Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8347576" data-attributes="member: 42582">EzekielRaiden, I haven't read your post yet beyond these bookends. But I wanted to reply to them separately because I encourage you to relax! That is sincerely meant, however feebly it may come across in the mode of messageboard text.I'm a person in Australia, I'm guessing on the other side of the world from you (most ENworlders seem to be American) and we are unlikely ever to play in one another's games. You owe me nothing in relation to your play. I have posted in reply to you simply because I read some of what you posted in this thread, and it struck me as containing some claims I disagree with (about when it is appropriate for a GM to author content as part of the process of scene-framing) and that I thought sat oddly with the GMing of Dungeon World as I understand that system (based on my reading of it and AW, a modest amount of DW play, and a reasonable familiarity with Vincent Baker's aspirations as a RPG designer).'As you probably know, my main reason for posting on ENworld is to engage in discussion with other RPGers about techniques of RPG play. My interest in design is because of its relationship to play (eg have I ever made a post about RPG illustrations? Not that I can recall. Maybe one or two at the height of the 4e furore? And also explaining once how an illustration inspired my framing of a beholder encounter). My interest in actual play reports is because they provide the raw material for discussions of play. When I prep for my own GMing, I am always thinking of elements in play - which is one of the things I love about 4e monsters, that as you're adapting or designing them they create this vivid image of events happening in play. And one flip-side, as you also probably know, is that I am not very interested in world-building for its own sake in the context of discussions of RPGing. Whatever the pleasures of worldbuilding (and I've done a little bit, though decades ago now when I had more time), insofar as it is interesting to discuss in the context of RPGing I think that is because we can talk about its contribution to play.For me, part of posting to talk about play includes honest reflection on my own play. In my time on ENworld there have been two posters who I think have done the most to push me in that direction. One no longer posts much if at all, as far as I know - [USER=386]@LostSoul[/USER]. The other is [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]. The latter, in particular, has done more than anyone else to hold my feet to the fire of fidelity to the fiction - as he and I have often discussed, I have a strong tendency towards sentimentality that can sometimes, even often, get in the way of following through as hard as I should when the opportunity arises and the fiction demands it. (Maybe this is part of why JRRT remains one of my favourite authors? He's also very sentimental.)But while feeling the force of [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s points, I've also stuck to my own course. [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the PbtA design and approach to play is probably his favourite way of RPGing. Mine is BW-style scene-framing. One reason that Campbell has hesitancy about BW (and similar systems - Prince Valiant, and our indie-style 4e D&D probably both tick that "similarity" box) is that its resolution prioritises a player's goals for his/her PC (expressed via Beliefs) and his/her intention in action declaration (as I discussed just upthread with [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER]) - it does this via its general framing principles, its intent-and-task resolution, its approach to consequence narration on a failure (which draws on both the preceding features), and its principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Campbell's concern about this package is that it can elevate the conception of the character as a character over the purist fidelity to the fiction, both as established and its unfolding trajectory. And I think he's right. But I still love it, and prefer it, because of the thematic intensity I find in it. (And maybe it also fits better with my sentimentality.)We're all ultimately free to make our own choices about how we RPG, based on our own experiences and preferences and idiosyncracies. We're here to talk to one another, and maybe to learn from one another, but we're not beholden to anyone but the other participants at our tables. I think that can be worth remembering sometimes.</blockquote>

Verification