Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7063097" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Well, now we're running into further posts I was planning to do about what impedes GM Force or Illusionism.  If I could do a very abridged version it would be any system that constrains GM latitude by:(a) principally guiding GMs in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction(b) requiring little to no GM intervention/adjudication in the resolution mechanics(c) obstructing the GM from imposing their own will on outcomes (rather than letting the system and the players have their say)Obviously if we want to sort out facilitates GM Force or Illusionism, we merely have to invert the above, the abridged version being any system that indulged GM latitude by:(d) giving the GM broad, sweeping authority in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction(e) mandating GM intervention/adjudication in, or subordination of, the resolution mechanics(f) permitting and materially supporting the GM in imposing their own will on outcomesSo the only real question becomes...why would you be playing the first system if you want GM Force or Illusionism to be featured in the course of play?  And why would you be playing the second system if you do not want it featured?Going to put these two together.What I'm trying to juxtapose is consistent and truly inevitable dynamism in output versus consistent nuance (with the some prospects for stray dynamism)Imagine, if you will, the below B/X dungeon crawl.  For now, lets bridle the opinions of "I don't like that sort of player agency", "that negatively impacts my personal ability to immerse", "I feel like this would be boring to GM", "that dungeon will inevitably have crappy decision-points, puzzles, and continuity", and "OMG SCHRODINGER'S DUNGEON!"  None of those things are the point.  Let's just focus on the evaluation of dynamism.  Alright:You have a starting point; an initially framed theme, opening chamber/entrance, and obstacle to overcome.  From there, literally everything is up for grabs.  Everything is generated in the moment as an emergent property of what came before and is the product of the creative reservoir of the GM (with some help from the players) + the fundamental procedures and principles of play.  The subsequent map (from structural layout, to stairs, to traps, to secret doors, et al).  The stocking of the dungeon (from set dressing to puzzles to encounters).  The endgame (be it boss or grand puzzle which opens to corridor leading down to the next level of the dungeon).Where B/X's dynamism is mostly (but not wholly, as the decision-tree component of the dungeon itself and the players' decisions have their role to play) dependent upon (the beautifully elegant mechanics of) (1) Wandering Monsters and (2) Monster Reaction Rolls.Now, the obvious caveat for the obvious rejoinder.Yes, if you have a crappy Dungeon World GM (who isn't creative, who doesn't have a forensic knowledge-base and deep well of genre tropes to call upon, who doesn't improvise well) contrasted with a very skilled B/X GM (who masterfully creates complexes with deep and compelling decision trees, stocks them with engaging puzzles, and who describes each corridor/chamber with pithy and skillfully provocative - in both mood and subtle hints/misdirection - narration)...then yes, of course the B/X dungeon crawl experience is going to yield more dynamism on subsequent play-through by different groups.But assuming an apples to apples comparison, one formula is going to inevitably produce an emergent play experience that is dramatically and dynamically different from any predecessor (given the same starting point).</blockquote>

Verification