thread: 2010-08-19 : One of my favorite GenCon conversations

On 2010-08-26, Josh W wrote:

Mathieu, what I was thinking was that in a functioning GNS-happy game, the family of roles in the game would have an underlying value structure that was the same, or at least compatible.

Actually that's not quite right, basically the people would be taking on these roles for reasons that were compatible, and because of them taking on those roles in the appropriate kind of spirit the roles would be compatible. (So people don't run smack into each other in the game, and when they talk about it afterwards they can agree roughly why it was good) That compatibility, and the similarities in reasons for being there that underwrite it, is what I understand as "creative agenda".

So in my mind really good play, of a well thought out game has a three tier structure, playing by the right rules from the right mindset for the right reasons. (and when I say right I obviously just mean "that works", but hopefully the game gives you keys to a set of each that work together)

I only just really got the middle layer after hearing this podcast, despite being able to talk about it to friends for ages! For some reason it was only just now that I was able to apply it to my own GMing mistakes. So thanks for that Vincent!

Also, would I be right in saying that all the tables in STWT for what monsters are made of are there to properly support the victory possibility? Do you want something there to support a fun defeat, or are you going for just a general "you die, gutted, lets start again" angle.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":