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: 8166126" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the key difference really lies in the principles and agenda of the GM. When a GM is [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER]'s 'enlightened despot' they are operating on a set of principles in which the GM fundamentally sets the agenda (possibly indulging the players), directs all options by way of determining all the fiction (again indulgence being possible) and plays to whatever ends they see fit. In a game like Dungeon World all of this is spelled out, hardcoded within the rules of the game. The agenda and principles explicitly, and in this type of game basically invariably (or why play one), describe this agenda as centered around player-originated concerns. So, in an idealized classical sandbox, for example, presumably the players agree to play the game to start with, so there's some (unspecified) level of agreement on genre/setting/tone/format. Beyond that everything goes through the GM, who may (or not) determine the starting position based on player interest/input, decide more or less what PCs backgrounds and other attributes might be, etc. (again there is some presumed acquiescence, maybe the GM even solicits input, but this is again unspecified). From there all action takes place against a setting and fiction which is always narrated and dictated by the GM in all cases, aside from PC actions. The principles and objectives by which the fiction evolves are, again, all unspoken. At best we can presume they aim to be fun.In the idealized Dungeon World game, the participants sit down for session zero with a blank slate. DW assumes a certain genre/milieu (basically a D&D-type world) but beyond that it is clean sheet. The players write up PCs, ask questions, answer GM questions, generate bonds, etc. The GM follows an explicit set of principles in which the starting scene is going to be "in the middle of the action", that it will be consistent with the fiction established before the scene is played out, and that the other principles of play will be followed, which all direct the GM to focus on the PCs and frame scenes which put them on the spot and give them a chance to be awesome, engaging with elements derived substantially from player responses to questions, hints, descriptions, etc. After the first session the GM will then go back, create a map with holes in it, and at least a single adventure front (some sort of threatening force/circumstance which is pitted against the PC's established interests). Again according to the principles of engaging the player's indicated interests, etc.This is the difference between narrative play and any other sort. All the other sorts, AFAIK, that we have discussed, don't include this kind of defined agenda and principles. They all share the characteristic of a Game Master as the central determining factor in play. To put this in thread context, in a narrative play game the players are 'in the drivers seat' and the GM is fundamentally serving up what they need. Maybe the best analogy is the school cafeteria. Classic D&D is kinda like that, if its pizza day, well, you get pizza. You can skip lunch, maybe you can get a hot dog instead, but there's a menu that is on offer.</blockquote>

Verification