Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8348074" data-attributes="member: 82106">One point where you will run into a lot of wrangling is in Step 1 [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]. That is to say, plenty of people have extensive discussions between players and GMs leading up to the development of characters, setting design/selection, probably even rules selection (or at least customization). This is not necessarily prefatory to a 'Story Now' or 'Zero Myth' kind of game. Yet I have, MANY times here, been told that because there was such collaboration, and then usually ongoing collaboration at various points, on various elements and maybe even direction of the narrative, that "there is no meaningful difference." Now, to me, and I am expecting to you as well, there IS a meaningful difference in that Story Now is a much more immediate and constant interplay between developing fiction and the process of playing the game on a minute-by-minute basis. A game where every week between sessions the GM asks a few of the players what sort of stuff they want to do, how did things go, maybe exchanges some ideas on material to use next, is one thing. A Dungeon World game in which players can and do, by dint of the mechanics, obligate the GM to bind himself to specific facts during play, is a rather different beast, and is the sort of thing really meant by Story Now.I think Edwards does capture this kind of distinction, and I think generally it isn't problematic to use a lot of his terminology and concepts. My feeling is that there's more of a 'political' issue with it in the sense that it has been promoted as a more modern form of play, and there are those who feel they are thus being relegated to practitioners of a more 'primitive' kind of play. I don't hold by that, BTW, which is why it is in scare quotes of course. It kind of interestingly compares with other discussions of the use of that term, though! lol.</blockquote>

Verification