Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7052897" data-attributes="member: 16586">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],That's the danger of categorization and simplifying things down for ease of communication. It fails to capture the nuances of play effectively. The three schools of Play To Find Out I outlined are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways to create compelling experiences. When I say that I am not generally focused on scene framing anymore I am mostly focused on the closed circuit nature of scenes. I absolutely use elements of scene framing in my own Apocalypse World games - framing scenes is something I believe we do naturally as GMs. Every time we elide certain details to focus on others and make determinations about the fiction to provide for a more compelling play experience that's scene framing. The degree to which we embrace scene framing is impactful and important. I would also say that Principled Game Mastering is not really a binary. The degree to which we depend on our principles and what those principles are is also impactful. I believe it is obvious that we also follow the fiction to its logical conclusion to varying degrees. The shape of actual play is far more complex than general theorycrafting. I believe that typical Burning Wheel play is fairly principled. The same goes for Moldvay D&D as described. Both offer a GM more latitude than Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, or Monsterhearts which are more specifically about certain stuff as typically played. Marvel Heroic and D&D 4e as I understood it lean more on the GM to provide their own principles, but can absolutely be played in a more principled way. The same is largely true for most games. When I have run Demon - The Descent or Vampire - The Requiem 2e I have had to borrow some principles and techniques from Apocalypse World and make some of my own in order to focus play and provide the constraints which allow me to GM in the manner that works best for me.Dungeon World is an interesting example here. While Dungeon World takes some cues in its design from Apocalypse World it is a very different game. It was designed to provide an experience very similar to Adam Koebel and Sage Latorra's memories of old school D&D without much of the rules cruft that they did not enjoy. Part of making that happen is providing for more latitude and discretion in the hands of the GM. The principles are more lax and less discipline is required to run the game as written. It also is more focused on Free Kriegsspeil style playing the fiction. I'm not sure where I say it, but in one of Adam Koebel's Youtube videos he explains that trying to not trigger moves was a valid strategy for Dungeon World play in the same way that OSR play styles often attempt to not involve the rules and dice rolling because when the dice come out you might lose.Dungeon World is not my favorite Powered By the Apocalypse game. In many ways it leaves me with more latitude than I would like when running the game. I'll happily play it, but when I run games I prefer to have a stronger idea of what exactly I should be doing in any moment of play.</blockquote>

Verification