Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lylandra" data-source="post: 7769170" data-attributes="member: 6816692">While most crtiticism has already been brought up, I especially disagree in terms of pacing. &quot;Good pacing (in novel and film terms) calls for alternating lows and highs, to make the highs that much more effective.&quot;I wholeheartedly agree to this statement, but as Lew already pointed out that New School RPGs tend to try emulate fiction or movies and give both GM and players tools for doing so, New Schools seem far more fit to create good pacing. &quot;Fail forward&quot; is an extremely effective method to create &quot;lows&quot; (that do exist in fiction all the time) while still keeping everyone onboard and offering them ways out of their misery. But it only works if GM and players are ultimately cooperative and trust each other. For example, if one of my characters were to be captured and tortured, that'd be okay (and, depending on the setting, a pretty fine &quot;low&quot; or &quot;fail&quot;) as long as I can trust my GM that it will contribute to a greater storyline and isn't just inserted there as means to cruelly slap me (the player) on the butt for failing that saving throw or because the GM likes to torture PCs. Compare this to Old School RPGs which are far more RNG dependant and can create streaks of extreme luck or extreme unluck, leading to situations where the party (or one player) finds himself in a situation where the story isn't fun or well-paced anymore. What the article also completely misses are the good amount of RPG systems (both Old School and New School) that don't resolve around combat. Or where combat isn't the only meaningful way of dealing with problems. I've got my hands on two RPG books recently of which one is centered heavily around logistics, exploration and travel and the other is a system that tries to emulate Jane Austen novels, doesn't even need a GM and where a big fail can be being disowned and disgraced by your family.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lylandra, post: 7769170, member: 6816692"] While most crtiticism has already been brought up, I especially disagree in terms of pacing. "Good pacing (in novel and film terms) calls for alternating lows and highs, to make the highs that much more effective." I wholeheartedly agree to this statement, but as Lew already pointed out that New School RPGs tend to try emulate fiction or movies and give both GM and players tools for doing so, New Schools seem far more fit to create good pacing. "Fail forward" is an extremely effective method to create "lows" (that do exist in fiction all the time) while still keeping everyone onboard and offering them ways out of their misery. But it only works if GM and players are ultimately cooperative and trust each other. For example, if one of my characters were to be captured and tortured, that'd be okay (and, depending on the setting, a pretty fine "low" or "fail") as long as I can trust my GM that it will contribute to a greater storyline and isn't just inserted there as means to cruelly slap me (the player) on the butt for failing that saving throw or because the GM likes to torture PCs. Compare this to Old School RPGs which are far more RNG dependant and can create streaks of extreme luck or extreme unluck, leading to situations where the party (or one player) finds himself in a situation where the story isn't fun or well-paced anymore. What the article also completely misses are the good amount of RPG systems (both Old School and New School) that don't resolve around combat. Or where combat isn't the only meaningful way of dealing with problems. I've got my hands on two RPG books recently of which one is centered heavily around logistics, exploration and travel and the other is a system that tries to emulate Jane Austen novels, doesn't even need a GM and where a big fail can be being disowned and disgraced by your family. [/QUOTE]

Verification