Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8238346" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So I think some of the confusion, or perhaps friction, in this conversation is due to the idea of a “playstyle”. Some games....most notably D&D....have (for a number of reasons) developed multiple approaches to play. And I don’t mean of the Sandbox/Linear type, but even more just in how you GM the processes of the game. Some DMs always provide DCs, for instance, while other DMs will call for a roll without even telling the player what it is that’s being rolled. The actual rules and/or play advice over the years has either been vague in the exact application of rules, or things have changed from one edition to the next, and DMs have accumulated their preferred methods across editions. So what you get is different groups playing the game with surprisingly different methods. Some may be pretty obvious, others can be quite subtle. But each DM or group of players can be seen to have their own style of play. But this is not true of all RPGs. Many RPGs have a very clearly defined process of play. Usually, the process has been designed to deliver a specific experience. These games really only have one style. So the idea of “our style” and “your style” as it is often used in this thread doesn’t really make sense. When I GM 5E D&D, I do so with a much stronger influence on the fiction as GM than in many games. My “notes” influence the game much more. I’d still describe it as a sandbox, because the players are free to go wherever they like and do whatever they want, and they can impact the fiction in any way that makes sense. So the players have a good deal of freedom, but that freedom is constrained by what I have in mind as GM. Yes, there is a good amount of back and forth....a lot of what I come up with takes the players’ ideas into consideration, probably much more so than most 5E play, but it’s still very much determined by the world I’ve created.Mothership is even more GM driven. I don’t mean that the players can’t go anywhere and do whatever, but they have made PCs within that world. What happens is very much up to me as a GM. The system is very traditional in the authority it grants the GM, but it also suggests fewer rolls, which means the GM must apply his judgment very often. With Blades in the Dark, it’s again very different. We have the sketched out setting as given in the book as a starting point. And then, I’d say play is framed not by GM Notes so much as by Player Notes. The world is shaped around the players’ characters. Everything I do as a GM has the PCs in mind. They have goals and desires and enemies and friends...and all of that is the focus of play. The mechanics of each of these games are different. The GM authority level of each game is different. The style or play approach of each game is different. Yet each of them produce “living worlds” as the metaphor has been used in this thread. This is why, to me, that phrase isn’t all that enlightening. Different games with different mechanics can yield that result. So then, to me, it seems you have to talk about what you do rather than what the goal is.</blockquote>

Verification