Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9199701" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Upthread there was some discussion on both (i) why do longterm (often exclusive) D&D players struggle to onboard and operationalize PBtA/FitD (and kindred) games' play loop and system architecture and (ii) what is happening at the GM level in the intervening steps of that play loop.  I'm entering into this discussion just to throw some words at that.There are multiple reasons for this, but I'm only going to go into one of the biggest:Whether the GM is framing a macro-scene/conflict, an individual obstacle, or rendering consequences to some form of resolution, the GM is integrating inviolable systemic guidance and constraints while simultaneously evaluating and filtering multiple variables (typically dependent though not always) from a constellation of prospects that is often double digits.If you don't have both exposure to (a) the integrated, intricate, and inviolable nature of a system (like AW) and (b) the particular cognitive space it requires to undertake, then what the GM is doing (or what you're supposed to be doing if you're GMing) might seem convoluted or even impenetrable.  Its not actually convoluted or impenetrable once you fully assimilate (a) and have enough exposure to (b) (whether as a GM or as a player), but there is enough evidence in the wild that this can happen for particular cohorts of gamers...though the question remains whether the scale that this happens is after actually playing...or mostly just from reading the text (or, worse still, merely reading someone's abstract about the text).A few examples (of which there are plenty more) or preconception/orientation that lead to struggle/discord:* One thinks that (what they might call "naturalistic") fiction & gamestate-credible situation-framing and consequence-rendering is always (or even typically) a very narrow subset of prospects (perhaps 1 or 2).* One thinks that codified parts of system (like agenda and principles and engine architecture and protagonist motivations and concerns about a strategically or tactically compelling decision-space) are perpetually opt-in, GM discretion based on their personal story imperatives, rather than filters that play must always and ever attend to at every moment of GM decision-making.  Put another way, its the "games are discrete tool-kits for GMs to decide how to use and how to discard at their discretion" refrain.* One thinks that overt meta-conversation that attends to the needs of play is either (a) insincere and setting up some kind of gotcha/coup, or (b) harmful to their experience of play.</blockquote>

Verification