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: 6809640" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Pretty close, but I think you lost me toward the end there a little bit.The first part is dead on.  I would change your second part to:whereas in "make continuity-observing, coherent/challenging/conflict-ridden crap up" "just in time" for "story now" dming this natural human tendency to impose your own vision (of which you are invested in) is mitigated because (a) fun and interesting (to you as well as the players) games emerge when you don't do that, (b) you don't have to prep so intensively (thus removing that investment in the first place), and (c) the system helps you to not need to do that (as merely following the orthodox play procedures and guidance produces a fun game and obliges the players their system-inherited agency to affect the trajectory of play...I'm not sure if that is happening across the board.  I tried to make it clear that my points where clearly under the rubric of "advantages to low-prep, high-improv GMing and systems" and how that sort of play doesn't inexorably lead to "non-living, non-breathing, flat and uninteresting worlds".  Its just that the only part of those settings that are relevant to play is (1) what makes this on-screen situation interesting/compelling/at conflict with a (or all of the) PC's agenda RIGHT NOW and (2) what immediately relevant off-screen material will produce interesting stuff to follow up with.I'll use your post to quickly round out the GMing style with its disadvantages (of which you canvass):1 - Maintaining Continuity2 - Consistently Generating Interesting and Relevant Content That Challenges and Produces Dynamic Decision-PointsLow-prep, high-improv games that prioritize a focus on situation are demanding mentally on GMs in different ways than high-prep, low-improv games that prioritize a focus on setting.  A hefty portion of you're cognitive workload while running such a game is very asymmetric ("how do I challenge this particular thing while providing insurance for this other thing while maintaining fidelity to this third thing and make the whole thing interesting and sensical?").  This is why I'm always evaluating system components/games from a "mental overhead" perspective.  The more balls a GM has in the air at once (from a system perspective), the more difficult it is to perform well in the two potential problem areas above.</blockquote>

Verification