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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8441344" data-attributes="member: 16586">So when it comes to mixing and matching play techniques and principles you absolutely can do it. I have shown how I do it on a regular basis. I just think it's a mistake to mix and match haphazardly. You should have a disciplined approach to running the game so players know what they can expect.For example one way to drift almost any traditional game towards more Story Now play would be to implement intent and task from Burning Wheel outside of when specific subsystems like combat and in some games social stuff is being deployed. Basically players state what their characters are doing as normal but they also state what the player hopes to achieve. The GM sets the DC as normal. Success means they realize their intent. Failure means they do not and their lives become complicated in some fashion. You can pretty much do this in any game with open ended skill checks. What you don't want to do is only sometimes take their intent into consideration because that leads to confusion about what play is about. There should at least be a solid indication when technique and play priorities are shifting.I will admit that I have a very strong consistency bias (in games and real life). I think games work better when we are all on the same page and playing in the same key. I also think that having a consistent play process is the key to analyzing your own play and GMing to improve upon it over time. Even if the games we play do not have a coherent approach to play I think we should develop one for our own play.</blockquote>

Verification