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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6131222" data-attributes="member: 6696971">There is a large difference, in play, between a game set in a low-resolution setting and a game set in a high-resolution setting.  Most of this is from the players' side.  These are my observations and the information I've collected as I've never actually been on the players' side of this issue.  Since the Grey Box, I've run 4 long-term campaigns set in FR and I've also run an extended game in Planescape.  I'm extremely familiar with the source material of both, down to a fine, granular level.  However, through the course of these games, only one player was ever in the same vicinity of my acumen (as a surprise to no one, he was also a GM).  Throughout the course of this period (of running established source material), I've evolved in my handling of the setting material along the resolution spectrum.   When before, I was on the high variety (the per-game loadout of established material was intensive), I am now very much on the low variety.  Saturation of high-resolution, established source material creates a table dynamic of:1 - Players who solely wish to be reactive with respect to setting and interact with the established material (whether they are familiar with it or not), will be happy.2 - Players who want to be proactive, yet are unfamiliar with the source material, may feel overwhelmed with respect to what they have to engage with and are expected to know.  In many cases, rather than feeling empowered to interject their own ideas or generate content, they may be paralyzed in their interactions with the setting content for fear of their behavior being dissonant with respect to the continuity or coherency of the established source material; in these cases (which can be many), if "violation" of the high-resolution material happens enough, they will become conditioned to look to you for their queue or the information loadout which they will then regurgitate.  This will turn them into player 1, when they would rather be pro-active.3 - Players who are very familiar with the source material love it.  They love engaging with it on a deep level.  It immerses them into the setting and legitimizes their large effort in digesting the vastness of the material.  They need very few queues.  However, this can sometimes lead to OMGSETTINGWARS whereby, due to their deep investment in setting, they presentation of established continuity and coherency may be as, or more, important than playing the game.Conversely, the use of low-resolution, with concordant low expectations of setting digestion, source material creates a table dynamic of:1 - Players that wish to generally just be reactive to setting material may be overwhelmed by the responsibility to be pro-active with respect to content generation.  However, what also may happen is, if nurtured properly, they may (slowly) develop confidence in their craft and develop into player 2; enjoying turning a low-resolution setting into a high-resolution setting through their own pro-active, assertive content generation.2 - These players love low-resolution setting as they want to pro-actively generate content to in-fill the blanks and move the setting from low to high resolution.  They want the authority to create backstory for their own characters in play and for the physical world, its cosmological, geological and sociological chronology on the fly with little to no establishment constraints.  They don't want PC or GM constraint via ardent canon adherence.  They want their GM to have the freedom to generate content that specifically challenges and focuses on them with setting being a peripheral element that engages the PCs' stories (merely context, backdrop, color) rather than the PCs engaging the setting's canon story.3 - These guys can cut both ways but I've found the majority to be very invested in the high-resolution aspects of the setting.  Canon-adherence is huge for them and any deviation makes them twitch.  They don't want players or GMs ret conning, in play our out, the established material that they expect to be observed in as close to an orthodox fashion as possible.  The hardcore 3s don't work with 2 and have a pretty adversarial relationship (and it is mutual).My players are all former 1s who are now 2s or have been 2s for the duration of our play together.  As such, our play is of the low-resolution variety with respect to the greater setting.  It works well for us and I would reccomend it to anyone who has a lot of 2s in their group (and few or no 3s).</blockquote>

Verification