Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8347798" data-attributes="member: 6993955">The essay by Edwards is good, but I think his example of setting-centric story-now play is, um, a little odd. Perhaps extreme is closer to what I mean. Personally, I use varying levels of pre-developed 'setting' in my story now games. My guideline is to have enough material for the choices made in character creation to be coherent. In Apocalypse World, much of that same sort of material is actually built right into the playbooks, which is cool. However, if I'm running my own setting, or my own game, I need to give the players some idea of the world they will inhabit, you simply can't play without that, and that means prep. I will draw a distinction here between campaign prep and session prep. I am indexing the former rather than the latterThis brings me to my second point, story-now is not, as some people believe, absent of any prep when prep is at least partially synonymous with 'setting'. It can be, but isn't always, nor does it need to be. Broadly speaking this can and is often accomplished by group world building in some form, but that isn't always the case. I find no-prep more common in games set in some version of modern earth, which has as a side benefit, enormous setting knowledge built in to each player. Fantasy and Sci-fi games replace that real-world knowledge with setting prep, in a huge variety of ways depending on the exact game in question. I think most of those examples escape the orbit of Edward's essay and probably need their own vocabulary and explication.</blockquote>

Verification