Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9628115" data-attributes="member: 85870">Apologies, was not intended to be dismissive. Was merely trying to analyze [USER=7036985]@deleuzian_kernel[/USER] 's point. Sorry, I just figured bragging rights was a lot fewer syllables than "enjoyment of the mental and social rewards of being seen as competent in a sphere of skill." Pretty well understood I think as being a primary reward loop for gamist play orientation.  But what I'm ultimately hearing you say is, "The GM modifying his/her notes on the fly constitutes a 'breach of player contract' sufficient to warrant a total renunciation of such action, because such an act nullifies the ability for players to receive the expected reward of recognition for their competence."So the question then becomes, is that true? Is something actually lost or nullfied? And even if something is lost, is it worth the loss if something else is gained?But I do agree with you, there is a cost/benefit equation to the differing approaches. So here's the thing---and this is what I want to focus on in my actual play rundown from Ironsworn as soon as I can manage it---is that this feeling you described, is exactly what I felt as I as a co-GM / shared-GM running a mystery scenario in Ironsworn.That feeling of the pieces suddenly, magically interlocking, the understanding of events as they had unfolded, the satisfaction of having understood a sequence of events having unfolded in a specific way, all transpired in our campaign---even though there were several pieces of the mystery that had not been fully established at the start of the session. To a point, I understand what you're getting at, and I've probably come across more argumentative than intended. There is something mentally appealing about simply locking down every possible element of a mystery as pre-defined fiction. There's very much a mental/metaphysical appeal to our human minds towards objectivity. I just no longer find the argument---that such objectivity in RPG "shared fiction" is paramount to maintaining a "positive" or "correct" group gameplay experience---to be compelling. And the longer I've analyzed it, the less compelling that argument has become. I just know in my past life as a hardcore "trad RPG play is the ONLY RPG play" GM that I would often feel trapped by my own prep. I was enculturated to believe what you're saying---I can't change that now, it would ruin the fiction / game / player happiness. Even though I would watch the game unfold unsatisfactorily because I wasn't "allowed" to change anything---even if a minor tweak or update or revision or "retcon" of a detail here and there could have made significant difference to the engagement of the group. In part it may just be me rebelling against the dogmatic nature of the position --- a GM is inherently engaging in degenerate play when he or she either A) changes anything in his/her notes on the fly, even if unestablished as part of the fiction, or B) has no specific notation to a component. And I can't say what it is about that position that doesn't sit quite right with me, but it doesn't. Especially now, since discovering Ironsworn in 2021. I've realized that such a position is, if not entirely incorrect, loaded with assumptions that aren't applicable for many RPG play pursuits.</blockquote>

Verification