Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8270420" data-attributes="member: 70468">That’s true, but I’m talking about incoherence more generally than just as applied to GNS or the big model. I expect those theories would view neo-trad/OC play as incoherent, but people enjoy that style and make it work. What would actually be incoherent is introducing OSR elements into a neo-trad game (because you’re putting pitting competing principles against each other). I look at it as a tool to check whether what I’m doing is what I think I’m doing.For a long time, I’ve incorporated PbtA-style agenda and principles in the games I run. The list is mostly just cribbed from Apocalypse World with a few tweaks. However, if I’m trying to run a campaign as a science experiment (i.e., what comes to my mind re: the Right to Dream), some of those principles are going to screw things up. If the idea is we have an initial premise and then see where things go, then asking provocative questions and building on the answers will screw things up.To give a concrete example, my players apparently love exploration-based games. For the last several campaigns, when we sit down to do a session zero and talk about what we want to play, they say they want to do an exploration-based game. The first few I tried, I would dial in on things they found interesting. One player’s character was really into crystals, so that became a thing, and another thread lead them into a plot on crystals. In another, we ended up focusing on the lives of the characters as explorers rather than on exploration itself. The feedback was consistent: that was fun, but there wasn’t much exploration. I’m concerned about incoherence here because I want that to stop happening (I want both fun and to do the thing they want).</blockquote>

Verification