Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8222859" data-attributes="member: 16814">Right, then.The argument that a game is more real because of when you imagine the content of the game doesn't hold up.&nbsp; I'll absolutely agree that preparation can result in a given GM creating more coherent, consistent, and deep content, but this isn't a necessary result and can be done with a number of other approaches and frameworks.&nbsp; The goal of the GM wanting to be more consistent isn't the same as prep being more &quot;real&quot;, although it is similar there's a pretty big difference.&nbsp; For starters, not going with prep makes it real let's the GM look for techniques and tricks that solve their real issue -- a lack of ability to wing it and have it hold together well.&nbsp; It also let's that GM know that winging it is something they'll have to work on, because you cannot prep everything.&nbsp; Holding out prep as necessary for realness is hiding this issue, and one of the key reasons I'm making the argument that &quot;real&quot; is not the actual reason people prefer prepped games.On the player side of this issue, it's even less about the &quot;real&quot; aspect, but more about other features of the game that come with prep, like the ability to engage in skilled play or a constraint on the GM just making things up that hurt the players.&nbsp; As someone that's played and run full improv games, the something that the GM just made something up that then screws you over gets very hard to separate from feeling like the GM did it on purpose.&nbsp; This is why many of the games that feature improv as the primary approach also have strong constraints on the GM so that this doesn't happen.&nbsp; This is harder in D&amp;D, due to the near complete lack of restraint on the GM's game authorities, but it can be done with clear play principles and the ability to &quot;check&quot; the GM on how things get added.&nbsp; This may, indeed, be work someone's not willing to do, but that's not about &quot;real.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8222859, member: 16814"] Right, then. The argument that a game is more real because of when you imagine the content of the game doesn't hold up. I'll absolutely agree that preparation can result in a given GM creating more coherent, consistent, and deep content, but this isn't a necessary result and can be done with a number of other approaches and frameworks. The goal of the GM wanting to be more consistent isn't the same as prep being more "real", although it is similar there's a pretty big difference. For starters, not going with prep makes it real let's the GM look for techniques and tricks that solve their real issue -- a lack of ability to wing it and have it hold together well. It also let's that GM know that winging it is something they'll have to work on, because you cannot prep everything. Holding out prep as necessary for realness is hiding this issue, and one of the key reasons I'm making the argument that "real" is not the actual reason people prefer prepped games. On the player side of this issue, it's even less about the "real" aspect, but more about other features of the game that come with prep, like the ability to engage in skilled play or a constraint on the GM just making things up that hurt the players. As someone that's played and run full improv games, the something that the GM just made something up that then screws you over gets very hard to separate from feeling like the GM did it on purpose. This is why many of the games that feature improv as the primary approach also have strong constraints on the GM so that this doesn't happen. This is harder in D&D, due to the near complete lack of restraint on the GM's game authorities, but it can be done with clear play principles and the ability to "check" the GM on how things get added. This may, indeed, be work someone's not willing to do, but that's not about "real." [/QUOTE]

Verification