Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6101412" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe. But sometimes I think generic light-gamism-with-a-heavy-simulationist-chassis is given a bit of an easy pass. What follows isn't an attack on you (TwoSix) - it's some further thoughts triggered by that particular thought.************************I think that as long as the GM is prepared to go where the action is, the players don't have to do much other than signal their desire for some action. I mean, obviously things can go more or less smoothly, but that's equally true when the power gamer starts dominating play in your scenario, or the method actor starts clashing with the GM's vision for the campaign.Reading The Forge, and Eero Tuovinen, and looking at Paul Czege's games, gives this impression of narrativist RPGing as some avant garde fringe thing. And I guess it can be, but I don't think it has to be. A technique like &quot;going where the action is&quot; is pretty applicable in a D&amp;D game, I think.It's not as if the issue of how to avoid railroading, and how to reconcile the GM's control over the bulk of the backstory with genuine player choice was just made up by Ron Edwards. It's a real thing, with particular resonance for at least some 2nd ed AD&amp;D players - dungeon play tends to avoid it, I guesss, because dungeon play downplays broader story goals and related character development, so player choice manifests itself in tactics and skilled play rather than in story/plot terms. Though Hussar's grell story shows that even dungeon play can sometimes generate the same sorts of pressures as more expansive, story-style play.I'm not saying that &quot;going where the action is&quot; is foolproof. Or will stop any GM from having a bad day. And obviously it's not relevant to classic gamist D&amp;D. But for over 30 years now heaps of people have been playing D&amp;D for different purposes (I mean, look at how many people don't use XP rules), and &quot;going where the action is&quot; is a GMing technique that I think hasn't traditionally been set out in D&amp;D books, but that nevertheless can improve at least some D&amp;D games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6101412, member: 42582"] Maybe. But sometimes I think generic light-gamism-with-a-heavy-simulationist-chassis is given a bit of an easy pass. What follows isn't an attack on you (TwoSix) - it's some further thoughts triggered by [I]that[/I] particular thought. ************************ I think that as long as the GM is prepared to [I]go where the action is[/I], the players don't have to do much other than signal their desire for some action. I mean, obviously things can go more or less smoothly, but that's equally true when the power gamer starts dominating play in your scenario, or the method actor starts clashing with the GM's vision for the campaign. Reading The Forge, and Eero Tuovinen, and looking at Paul Czege's games, gives this impression of narrativist RPGing as some avant garde fringe thing. And I guess it can be, but I don't think it has to be. A technique like "going where the action is" is pretty applicable in a D&D game, I think. It's not as if the issue of how to avoid railroading, and how to reconcile the GM's control over the bulk of the backstory with genuine player choice was just made up by Ron Edwards. It's a real thing, with particular resonance for at least some 2nd ed AD&D players - dungeon play tends to avoid it, I guesss, because dungeon play downplays broader story goals and related character development, so player choice manifests itself in tactics and skilled play rather than in story/plot terms. Though Hussar's grell story shows that even dungeon play can sometimes generate the same sorts of pressures as more expansive, story-style play. I'm not saying that "going where the action is" is foolproof. Or will stop any GM from having a bad day. And obviously it's not relevant to classic gamist D&D. But for over 30 years now heaps of people have been playing D&D for different purposes (I mean, look at how many people don't use XP rules), and "going where the action is" is a GMing technique that I think hasn't traditionally been set out in D&D books, but that nevertheless can improve at least some D&D games. [/QUOTE]

Verification