NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wightbred" data-source="post: 7629345" data-attributes="member: 56388">Hi friend, and thanks for your reply. You might have noticed I’m a lurker not a fighter here. I’m more interested in new ideas than convincing someone on the internet. But given you have prepared such a detailed response to my original quick missive I’m happy to elaborate a little more, but perhaps with a wry smile in the corner of my mouth.I suspect you perceive me in the mold of ‘damn hipster disciples of Mr Baker’ that unfortunately wounds my sense of being a well-rounded individual. I am a definitely a devoted disciple of Mr Baker, but also Mr Mearls, Mr Ross Watson, Mr Morningstarr, Mr Laws, Masters Livingston and Jackson, and many other excellent designers. I am currently running AiME D&D 5e and the Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game and playing Wrath and Glory rather than any indie nonsense, so I feel I might escape this constrained view.I have played many an excellent game in the past with close friends who do not enjoy authoring and many of them are not base villains and some didn’t even have two heads. I find myself and the people I play with share more authoring in our current expeditions, Like the vast majority of RPG players I find myself disinclined to point out to anyone playing a different way that they only think they are having fun and to take away and burn their books or perform other clearly justified punishments. The final point in my first post is a sincere and genuine satisfaction that there are a wide range of high quality modern games that allow everyone to play the way they want.I’m not sure we have the same understanding of the Czege Principle. Rather than debating at length there is a detailed explanation here: <a href="http://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.html" target="_blank">http://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.html</a><a href="http://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.html" target="_blank">http://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.html</a> but I must warn you that it is from Mr Baker’s blog. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />How I love a good GM-less / GM-ful game! I foolishly left them out because I was worried they would cloud the issue. But Fiasco and Remember Tomorrow and other gems really do show new ways of sharing authoring, which is a boon for people who like this style. We also (heresy!) play AW without having a single GM / MC at the table on occasion and we don’t just sit silently all night.I don’t find this a particularly good summary of AW of the MC role therewithin. For me it misses the approach of shared responsibility and key elements of drawing out authoring like ‘draw maps and leave blanks’, ‘ask questions’, ‘build on each other’s ideas’, ‘so it is a charged situation?’, examples where the MC changes their view in response to players and the way many 7-9 results deliberately share authoring around. In play I find that AW draws out the truth that any game is a construct of the situation and conversation, and what happens at the table is really agreed by everyone in a shared way, not enforced by a single authority figure. I feel you may ask me to elaborate here, but this is probably well off topic for the OP and it involves more of Mr Baker’s work which I sense you are not as enamoured with.This was pretty fun to write up. I hope you take it in the honest but tongue-in-cheek way I intend it and we can enjoy some further positive and fun exchanges on this issue.</blockquote>

Verification