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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8136240" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, so it is by no means the case that, in at least the stuff that has happened in 4e etc. in my D&D games, that I as GM am not a significant influence on what is happening. I think this would be true in a BW game, or a DW game as well. In all of these games the GM has a significant role in framing scenes. There are mechanical limits on GM authority in all of them though, and at least BW (and to a bit lesser extend DW) pass a lot of narrative influence onto the players. They express both intent and action, may actually introduce elements to the game world themselves, and certainly are expected to set out the basic elements to be used in play.So, for example, in DW (not so familiar with BW personally) the players establish BONDS between the PCs. These can be anything, although some 'canned' ones are provided which different classes can use. This establishes some level of social dynamics in the party. You get actual XP for acting on and 'retiring' these bonds. You would then establish new ones (there's not a detailed process for that, but logically each bond should emerge from elements of play). PCs can also have background, and the description of the process for starting play, the 'first session', heavily emphasizes player participation in both world creation and defining the characters place in it. DW then tells the GM to place the characters in the thick of things, even going so far as to advise that they might start in the middle of a fight or other action sequence. This is intended to immediately and forcefully test and refine their initial concepts.Admittedly, you could run a DW game in which the GM came up with pretty much all of this stuff (except bonds, those are owned by players explicitly) and not entirely invalidate the DW principles of play, though the players MUST be informed before the fact of the gist of what is established canon and the general 'concept' of the campaign (which probably means at least some understanding of the Campaign Front). For example if the GM's concept is 'Zombie Plague' then that would be communicated to the players as part of the decision to start a game, potentially along with a description of parameters of the nature of zombies and how they will initially manifest. If the players like this, then obviously they can simply generate their own agendas on this basis. If they don't, then the GM is advised to adapt (IE maybe the zombies seem less interesting than political intrigue, and so get adjusted down to being a mere 'adventure front', a menace that disappears after a couple sessions).</blockquote>

Verification