The 3D Model of the Table Top Role Playing Experience.
- Thread starter atanakar
- Start date
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Oh, um, that's... not how that usually works, but okay. I suppose, then that I'm not sure what A-B measures. Can you have a "traditional adventure" that's "improvised"? Or is A-B Story based and... Not Story based?None. The central coordinate is 0%,0%,0%. The axis are graded 100% to 100% in each direction. They help define what kind of GM or Player you are in each game you participate in.
atanakar
Hero
The model doesn't mesure the adventures. It measures «who you are» as a DM and how much improvisation, sandboxing and player control you can allow during the course of an adventure / campaign. Conversely it can model which kind of GM you are looking for as a player.
Traditional OR Sandboxing (A-B) : As a DM I used to be 100% traditional (A-B) when I started. I followed the script and prepared many games in advance. Creating complex worlds with politics and religions. Now I'm still traditional because I like preparing a situation the players have to confront and solve but I never prepare more than the next game. I require much less details to run games. So I'm sandboxing a lot more. A-B 60/40%.
Improvisation OR Director (M-N) : I'm clearly a director during each game. But I listen very closely to what the players and characters say. Players often give me ideas without knowing it. I edit my script on the fly, often removing parts because the tempo is too slow. But I can't do 100% improvisation. It's to much for my brain to compute. I shut down. M-N 30/70%.
Spectator players OR co-creator players (Y-Z) : I'm not very good with system like 13 age (icon system) or other systems that have plot points that influence what is going on directly as we play. On the other hand I can GM systems like Coriolis that have a more complex background system and help create the type campaign during session zero with a series of questions and tables to choose from. Y-Z 70/30%.
In short, I prepare in advance but only the next session. I can improvise. But I can't run games were everything is changing under my feet constantly. That is what you get if you want to play with me. Take it of leave it.
Last edited:
aco175
Legend
It would be good to have a slide to plot where you are vs where your players think you are as a DM. I know I have changed over the years and while I think that it is for the better, I'm not sure. It could match players with DMs of like minds as conventions and such.
Of course what I think of 'getting better' is subjective right there.
Of course what I think of 'getting better' is subjective right there.
atanakar
Hero
I see some issues with this classification system.
1. It's unclear what it tries to classify. Game systems? Specific instances of play? Players' or game masters' preferences for a specific instance of play? Groups' social contracts?
GNS would be much better received if it clearly specified what it tries to achieve. This system needs the same.
2. The axes are not independent. They don't really describe three separate dimensions of play, just three aspects of the same thing. If the GM runs pre-defined stories, they don't have space for improvisation and the players can't co-create anything. And if the story is everybody's creation, it obviously requires improvisation because it can't be prepared beforehand.
3. It makes strong assumptions about how the play looks like that exclude a wide range of games. What about RPGs that focus on exploring specific situations, but giving players freedom in choosing how it will be done (it covers both story games like Dogs in the Vineyard and dungeon-based OSR games)? What about games where many things are pre-defined, but by players (like character arcs in Chuubo's or missions in Mistborn Adventure Game)? What about games where a structure is hard-coded in the rules? What about GM-less games?
1. It's unclear what it tries to classify. Game systems? Specific instances of play? Players' or game masters' preferences for a specific instance of play? Groups' social contracts?
GNS would be much better received if it clearly specified what it tries to achieve. This system needs the same.
2. The axes are not independent. They don't really describe three separate dimensions of play, just three aspects of the same thing. If the GM runs pre-defined stories, they don't have space for improvisation and the players can't co-create anything. And if the story is everybody's creation, it obviously requires improvisation because it can't be prepared beforehand.
3. It makes strong assumptions about how the play looks like that exclude a wide range of games. What about RPGs that focus on exploring specific situations, but giving players freedom in choosing how it will be done (it covers both story games like Dogs in the Vineyard and dungeon-based OSR games)? What about games where many things are pre-defined, but by players (like character arcs in Chuubo's or missions in Mistborn Adventure Game)? What about games where a structure is hard-coded in the rules? What about GM-less games?
Similar Threads
