|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 17, 2015 13:42:42 GMT -5
This link should suffice to generally describe my design intent for Kalibruhn: lakegenevaoriginalrpg.blogspot.com/2012/12/world-of-kalibruhn-2nd-iteration.htmlMore to follow as time allows. A lot will be centered around general approaches I take with the world which through play then specify more concreteness by way of interactiveness; and some will be of the set-in-stone variety such as maps, history, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 17, 2015 17:48:29 GMT -5
Welcome, robkuntz! It is an honor to have you on these boards. I look forward to reading the link and for seeing more around here! (I feel like a kid blubbering with embarrassment before a legend: it is so cool you are posting here!) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 17, 2015 21:18:16 GMT -5
Hi Rob,
Glad you could make it. I look forward to the things you will share and indeed to the things that all of the members here will share of their creative endeavors as we inspire each other to new and unique things in each of our worlds. I am reminded that one of the most basic principles is "make it your own". As you share with us how you go about making it your own, may that inspire each of us to truly "make it our own".
Regards,
Halenar
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 18, 2015 12:23:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome. I'll do my best when time allows me to update upon this. Folks should remember that Kalibruhn was initially a shared campaign, in part, with Greyhawk *the original campaign*: lakegenevaoriginalrpg.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-first-living-campaign.htmlAs such a lot of design attitudes (mostly philosophy of many convergent areas, such as design overview, integration of details, and hands-on/-off approaches) were formed therein and then expanded on as the idea of world-game-play-design intermingled and grew in different directions. I had the unique situation of co-DMing with Gary in Greyhawk (i.e., what I now refer to as the Original Lake Geneva Campaign, which is not analogous with the printed versions of WoGreyhawk); and this immediately leant fresh povs which both of us found intrinsic to our own strengths as individuals; and this in turn manifested approaches we not only shared but also those by which we departed from due to realizations derived from those exchanges. My design departure was the top-down approach (as well as no central dungeon or city); and that defines the world-first, then its salient details as these emerge from a center. Very different philosophy than bottom-up. it's also more involved (DESIGN WISE) and more detailed (RICH) for elements and, thus, for potential interaction by the players. The main idea behind this is that if you have more world noise there will be more game noise. Again, thanks for the welcome! Rob |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 18, 2015 12:53:11 GMT -5
I look forward to reading all that you have the time and inclination to share. One of the things I am particularly interested in is the shared world and co-DMing. I am currently using a combination of Top Down and Bottom Up design, so I am also interested in your comments in that regard also. Going back to the beginning, I used just the Bottom Up design and many, if not most, claim that is the only way to do it. However, going back quite a few years I became dissatisfied with that approach and have been working on creating the world Top Down. Going back over the last five and half years about half or less of the time was spent in several different dungeons and the remainder was spent on land and sea. It just dawned on me that the time spent on shipboard was essentially a floating stronghold for the party rather than for an individual character. (Which may be why I enjoyed that part so much.)
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 18, 2015 22:37:00 GMT -5
PD noted: "I am particularly interested in is the shared world and co-DMing." Well it's different for each pairing, now, wouldn't it be? Our situation was as master and student with the master gaining from the student's insights as well. It ultimately ended as two masters appreciating each other. If you have a particular question or questions you are attempting to suss out, please proceed, as I could cover information of the variety from banal to specific otherwise.  PD also noted "…and many, if not most, claim that is the only way to do it." I could write an entire book on this very point of view, but will summarize it from an open stance--a designer's pov, that is--that those who claim what works for them indeed know what works for them in the limited sense of adapting someone else's model. That is what the majority of us on Earth do on a daily basis in all categories we refer to as life--use pre-established models. Are they the only ones? Of course not. Are they representative of what has been pushed at the consumer on the commercial level? By all means. Adapting a model and repeating its formulas does not make one knowledgeable of the reasons why a model was created, nor does it inform one because of that of their processes beyond what is transpiring in the imitative sense. Thus there is no insight for measuring what could or could not be that can form from such; and therefore most of what the many can offer is an opinion, period. A creator, or designer, would differ with that, as I myself did, as did Barker and Dave Sutherland, to name a few. A real world state is a mixture of elements in the abstract sense. If we stay local we get local results only. It is when we go global and start to integrate varying content does play transcend locality; and with that the world view matures as we as DMs begin shaping content of a diverse nature to continue exploring the fantastical surround. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 18, 2015 23:40:22 GMT -5
To address the first item, I have had two experiences with this, the first: bitd (Sept 75) when my friend brought the game with him to college from high school, he had been reffing for about 17 months and had run only outdoor wilderness campaigns and over the next four years continued to run more of the same. He started me off reffing fairly quickly, as I was the first person since he started playing that wanted to ref. Over that four years I reffed most of the time (80-85% as a guess)as he much preferred to play and only reffed now and then so I could play. As soon as I started reading the rules, I saw the part about dungeons and with nothing else to go by started creating them. We probably spent about 35% of our time in dungeons from that point.
