On Aug 7, 9:23 am, psychohist <psychoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ah, okay. I thought you meant "negative" in the sense of "****traying
> certain game styles as bad or invalid."
No, not directly anyway.
But it's worth noting that people did feel that the D and G corners
were poor ****trayals of their style. I consider the gamist corner for
example to be dysfunctional if used as is, and others (Brett
immediately comes to mind as the most vocal) thought the same of the
Drama corner.
> I took them to be categories, rather than attributes. Ben called them
> "types", which to me implies exclusivity.
Ah.
I don't know about those Ben referenced specifically, but the
Champions article also used the term "types" and specifically stated
they were not exclusive and that a single person could have any or all
of them in varying strengths. The goal according to that article was
to understand the types and to attempt to determine which were
strongest and most desired in your own group. Then the game's
storyline could be adjusted to match.
For our group at the time, it was stating something that was already
being done by the primary GMs. So the article had no impact except in
places like this where I can reference it as one of the methods we
used in building our campaigns.
I can understand how the method would have little value to you, with
the concept of campaign storyline being a non-issue in your world.
|
