Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 7768391" data-attributes="member: 984">While on the whole I think this is a gross oversimplification, I'm going to focus on the X axis, and this assertion:This to me is an odd assertion, given the amount of 'narrative' and 'storytelling' based games I've read or played lately where the explicit intent allows for and encourages cooperative story creation (and to which I have seen and read certain 'old-school-type' GMs rail against, in a &quot;Players should not have any power, GM word is law&quot; kind of reaction).&nbsp; I counter-assert that there's nothing new-school about sandbox vs railroad, or environment/living world vs story, and, rather, that player-driven and player-involved story creation (aided by the GM) is by far more robustly supported by this author's category of new-school-extreme type games.&nbsp; In addition, as others have noted fail-forward designs and less-random and less-instantly lethal (not that there is no lethality in the game, but rather the lethality is both more adequately telegraphed and/or extended in time to allow the players more agency), as well as more failures available other than death, also encourages more story (and thus character) development and engagement as the penalties for a single bad die roll is diminished.&nbsp; In other words, less lethality (not danger) is more freeing to &quot;players writing their own story&quot; thus further negating the premise of the graph.&nbsp; I think it's great to explore different mindsets and adages that can shape different gameplay styles, and to even look at those in historical terms.&nbsp; I don't think creating a false schism between old/new-style gaming is particularly valuable, and I think this article particularly misses the mark when it comes to the styles of stories told.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kannik, post: 7768391, member: 984"] While on the whole I think this is a gross oversimplification, I'm going to focus on the X axis, and this assertion: This to me is an odd assertion, given the amount of 'narrative' and 'storytelling' based games I've read or played lately where the explicit intent allows for and encourages cooperative story creation (and to which I have seen and read certain 'old-school-type' GMs rail against, in a "Players should not have any power, GM word is law" kind of reaction). I counter-assert that there's nothing new-school about sandbox vs railroad, or environment/living world vs story, and, rather, that player-driven and player-involved story creation (aided by the GM) is by far more robustly supported by this author's category of new-school-extreme type games. In addition, as others have noted fail-forward designs and less-random and less-instantly lethal (not that there is no lethality in the game, but rather the lethality is both more adequately telegraphed and/or extended in time to allow the players more agency), as well as more failures available other than death, also encourages more story (and thus character) development and engagement as the penalties for a single bad die roll is diminished. In other words, less lethality (not danger) is more freeing to "players writing their own story" thus further negating the premise of the graph. I think it's great to explore different mindsets and adages that can shape different gameplay styles, and to even look at those in historical terms. I don't think creating a false schism between old/new-style gaming is particularly valuable, and I think this article particularly misses the mark when it comes to the styles of stories told. [/QUOTE]

Verification