Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7349747" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think a GM who is learning to play in the 'Pemertonian scene framing' technique should probably hold off on creating an agenda for himself, at least on purpose. I mean, once you've been around that tree a few times, sure, experiment, figure it out! I'd say as a start, make all the elements generally supporting of and directed at establishing, contextualizing, and focusing on the player's agendas as described by the conflicts their characters get into and the needs they express.Eh, I don't know about that. I think GM-centered play puts a LOT of weight on the GM's shoulders. I think its pretty hard to pull off well. I think a collaborative narrative type of play is probably no easier, but poor or good GMing helps/hurts in both styles. Obviously if you play in a specific way, you point out the flaws you found when you played a different way, that explains your choice! I think we all chose, so we all have experiences of issues with alternate ways of playing. I don't think anyone is particularly trying to be biased. I mean, I KNOW I can run a pretty decent game in traditional style. Its a proven thing for me. I just like the other style better.One could argue that to the extent your game has those virtues you are converging on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style of play, or mine, etc. It really IS a continuum. I think its possible to find strengths in GM centered play, although I also think that a lot of games aren't really leveraging those, and might be even more cool if they tried to mix in some player agenda. I wouldn't argue that it is. I argue that it is what it is, but that often it DOES get in the way of player agendas, at which time it becomes detrimental, and a LOT of GM's don't seem to know better.</blockquote>

Verification