Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9079469" data-attributes="member: 42582">Vincent Baker did not design Burning Wheel. Luke Crane did.As to the point of my comparison of the BW passage to Gygax's passage: Gygax uses the theatrical term &quot;thespian&quot; to point to one feature of AD&amp;D play. I've never heard it suggested that this means that a good AD&amp;D player has to be familiar with, and think in terms of, theatrical concepts.The use of the notion of &quot;protagonist&quot; doesn't mean that the Burning Wheel player needs to think in terms of literary concepts. It's just an attempt to convey something about how the game plays: in the play of the game the PCs are &quot;main characters&quot;.Obviously Luke Crane has some familiarity with literary concepts. My point is that, in order to play his game, the participants don't need to think in those terms.Similarly: the person who designed the bike I ride clearly used engineering concepts to do that. But when I ride the bike I don't need to think in engineering terms. Likewise with regard to the computer I'm typing on.I'm pretty familiar with both. I have a pretty good sense of what makes them distinct.I don't know how much Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World you've played.I'm not criticising (in the sense of identifying error or departure from norms). I am noting that the &quot;neutral arbiter&quot; approach is one method for ensuring that &quot;internal cause is king&quot;.And I reiterate that the different approach taken by the GM - ie whether or not the GM is a neutral arbiter - is the fundamental difference between a sandbox campaign and a &quot;story now&quot; campaign of the sort one gets by playing Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.I am at a loss, here, as to why you think that sandbox campaigns are unique or distinctive compared to other approaches to RPGing in involving small group discussion. I'm also not clear what you take the medium to be such that those discussions become mediated rather than unmediated collaboration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9079469, member: 42582"] Vincent Baker did not design Burning Wheel. Luke Crane did. As to the point of my comparison of the BW passage to Gygax's passage: Gygax uses the theatrical term "thespian" to point to one feature of AD&D play. I've never heard it suggested that this means that a good AD&D player has to be familiar with, and think in terms of, theatrical concepts. The use of the notion of "protagonist" doesn't mean that the Burning Wheel player needs to think in terms of literary concepts. It's just an attempt to convey something about how the game plays: in the play of the game the PCs are "main characters". Obviously Luke Crane has some familiarity with literary concepts. My point is that, in order to play his game, the participants don't need to think in those terms. Similarly: the person who designed the bike I ride clearly used engineering concepts to do that. But when I ride the bike I don't need to think in engineering terms. Likewise with regard to the computer I'm typing on. I'm pretty familiar with both. I have a pretty good sense of what makes them distinct. I don't know how much Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World you've played. I'm not criticising (in the sense of identifying error or departure from norms). I am noting that the "neutral arbiter" approach is one method for ensuring that "internal cause is king". And I reiterate that the different approach taken by the GM - ie whether or not the GM is a neutral arbiter - is the fundamental difference between a sandbox campaign and a "story now" campaign of the sort one gets by playing Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World. I am at a loss, here, as to why you think that sandbox campaigns are unique or distinctive compared to other approaches to RPGing in involving small group discussion. I'm also not clear what you take the medium to be such that those discussions become mediated rather than unmediated collaboration. [/QUOTE]

Verification