NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6207192" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Think of setting in terms of a resolution continuum.No myth <<<<<<< - >>>>>.Granular, high res setting (eg FR)On the far left end, you're literally starting play and adlibbing completely.  Everything is up for grabs until its established during play.  You're not "exploring", you're "establishing" or "generating" setting through play.  Everything that exists is "on-screen".  This is a cooperative experience between GM, players, and system (action resolution mechanics interfacing with PC build choices interfacing with premise to be addressed and however that is facilitated).On the far right end, nothing is up for grabs.  Everything setting-wise is established before play.  Typically, the point of play is to explore pre-existing setting, maneuvering your PC through the GMs machinations which are a by-product of (i) his ideas on "off-screen" conflict inherent to the setting (that may become "on-screen" during play), (ii) mundane/benign setting elements that engender a sense of a "living, breathing, world", (iii) whatever hooks the PCs provide him that are meshable with (i).This "setting resolution continuum" is a key feature, central in fact, to various playstyles.  By no means is my play "no myth".  Everything is not remotely up for grabs.  However, there will be plenty of low-resolution elements of setting that are specifically for the purpose of "in-play content generation."  This is because the lower the resolution, the more malleable "on-screen" material becomes such that assertive imposition of "stuff we/I want the game to be about right now" is made possible.  The higher the resolution, the less possible this becomes (to the point that it can become completely untenable).  Naturally, this puts a higher level of responsibility on players/GMs to calibrate genre conceits and to pay heed to/stay present with respect to "what has been established before this moment" such that things ultimately cohere.  It also puts a heavy onus on improv capabilities and the ability to consider multiple vectors simultaneously.  It requires aggression from all participants.  They must play the role of aggressor.  If people do not, or cannot, play the role of aggressor (or the system doesn't possess the archetecture and/or the GM doesn't possess the techniques nor yearning to frame the PCs as aggressors within conflict), then it will be a terribly disfunctional way to play.  They both require skill, creativity, improvisation, system understanding and various other skills.  The burden of responsibility and the importance of various skill-sets just has a fair stretch of variance.I'll put together a post sometime in the near future (as I am able) with respect to how this might work out with Transition Scenes and Action Scenes (the chamberlain/king scene would, of course, be an action scene).  Would any interested parties prefer that I do so with respect to my own game (perhaps the content surrounding the second skill challenge I posted) or would it be better if I just "theorycrafted" a play experience built around the action scene of the 3 PCs, the chamberlain/king, and the kingdom under the thumb of the Adult Red Dragon.  Whomever, might be interested, please tell me which you'd prefer and I'll try to do a post on it sometime soon.</blockquote>

Verification