Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8139040">1) Exploration: I don' think this is untrue but I do think these produce very different types of play and experiences. Again, in Hillfolk, I was able to invent geography whole cloth in dialogue. There was a genuine sense of discovery in that, which I found immersive. So I am not saying you can't have that sort of feeling with a game or GMing approach where the players can shape setting details. But I do think that is different from one where the details of the world are being created by a source external to yourself.  That kind of exploration, to me, also has a sense of discovery to it, but it feels like a very different form of discovery to me. It also feels more like I am challenging the world, unlocking its secrets.  2) Hiding behind a bush: I don't know about this one. I think a lot of groups would actually get their cues from the GM on that roll (ask to roll to see if there is anything to hide behind and then the GM tells them what is there on a success). However this is also one of those gray zones I mentioned before. A lot of players are going to naturally assume certain things are present based on what the GM said, so they will just say something like "I look for a bush to hide behind" or even "I hide behind a bush". But that is still entirely in the GMs power to decide if there is in fact a bush. And there is also a very big difference between a hill and a bush. A bush is far easier to hand wave. I wouldn't see the bush as setting a precedent for hills, towers and more. A lot of it I think arises out of efficiency and convenience of communication style than a conscious desire to shape the setting (the player naturally assumes a bush is present and is speaking as if that is so). 3) Even if the GM hasn't established anything, he or she can always say "there are no bushes here". Some GMs always say yes to those kinds of things. Some don't (for a variety of reasons). But I think the general sense it can help create when the GM stops and thinks about whether or not there ought to be a bush there, is it adds to the sense of a world existing external to your character. And agin, I want to be clear here, I am not saying this is the only and best way to play. I am just saying there is this distinction, and particularly when it comes to things like players creating setting details, it really does seem to be the norm for that to either be left to the GM or for player created setting details to be part of  corner aspects of player</blockquote>

Verification