Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7732042" data-attributes="member: 6696971">On (reverse engineering) internal causality (and post-hoc justification), random encounters, and GM-side ad-libbing:How many AD&amp;D and BECMI GMs have run their games as below (as I always have):1)&nbsp; Make a map w/ a vague town or two (themed and roughly geographically and politically laid out) w/ random urban encounters keyed to it/them.2)&nbsp; Make a few themed/stocked/keyed dungeons/adventuring sites.3)&nbsp; Make wilderness random encounters for the travel in-between the two.Between Wandering Monsters, Random Encounters, and Monster Reactions, I'm spending well over the majority of gameplay ad-libbing causality (via reverse engineering and post-hoc justification) as required (if it even comes up) due to the randomized nature of content introduction.My guess is this isn't procedurally too far afield from a healthy cross-section of present and past OSR GMs.So why does a gaping hole in the integrity of &quot;internal causality&quot; or continuity (temporal, geographic, thematic) suddenly emerge when, instead of (nearing) thematically neutral content introduction, when the dice are rolled in (say Dungeon World), outcomes are to be derived by fidelity to play principles that are centered around hooking into the (a) the thematic portfolio of the PCs and (b) dangerous action/adventure that propels the game ever forward.I guess that is when it becomes &quot;contrived&quot; because outcomes aren't absent of thematically-relevant material?&nbsp; &quot;So my brother, who is my hero, seems to have fallen short of his oaths...well of course he has!...I put 'my older brother is my hero' as one of my foundational (Relationship) PC build components!&nbsp; How contrived!&quot;&nbsp; Seems a pretty metagame-ey mental framework for any player at the table to be holding onto!&nbsp; And also seems mildly dysfunctional in a game with Relationships as central PC build components!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7732042, member: 6696971"] On (reverse engineering) internal causality (and post-hoc justification), random encounters, and GM-side ad-libbing: How many AD&D and BECMI GMs have run their games as below (as I always have): 1) Make a map w/ a vague town or two (themed and roughly geographically and politically laid out) w/ random urban encounters keyed to it/them. 2) Make a few themed/stocked/keyed dungeons/adventuring sites. 3) Make wilderness random encounters for the travel in-between the two. Between Wandering Monsters, Random Encounters, and Monster Reactions, I'm spending well over the majority of gameplay ad-libbing causality (via reverse engineering and post-hoc justification) as required (if it even comes up) due to the randomized nature of content introduction. My guess is this isn't procedurally too far afield from a healthy cross-section of present and past OSR GMs. So why does a gaping hole in the integrity of "internal causality" or continuity (temporal, geographic, thematic) suddenly emerge when, instead of (nearing) thematically neutral content introduction, when the dice are rolled in (say Dungeon World), outcomes are to be derived by fidelity to play principles that are centered around hooking into the (a) the thematic portfolio of the PCs and (b) dangerous action/adventure that propels the game ever forward. I guess that is when it becomes "contrived" because outcomes aren't absent of thematically-relevant material? "So my brother, who is my hero, seems to have fallen short of his oaths...well of course he has!...I put 'my older brother is my hero' as one of my foundational (Relationship) PC build components! How contrived!" Seems a pretty metagame-ey mental framework for any player at the table to be holding onto! And also seems mildly dysfunctional in a game with Relationships as central PC build components! [/QUOTE]

Verification