Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9249690" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I appreciate the response.Check out what I've bolded above.&nbsp; I think maybe (could be wrong) what is happening here is at the intersection of (a) what your sense of table time is devoted to in these games in particular + (b) how that doesn't jive with (perhaps) what your table time is devoted to in your own home games?&nbsp; So for instance, in these games?&nbsp; Table time is devoted damn near exclusively to situation-framing, player's cognitive loop (orienting to the situation and then processing their decision tree and then landing on a chosen action), consequence-resolution and situation-reframing, follow-on conflicts, and any systemitized upkeep/downtime or management of prompts.&nbsp; So the GM in these games isn't talking less on the whole than in trad games.&nbsp; Its just that the things they're saying exclude trad concepts that find a lot of table time like exposition dumps, breadcrumb laying, reveals, heavy on the performative theatrics, significant focus on ephemera (like maps or handouts), and conflict-neutral freeplay (although some games have a hair of this...but that freeplay is going to be right on the heels of conflict or chasing some new, follow-on conflict).&nbsp; So same amount of talking for GMs in these games...its just that the words/conversation doesn't entail the italicized stuff.&nbsp; Its all basically (a) aggressing the PCs via principled application of system and (b) managing your systemitized duties and the game engine's particulars (like structured play loops and system prompts).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9249690, member: 6696971"] I appreciate the response. Check out what I've bolded above. I think maybe (could be wrong) what is happening here is at the intersection of (a) what your sense of table time is devoted to in these games in particular + (b) how that doesn't jive with (perhaps) what your table time is devoted to in your own home games? So for instance, in these games? Table time is devoted damn near exclusively to situation-framing, player's cognitive loop (orienting to the situation and then processing their decision tree and then landing on a chosen action), consequence-resolution and situation-reframing, follow-on conflicts, and any systemitized upkeep/downtime or management of prompts. So the GM in these games isn't talking less on the whole than in trad games. Its just that the things they're saying exclude trad concepts that find a lot of table time like [I]exposition dumps[/I], [I]breadcrumb laying[/I], [I]reveals[/I], [I]heavy on the[/I] [I]performative theatrics, significant focus on ephemera (like maps or handouts)[/I], and [I]conflict-neutral freeplay[/I] (although some games have a hair of this...but that freeplay is going to be right on the heels of conflict or chasing some new, follow-on conflict). So same amount of talking for GMs in these games...its just that the words/conversation doesn't entail the italicized stuff. Its all basically (a) aggressing the PCs via principled application of system and (b) managing your systemitized duties and the game engine's particulars (like structured play loops and system prompts). [/QUOTE]

Verification