> > It has everything to do with it, as I went on about at some length
> > elsewhere. For all the rhetoric on the topic, I can't recall seeing
> > any especially useful definition, but mine would be along the
> > lines of: decide what's important to the narrative: abstract
> > away from what's not, provide some means of describing the rest.
> > (You'll note the somewhat key choice to be made in the first step.)_
>
> This is the process of abstraction, not the creation of a narrative
> mechanic.
I'm not hearing the difference, is my essential point. Invariably when people complain (or boast) about something "not being narrative", that's the sort of issue they're addressing.
> A narrative mechanic is built around explicit narrative
> devices - scene, episode, Leading Cast, Bit Parts, those sorts of
> conceptual paraphenalia (hence followers adding AP etc). It can be
> as detailed as it likes.
I have to add that to my long list of definitions of "narrative mechanics" I didn't find in the _least_ useful, I regret to have to say. The rules jargon has little or nothing to do with the mechanics; the underlying concepts, e.g. of episodic play are nothing that required "this is a whole new type of role-playing" rhetoric about it.
> However, it occurred to me to wonder whether you, experiencing this
> difficulty, are playing a "real & continuous time" style of game
> rather than an "episodic" style of game, in which the role of the
> constant value of the Wealth rating is more easily apparent?
Experiencing _what_ difficulty?
My current game has run through just shy of 3 years in (IIRC 5 sessions). Closer to Pendragon-style play than I ever got while I was reffin' Pendragon, I must admit.
Powered by hypermail