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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8978017" data-attributes="member: 42582">From my OP:I've neither read nor played Stonetop, but I'm going to conjecture that it does not follow this model, in several ways:*The background information about the village, that will inform PC creation, framing and even consequence, is shared knowledge among all participants from the start; *Thus, it's not the case that an important element of play is the players learning the setting by declaring actions that have their PCs moving about and through it; *Thus, situation does not flow from setting in the sense of the PCs going somewhere or confronting a NPC which then triggers a latent situation.I would further conjecture that the most basic way of establishing situation in Stonetop is this:*The GM considers the PCs and their relationships to the village (whether a NPC, or something like "the foodstores" or "the shrine"); *The GM thinks of a way that will put the element of the village that a PC is related to under pressure (and even better, in a way that also creates pressure for another player's character, either via dual threats or conflicting priorities); *The GM makes the threat they've thought of very overt to the players, via some sort of framing narration; *Play begins in earnest.We could summarise this as Setting (shared) => Character => Situation. Resolution of the situation will ramify back on the setting in ways that everyone knows about (no secret or offscreen consequences of the sort that are favoured in "living, breathing world" play), which prompts changes in the characters too and also more situation.</blockquote>

Verification