My first dungeon, beyond finding a map and traveling a few weeks out into a desert to some old ruins, was created on the fly as we played, inspired as we went from a quote craved into the rock as they traveled around through the underground world. It was a series of mental puzzles and we played two back to back 14 hours game sessions going through it. There were no deaths; however, they were within moments of TPK on three occasions during this game session, although they did not realize it until they were out of it, then they had a few moments of panic. There was no treasure aside from the satisfaction of completing it and they talked about it for weeks.
My friend never created new monsters or new magic items or new anything else, those were things I did. The other 12-28 players never looked at the rules at all, so it all was pretty new for them for a long time anyway, but I often wished he would make up something new that wasn't in the books when I played.
The second experience was a couple of years ago when, one of my friends took a turn reffing in the same world, same characters and in the middle of an ongoing campaign for a few months, he was primarily an AD&D player for nearly 20 years so "limiting" himself to the 3LBBs was a challenge for him. He lifted quite a bit from some modules and reshaped it for his purpose, and it was a lot of fun and he did introduce a few new wrinkles here and there and that was good.
So I would not describe either of my experiences as you do.
So I suppose what I would like to hear is some of those insights, some of those "Ah ha" moments that took things to a higher or perhaps deeper level.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 19, 2015 12:28:28 GMT -5
The aha moment is something really different for everybody, yes. Recall that Gary and I were DMing for the play-test of the game (mostly). So we were in a natural state of making things happen not only for play but for shaping the rules as these developed during play. We started with less than 10 typed pages, so the play sessions were not only play sessions but rules-building/rules-clarifying/rules-extracting sessions. So given this circumstance of two or more variable mindsets (design test, design implementation, play ranges), our experiences are for the most part unique when compared to those who used the finished product. This does point to the intrinsic reason why Gary noted that DMs should make it their own, for the greatest aha moment was the realization that a real world Fantasy state cannot be definitively described but by the moment (unlike fictive approaches that are scripted) and that ongoing story-telling was its promotion path. Seems rather obvious by today's standards (or not, if you use premade adventures), but back then it was an epiphany for us, for it concluded that the rules were not laws as well, as a Fantasy state is the infinite unknown, so the variables possible from interacting with it were also infinite. This in essence described that we had to close the rules down at some point to represent general guides which would then be manipulated by future DMs to describe these multi-variable/unique play paths
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 19, 2015 12:47:41 GMT -5
I have only made it my own from the beginning, as that was both implicit and explicit in the rules that was the primary thing that made me want to ref and I don't use premade adventures. Perhaps I should reword what I am asking for. In my case I pretty much did all of the new stuff on my own without anyone to interact with except did everyone have fun when I introduced it into the game. Whereas you and Gary were (I hope) having fun and coming up with rules/guidelines during play and in between play. I suppose what I would like to hear about is some of the stories behind some of the rules/guidelines and some funny things that happened or surprising things that happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 19, 2015 19:47:18 GMT -5
Yeah. A pretty good example, I think, of what anecdotal circumstance you are searching for might be playing my PC, Robilar, solo, this in contrast to the way that Gary envisioned party play. This was an aha moment for him in attempting to tactically deal with my approach and forced a new perspective onto the play arena as more mutable than it had been previously.
