Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9044149" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think some of what has happened here, and this is my own opinion, which understand is not the norm in these circles, even though I do frequent them a lot and agree with 90% of their gaming point of view, is over the course of discussing why we like to play the way we do, and over the course of contrasting the style with style's like Pemerton's, we've defined out mechanics and approaches that really wouldn't be a problem but are because we are hyper aware of them. It is sort of like how there may be a tendency in writing that never bothers you, until you are given the word for it, and suddenly you can't stop seeing it (and sometimes that word points to a real problem, sometimes it is just a trendy way of talking about writing and critiquing it). But the hyperawareness can itself be the issue sometimes. If you take the meta mechanic example you gave, that was never really a problem that I noticed in simulationist circles until around the time of 4e. Fourth edition might not be the reason, but I feel like that was when there was a lot of talk about dissociated mechanics for example. I found the concept useful but what started to happen was people began having a 'any amount at all of dissociated mechanic is bad because it take some outside my character' mindset. But if you look back at earlier editions of D&D, dissociated mechanics existed, they and made the game better. The problem is usually in volume and quantity where something rises to a certain level and it changes the feel for people (and where that becomes too much, if ever, really varies from person to person). It is one of those things where an observation that may have been grounded in something real, became this pillar and deeply ingrained assumption that you couldn't break. I think that happens a lot in gaming conversations, not just around things like simulation, but this is where I do think taking a step back from one's preferred style and taking a step back from the conversation can be helpful. I also think exposing yourself to different types of RPGS is important. Playing Blades in the Dark isn't going to kill you, playing a deeply simulationist campaign of HARN isn't going to kill you. You can probably learn a lot doing both and you don't have to commit to just one approach. I think when you see one or the other as a problem, then there is a higher tendency to dismiss any wisdom, observations or value that play style has to offer.  What I noticed in myself was after I had extracted a lot of great GMing approaches and play style approaches through conversations online with gamers equally interested in things like living worlds and non-railroad adventures, was I started to get trapped in a way of thinking that reflected online conversation but had flaws when dealing with the realities of actual table play. Which is to say no table is made up ever of purely X or Y players. And it can be really hard to sustain games that prioritize a kind of purity of style. Further, on the mechanical side, stuff like bennies can be perfectly fun and enjoyable in that type of campaign. Learning to take the good I got out of these conversations (many of the techniques I have talked about for establishing living worlds and running adventures more structured around characters and NPCs), but also learning to be more open minded again and not always see things through the prism of online conversation took some time. In the end what works for me is focusing on the needs of the table I have before me, not allowing online conversations to occupy space in my head rent free. And this is really important in design in my opinion and a door that swings both ways depending on what you want to do. Just to give a couple of more examples here, one from my own design and one from a more known game. I just moved so I don't have the rulebook on hand and it has been a while since I read it, but Numenera takes metacurrency with but grounds it in the setting by making it Effort. I am not saying metacurrency always needs that sort of explanation. But what that achieves it is bridges a divide, and it reflects an understanding of lines that exist in the heads of certain gamers around metacurrency. I know for me it was more palatable when it came out when I was in a phase of not being as open to metacurrencies. It didn't win everyone over, and not everyone is a fan, but I appreciated the idea behind it. Similarly I have tried to introduce more dramatic elements into my sandboxes, but I am very aware of my audience and of the 'simulationsist' mindset, so I grounded that stuff in the cosmology itself (as you point out the key thing is the world being separate from the character). So I made fate a force like gravity and fate is largely responsible for all the dramatic elements. When a character does anything that moves in the direction of their fate, they get a bonus. And I also included ideas like fated encounters. These tie with the cosmology but they are opportunities for introducing ongoing dramatic threads as well. Now you could do that in ways that Pemerton has described and that would work, but my goal was to do it in a way that I felt would appeal to sandbox players (and you meet a lot of sandbox players who don't want metacurrency or approaches that alter the player-GM relationship). And I have taken this further in newer games I work on. I've even drawn on messing around with the GM-player relationship in ways Pemerton has described (I usually do it either in ways I feel my audience will accept or as a deliberate way of injecting the surreal when that is called for). I wouldn't be able to do that if I was only playing games one way or not exposing myself to other approaches.</blockquote>

Verification