Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8660455" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Well, I'd love to say yes ... but not really. While Stephen Lortz can often sound like a proto-Vincent Baker, including breaking down how games work (and what they are) for design purposes- as well as providing &quot;actual play&quot; transcripts of his mini-games, there is still a difference in his conception.Cannibals &amp; Castaways, for example, attempts to put the fiction first (not &quot;F&quot;iction &quot;F&quot;irst) by creating a closed system wherein the rules are opaque and unknown to the players, simple, but predetermined. The referee, on the other hand, has no discretion in terms of the rules.It's a fascinating game, but at a basic level keeping the (simple) rule set away from the players ... even though the referee has no discretion ... would differentiate it from a PbtA game, IMO.That said, when you read some of what he wrote, you are reminded that history may not repeat, but it often rhymes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8660455, member: 7023840"] Well, I'd love to say yes ... but not really. While Stephen Lortz can often sound like a proto-Vincent Baker, including breaking down how games work (and what they are) for design purposes- as well as providing "actual play" transcripts of his mini-games, there is still a difference in his conception. Cannibals & Castaways, for example, attempts to put the fiction first (not "F"iction "F"irst) by creating a closed system wherein the rules are opaque and unknown to the players, simple, but predetermined. The referee, on the other hand, has no discretion in terms of the rules. It's a fascinating game, but at a basic level keeping the (simple) rule set away from the players ... even though the referee has no discretion ... would differentiate it from a PbtA game, IMO. That said, when you read some of what he wrote, you are reminded that history may not repeat, but it often rhymes. [/QUOTE]

Verification