Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8999188" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Ah, that is really triggering another insight. There are flexibilities on different timescales. My statement was with timescale of within a single session, while your argument is in the timescale from one game to the next.PbtA games tend to be quite rigid with regard to how a spesific session look like, but it is easy to make large scale changes keeping the core concepts allowing for a very wide range of possibilities when changing around rules for a new game.Rule 0 games (including D&amp;D) tend to be very flexible in terms of the width of experiences that can be had within a single session. But I fully agree that D&amp;D is very rigid in terms of making major changes to the existing game as such between campaigns.I find this distinction fascinating, but I don't immediately see how malability of game rules from one game to the next tie into the main topic of this thread - DM control? For instance i am of the impression that gurps still is very malable (on the cross game scale) while granting the same controll to DMs as D&amp;D (hence leading to similar in-session flexibility)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8999188, member: 7039850"] Ah, that is really triggering another insight. There are flexibilities on different timescales. My statement was with timescale of within a single session, while your argument is in the timescale from one game to the next. PbtA games tend to be quite rigid with regard to how a spesific session look like, but it is easy to make large scale changes keeping the core concepts allowing for a very wide range of possibilities when changing around rules for a new game. Rule 0 games (including D&D) tend to be very flexible in terms of the width of experiences that can be had within a single session. But I fully agree that D&D is very rigid in terms of making major changes to the existing game as such between campaigns. I find this distinction fascinating, but I don't immediately see how malability of game rules from one game to the next tie into the main topic of this thread - DM control? For instance i am of the impression that gurps still is very malable (on the cross game scale) while granting the same controll to DMs as D&D (hence leading to similar in-session flexibility) [/QUOTE]

Verification