Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8347429" data-attributes="member: 177">So, here's a thing that a GM of more traditional games will trip over, and that maybe will make things clear:&nbsp; The player setting their Beliefs in this example is part of play.&nbsp; In traditional games, that Belief would sit in the character background, which would be considered, at best, as part of a separate character generation minigame/activity that is over and done with when the players sit at the table and start action resolution.&nbsp; The GM in a traditional game is not expected to engage with that right out of the block - that's a campaign-goal, to be addressed in the very long run, not a call to action for the first moment of the first session of play.Similarly, the GM of traditional games will trip over that much &quot;action resolution&quot; is - in fact, it is kind of a misnomer in some games, because the in-narrative action isn't actually what is getting resolved.&nbsp; The narrative question is getting resolved.The points where, say, someone is looking for a clue, and the player says their intent is to find evidence that Duke Badguy was behind recent events, that is what is happening in the narrative.&nbsp; What is often happening in the mechanics is determining if, in fact, Duke Badguy was behind it all.&nbsp; In &quot;no myth&quot; play, the mechanics resolve the PCs question by authoring the fact, rather than by testing the character's modeled technical ability to pick locks.&nbsp; It is this very thing that brings many folks to consider these more &quot;storytelling games&quot; than &quot;role-playing games&quot;.&nbsp; Because, when what you are resolving is a question of narrative direction, rather than character action, it doesn't feel to them like playing a role.&nbsp; Their role is, say, a thief, not a person who molds the universe by asking whodunnit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8347429, member: 177"] So, here's a thing that a GM of more traditional games will trip over, and that maybe will make things clear: The player setting their Beliefs in this example [I]is part of play[/I]. In traditional games, that Belief would sit in the character background, which would be considered, at best, as part of a separate character generation minigame/activity that is over and done with when the players sit at the table and start action resolution. The GM in a traditional game is not expected to engage with that right out of the block - that's a campaign-goal, to be addressed in the very long run, not a call to action for the first moment of the first session of play. Similarly, the GM of traditional games will trip over that much "action resolution" is - in fact, it is kind of a misnomer in some games, because the [I]in-narrative action[/I] isn't actually what is getting resolved. The [I]narrative question[/I] is getting resolved. The points where, say, someone is looking for a clue, and the player says their intent is to find evidence that Duke Badguy was behind recent events, that is what is happening in the narrative. What is often happening in the mechanics is determining if, in fact, Duke Badguy was behind it all. In "no myth" play, the mechanics resolve the PCs question by [I]authoring the fact[/I], rather than by testing the character's modeled technical ability to pick locks. It is this very thing that brings many folks to consider these more "storytelling games" than "role-playing games". Because, when what you are resolving is a question of narrative direction, rather than character action, it doesn't feel to them like [I]playing a role[/I]. Their role is, say, a thief, not a person who molds the universe by asking whodunnit. [/QUOTE]

Verification