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: 6808771" data-attributes="member: 6696971">There is a brief, less involved answer to this and a much more complex (and correspondingly less brief) answer to this.  Let us start at the brief, less involved one and move to the more complex as we need to.First, a caveat:There can be no guarantee that a game is 100 % safeguarded against GM Force.  Therefore, I certainly don't offer it.  There are only means to mitigate against it.  These means come in the form of GM incentives, streamlined/intuitive resolution mechanics (which works to ensure that unwanted mental overhead which distracts a GM from excelling at free-form/improv is minimized), and a clear/transparent/coherent top-down agenda of play and principles for the GM to follow.  Games that are meant to be improv/freeform-friendly have the guidance, incentives, and system means in play to support it (we can do examples here if need be).On with the brief, less involved answer:The premise I'm working from is that humans are inclined to want to share a creation in proportion to their own investment in it.  This investment might be  emotional.  It might be blood, sweat, and tears.  It might be pride/vanity.The investment (any or all of the above) of pre-game prepped setting and situation (specifically of the granular, high resolution variety) is going to be significant when compared to a game where GM prep is considerably less (typically setting and situation are of much lower granularity/resolution and are firmed up during play with improved content being generated as required; "just in time" or "story now").  Consequently, the seductive forces of "human investment" are less potent.  Less potent means less likely to be given sway as the primary motivation for future content introduced into the shared imaginary space during play (rather than content introduction via player decision-points, the output of the resolution mechanics, and following the game's agenda and GMing principles).I'm going to forgo getting into this for the time being.  However, a polite request.  Because Bob (I think I named him?) and his pudding quest were meant for one very narrow purpose (to exhibit a system-neutral depiction of vanilla Fail Forward in action), could we maybe use the play example from my Dungeon World game that I posted upthread (where someone actually does fall down a glacial crevasse).  That is an extended example with both play and system context so it would be many times more productive when attempting to use play examples to further conversation.For now, lets focus on the above (and find common ground or further divergence).</blockquote>

Verification