Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8133243" data-attributes="member: 6696971">* The lead post was about no/low prep vs (some level of more than that) prep and attendant agency.* Force/Illusionism was integrated into the conversation at some point as a component to be examined (and how it relates to prep, GMing ethos, and the downstream effects on play).* Players (being the humans they are) come with extreme variance in terms of interests, aesthetic tastes, cognitive horsepower, awareness, and investment in play.* Systems matter significantly (Dungeon World couldn't be further from D&D 5e and they're the same genre...Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark are hugely different from each other and hugely different from each of the prior 2 mentioned games despite the fact that (a) V Baker wrote Dogs and (b) Dogs was the GMing/play ethos that inspired his writing of Apocalypse World which in turn inspired both DW and Blades...and Torchbearer is like none of these games!) and that intersects with player archetypes directly above.* GMs come here to discuss all the various constituent parts of GMing (techniques, ethos, etc), system, and how integral each of those constituent parts are to the trajectory of play and the play experience for the (widely varying) player base...and for themselves and their own tastes/interests/strengths/weaknesses.If all of these things are true (and they certainly are) then how can it not matter?  Why are you actively pushing back against/hostile to analysis? I don't understand this perspective (hostility to analysis and active effort to censor it/shut it down) that so deeply pervades our hobby (or at least a good cross-section of ENWorld).If your players or your play is not sensitive to (in the "the experience of play isn't impacted one way or another" sense of the word) changes in the systematized aspects of gaming (action resolution, ethos/agenda, GMing techniques, etc) then something is happening at your table (that is specific to your table) to drown out the inherent sensitivity to systematization variance on the experience of play.  If you're not interested in interrogating that to discover what lies beneath...then fine...don't investigate it.  But these threads are meant to rigorously investigate those things because they matter to the people that post them (the lead poster) and the people that reply to the thread.</blockquote>

Verification