Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7656733" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937" target="_blank">Celebrim</a> , very good, clear post and on an extremely quick read-through, I'm not sure that I disagree with much of what you say.&nbsp; However, I may have not written clearly what those 7 bits above were.&nbsp; They weren't meant to be an agenda.&nbsp; They were meant to be the things I enjoy about GMing.&nbsp; So, the ends whereby the agenda would be a part of the means (the other being principles and techniques) to get there (but would also include the means to satisfy my players...which should marry to what my joys are our we have a problem at the table).Don't have the time at this exact moment, but I'll try to respond properly to your post this evening or tomorrow and perhaps layout my general GMing agenda as succinctly as possible (which, again, should look like the means to get to the ends - those 7 scribed joys of GMing).&nbsp; What might be helpful in evaluating play divergence, is if the GMs in this thread posted their joys (the ends) and the means to get there (agenda, principles, techniques).&nbsp; For instance, the agenda of &quot;play to find out what happens&quot; is at one end of the spectrum while &quot;tell my players a good story&quot; probably sits at the other end of the agenda spectrum.&nbsp; The principle of &quot;draw maps but leave blanks&quot; would lie on one end of the princples spectrum while &quot;before play, flesh out or use an extremely detailed setting/world&quot; would fall on the other end.&nbsp; And on techniques, something like &quot;fail forward&quot; would be on one end of the spectrum while &quot;task resolution tightly mapped to process simulation/causal logic&quot; would fall on the other.I'll post more later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7656733, member: 6696971"] @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937"]Celebrim[/URL][/U][/B][/I] , very good, clear post and on an extremely quick read-through, I'm not sure that I disagree with much of what you say. However, I may have not written clearly what those 7 bits above were. They weren't meant to be an agenda. They were meant to be the things I enjoy about GMing. So, the ends whereby the agenda would be a part of the means (the other being principles and techniques) to get there (but would also include the means to satisfy my players...which should marry to what my joys are our we have a problem at the table). Don't have the time at this exact moment, but I'll try to respond properly to your post this evening or tomorrow and perhaps layout my general GMing agenda as succinctly as possible (which, again, should look like the means to get to the ends - those 7 scribed joys of GMing). What might be helpful in evaluating play divergence, is if the GMs in this thread posted their joys (the ends) and the means to get there (agenda, principles, techniques). For instance, the agenda of "play to find out what happens" is at one end of the spectrum while "tell my players a good story" probably sits at the other end of the agenda spectrum. The principle of "draw maps but leave blanks" would lie on one end of the princples spectrum while "before play, flesh out or use an extremely detailed setting/world" would fall on the other end. And on techniques, something like "fail forward" would be on one end of the spectrum while "task resolution tightly mapped to process simulation/causal logic" would fall on the other. I'll post more later. [/QUOTE]

Verification