Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8336640" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Not a cohesive nor exhaustive one.Some that pretty much require active players due to the design. I know a few of those:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Burning Empires. Due to the scene budget, and that players are required to frame scenes themselves. Each player must frame 3 scenes per session, the GM 5 </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mouse Guard: the player phase requires all players be active, since they take turns narrating until the GM thinks something they narrate needs a roll.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">AWE/PBTA games. Again, the players narrate until the GM thinks they've narrated a move.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Houses of the Blooded and Blood and Honor due to the nature of the resolution system. It requires &quot;yes, and&quot; or &quot;yes, but&quot; add-ons on the fly by all involved. So not just active, but active and on the ball. The games are probably the very best work by John Wick... excellent, but exhausting to play and run.&nbsp; Oh, and even more than PBTA, weak GM. The GM has only two advantages: freely introducing new characters, and issuing the metacurrency to players.</li>
</ul>The commonality is that these games all require the player to take some of the authorial participation.In Blood and Honor, passive players don't do well at contributions, and are readily ID'd by using their entire pool on the control over success, saving none for narrative additions. I love it, with the right people. Of my last group to play it, we had one who was somewhat passive, and one who was active but toxic... and it was a dreadful (and intense, and disturbing,) story that emerged. And ended the campaign. Odd to think that was almost a decade ago. And 1500 miles away...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 8336640, member: 6779310"] Not a cohesive nor exhaustive one. Some that pretty much require active players due to the design. I know a few of those: [LIST] [*][I]Burning Empires[/I]. Due to the scene budget, and that players are required to frame scenes themselves. Each player must frame 3 scenes per session, the GM 5 [*][I]Mouse Guard[/I]: the player phase requires all players be active, since they take turns narrating until the GM thinks something they narrate needs a roll. [*]AWE/PBTA games. Again, the players narrate until the GM thinks they've narrated a move. [*][I]Houses of the Blooded[/I] and [I]Blood and Honor[/I] due to the nature of the resolution system. It requires "yes, and" or "yes, but" add-ons on the fly by all involved. So not just active, but active and on the ball. The games are probably the very best work by John Wick... excellent, but exhausting to play and run. Oh, and even more than PBTA, weak GM. The GM has only two advantages: freely introducing new characters, and issuing the metacurrency to players. [/LIST] The commonality is that these games all require the player to take some of the authorial participation. In Blood and Honor, passive players don't do well at contributions, and are readily ID'd by using their entire pool on the control over success, saving none for narrative additions. I love it, with the right people. Of my last group to play it, we had one who was somewhat passive, and one who was active but toxic... and it was a dreadful (and intense, and disturbing,) story that emerged. And ended the campaign. Odd to think that was almost a decade ago. And 1500 miles away... [/QUOTE]

Verification