Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8234664" data-attributes="member: 85870">Only if you believe that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM. In Ironsworn, this would never be the baseline assumption.The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."I know from where you sit, the end result looks exactly the same. I'm here to tell you that even in the (rare) cases where the outputs are essentially the same, the process of play, the resulting mind space I inhabit as a GM, and the ways in which the group approach the fiction, are very, very different.Most of the time I'm not even considering "what should happen next" or trying to set up the next set piece, or thinking about, "Hmmm, what would be a cool challenge to throw out here?" The play flows from an organic give-and-take between the shared fictional space and the character interactions and the "moves" they generate.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better than every Savage Worlds campaign I've ever run. I personally had tremendous enjoyment running a campaign in a homebrew fantasy setting that I prefabricated significant portions of the world, its history, and its inhabitants.But to say that the process is the same---what I'm doing and the internal thought mechanisms in operation when running Ironsworn vs. Savage Worlds---is factually incorrect. They're not remotely the same.*Edit---in retrospect, I don't know if I properly emphasized---in Ironsworn, the rules constrain the type, value, and relevance of the information gathered in ways that are simply not present in D&D. Even if the GM is forced to create something "off the cuff" (again, not even the baseline assumption for Ironsworn), the nature of the "notes" must fall in line with the rule as presented, or (s)he is just as guilty of breaking the rules as a player would be for adding an extra, unwarranted +1 to every combat roll.</blockquote>

Verification