Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8224005" data-attributes="member: 16814">There's a mixing of two things here, and it's causing a reification of the prep.&nbsp; The first is that it's entirely reasonable to want to do prep, fix it, and then play it.&nbsp; This is cool, and, despite your misunderstanding at the end of this post, I'm down with that.&nbsp; The second, though, is what constitutes actually in play at the table, and prep just doesn't make it.&nbsp; It's an input to that play, but it isn't on the same level of that play, and this is because, regardless of however a GM prefers it, it is malleable and unfixed.&nbsp; If you can change your mind, you choosing not to does not change that you can.&nbsp; The choosing is doing no work, here, and so it cannot be the cause of prep to have the same weight as play.I felt it was a less contentious term than make-believe, or fantasy, or imaginings, but if you have a better term for the entirely made up parts of play, I'm all ears.Cool, except you're wrong... on occasion.&nbsp; I don't stick to one approach, because I've found different approaches do different things, so I tailor my approach to what it is the table wants to get at in play.&nbsp; In the last few years I've run a heavy prep hex-crawl, where things were placed and discovered in play, a player-driven Planescape game where I used a lot of improv techniques with some location based prep, a Blades in the Dark game which was entirely improv (and had to be), and right now I'm running a WotC AP.&nbsp; So, yeah, maybe you shouldn't jump to a conclusion -- most of my recent play has been a lot closer to your approach than what you've labeled as my approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8224005, member: 16814"] There's a mixing of two things here, and it's causing a reification of the prep. The first is that it's entirely reasonable to want to do prep, fix it, and then play it. This is cool, and, despite your misunderstanding at the end of this post, I'm down with that. The second, though, is what constitutes actually in play at the table, and prep just doesn't make it. It's an input to that play, but it isn't on the same level of that play, and this is because, regardless of however a GM prefers it, it is malleable and unfixed. If you can change your mind, you choosing not to does not change that you can. The choosing is doing no work, here, and so it cannot be the cause of prep to have the same weight as play. I felt it was a less contentious term than make-believe, or fantasy, or imaginings, but if you have a better term for the entirely made up parts of play, I'm all ears. Cool, except you're wrong... on occasion. I don't stick to one approach, because I've found different approaches do different things, so I tailor my approach to what it is the table wants to get at in play. In the last few years I've run a heavy prep hex-crawl, where things were placed and discovered in play, a player-driven Planescape game where I used a lot of improv techniques with some location based prep, a Blades in the Dark game which was entirely improv (and had to be), and right now I'm running a WotC AP. So, yeah, maybe you shouldn't jump to a conclusion -- most of my recent play has been a lot closer to your approach than what you've labeled as my approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification