Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8248810" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I follow that blog. It was an interesting breakdown. I am not sure I have fully internalized all of his groupings yet (finding I get a little hung up on his choice of labels). It is very tough to say. Definitely OSR and classic are an influence. Ravenloft is a big influence and shows up in odd ways. I don't know about neo-trad. There are elements I share with it, but I think it might be on a slightly different track. I would say what I bring is a sense of the players actions leading to the story (but bound by their in game abilities), and a kind of embrace of chaos---I love evil parties who want to take over, and while it isn't a cake walk, I don't make that stuff impossible. I love campaigns where players identify some area they want to ascend in (an institution, a region, etc). I do tend to be very by the book. I don't think that is necessary for every GM. But I like going by the book so when lives are on the line it is a more natural proceeding. I have been known to slow down play more in those moments to check rules, to make sure I am applying them exactly as written. Again not to rules lawyer but to be fair when important things are being handled. I also tend to go into accountant mode: my voice becomes very neutral. I am simply tabulating and checking. Players have commented on this enough I know it is something I do (I remember one player barely noticing I told him he was almost dead, because my tone didn't change)</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8248810, member: 85555"] I follow that blog. It was an interesting breakdown. I am not sure I have fully internalized all of his groupings yet (finding I get a little hung up on his choice of labels). It is very tough to say. Definitely OSR and classic are an influence. Ravenloft is a big influence and shows up in odd ways. I don't know about neo-trad. There are elements I share with it, but I think it might be on a slightly different track. I would say what I bring is a sense of the players actions leading to the story (but bound by their in game abilities), and a kind of embrace of chaos---I love evil parties who want to take over, and while it isn't a cake walk, I don't make that stuff impossible. I love campaigns where players identify some area they want to ascend in (an institution, a region, etc). I do tend to be very by the book. I don't think that is necessary for every GM. But I like going by the book so when lives are on the line it is a more natural proceeding. I have been known to slow down play more in those moments to check rules, to make sure I am applying them exactly as written. Again not to rules lawyer but to be fair when important things are being handled. I also tend to go into accountant mode: my voice becomes very neutral. I am simply tabulating and checking. Players have commented on this enough I know it is something I do (I remember one player barely noticing I told him he was almost dead, because my tone didn't change) [/QUOTE]

Verification