Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7419485" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I was thinking about this thread as I was introspecting upon something related to my own play priorities:&quot;What is the difference between a game with a baked-in premise (say Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master) vs a fully GM-authored premise and attendant game?&quot;For myself, as GM, I'd say its the following:1 - Playing a game with a baked-in premise invariably comes with some form of vetting by the rest of the participants (even if just tacit) of what exactly our conversations and play are going to be focused on.&nbsp; This ensures a shared buy-in, therefore constraining my (unwanted) burden of responsibility or &quot;tea-leaf-reading&quot; as host.2 - Games with a baked-in premise have machinery and an ethos that does the heavy lifting of ensuring that whatever is being tested/whatever questions are being answered will be front and center and resolved.&nbsp; Contrast with a game that has premise-neutral machinery and a premise-neutral ethos whereby the burden for the focus of play is offloaded onto the participants generally, the social contract (possibly multiples), and the game master specifically (and very heavily).&nbsp; Relative to the former, there are a lot of &quot;failure points&quot; introduced (with respect to all components of the desired gameplay experience manifesting)...or, at the very least, there is a burden of much more overhead (mental and social) introduced between START &gt; DESIRED EXPERIENCE.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7419485, member: 6696971"] I was thinking about this thread as I was introspecting upon something related to my own play priorities: "What is the difference between a game with a baked-in premise (say Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master) vs a fully GM-authored premise and attendant game?" For myself, as GM, I'd say its the following: 1 - Playing a game with a baked-in premise invariably comes with some form of vetting by the rest of the participants (even if just tacit) of what exactly our conversations and play are going to be focused on. This ensures a shared buy-in, therefore constraining my (unwanted) burden of responsibility or "tea-leaf-reading" as host. 2 - Games with a baked-in premise have machinery and an ethos that does the heavy lifting of ensuring that whatever is being tested/whatever questions are being answered will be front and center and resolved. Contrast with a game that has premise-neutral machinery and a premise-neutral ethos whereby the burden for the focus of play is offloaded onto the participants generally, the social contract (possibly multiples), and the game master specifically (and very heavily). Relative to the former, there are a lot of "failure points" introduced (with respect to all components of the desired gameplay experience manifesting)...or, at the very least, there is a burden of much more overhead (mental and social) introduced between START > DESIRED EXPERIENCE. [/QUOTE]

Verification