Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7400779" data-attributes="member: 4937">Since pemerton and I stopped talking over this very point, I don't feel its fair to him to continue to debate it.&nbsp;&nbsp; But after like the fifth thread where he described drawing a dungeon and stocking it and backgrounding it, and then described his play as some sort of revolutionary 'no myth' because in the course of play he invented one new element he hadn't fully detailed before, I decided I'd had enough.I have no desire to argue over your personal experience.&nbsp; I'm glad whatever new approaches you've adopted have led to success for your group.&nbsp; Although I will say &quot;all the stories drive by players backgrounds&quot; doesn't in and of itself mean you are playing no myth, it just means you've given your players agency to tell the stories that they want to experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; And you can do that within a 'no myth' framework on in a 'low myth' or 'high myth' classical sandbox.&nbsp;&nbsp; 'No myth' literally means that the GM does not decide anything before he starts play, and on the fly changes things based on the direction of play.&nbsp; All myth is created through play.&nbsp;&nbsp; It certainly is a tangibly different feel, I'll grant you that.&nbsp;&nbsp; What it actually does is subtly different shift in the table's aesthetics of play.&nbsp;&nbsp; When you mention &quot;mysteries need prep&quot;, you are actually wrong.&nbsp; You can do a 'no myth' mystery.&nbsp; Heck, I can do a 'no myth' mystery (although in point of fact, I never do).&nbsp; What is actually going on in my opinion behind that statement is that you have certain aesthetic expectations about a mystery plot that you at some level realize that 'no myth' play would invalidate.&nbsp;&nbsp; I encourage you, even if you disagree with me, to keep that statement in mind as you go forward with your 'no myth' play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7400779, member: 4937"] Since pemerton and I stopped talking over this very point, I don't feel its fair to him to continue to debate it. But after like the fifth thread where he described drawing a dungeon and stocking it and backgrounding it, and then described his play as some sort of revolutionary 'no myth' because in the course of play he invented one new element he hadn't fully detailed before, I decided I'd had enough. I have no desire to argue over your personal experience. I'm glad whatever new approaches you've adopted have led to success for your group. Although I will say "all the stories drive by players backgrounds" doesn't in and of itself mean you are playing no myth, it just means you've given your players agency to tell the stories that they want to experience. And you can do that within a 'no myth' framework on in a 'low myth' or 'high myth' classical sandbox. 'No myth' literally means that the GM does not decide anything before he starts play, and on the fly changes things based on the direction of play. All myth is created through play. It certainly is a tangibly different feel, I'll grant you that. What it actually does is subtly different shift in the table's aesthetics of play. When you mention "mysteries need prep", you are actually wrong. You can do a 'no myth' mystery. Heck, I can do a 'no myth' mystery (although in point of fact, I never do). What is actually going on in my opinion behind that statement is that you have certain aesthetic expectations about a mystery plot that you at some level realize that 'no myth' play would invalidate. I encourage you, even if you disagree with me, to keep that statement in mind as you go forward with your 'no myth' play. [/QUOTE]

Verification