Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ron Edwards, April 28, 2003, 12:11:13 PM
Quoteyou stated that you think all the UA one-shot scenarios are Illusionist. Do you think that the UA setting, in general and without scenarios, is a good testing ground for 'no myth' play?
Quote from: hyphz askedDo you think that the UA setting, in general and without scenarios, is a good testing ground for 'no myth' play?
Quote from: Ron Edwards1. Characters can only do one thing in the long run: degenerate. Either of the madness meter, doesn't matter. He or she is going down.
Quote2. Stories can only do one thing: reveal something that explodes in a burst of violent conflict of interest, whether among player-characters or against NPCs. ... As I wrote in the parent thread, I consider most and possibly all UA published scenarios to be Illusionist in design.
Quote3. There is no shared setting to speak of, not even the "real modern world." It's a mix of real-modern-world ... and game-specific concepts (the Avatars, the various conspiracies) which ultimately boils down to "only the GM knows what the setting is." The effect in play is for players to take the cue for what's important, in a given scene, from the GM alone and not from their own sense of values or authorship. This is not No Myth play; it's GM-fiat and scenario-prescribed play.
QuoteThere has to be a Myth, and it flows from the GM at all times, such that the GM needs to have "what the world is" down pretty solidly prior to each session. I think that No Myth works best when Genre Expectations are so powerful, and so shared, that whatever gets rolled into place during play is wholly acceptable to everyone. In UA, the postmodern content renders that shared-ness pretty hard to establish. If you try to GM it with full No Myth, it'll be hard to do - the degree of effort in the necessary piece-adding might override the effort it would take simply to Myth the setting a little bit.
Quote from: clehrich...The [are] mechanics clunky, and would run it rather more freeform, but the setting is gold for No Myth.
Quote from: Le JoueurQuote from: clehrich...The [are] mechanics clunky, and would run it rather more freeform, but the setting is gold for No Myth.I think this is precisely what Ron's saying. If you dump the mechanics, would it still be Unknown Armies or would it be little more than 'Unknown Armies' the setting? I believe it makes sense that the mechanics make it too complicated to run No Myth style, not the setting.
Quote from: hyphzyou stated that you think all the UA one-shot scenarios are Illusionist. Do you think that the UA setting, in general and without scenarios, is a good testing ground for 'no myth' play?
QuoteHave a got completely the wrong end of the stick here or have I applied some bizarre drift? The description of adventures as being "about maiming and torturing PCs" seemed utterly alien to me. Honestly.