Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7400708" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, I do as a matter of fact.&nbsp; It may be possible that the 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming can produce believability, consistency, and coherence, but the poster in question does not in fact actually practice 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming but does a ton of world building and then claims that it is 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's the most infuriating thing about these ongoing threads.&nbsp; What pemerton actually does is engage in heavy myth, high preparation gaming, and then if at any point he improvises anything in the process of play because he improvised that one thing he hadn't prepared for, he claims he's doing 'Story Now, No Myth'.&nbsp;&nbsp; His examples repeatedly bear this out.&nbsp;&nbsp; Improvising something on the fly is not the same as 'Story Now, No Myth', no matter how hard you may claim it is.Fundamentally, that's the reason these threads are such an incoherent mess.&nbsp; pemerton will spend pages detailing all of his world building and preparation, and then he'll call that 'Story Now, No Myth' in utter violation of all logic and reasonableness.&nbsp; One of the main reasons a GM will adopt a high preparation approach typical of sandbox is that it allows him to improvise things on the fly using all the work and brainstorming he did before the session.&nbsp; That's one of the goals of the high preparation, top down, high myth approach.&nbsp;&nbsp; It allows you to infer what is in the spaces you didn't fully detail, and react to things you couldn't fully expect.&nbsp;&nbsp; But basically, because such an approach is not fashionable, doesn't have a lot of cool buzzwords, and isn't what the cool people say that they are doing, pemerton actually runs a very traditional game - which can be proven from his examples - and then goes and claims he's engaging in some novel, fashionable, hip thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fundamentally, we're dealing with a GM that used to be a very rigid GM that ran things like RoleMaster, and I think exposure to ideas like 'No Myth' inspired him to take his game in new directions and he learned things from reading those articles, but as to what he actually practices it's not actually the thing called 'No Myth'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7400708, member: 4937"] Yes, I do as a matter of fact. It may be possible that the 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming can produce believability, consistency, and coherence, but the poster in question does not in fact actually practice 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming but does a ton of world building and then claims that it is 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming. That's the most infuriating thing about these ongoing threads. What pemerton actually does is engage in heavy myth, high preparation gaming, and then if at any point he improvises anything in the process of play because he improvised that one thing he hadn't prepared for, he claims he's doing 'Story Now, No Myth'. His examples repeatedly bear this out. Improvising something on the fly is not the same as 'Story Now, No Myth', no matter how hard you may claim it is. Fundamentally, that's the reason these threads are such an incoherent mess. pemerton will spend pages detailing all of his world building and preparation, and then he'll call that 'Story Now, No Myth' in utter violation of all logic and reasonableness. One of the main reasons a GM will adopt a high preparation approach typical of sandbox is that it allows him to improvise things on the fly using all the work and brainstorming he did before the session. That's one of the goals of the high preparation, top down, high myth approach. It allows you to infer what is in the spaces you didn't fully detail, and react to things you couldn't fully expect. But basically, because such an approach is not fashionable, doesn't have a lot of cool buzzwords, and isn't what the cool people say that they are doing, pemerton actually runs a very traditional game - which can be proven from his examples - and then goes and claims he's engaging in some novel, fashionable, hip thing. Fundamentally, we're dealing with a GM that used to be a very rigid GM that ran things like RoleMaster, and I think exposure to ideas like 'No Myth' inspired him to take his game in new directions and he learned things from reading those articles, but as to what he actually practices it's not actually the thing called 'No Myth'. [/QUOTE]

Verification