Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5656897" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks for the heads up.I agree with this. It was the point I made upthread about the landslide - we can't tell what is going on their without context -&nbsp; how does it fit into the expectations of everyone at the table, their understanding of what has come before, their understanding of what might follow?I'm generally sympathetic to this, although I think it puts a bit too much emphasis on the GM generating the plot - suggesting some sort of high concept simulationism - rather than on the players generating the plot by engaging meaningful situations - which is my own preference for play.I don't agree with this. It is a continuum that only makes sense within the confines of exploration-focused play: in a sandbox, exploration is of the setting (and situation is mostly in the hands of the players), whereas in a railroad exploration is of the situation (and everything but colour and some modest narration pertaining to the PCs is in the hands of the GM). But once you step out of simulationist play into other ways of playing - such as the afore-mentioned player-driven approach - then there can be play that is neither sandbox, nor railroad, nor halfway between. Namely, play that invovles GM authority over situation, shared authority over content/backstory (players have their PCs, GM has most of the rest, some points of overlap plus details that are more colour than meaty content are negotiated), and plot as the result of all participants engaging the action resolution mechanics.Why are we still talking about plot in RPGs as if nothing has changed since White Wolf and AD&amp;D 2nd ed?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5656897, member: 42582"] Thanks for the heads up. I agree with this. It was the point I made upthread about the landslide - we can't tell what is going on their without context - how does it fit into the expectations of everyone at the table, their understanding of what has come before, their understanding of what might follow? I'm generally sympathetic to this, although I think it puts a bit too much emphasis on the [I]GM[/I] generating the plot - suggesting some sort of high concept simulationism - rather than on the [I]players[/I] generating the plot by engaging meaningful situations - which is my own preference for play. I don't agree with this. It is a continuum that only makes sense within the confines of exploration-focused play: in a sandbox, exploration is of the setting (and situation is mostly in the hands of the players), whereas in a railroad exploration is of the situation (and everything but colour and some modest narration pertaining to the PCs is in the hands of the GM). But once you step out of simulationist play into other ways of playing - such as the afore-mentioned player-driven approach - then there can be play that is neither sandbox, nor railroad, nor halfway between. Namely, play that invovles GM authority over situation, shared authority over content/backstory (players have their PCs, GM has most of the rest, some points of overlap plus details that are more colour than meaty content are negotiated), and plot as the result of all participants engaging the action resolution mechanics. Why are we still talking about plot in RPGs as if nothing has changed since White Wolf and AD&D 2nd ed? [/QUOTE]

Verification