Of course we had fun, but in many areas play- and design-related at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 20, 2015 11:03:28 GMT -5
Yeah. A pretty good example, I think, of what anecdotal circumstance you are searching for might be playing my PC, Robilar, solo, this in contrast to the way that Gary envisioned party play. This was an aha moment for him in attempting to tactically deal with my approach and forced a new perspective onto the play arena as more mutable than it had been previously. Of course we had fun, but in many areas play- and design-related at once. Yeah, hearing some good Robilar stories would be informative for all of us. I have heard before that you ran him on solo adventures. Did you do that from the beginning or did you start that when he hit a certain level? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 20, 2015 11:58:29 GMT -5
Righto. I'll perhaps spin a few of the more memorable in between posts on Kalibruhn and campaign building philosophies.
Cheers!
RJK
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 22, 2015 8:03:14 GMT -5
Righto. I'll perhaps spin a few of the more memorable in between posts on Kalibruhn and campaign building philosophies. Cheers! RJK That would be fantastic and inspiring.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 22, 2015 8:15:48 GMT -5
PD also noted "…and many, if not most, claim that is the only way to do it." I could write an entire book on this very point of view, but will summarize it from an open stance--a designer's pov, that is--that those who claim what works for them indeed know what works for them in the limited sense of adapting someone else's model. That is what the majority of us on Earth do on a daily basis in all categories we refer to as life--use pre-established models. Are they the only ones? Of course not. Are they representative of what has been pushed at the consumer on the commercial level? By all means. Adapting a model and repeating its formulas does not make one knowledgeable of the reasons why a model was created, nor does it inform one because of that of their processes beyond what is transpiring in the imitative sense. Thus there is no insight for measuring what could or could not be that can form from such; and therefore most of what the many can offer is an opinion, period. A creator, or designer, would differ with that, as I myself did, as did Barker and Dave Sutherland, to name a few. A real world state is a mixture of elements in the abstract sense. If we stay local we get local results only. It is when we go global and start to integrate varying content does play transcend locality; and with that the world view matures as we as DMs begin shaping content of a diverse nature to continue exploring the fantastical surround. Maybe someday you will write that book. In meantime, I would love to for you to share about your Top-Down method. Obviously the amount of detail anyone can go into is dependent upon the amount of time they can put into it. One of the things I find odd, is I have always had the impression that the founders all put quite a bit of Top-Down design into their worlds, even though through time the "popular" impression is that it was all bottom-up. On one forum someone posted some top-down info and a lot of negative comments were posted, instead of looking at the strong and weak points of that info. In addition, if you look at what people post, even the most ardent bottom-up supporters do at least some top-down design, but won't admit it. I think it would be of value to look at various Top-Down approaches and the strengths or weaknesses of those varying methods and how to apply such depending on your vision. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 23, 2015 13:41:01 GMT -5
Some good insights, as yes, we all at one point do integrate particles of top-down creations into our worlds/play. However I was referring specifically to designing the world top-down and thus allowing full ranges for players/DMs from the onset, and not just incorporating pieces here or there. Two different mindsets. With a global overview you are not stuck to a certain model but instead create these as an extension of play, thus allowing freedom of imagination to manifest in all areas dependent upon design and play proclivities; and, of course, that would include scaling in any direction to include those currently predominating the fantasy-play experience.
