Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9078705" data-attributes="member: 42582">In his foreword to the AD&amp;D PHB, Gygax tells us that each player will become an accomplished thespian. Do you think that means that theatrical notions are essential to playing AD&amp;D?Your own play uses the notion of character. Do you think that means that sandbox play, contra your assertions, is in fact committed to explaining play using literary concepts?The remarks you quote from BW are nothing but explanatory text of the sort that is found in forewords to many RPGs - which refer characters, events/stories, etc.If you actually read the instructions to players and GMs in BW, you will see that they don't depend upon literary notions. They require understanding particular elements of the game, like Beliefs, Instincts, traits, Relationships etc.Because the point of rules, in Bakers' view, is to make it unnecessary for the participants to think in literary terms and to think about collaborating on a story.The concepts the players need, in a game like BW or AW, are various forms of what does my character want? Where this is generally understood in a rich, layered, way with a lot of reference to other, immediately salient, elements of the gameworld (eg other PCs, prominent NPCs with whom the PCs have connections, etc).The concepts the GM needs, in a game like BW or AW, are various forms of what would fulfil this player's aspirations for their PC, and what would thwart those aspirations?This is where the difference from sandboxing is found. It is why, in these games, internal cause is not king. It is why the notion of &quot;neutral arbiter&quot; is not part of the GM role in these RPGs.I personally don't think the contrast is very complicated, and I am repeatedly puzzled by the heavy weather that gets made of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9078705, member: 42582"] In his foreword to the AD&D PHB, Gygax tells us that each player will become an accomplished thespian. Do you think that means that theatrical notions are essential to playing AD&D? Your own play uses the notion of [I]character[/I]. Do you think that means that sandbox play, contra your assertions, is in fact committed to explaining play using literary concepts? The remarks you quote from BW are nothing but explanatory text of the sort that is found in forewords to many RPGs - which refer characters, events/stories, etc. If you actually read the instructions to players and GMs in BW, you will see that they don't depend upon literary notions. They require understanding particular elements of the game, like Beliefs, Instincts, traits, Relationships etc. Because the [I]point[/I] of rules, in Bakers' view, is to make it unnecessary for the participants to think in literary terms and to think about collaborating on a story. The concepts the players need, in a game like BW or AW, are various forms of [I]what does my character want?[/I] Where this is generally understood in a rich, layered, way with a lot of reference to other, immediately salient, elements of the gameworld (eg other PCs, prominent NPCs with whom the PCs have connections, etc). The concepts the GM needs, in a game like BW or AW, are various forms of [I]what would fulfil this player's aspirations for their PC, and what would thwart those aspirations[/I]? This is where the difference from sandboxing is found. It is why, in these games, internal cause is not [I]king[/I]. It is why the notion of "neutral arbiter" is not part of the GM role in these RPGs. I personally don't think the contrast is very complicated, and I am repeatedly puzzled by the heavy weather that gets made of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification