Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4512112" data-attributes="member: 710">I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy? Oh, damn, there is the story word again... I personally think most new players will probably accept either route. And they might do this all the time. It all depends on what the DM is good at. If you're good at creating the "simulation" game, with intricate dungeons and "mundane" resource management, a new player will probably find this very enjoyable. But when you're good at the narrative stuff and your beginning player gets the opportunity to basically "do what Conan does" and feels like he can take exactly the risks Conan could have taken, he will want more of that, too. And I would say that any individual player might figure out he can enjoy either route - provided the group (with a certain priority the DM) are capable of making it work, too. But I could also see getting eventually tired with this stuff. After going through another trap infested dungeon that needed careful navigation and water resource management, the players might in for something different. After another story-telling heavy adventure where the players explored the moral and ethical meaning of their character decisions, the players might like something different. And to avoid "wanting something different", most groups will probably actually play a mix of styles.For my group there needs to be a certain mix. We don't play Death Flag games. We played D&D 3.5 (<s>warts</s>save and die and all), and are now playing 4E. I don't think we could play a game with so many narrative "non-combat" elements like Exalted or Storyteller games. I don't think most of the Indie games would work for us. But I also know that non one of us would want to go back to OD&D or AD&D (and now 3E). My first experience with what "narrative" can mean - and how simple it can be - was in a Torg game. My newly created character had an add in Throwing Weapons, but owned no thrown weapons. I asked if I could see any stone lying around to throw at our enemy - the DM said something to the effect: "Sure there's a stone around if you need one!" No mechanic invoked or anything, just: "You know, just do it, if it makes sense to us!" But just because there was a stone to throw around didn't mean I didn't have to use the rules to resolve throwing it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I don't think this is an adequate description. A narrativist game is still a game. The player has to use the mechanics to excercise his narrative control, which means he is challenged using the tools at the right time - when to spend his possibility points or play a Drama Card (if we're using Torg as an example). And in any scenes where you can't or don't want to use your narrative abilities, you face the same player-challenging problems as in the "simulationist" game.</blockquote>

Verification