Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9078658" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well I can repot that I was very cognisant of the difference. So were my friends. The difference was the basis on which I recruited a number of players for my RM game from railroad-y AD&amp;D games.There was however a lot of excitement for RPGs like Ars Magica and Vampire the Masquerade. As you mention there were RPGs offered rich backgrounds filled with roleplaying details that were also fleshed out in the mechanics. RPGs like these started appearing in the mid-80s were considered new, distinct, and interesting to play.You may have missed a &quot;not&quot; in the post you are replying to here:In any event, if you think that &quot;story now&quot; RPGing involves the use of literary concepts, or collaboration on a story, you're wrong. It doesn't. Practically the whole point of the design of a game like BW or AW (or DitV, or Agon 2nd ed, or . . . ) is that the procedures of play do not require anyone to have regard to &quot;a story&quot; or &quot;the story&quot; or &quot;theme&quot; in order for play to generate the desired play experience. That's the whole point of the quotes from Vincent Baker in the OP of this thread, explaining how rules can do something useful that unmediated collaboration cannot achieve.Yes. He is engaging in criticism. He does not assert, nor imply, that literary concepts are needed to play &quot;story now&quot; RPGs. And your post was a discussion of play - what a group does in the preparation for, and play of, a RPG game - not a discussion of criticism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9078658, member: 42582"] Well I can repot that I was very cognisant of the difference. So were my friends. The difference was the basis on which I recruited a number of players for my RM game from railroad-y AD&D games. There was however a lot of excitement for RPGs like Ars Magica and Vampire the Masquerade. As you mention there were RPGs offered rich backgrounds filled with roleplaying details that were also fleshed out in the mechanics. RPGs like these started appearing in the mid-80s were considered new, distinct, and interesting to play. You may have missed a "not" in the post you are replying to here: In any event, if you think that "story now" RPGing involves the use of literary concepts, or collaboration on a story, you're wrong. It doesn't. Practically the whole point of the design of a game like BW or AW (or DitV, or Agon 2nd ed, or . . . ) is that the procedures of play do not require anyone to have regard to "a story" or "the story" or "theme" in order for play to generate the desired play experience. That's the whole point of the quotes from Vincent Baker in the OP of this thread, explaining how [I]rules[/I] can do something useful that [I]unmediated collaboration[/I] cannot achieve. Yes. He is engaging in criticism. He does not assert, nor imply, that literary concepts are needed to [I]play[/I] "story now" RPGs. And your post was a discussion of play - what a group does in the preparation for, and play of, a RPG game - not a discussion of criticism. [/QUOTE]

Verification