So there are no weaknesses between the two mindsets; only shifts in expanding dimension or not based upon choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 23, 2015 19:45:42 GMT -5
Some good insights, as yes, we all at one point do integrate particles of top-down creations into our worlds/play. However I was referring specifically to designing the world top-down and thus allowing full ranges for players/DMs from the onset, and not just incorporating pieces here or there. Two different mindsets. With a global overview you are not stuck to a certain model but instead create these as an extension of play, thus allowing freedom of imagination to manifest in all areas dependent upon design and play proclivities; and, of course, that would include scaling in any direction to include those currently predominating the fantasy-play experience. So there are no weaknesses between the two mindsets; only shifts in expanding dimension or not based upon choice. Yes, I understood you were doing a specific top-down design of your world. I was curious as to what level of detail you are going for over the whole world and if there were some areas of vastly greater detail than others? Also, did you start with the top-down design from the very beginning or did you come to that later on and, if so, how much later? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 23, 2015 23:18:44 GMT -5
I had only elements (castle and other adventuring locales) at the start; but I had immediate influence through my high regard for Tolkien, so when I decided to sculpt the world apart from these stray elements it was top-down from the start. The detail was added on two levels which varied by weight according to: 1) what I found interesting for the players; and 2) what they pursued in game contexts. So the weight shifted according to design and play choices, as I've noted. Describing a fantasy world is an ongoing infinite process, especially when linking content to it that could take the DM and players on paths to the outer realms, dimensions and what-not in the exploration of the unknown. Thus the variability for design and implementation paths are rich and as such cannot be specifically described through linear mindsets (How To processes) just as a real world state cannot be described, as the extant processes are too many and varied. One just goes with the flow, so to speak, though this is more of a general view to what is actually unfolding in complex yet organized ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 24, 2015 21:02:43 GMT -5
Thus the process "going with the flow" will be unique to each ref and his players.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 25, 2015 1:11:07 GMT -5
Correctemundo. Just like their worlds are unique--or should be...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 25, 2015 19:25:19 GMT -5
I did not know that you had a high regard for Tolkien? I have always read that EGG did not; is that correct, partially so or not at all? What were the strengths that EGG brought to the table and what were the strengths you brought to the table? Or rather where were you the same and where did you diverge?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 27, 2015 11:01:23 GMT -5
I have mentioned Tolkien's influence many times in the past (also in the linked articles to my blog, above). Gary liked the Hobbit but was more of the Pulp era fantasist--action, fights and glory type. I found Tolkien's strengths to be his ability to immerse and sustain one in what almost seemed like a real world environ. It was mesmerizing, LOTR, besides being a great EPIC story.
What Gary and I brought to the table? So many things (maybe you should do an interview with me…) so i'll note one: The instant ability to take the players out of game mode even when they thought they were still in it.
Differences? Never really thought of it like that. We both grew in competency by being singular DMs or through co-DMing. If there was any divergence it was in our integrative world views and design approaches for each. Gary always sought to integrate his works (for the most) into a commercial scheme, and that will always rigidify some avenues of design approach, whereas I have not concerned myself with that so much.
I could go on at length about all of the views I only sparsely touched upon, but then I'd be writing a book here instead of where I'm at, which is also "here," the whole matter being time and space sensitive, of course. In fact I am at 130,000 words on THE BOOK and work on it everyday; and some of the matters I touch upon here are expanded upon and greatly detailed within it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 27, 2015 13:23:45 GMT -5
I have mentioned Tolkien's influence many times in the past (also in the linked articles to my blog, above). So you have! I greatly enjoy Tolkein, the Hobbit, the LOTR and the Silmarillion and similar writing. I also love the Pulp era writing, REH, ERB and those like them. I also like the fantasy writing that predated all of them and many of those that postdate them. Mesmerizing is the word! Do you have a title yet for THE BOOK or keeping it under wraps? Do you have a publication date or is that TBD? What can you share about this project? Have an Exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 27, 2015 14:43:23 GMT -5
What Gary and I brought to the table? So many things (maybe you should do an interview with me…) so i'll note one: The instant ability to take the players out of game mode even when they thought they were still in it. , what do you mean by "take players out of game mode"? You've got me very curious. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 27, 2015 18:03:10 GMT -5
