Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zakael19" data-source="post: 9663071" data-attributes="member: 7044099">Idk, I can comfortably say that I make decisions in my game(s) in keeping with the agenda and principles of play, and when I reflect on what I did and it falls short I update. Basically the same thing “Blorb Principles” advocate for high-prep transparent conventional play. But I don’t think I’ve ever said it wasn’t fundamentally me making the decision about how things go. I’m bound by the rules of the game, but like - it’s not a straitjacket. “Put them in a spot” as a hard move has a ton of space. So long as I can look back at what I’m doing and feel that I’m not constraining the players into what I think is a better direction of play I think I’m doing a good job. When I ask for a roll on a table, or when I make the decision to disclaim decision making (“roll death’s door for him, on a 1-3 X happens on a 4-6 Y, hm I don’t know - roll a d10 and we’ll see?”), I’m the one setting the potential space there; or I’m the one who prepped the Threat / Site / etc.It’s a fine line between “am I doing what’s required to ensure we have an interesting an engaging game” and “how far am I guiding play” and I try and reflect on this and be aware of where my choices shape things.You could argue that “well that’s the point of all these random tables and pre-written blurbs on hexes and content!” And I guess so, but I’ve found the ability to build a reactive world that feels consistent and vital empowered by a design one step back from that - broader brushed and more bespoke. It’s a good thing so many different people with different desires are out there to play, means we all get to run games that align with what we want to achieve at our table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zakael19, post: 9663071, member: 7044099"] Idk, I can comfortably say that I make decisions in my game(s) in keeping with the agenda and principles of play, and when I reflect on what I did and it falls short I update. Basically the same thing “Blorb Principles” advocate for high-prep transparent conventional play. But I don’t think I’ve ever said it wasn’t fundamentally [B]me[/B] making the decision about how things go. I’m bound by the rules of the game, but like - it’s not a straitjacket. “Put them in a spot” as a hard move has a ton of space. So long as I can look back at what I’m doing and feel that I’m not constraining the players into [I]what I think is a better direction of play[/I] I think I’m doing a good job. When I ask for a roll on a table, or when I make the decision to disclaim decision making (“roll death’s door for him, on a 1-3 X happens on a 4-6 Y, hm I don’t know - roll a d10 and we’ll see?”), I’m the one setting the potential space there; or I’m the one who prepped the Threat / Site / etc. It’s a fine line between “am I doing what’s required to ensure we have an interesting an engaging game” and “how far am I guiding play” and I try and reflect on this and be aware of where my choices shape things. You could argue that “well that’s the point of all these random tables and pre-written blurbs on hexes and content!” And I guess so, but I’ve found the ability to build a reactive world that feels consistent and vital empowered by a design one step back from that - broader brushed and more bespoke. It’s a good thing so many different people with different desires are out there to play, means we all get to run games that align with what we want to achieve at our table. [/QUOTE]

Verification