Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7731890" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I agree with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and (at least in part) with [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION] here.The issue I have with [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION] 's position above is that it seems to assume that GM-agnostic systemization of XP gain is either not feasible or undesirable.&nbsp; The GM doesn't need to be in any position to hand out XP.In the Powered By the Apocalypse systems that Campbell is bringing up, XP isn't &quot;awarded&quot; via one person's (likely opaque and cognitive bias-laden) adjudication.&nbsp; Its simply gained via transparent, focused triggers; eg did you fail on a move, did you make Desperate Action Roll, did you overcome a tough obstacle/threat via coercion, did your Vice get you into trouble.&nbsp; The GM's role in these things isn't in the awarding.&nbsp; The GM's role is in following the game's premise and the player cues, in framing the action whereby decision-points related to vice temptation, desperate situations, and dangerous NPCs that can be coerced are the central focus of play (and whatever else might part of the game's PCs' portfolio and xp triggers such as themes of heritage, beliefs, aspirations, relationships).I significantly appreciate this approach to designing games and running them because it reduces cognitive burden on the GM while serving as a handy/low overhead reference point that transparently cues all participants at the table about precisely what &quot;the action&quot; is about.&nbsp; Accordingly, it moves units in enabling improvisational, focused play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7731890, member: 6696971"] I agree with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and (at least in part) with [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION] here. The issue I have with [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION] 's position above is that it seems to assume that GM-agnostic systemization of XP gain is either not feasible or undesirable. The GM doesn't need to be in [I]any [/I]position to hand out XP. In the Powered By the Apocalypse systems that Campbell is bringing up, XP isn't "awarded" via one person's (likely opaque and cognitive bias-laden) adjudication. Its simply gained via transparent, focused triggers; eg did you fail on a move, did you make Desperate Action Roll, did you overcome a tough obstacle/threat via coercion, did your Vice get you into trouble. The GM's role in these things isn't in the awarding. The GM's role is in following the game's premise and the player cues, in framing the action whereby decision-points related to vice temptation, desperate situations, and dangerous NPCs that can be coerced are the central focus of play (and whatever else might part of the game's PCs' portfolio and xp triggers such as themes of heritage, beliefs, aspirations, relationships). I significantly appreciate this approach to designing games and running them because it reduces cognitive burden on the GM while serving as a handy/low overhead reference point that transparently cues all participants at the table about precisely what "the action" is about. Accordingly, it moves units in enabling improvisational, focused play. [/QUOTE]

Verification