Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6815148" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm not familiar with Madness at Gardmore Abbey, unfortunately, so I can't really comment.  While I'm familiar with a few classics (due to curiosity), my knowledge of most modules is extremely lacking so I don't have a lot of commentary on any specific module's utility or depth (and I tend to stay away from conversations about them due to my ignorance).  I've never run a campaign that was module-leveraged or even module-inspired.  I learned GMing probably very different than most and module study and usage weren't a part of that process.  Consequently, my mental framework when it comes to "theme calibration for the table" and organizing my own overhead and workload (before and during play) may very well be askew from the mainstream.<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365637-The-Fey-the-Far-and-the-Ugly-Space-In-Between" target="_blank">Here </a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353102-Somewhere-else&prefixid=wotc" target="_blank">here </a>are a few threads that you could take a look at to get a sense of how most of my games get going.In Burning Wheel, Beliefs (and growth through failure) are the primary locus of play.  At the outset of play, the GM, the table agrees on the big picture of play and builds characters together.  Each characters' Beliefs will interact with these elements so that they can be tested by the process of GM framing scenes which challenge those Beliefs, which in turn requires you to take action.  As the game evolves, some beliefs will be resolved/fulfilled by the play that emerges.  Others will evolve to reflect the changing perspective of your character and the changing circumstances of play.  Now and again, a stray Belief might be left behind if the game has moved past it.  If so, change it to something relevant.  Dungeon World's Bonds and Alignment were inspired by Burning Wheel's Beliefs.  4e's Quests, Themes, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies (which naturally commingle/interface) are that system's analog.  Does it become more difficult to integrate/maintain coherency/relevance as more players get in the mix?  Potentially.  It puts more pressure on overall table communication/calibration and player malleability I'd say (hence one reason why I only run games for 3 people anymore!).The disconnect I think I see in a lot of these conversations comes from this:That "DM bias" you're detecting?  That is the game's "bias" that your attributing to the person running the game.  That is "running the game by the prescribed GMing directives/ethos and addressing the focused premise of play itself."   [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s post above talks about play that focuses like a laser beam on protagonism, Dramatic Need, and antagonism interposing itself between the two.  I think that is as good a way as any to put it.  That Dark Elf that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was pondering outside of play?  That could have come in many shapes or forms.  The play wasn't about the Dark Elf.  He became a part of the setting mosaic when he was introduced into the fiction, yes, but it wasn't about him.  Play turns on the Situation (a) challenging a Belief (or multiples) and (b) forcing the players to address the What (do I want out of this Situation) and How (am I going to resolve it).  The Dark Elf is just the means for pemerton to facilitate that proper GMing (which isn't his bias).  It isn't a story about his Dark Elf.  It is a story about his players' Beliefs being tested in the crucible of high/dark fantasy conflict (over and over and over) and seeing what shakes out of it (character progression/evolution and story emergence).  In this case, the introduction of the Dark Elf complication was just another system-coherent (and genre-coherent) means of doing that.</blockquote>

Verification