I have mentioned Tolkien's influence many times in the past (also in the linked articles to my blog, above). So you have! I greatly enjoy Tolkein, the Hobbit, the LOTR and the Silmarillion and similar writing. I also love the Pulp era writing, REH, ERB and those like them. I also like the fantasy writing that predated all of them and many of those that postdate them. Mesmerizing is the word! Do you have a title yet for THE BOOK or keeping it under wraps? Do you have a publication date or is that TBD? What can you share about this project? Have an Exalt! From my blog: "I am at 120,000 words written on my tour de force, A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by Dungeons & Dragons™ 1972-1977 "The book, a seven year research and writing project, was put on temporary hold due to my move, my upcoming marriage and the need to fulfill outstanding publishing contracts. A very small particle of it will possibly be excerpted for an interview with a Swedish RPG 'zine that I am in the midst of answering questions for (editor: Björn Wärmedal). More news on this as I get grounded on the many things that are transpiring. My rough estimate for wordage on this is 200,000, plus diagrams. This baby wants to be birthed, it demands it, so I am splitting my endeavors between this project and game design lest I lose contact with the former. An editor has been assigned to the project (more on this development as everything unfolds)." I've added 10,000 words since then. Its publication date will come about when it is finished, edited, and so forth. I reset the Swedish interview for time crunch reasons, so that will probably never transpire, as it was (possibly) their last issue. What I am ready to share will come about soon enough and naturally, in the context of my interpreted philosophy from my posts here. Now, onto your counterpart, below, where I will use the Socratic method.... Pardon me rob, but I noticed your comments were inside your quote of me so I moved it for you. I hope you don't mind. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 27, 2015 18:11:42 GMT -5
What Gary and I brought to the table? So many things (maybe you should do an interview with me…) so i'll note one: The instant ability to take the players out of game mode even when they thought they were still in it. , what do you mean by "take players out of game mode"? You've got me very curious. Yes. Now I get to turn the tables and pose a few questions. Consider it part and parcel of the Socratic method... Failing that, consider it the ultimate DM's test, instead. 1) What do we experience when we play an RPG? 2) What is an RPG's main conceptual interface? 3) Has there been any other interface in history similar to the experiences derived in and through RPGs? If you can answer these, then you can unravel what I meant by taking "players out of game mode". Pardon me rob, just my minor housekeeping moving your comment outside the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 27, 2015 21:36:27 GMT -5
Okay, robkuntz, well, that is interesting. I will try to rise to the challenge. But I cannot guess what is in your head. Let's see: 1. I experience fun when I play an RPG 2. The RPG's main conceptual interface is just that, the mind and, chiefly, one's imagination 3. Yes, I think so: liturgy and ritual in general That is how I would answer your questions, but from my answers I still cannot guess what exactly you mean by "taking players out of game mode." And I still really want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 28, 2015 11:15:00 GMT -5
Okay. You did pretty good; and perhaps my guiding questions were, in part, the fault for you failing to make the connection. Let's see. You profess that RPGs are fun, imaginative and could be linked in some way through the cognitive process to liturgy and ritual in generalized ways. I will end this particular exercise with quotes from commentaries #9/#23 in my book and let you deliberate upon it further. These are what I consider minor commentaries, btw, as I cover aspects of what Fantasy is (and was for Arneson, Gygax and myself and the MMSA * LGTSA memberships), and what immersion is, with in depth looks into both within the book. Thanks for being game! You get 500 experience points… (The following quotes are copyright 2014-2015 by Robert J. Kuntz and from his upcoming book A NEW ETHOS IN GAME DESIGN. Their use here is for illustrative purposes only. All rights are reserved for their reuse and proper permission from the author should be obtained in any and all cases related to their use outside of this single posting.) C9: People in our hobby seem to have forgotten that this is not only Fantasy but that the game itself is an imaginative immersion. All the discussion is on rules, game attitude and the like. There is zero discussion on the application or theory of imagination as an active and activating component for it, the very thing that makes an RPG what an RPG is. This has been long abandoned for the logical, analytical game side wherein Fantasy and active imagination will never flourish. C23: Imagine: You’re in this foreign environment with decrepit rooms, cobwebbed walls and uneven and stained floors, and wherein the smell of decay and other foreign scents are constantly assailing you; where noises are at times close and closing or far-away and receding, with both instances offset by periods of eerie silence; then a pitter patter of something scurrying; then a wretched squeal, more silence, and then a gust of wind filled with the stench of ages that blows out your torch... And so it goes. We can either work particles such as these into the adventure and achieve immersion or ignore them as inconsequential and continue in game mode to the “next door or room.” One route leads to Fantasy plus a die roll, while the other leads only to the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2015 11:20:30 GMT -5
I think you just created the ad for your book when it is published! Have an Exalt!
