Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rob Kuntz" data-source="post: 8220661" data-attributes="member: 7015759">My next two coppers in this topic.The idea of a published Fantasy World, or its parts in many cases, such as adventures that are fitted to such a tapestry, is at best linked to a median approach meant for median start-base use.The DM then takes it from there and at whatever level they see fit to expand upon their unique interpretation of the matter.&nbsp; This &quot;unique use spread&quot; abstraction can be represented on a 1 to 100 scale, with point 1 being STATIC (no variation from the base information) and then scaling point-wise to 100 (edge of chaos, with almost complete disregard for the information).&nbsp; I assume (though I cannot validate this) that a majority of DMs fall somewhere in the low to middle ranges (30-60).As an example, and IME, ODD74 started as a system design at about 50-60 on that scale; and do remember that we had no premade materials.&nbsp; All gaming-adventure matter, everything, had to be &quot;made up&quot;, i.e., CREATED, either in situ, away from game, etc. .&nbsp; The latter, &quot;away from game&quot;&nbsp; and the former &quot;in situ&quot; (in-game and at the point of departure) are really no-wise different.&nbsp; The premade (up-front) model uses the same design approaches as the in position one; both have the latitude of being able to use known world information.As most Fantasy Word environments are considered infinite in scope--and thus it is assumed that the access to it by its players could be infinite in choice--I do not get, thus, that the idea of creation &quot;in&quot; or &quot;out&quot; of game should be consigned to a limited category of applicable circumstances except as dictated by choice.&nbsp; This in itself would point back to the idea's unlimited scope (the 1-100 scale) and the many variations produced/possible; and it also leads back to Gary Gygax's quote in Alarums &amp; Excursions, paraphrased, &quot;If the day ever comes when D&amp;Ders agree on how the game should be played it will have become staid and boring indeed.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rob Kuntz, post: 8220661, member: 7015759"] My next two coppers in this topic. The idea of a published Fantasy World, or its parts in many cases, such as adventures that are fitted to such a tapestry, is at best linked to a median approach meant for median start-base use. The DM then takes it from there and at whatever level they see fit to expand upon their unique interpretation of the matter. This "unique use spread" abstraction can be represented on a 1 to 100 scale, with point 1 being STATIC (no variation from the base information) and then scaling point-wise to 100 (edge of chaos, with almost complete disregard for the information). I assume (though I cannot validate this) that a majority of DMs fall somewhere in the low to middle ranges (30-60). As an example, and IME, ODD74 started as a system design at about 50-60 on that scale; and do remember that we had no premade materials. All gaming-adventure matter, everything, had to be "made up", i.e., CREATED, either in situ, away from game, etc. . The latter, "away from game" and the former "in situ" (in-game and at the point of departure) are really no-wise different. The premade (up-front) model uses the [B]same[/B] design approaches as the in position one; both have the latitude of being able to use known world information. As most Fantasy Word environments are considered infinite in scope--and thus it is assumed that the access to it by its players could be infinite in choice--I do not get, thus, that the idea of [B]creation[/B] "in" or "out" of game should be consigned to a limited category of applicable circumstances except as dictated by choice. This in itself would point back to the idea's unlimited scope (the 1-100 scale) and the many variations produced/possible; and it also leads back to Gary Gygax's quote in Alarums & Excursions, paraphrased, "If the day ever comes when D&Ders agree on how the game should be played it will have become staid and boring indeed." [/QUOTE]

Verification