Games become info dumps for new players and massive lore searches for existing players.
In that moment, I understood a concept I’ve felt in other long-running gameworlds. We’d reached the Thinimblin line. And it made me sad.
I’m now looking forward to fixing my mistakes with that group – we haven’t played since things got a little tense, but I know things went wrong and how I can make things better.
So, we’ve talked for the last couple of articles about dramatic situations and using them to generate ideas and plot, using the work of Georges Polti as the basis for our investigation.
In 1895, the proto-structuralist theatre scholar Georges Polti suggested that in the making of drama, that there were really only 36 potential instigating situations that could be considered worth presenting.
Last time, we looked at GMing through a binary of ‘Lawful’ versus ‘Chaotic’, and while accepting that such a binary was an oversimplification, it was worth looking at to think about how we deliver a game.
I’ve recently been thinking about how different GMs run a game. As someone in the community whose job is to run games and talk about games, I try to listen to many other creators and what advice they bring to the table.
Do I run them how the original creators thought about them? I certainly don’t run them the way the latest owners intend them to be run.
A while back now, I talked about different dying mechanics in systems and enjoyed the difference the mechanics made to how a game felt.
I think it’s important to have an idea of where the game is going at all times.