Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6313058" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thank you.&nbsp; It does work extremely well when done with proficient GMs and players.&nbsp; This is not my preferred way for campaign play (and hasn't been for over a decade), but as a micro ecosystem (like one-off dungeon play), its extremely fun.&nbsp; As&nbsp;&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23935" target="_blank">Nagol</a>&nbsp; has been relating, its doable as a greater campaign in sandbox play, it just requires an extraordinary amount of GM-side prep work and the relevant question (with an ecosystem that large - region or world) become &quot;is the payoff worth the prep?&quot;&nbsp; My answer to that has generally been no, as genre, pacing and other interests (several of my current GMing principles push against the principles embedded in this agenda) are subordinated to the interests that Pulsipher advocates for (and they, very often, cannot coexist).&nbsp; I think so too.Perhaps you guys are referring to the first paragraph where the blurb nature of the article doesn't allow him to elaborate, as might an essay, on the varying agendas and they are somewhat caricatured.&nbsp; But only somewhat.&nbsp; There is plenty of truth there.&nbsp; It might seem less of a caricature if he wasn't writing a short article and was instead composing a thesis on various agendas.If this opinion is driven by the rest of it, then I'm not so sure.&nbsp; He clearly outlines (a) the agenda and (b) that he's outlining the principles and techniques for coherent and tight GMing in that specific play.&nbsp; When he uses the term &quot;incompetent&quot; later on, he is applying it to a GM trying to max out his GMing ability within the scope of this agenda.&nbsp; The &quot;incompetent&quot;, therefore, may not apply to another style of play.However, as I've written in another thread somewhere, I might be a little aloof to the potential of a strident tone to offend.&nbsp; I'm not talking incendiary, just strident (I don't believe Pulsipher's piece even approaches anywhere near the realm of incendiary).&nbsp; In that other thread, I relayed how I only recently realized that there was a vast swath of gamers who were royally turned off by Apocalypse World because of the tone of the work.&nbsp; Conversely, they loved Dungeon World (even though its a D&amp;D AW Hack) because of the tone.&nbsp; I didn't even notice the difference in tone (outside of the colorfulness) until it was brought to my attention.&nbsp; I was just assimilating the ruleset.&nbsp; Beyond that, different time and all and this is a British periodical with very different sensibilities than those of the mainstream popular cultures of modern western societies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6313058, member: 6696971"] Thank you. It does work extremely well when done with proficient GMs and players. This is not my preferred way for campaign play (and hasn't been for over a decade), but as a micro ecosystem (like one-off dungeon play), its extremely fun. As @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23935"]Nagol[/URL][/U][/B][/I] has been relating, its doable as a greater campaign in sandbox play, it just requires an extraordinary amount of GM-side prep work and the relevant question (with an ecosystem that large - region or world) become "is the payoff worth the prep?" My answer to that has generally been no, as genre, pacing and other interests (several of my current GMing principles push against the principles embedded in this agenda) are subordinated to the interests that Pulsipher advocates for (and they, very often, cannot coexist). I think so too. Perhaps you guys are referring to the first paragraph where the blurb nature of the article doesn't allow him to elaborate, as might an essay, on the varying agendas and they are somewhat caricatured. But only somewhat. There is plenty of truth there. It might seem less of a caricature if he wasn't writing a short article and was instead composing a thesis on various agendas. If this opinion is driven by the rest of it, then I'm not so sure. He clearly outlines (a) the agenda and (b) that he's outlining the principles and techniques for coherent and tight GMing in that specific play. When he uses the term "incompetent" later on, he is applying it to a GM trying to max out his GMing ability within the scope of this agenda. The "incompetent", therefore, may not apply to another style of play. However, as I've written in another thread somewhere, I might be a little aloof to the potential of a strident tone to offend. I'm not talking incendiary, just strident (I don't believe Pulsipher's piece even approaches anywhere near the realm of incendiary). In that other thread, I relayed how I only recently realized that there was a vast swath of gamers who were royally turned off by Apocalypse World because of the tone of the work. Conversely, they loved Dungeon World (even though its a D&D AW Hack) because of the tone. I didn't even notice the difference in tone (outside of the colorfulness) until it was brought to my attention. I was just assimilating the ruleset. Beyond that, different time and all and this is a British periodical with very different sensibilities than those of the mainstream popular cultures of modern western societies. [/QUOTE]

Verification