Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8653720" data-attributes="member: 5142">Here is where I would disagree with you and Czege. I think that using "scene framing" to mean "set the scene" is a perfectly valid way of using the term, especially since we commonly do see TTRPGs use "scene framing" and "set the scene" as nearly synonymous. It's more of a distinction without a difference. Instead of quibbling that there is a real difference between "scene framing" and "set the scene," I would suggest that it would be far more useful to recognize that there are multiple methods of "scene framing" depending on how you want to highlight in the scene. "Scene framing" in D&D tends to highlight the player interactivity (e.g., environment, scenery, etc.), whereas "scene framing" in a game like Apocalypse World will often prefer framing the scene around the dramatic conflict or threat. Games can try supporting G, N, and S, though I think some combinations are easier to support than others. The point is not that it's impossible, but, rather, that conflicts of interest can and often do emerge between these roleplay motivations. That said, I think that the benefits and intentionality of GNS "incoherence" has been overlooked by Edwards and the Forge. Many video game designers, for example, understand that they have different sorts of players for whom they are designing. In order to cast a fairly wide net of a fanbase, a MMORPG may have to design for players with varying shades of Bartle's typology (i.e., Explorers, Socializers, Achievers, and Killers) to co-exist to varying degrees. I do think that the six cultures of gaming article that [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] linked represents a better typology of sorts than GNS, though I do think that the author spends a little too much time griping about the Forge and Ron Edwards than explaining "Story Games" fairly. I also wouldn't call these "Story Games" either, though I understand that it's an autonym, because I don't think that this term really conveys what these games are fundamentally trying to achieve and the term is so vague as to generate far more confusion. A fair number of game designers from the Forge have moved past, but I think that it's also important to understand where their ideas came from and how they still reverberate in tabletop game design. IMO, some Forge jargon is "stickier" or more enduring in their usefulness as terms and principles than others. The main goals of the Forge, IMHO, have been met. They recognized that they wanted something different out of their gaming experience than what Storyteller and similar games were marketing themselves as, and they began developing games that were meant to support those principles: e.g., Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Lady Blackbird, Fiasco, Fate, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc. I have not played Sorcerer. I am not all that interested in playing Sorcerer. I have heard discussion of "kickers," but only from a few people and mainly from people like pemerton who have mentioned them in passing. I would probably not use the term "kicker" in most of my discussions of D&D as it doesn't really fit with the style of games that D&D supports and it's mostly applicable for play in Sorcerer, where it is discussed in the books. I still find "kicker" a useful term of sorts in how it frames a PC's inciting incident and the big "why the frack is your PC here and doing crap when they could choose not to be doing this crap?" But as I said, it's more of a term that I may think about and utilize discretely in the background than in casual TTRPG conversation.</blockquote>

Verification