (like, eg, most D&D DMGs). The relevant changes include having regard to player thematic cues, allowing players to set the goals for their PCs (and not asking them to pick from a GM-authored menu), and having regard to those thematic cues in establishing situations (= framing scenes) and establishing consequences. This in turn requires departing from "neutral GMing" as well as "follow the story board" GMing, and is apt to cause friction with some fairly common approaches to action resolution and to the establishing of consequences (eg rules around healing of injuries or recovery/replenishment of gear). I have no idea what makes this particular bundle of arguments "modalist". It's a series of arguments about the relationships between technique, play procedures, expectations/convention, and various aesthetic goals one might have while RPGing. [/QUOTE]

Verification