thread: 2011-02-21 : Into the Unknown?
On 2011-04-18, David Berg wrote:
I moved past "just keep trying things and trust the GM, who will usually make it work out" a while back in this discussion. What I meant was more "keep trying things and trust the system the GM is using, which always makes it work out".
That said, I hear you about the value of transparency. It's much faster to form a mental connection if you see the whole thing in action, hows and whys included, than if you just have inputs, outcomes, and principles to assess from. I do think it would be interesting to see how far the disclaimer, "The GM is rolling on tables / picking from lists, which are designed to fit what you do in Delve," would go.
Matt and I are going to try an experiment, where we use Apocalypse World's basic moves, but rolled in secret by the GM whenever he judges a player has made a Move. We're going to try this on players who've never played AW before. Hopefully that will provide useful data about whether the positives of good system outcomes can trump the negatives of partial system invisibility.
Whaddaya think, shall we call this a wrap? I really appreciate you taking this much time to communicate your thoughts to me! This thread has given me a long, long list of ideas for how I might make Delve better, and some key additions to my mental checklist for game design concerns going forward. Good stuff!
