Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8998620" data-attributes="member: 6785785">A few things leap out at me here. I'll preface this by saying I've not yet run or played Agon, but I have read it, and I've seen it played. I backed the kickstarter and I do want to get it to my table at some point.I would say that the biggest difference between Agon and D&D is that there is a clear structure to prep in Agon, and then the ideas within that structure are more about inspiring participants. With D&D, there structure is far less specific... many would say that there isn't one, though I don't know if I'd go quite that far... and then the ideas in that loose structure are far more specific.Agon tells you exactly how to prep for play. And that prep is very simple and broad. Assuming you decide to make your own island instead of using one of those offered in the book, of course. It breaks it down into components (Signs of the Gods, Arrival, Trials, Characters, Places, Special Rewards, Mysteries) but the details for those components are not designed to limit players. They're also not hidden. The Strife Player reads the Signs of the Gods out loud at the start of the session, then they read the Arrival. They introduce characters and they share details such as "this person is clearly hiding something" and so on. Their job is to Reveal, and that's made very clear in the book.... Reveal, Ask, Judge is the basic loop of play. To touch on Mysteries, I don't think it's that vague at all. They're meant to be answered in play. These are questions prompted by the characters and location... so they come about as a result of the mix of elements for a given island. It may be "why is the priest of Hera turning her back on the people?" or similar. The Strife Player is recommended to offer a partial answer, but to then let play determine the truth. The players can either confirm the hypothesis of the Strife Player, or reject it for their own. This is all stated on page 137. Then the example islands have some Mysteries, which you can see are just leading questions to determine in play. Now, compare that to D&D. The structure of D&D is far less specific. The DM is meant to craft an adventure of some sort, which will have a Beginning, Middle, and End (this is from the DMG, Part 2, Master of Adventures). They offer some types of adventures (location-based, event-based, mysteries, framing events) and gives advice about some elements of each (party goals, villains, events, suspects, and so on). This is all very broad. So much is left to the GM to do... right down to the very basics of what the structure of play will be. Then, the elements chosen need to be detailed. You need a map for locations, you need detailed stats for opponents or traps, you need to design encounters, and so on. There are a lot of tables you can use to determine these elements, but it's all scattershot and the guidance is super vague and wishy-washy. Mostly, prep consists of determining specifics ahead of time. I think the two are fairly opposite in how they work.</blockquote>

Verification