Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6108699" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sometimes the only valid response to something is &quot;Hooey&quot;.&nbsp; Poof, I'm out of Sim.&nbsp; Poof, I'm back in again.&nbsp; Now I'm out.&nbsp; Now I'm in.&nbsp;&nbsp; In.&nbsp; Out.&nbsp; In.&nbsp; Out.&nbsp; In.&nbsp; Out again.If &quot;get proactive about an emotional thematic issue&quot; is sufficient to change the style of game you are playing, then I suggest you don't have a very good or coherent definition (especially given typical GNS theory that G N and S are seperate agendas that can't be fulfilled simultaneously).&nbsp; People have been proactive about emotional thematic issues, since the first guy played a half-elf at decided to play up the angst of alienation.&nbsp; People have been proactive about emotional thematic issues, since the time the first backstory was invented.Getting &quot;proactive about an emotional thematic issue&quot; doesn't prove you are narrativist (or at least 'not sim') any more than rolling in the open proves you aren't applying GM force to task resolution.&nbsp;&nbsp; The definition of Narrative play isn't &quot;improvised&quot; or even &quot;improvised in response to player backstory and propositions&quot;.&nbsp; You can have heavy prep Narrative play, as something like Dogs in the Vineyard with its need to build out a structure for the town, giving motives for the townsfolk and describing the various details of the spiritual/moral conflict to be resolved proves.&nbsp; Of course, you could do without that prep and still be playing DitV.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not that would work for you probably depends on your talents as a GM, but DitV depends explicitly on that sort of prep to properly (as you put it) &quot;turn on the firehouse of conflict&quot; and you'd have to be really good at improv to run a good session without it.But really, this is all tangental to the thread at best.&nbsp; You keep throwing terms like &quot;failing foward&quot; and so forth around (there is a whole laundry list), but I'm not at all convinced they have any useful meaning in the very broad ways you keep using them.&nbsp; Given the incoherence, all they seem to mean is, &quot;What I do&quot;, and ergo since I disagree with you must mean &quot;What you don't do&quot;.&nbsp; You've linked to that Eero Tuovinen essay about 4 times now, but it's still no more relevant IMO than it was the first time, and is increasingly just argument from authority.&nbsp; If I wanted to go around a few times with Tuovinen, I would.&nbsp; My basic problem with his description of the standard narrative model is that it's so broad and qualified that just about any 'standard' sort of play fits it.&nbsp; But whether I'm right on that or not has no real bearing on the issue of &quot;surprising the DM&quot; and how it should be handled.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6108699, member: 4937"] Sometimes the only valid response to something is "Hooey". Poof, I'm out of Sim. Poof, I'm back in again. Now I'm out. Now I'm in. In. Out. In. Out. In. Out again. If "get proactive about an emotional thematic issue" is sufficient to change the style of game you are playing, then I suggest you don't have a very good or coherent definition (especially given typical GNS theory that G N and S are seperate agendas that can't be fulfilled simultaneously). People have been proactive about emotional thematic issues, since the first guy played a half-elf at decided to play up the angst of alienation. People have been proactive about emotional thematic issues, since the time the first backstory was invented. Getting "proactive about an emotional thematic issue" doesn't prove you are narrativist (or at least 'not sim') any more than rolling in the open proves you aren't applying GM force to task resolution. The definition of Narrative play isn't "improvised" or even "improvised in response to player backstory and propositions". You can have heavy prep Narrative play, as something like Dogs in the Vineyard with its need to build out a structure for the town, giving motives for the townsfolk and describing the various details of the spiritual/moral conflict to be resolved proves. Of course, you could do without that prep and still be playing DitV. Whether or not that would work for you probably depends on your talents as a GM, but DitV depends explicitly on that sort of prep to properly (as you put it) "turn on the firehouse of conflict" and you'd have to be really good at improv to run a good session without it. But really, this is all tangental to the thread at best. You keep throwing terms like "failing foward" and so forth around (there is a whole laundry list), but I'm not at all convinced they have any useful meaning in the very broad ways you keep using them. Given the incoherence, all they seem to mean is, "What I do", and ergo since I disagree with you must mean "What you don't do". You've linked to that Eero Tuovinen essay about 4 times now, but it's still no more relevant IMO than it was the first time, and is increasingly just argument from authority. If I wanted to go around a few times with Tuovinen, I would. My basic problem with his description of the standard narrative model is that it's so broad and qualified that just about any 'standard' sort of play fits it. But whether I'm right on that or not has no real bearing on the issue of "surprising the DM" and how it should be handled. [/QUOTE]

Verification