NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6840292" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You're preaching to the choir.  I've said many times that both my Cortex+ games and my Dungeon World games hew very closely (with respect to player decision-points, thematic underpinnings, and GMing principles/techniques) to my 4e games (and I've written posts analyzing why that is so).  The play procedures and basic resolution mechanics have myriad superficial differences, but there is a LOT of meaningful overlap.I feel that the "familiarity to indie games/PBtA system" hypothesis is pretty much moved into theorem territory.  However, that might be a second order effect.  Pulling back a bit, what makes it so some long-time D&D GMs are completely capable of toggling between the differences of (say) process-sim vs genre emulation or drama logic.  Why can some toggle between play centered around challenge-based pacing and that centered around dramatic pacing?  Why can some toggle between "push play toward conflict" and "neutral (lol?) arbiter of a stochastic system"?  Why can some toggle between serial exploration of an open world and closed scenes (encounters) propelling the action?There is something about mental framework malleability or versatility or ossification going on that has explanatory power here.  It isn't just simply play preferences (a part of it yes...but not all of it).  I mean we see plenty of 4e advocates outright HATE Skill Challenges and write about them in the most bastardized way possible (with utter misconceptions at the most fundamental level possible...from GMing techniques, to application of the resolution mechanics, to social contract, to player sincerity) that in no way resembles anything like what a table with players and a GM who grok (and appreciate) play propulsion based around the conflict-charged scene.  Its fascinating.  I'd love to see an evolutionary psychology study done on this.  Hell, I'd love to see one done on GMing and the edition wars!  Obviously 8 years and 40 years aren't enough time to develop genetic adaptations, but I wonder if very superficial surmises can be drawn about non-genetic adaptations to mental frameworks over that time scale (that would start the process of putting genetic adaptations in the evolutionary pipeline).I often wonder if I'm increasing my cognitive capacity by GMing so many different types of games or if I'm actually damaging it (or my general health) and I'm completely unaware.  I'd be curious at the Cortisol levels of GMs during various moments of play.  Obviously it would decrease with confidence, mental overhead reduction, and mastery...but my contention is that it would generally be elevated with respect to a standard cross-section of the human populace.</blockquote>

Verification