Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9511111" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think that's all clear. And I understand most of those preferences in and of themselves. As I said, I used to share some of them. All I'm curious about is why you have those preferences. Like, consider your games and think about the actual reasons that you prefer things that way. For example, I used to run games with high levels of GM authority because I was far more comfortable with preparing things ahead of time than I was with responding to things at the table during play. That was one of the reasons for me... but I don't want to assume you or anyone else shares that reason, or any other that I may have. Now, my experience is that allowing players to have more authority here in no way interferes with portraying a "real" and consistent world. You've expressed that as a concern... why? Is it a matter of there being some potential conflict between your worldbuilding and something the players try to introduce? Is there more to it? Something else? Okay... but does that need to be a one-person job? Some games... even ones with a very traditional take on participant authority... split that up a bit. So let's say I'm playing an elf in such a game... then when it comes to matters of elven culture and society, I'm the go to. So if someone says "why don't we seek out the elven king for some help?" the GM may say "Good question... let's ask Mike, he's the one playing an elf. Mike, would this be something the elven king would help with? How accessible is the king? Is there even a king or any kind of monarch in elven society?"And then Mike shares his thoughts, maybe takes some suggestions from the GM or other players, and then decides what elven society is like, etc. The same can be true of characters of faith, like clerics. Let the player describe the faith and its practices and holidays and even the deity they worship. The idea here is to help invest the player in the elements of the game that are closely associated with his character. Now... there are some people who won't like this approach, of course. I think "why not?" is a valid and worthwhile question to ask. Or "why?" to those who do like this kind of approach. I think that given how much players are expected to just go with it... to be told truths about the game world at any and all times by the GM, and then to onboard that to their ideas about the game and what it means for their character and the setting overall... it requires some flexibility. Some ability to quickly absorb information and apply it to the game. I think that GMs... often cited as the source for the bulk of the creative energy of the game... would benefit from this kind of flexibility. I think most games, barring some strong preference of some kind, would benefit from this kind of approach... to more collaboration.</blockquote>

Verification