Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8219928" data-attributes="member: 16814">Thanks for this detailed reply.  I think you've made a mistake in assuming others aren't very aware of this structure -- I certainly am, and have used it in the past and believed it to be the best way (obligatory "for me") way to approach play.  However (and you knew this was coming), there's an interesting bit here where I think the actual reason for preferring this is somewhat different from the touted reason, that being that the world feels more believable when done this way.And that can be illuminated in a specific moment of play.  For example, if your party enters a new town, one you have no prior experience with, and you ask around to find if there's a tavern in town, can you tell, in that moment, if the GM makes it up right on the spot prompted by your ask or if it's in the notes?  Let's assume that if it's in the notes the GM is well prepped and recalls this fact without reference, or that the on the spot GM makes a show of rustling papers behind the screen to look like they're checking notes.  I submit you can't.  I further submit that it's impossible to tell, in any given moment, what method of content creation is being used.  And, if this is the case, if you can't tell at any given moment if something is happening, then it becomes increasingly hard to argue that it's the approach.  Sure, there's an argument that it's too small to discern in the moment, but adds up over time (not terribly convinced this is a useful argument, but it can be explored if someone wants to) or that, over time patterns of generation will occur that expose the man behind the curtain (again, I think this is somewhat weak, but stronger than the previous, at least for certain things).  But, if you can't tell in the moment -- if play is just as fun and rewarding before you find out, then the answer to why this matters isn't really that it creates a more believable world, but rather something else.And, to be clear, I'm not doubting or arguing that this something else isn't important to enjoyment!  I think it very much can be.  I also think that games will be better if it's teased out and looked at directly rather than tucking it behind verisimilatude, or believability, or realism arguments about prep vs improv.  My guess is that for the majority of people it's a skilled play issue or a trust issue.  Both are entirely valid.  And, no, it's not a bad thing to not have blanket trust for a fellow player and want some kind of control on the gamestate that prevents what you would consider abuse of trust, and preferring prep be done before is such a control.  No issues with this, and no one should say that this is a bad thing -- it's human to take advantage of situations, even unconsciously, so this isn't so much a "I don't trust Bob" thing as it is a "I trust Bob is human."  You've largely said this above, if not in these exact words.  So, yeah, trust and how it operates in the game is important.  Heck, some of the games I really like have way more controls on the GM as far as this goes -- PbtA games really confine the GM in ways that would be anathema to a D&D GM.So, long story short, I don't really think that believability in the world is the right reason that prep is desired, because, in any given moment of play, it's not discernable.  Instead, I think that it's another reason that's leaning on this because it's the simpler or less challenging explanation, even while it's hiding the real motivation.  I think careful examination, and honesty about play goals, will help improve games by allowing players to dispense with things that don't actually improve that and focus on the things that do.  Maybe it's the same things, maybe not.</blockquote>

Verification