Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9079029" data-attributes="member: 13383">This is the entire quote from the AD&D 1e PHBThis is not at all similar to what Baker talked about in the Flow of the Game section. Yes, characters are a literary concept. No type of RPG can avoid some connection to literary concepts. But which concept Sandbox Campaigns uses and how they are used is very different than what concepts are used in and how they are used in "Story Now" campaigns. Which is why they are two distinct styles for playing out a campaign.I don't need to research and learn the intricacies of how medieval weapons work as the Harnmaster rules do a good job encapsulating how they work, their trade offs, and implemented in a way that is resolved quickly during play.Good RPGs systems are that way because their author successfully designs mechanics that allow groups to get going with a campaign with a minimum of hassle. Thus I accept your assertion that BW doesn't require one to know about literary concepts or understand that the group is collaborating on a story. I don't need to be convinced that Baker did a good job of this in regard to literary terms and collaborative storytelling with Burning Wheel.I disagree. From reading the rest of Burning Wheel it is an important underlying design philosophy behind the mechanics and procedures he created for Burning Wheel.Because so far you demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what makes Sandbox Campaigns distinct compared to "Story Now" Campaigns. You don't ask questions to clarify the parts you don't understand. Instead, you focus on debating definitions and meanings. For example, you still have not demonstrated an understanding of why I choose to use the analogy of a trip <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-do-rpgs-have-rules.697430/post-9076892" target="_blank">in my post</a>. All your counterpoints so far have been incorrect and focused on the wrong elements of the analogy. Then you stopped when you shifted to debating about whether literary concepts and story collaboration are found in "Story Now" RPGs and campaigns.I explained in my reply how this works for sandbox campaigns. It happens the group decides on a setting to play. And you would have understood this had you chosen to ask questions rather than debate over my use of the analogy of the trip.I would not be surprised if you would consider this unmediated collaboration. But you would be incorrect as it requires the group to know how to listen and participate in small group discussions. Anybody who dealt with small group discussions on a regular basis knows that there are a variety of techniques one can use depending on the type of discussion. For sandbox campaigns only the basic skill is needed. This is where having a correct understanding of my use of a trip analogy would help you understand the distinction between "Story Now" campaigns and Sandbox campaigns.Due to the way you used this in two separate replies, I assume that your use of Edwards' concept of "internal cause is king" is a criticism of the Sandbox Campaign's neutral arbiter. If this is so, then your criticism wasn't completed. You need to explain how the difference matters. The consequences of the Sandbox referee being a natural arbiter versus the consequences of a "Story Now" referee not being a neutral referee.That is incorrect, the referee as a neutral arbiter is only one of the keys. The others I outlined in my reply.</blockquote>

Verification