Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Agamon]

To me, this seems like a disengenuous or unkind response. Presumably, you've chosen to GM and know what goes with it. Many players do NOT want to GM, and people in general can be put off by being put under unexpected pressure.

T'was a joke. But more seriously, asking the players questions is a far cry from making them GMs. I understand if people don't like this style of playing, that's fair. But not being good at it or being uncomfortable at it means a bit of practice is all that's needed to both improve and become more comfortable.

 

[Xamnam]

I’ve alluded to this a few times, but it’s also really important to note that Harper is explicitly talking about the context of designing custom moves for Apocalypse World. There’s lots of games out there with mechanics that “cross the line” and let the players author fiction advantageous to them - Fabula Ultima and uh, FATE? have currencies that permit this.

Crossing the GM/player authority over the world “line” isn’t inherently badwrong, and the guidance in Daggerheart notes that some groups may desire to go for much deeper player control over certain aspects of the fiction - but that’s more on the “far end.”

Edit: in fact a number of the Carved from Brindlewood games off the PBTA tree have direct mechanics that “cross the line” in allowing the players to author fictional answers and then test to see if it’s true, directly giving them mechanical opportunities.

Yep, tried to cover this in my disclaimer, but you did a much better job of making this facet clear.

 

[Umbran]

I make the opportunities available for players. Some run with it, most do not, and some are clearly nonplussed and dislike the experience intensely, specifically because they feel put on the spot.

I think there's apt to be issues when it is just tacked onto an otherwise traditional approach to running the game, and when it is new. When everything in a player's experience is that the GM does not want their input, or will use their input against them, or that they might just do it wrong... yes, it can be a source of anxiety.

On the other hand, it is a skill. You cannot develop the skill if you don't practice it.

Rather than tack it onto a game in which it isn't native, for some it can help to swap into a game in which player narration and creation is intrinsic - like Deathmatch Island, or Fate.

 

[zarionofarabel]

To me, this seems like a disengenuous or unkind response. Presumably, you've chosen to GM and know what goes with it. Many players do NOT want to GM, and people in general can be put off by being put under unexpected pressure.

This is true, and despite being someone that likes players who help create narrative beyond what their PC is doing, agree with your sentiment. I think more often than not players are not that interested in engaging in "description-on-demand" as it were. I think that is the primary reason why players outnumber GMs to the degree that it does. Part of being a GM is embracing "description-on-demand" as a thing you must do regularly. If it is something you aren't comfortable doing, then being in the spotlight constantly is rough. Most players I have encountered over my decades in the hobby are more than happy to let the GM describe the vast majority of things, including descriptions of their PCs actions. I prefer it when the players get more involved, especially with description of their PCs actions, but it's not a deal breaker. Some folks just want to listen to my melodic and stunning voice while I describe scenes in incredibly evocative and moving detail! Either that or they already know how much I like to talk and can't be bothered to tell me to shut up.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't think I've ever been "immersed" in a ttrpg, so I don't really get it when peopel talk about distrupting it. I have been engaged in a game, and "description on demand" certainly would get/keep me engaged in what was happening at the moment.

Seems like one of those things you could/should discuss at Session Zero.

You know, I don't think I've ever been immersed either.

As to the OP, it's very players dependent, and like most things in life, it's a dial, not a switch. But taking about dials doesn't generate clicks.....

 

[Agamon]

You know, I don't think I've ever been immersed either.

As to the OP, it's very players dependent, and like most things in life, it's a dial, not a switch. But taking about dials doesn't generate clicks.....

I'd click on a video about dials. Unless it was titled, "Why DIALS are the REAL reason your games SUCK!"

 

[Aldarc]

Today I learned that I'm not a good DM.

Sorry that you didn't learn this sooner, but after all our years together here, I just didn't have the heart to tell you.

 

[Aldarc]

On the other hand, it is a skill. You cannot develop the skill if you don't practice it.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I refuse to adopt Alexanderian's vernacular

But did you Xander your dungeon?

 

[Clint_L]

I think there's apt to be issues when it is just tacked onto an otherwise traditional approach to running the game, and when it is new. When everything in a player's experience is that the GM does not want their input, or will use their input against them, or that they might just do it wrong... yes, it can be a source of anxiety.

On the other hand, it is a skill. You cannot develop the skill if you don't practice it.

Rather than tack it onto a game in which it isn't native, for some it can help to swap into a game in which player narration and creation is intrinsic - like Deathmatch Island, or Fate.

I agree. I also suggested Fiasco in my response, as it is great for one-shots and tends to have such gonzo plots that players don't feel a lot of pressure to contribute in a certain style. I've played with all sorts of different players, most of whom never GM, and they have all loved it (but I recommend the original version and not the new one that comes with all the cards).