As to your second example, I do that when I ref to some extent. Perhaps I should be doing more. It inspires me to experiment more in that direction.
A few days ago I was discussing with some friends my experiences walking through the tunnels underneath the old White Motor plant back around 1980 when it was closing. It was this time of year, quite cold with several inches of snow on the ground. The tunnels were wet and cold with water dripping everywhere and puddles on the floor and oddly enough they were near the size that you would expect. The various rooms stood empty with whatever they once held having been ripped out years before. Pipes and wires extended out from the walls and ceiling of the rooms and both broken off and cut. An aura of rough violence extended over the rooms with minimal lighting remaining, and dark shadows were in every corner, nook and cranny. It was easy to imagine yourself being stalked by monsters or doing the stalking. The tunnels and rooms covered several acres, and without a guide or some type of map it would have been easy to get lost. That job took me through many facilities of all sizes, old and new, vibrant and in use, as well as spooky vacant abandoned places in various stages of rot and decay. My wife and I like caves and have been through a number of them over the years. All of these things go into the hopper when I run my dungeons.
On the other hand I grew up out in the country and spent a lot of time out in the woods as a child and as a adult I love to hike and have been out in woods that are hard to travel through on foot. So it also informs my wilderness adventure description, as I also love to run the outdoor adventures. I really like "atmosphere", it is why I love folk tales and stories - telling them and listening to them. When your body reacts to the story, the hair stands up on the back of your neck, you breath faster and the adrenaline flows, then you are on to something good.
As to your first example, your point is well taken. I have been asking myself, how to go about fostering that type of discussion. I would like to have that discussion here on this board, as I want to cover all parts of the creative side and that means going beyond where we are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 28, 2015 14:03:24 GMT -5
When and if people shed the overlaid mechanical model that has informed all RPG industry cycles since 1978, and thus is held as a high mark by the hobby at large, then they will find their intrinsic creative directions again; and this is when Arneson's concept will again move as it did so readily 1974-1977. Until then, welcome to the machine. My words are culminations of a very broad experience; but what they mean now, or ever for that matter, are only as good as what their receivers make of them. I have no expectations for their impact beyond that. I encourage self-expression, thus my philosophies are examples of an ever-permeable process; and, so, please continue with your own views. My encouragement has always been to crush current models put in place by those who do so for specific reasons, and for reasons not always related to creative expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2015 15:36:59 GMT -5
When and if people shed the overlaid mechanical model that has informed all RPG industry cycles since 1978, and thus is held as a high mark by the hobby at large, then they will find their intrinsic creative directions again; and this is when Arneson's concept will again move as it did so readily 1974-1977. Until then, welcome to the machine. My words are culminations of a very broad experience; but what they mean now, or ever for that matter, are only as good as what their receivers make of them. I have no expectations for their impact beyond that. I encourage self-expression, thus my philosophies are examples of an ever-permeable process; and, so, please continue with your own views. My encouragement has always been to crush current models put in place by those who do so for specific reasons, and for reasons not always related to creative expansion. Well I like to think I have no overlaid mechanical model to shed as I didn't even see anything published after 1977 until about the mid 1990's (with the exception of the second and third books of the Arduin Trilogy that were published in '78). I have always preferred to keep the mechanics behind the curtain. Aside from the two refs, the other 28 players in my college game never even looked at the rulebooks. The Arneson quote of "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" is pretty much the way I ref the game. Aside from a few tables I rarely look at anything during the game and most of what I do is created on the fly, as I have neither the time nor inclination to do lots of game "prep" My world building is mostly behind the curtain, I am not a ref that give players handouts to read before the game. Whether bitd or currently, my players spend zero game time arguing about the rules and I have no first hand experience with a rules lawyer. I am looking forward to reading your book. I suspect that you will put many things into words that I have never been able to put into words. As you say, a "how to process" doesn't really apply. Like the discussion elsewhere on the forum about chase scenes: I do them on the fly, winging it all the way with no real concern for the "rules" and just doing what feels right at each step along the way for a heart pounding adrenaline fueled experience for the players and myself. |
|
