Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9031100" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That is a really excellent post.  Here is what I'll say about my running of any game with a Gamism element that is supposed to be front-and-center, compelling on its own, and meaningfully give shape to play.* Always think of the game layer first.  Always.  Frame situation, frame decision-points, generate consequences that are compelling as moments of gameplay.  But do so with integrity.  If you you eff around with the game layer, you've defeated the entire point of Step On Up, Challenge-based play.   The player's decision-space that they're navigating becomes subordinate to GM decision if you eff around with the game layer.So game layer primacy, game layer integrity, game layer transparency as much as possible.  Foreground threats, telegraph consequences, give agonizing (eg compelling) tactical/strategic choices between charting course A vs B vs C.* Keep the meta channel open.  Solicit player input and offload onto them/involve them as much as you can.  I'm talking framing.  I'm talking consequences.  I'm talking any required conversation about game layer adjudication or internal causality/extrapolation examination.  What is most important is that they understand what the hell is happening.  If they don't understand what is happening then its basically Ouija Board play where you're moving the planchette while their hands are vaguely on it.  They need to understand the game layer and the fiction first and foremost.And here is the thing.  The Czege Principle is easily avoided.  In martial arts and in ball sports (etc), you do technical drills and scrimmages all the time where the parameters of play are either (a) devised by one of the participants or (b) one of the participants is intentionally handicapped by the drill/scrimmage dynamics.  Doesn't matter.  That isn't a violation of The Czege Principle.  So long as the participants understand the Rules of Engagement (RoE) up front and there isn't an "auto-win" scenario so Win Con is still up for grabs...you're good.  Its when the RoEs or Win Cons are corrupted/obfuscated such that the participants can't go as hard as possible and still potentially get "the W" when a problem arises.In D&D terms, you can have players say "hey use Encounter Budget x" or "hey you know what would be really cool here...use enemy unit type y, and z, with hazard/terrain n" and that isn't a violation.  So long as the GM can still run their bad guys to the hilt and go all-out for "the W?"  You're good.[HR][/HR]If you have an awesome game layer in D&D and you're using 3-4 participants to infuse that gamestate trajectory with an attendant vital, vibrant, thematically rich fiction?  Congrats.  You're winning all the D&D.  D&D is a game.  That gets lost way, way, way, way too much and too easily.  Maximize what its good at and lean on/involve your players.  Whenever I run a new game, I'm always looking at the game layer first and foremost.  What is this engine trying to do?  What sort of tough decisions (regarding loadout, regarding action economy and positional relationships and Win Con dynamics, regarding action and conflict resolution dynamics, regarding resource marshalling, regarding advancement/reward cycles, regarding the premise/dramatic needs of a character intersecting with situation framing and thematic consequences/moves I can make against them to provoke them. I just never think about the overall shape of the fiction.  Never give it a thought.  I try my best to get as good as I can on the fundamentals of this game (which requires deeply understanding the game engine, the levers, the widgets, what all of this does to create compelling decision-points for players) and execute play right now.Game Layer, Integrity, Transparency, Fundamentals, and Right Now.</blockquote>

Verification