Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8628584" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The conversation has moved on from this, but I figured I'd just use this post (because its related) to give my thoughts on fairness and prep as it pertains to Gamism."Fairness" when it comes to Gamism requires:* Procedural Understanding and Integrity - The entire table needs a requisite understanding of (a) the shared imagined space, (b) what the play procedures for resolving gamestate collisions do and how they do it (including resource economies like what assets both sides can bring to bear and how those assets get brought into the conflict), and (c) that everyone plays hard and commits to fidelity toward the shared goal.* Procedural Skill and Transparency - The players especially need some level of confirmation that THIS instantiation (rinse/repeat) of (a) and (b) and (c) is legitimate.  For instance, if, by design, "what (type and amount) resources the GM can bring to bear" is gated behind skillful player surveillance, then the GM needs to skillfully handle BOTH the gating AND the reveal and honor that reveal with above-board procedural fidelity (the players need to understand it and see it).  A GM fumbling their role in either the gating or the reveal or the honoring will short-circuit skilled play. Some random thoughts about Prep and Gamism + One thought about Gamism + Story Now:* Gamism is entirely functional without a pre-prepped play-space so long as certain preconditions are met (see above).* If the site of Skilled Play is overwhelmingly (though not wholly) at the scene/conflict level (see D&D 4e), then the requirement of a pre-prepped play-space is reduced dramatically.  If we're running a 4e combat, the GM should telegraph encounter budget info such that threat can be inferred and should render the shared imagined space of the battlefield array so that players understand the constituent parts (including goals and any NPCs they have under their control) of the conflict.  Skill Challenge Complexity and Level should be given and, again, goal of conflict/intent of action declarations and nature of opposition should be well-rendered by the GM.  If its a social conflict where dice pools/traits/tags should be inferable by players, those should be resolved quickly beforehand (or given outright if the players would already know them and need to interact with them to make moves in the Conflict - eg Torchbearer Convince conflicts and equipping - in this case social - weapons for possible Maneuver to Disarm).* If the primary play-space of Skilled Play is "The Adventure," "the Score," or "The Adventuring Day" then the assets that the GM can be brought to bear absolutely must be inferable and within the gamespace to decode (see Information Gathering phase of Blades or Town phase in TB) or transparently encoded (see encoded Torchbearer Adventure Size construction or Score Tier info/Assets for enemies and Engagement Roll then Position/Effect handling in Blades).The larger and more complex each of these units gets (for instance, I can routinely improvise ALL Short Adventures in TB, and MOST Medium Adventures in TB, but I would NEVER even attempt to improvise a Long Adventure in TB), and that complexity is all of procedure-side/PC-build/power/resource refresh disparity/array of available GM assets-side/physical imagined play-space size + interconnectedness/integration, the higher the demand for full prep in order to meet the demands for Skilled Play.TLDR - Shorter, transparent + robust systemization/automation, less complex, less consequentially interconnected (or outright discrete) play-spaces can easily be improvised and fulfil the demands of Skilled Play.  As that continuum moves ever onward toward the other side there is a point of steep diminishing returns for the GM to not prep and then there is a break-point where the demands of Skill Play cannot be met without prep.  Finally, running a Gamist game via improvisation (or without much prep) requires a dedicated GM who is extremely conscientious, who understands the game they're running at a very technical level, is well-practiced (don't kid yourself...this takes a lot of practice), is willing/able to devote significant amount of mental bandwidth and cognitive horsepower to "the mission" during play, and who cares deeply about the competitive integrity of the play-space to pull this off.* Transparency and game engine robustness is a necessity for a Gamist-aspiring engine to play nice with (and enable the production of) Story Now play.  Conversely, Game engine opacity and frailty/insipidness in its Gamist-pursuits does the exact opposite.  It disables Story Now play and it enables High Concept Sim (particularly of the Participationist variety because responsibility and accountability for the trajectory of play is removed from players and offloaded entirely onto GM - and in this case, this is a willing transaction by the parties involves by way of implicit or explicit social contract).</blockquote>

Verification