Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8104452" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, I think the terminology that's used can cause confusion, and I think that's happened here. I certainly took some comments differently than others did. But I do think it's also the nature of the beast, so to speak. Barring everyone adopting consistent, agreed upon terminology, I think it's important to look at the context and intent. I think that my gaming group, who are avid players but none of them post on this or similar forums nor do they examine the process of play to the level that can happen here, the phrases "adventure" and "plot hook" are very commonly used. "Adventure" tends to mean gaming session, or perhaps a few connected sessions with some overall connection. "Plot hook" tends to just mean potential prompt to some kind of action or conflict.That's fair, and I get why there may be some confusion. But if you go back to the OP, you'll see that he specifically is eschewing the Adventure Path style of play in favor of a different style, which is then described. That description in the OP, to me, does sound like Play to Find Out. Perhaps not a perfect example of it, but certainly in the realm. It's a matter of intention, of course. Is this intended to be step one in a set path of events? Or is it simply a starting situation?But even in a game where the GM is just using this incident with the knight to frame the scene and challenge the players, the fallout of whatever they decide and whatever happens to them and the knight could lead to all manner of things, such that later on, many sessions down the road, they could look back and say "this has all happened because of that knight".Again, I would cite the OP and how this seems to largely be the goal of what is described. The GM has some initial ideas, he involves the players incrafting the setting through character creation, they all discuss and then make adjustments, then they proceed with play. The goal being to avoid pre-authored outcomes by involving the players in determining the elements that will come up in play.I agree that not letting go of the status quo and in maintaining pre-authored paths don't fit in with Playing to Find Out. Obviously, I can't say what exactly was meant by "design a possible adventuer" and "prepare plot hooks". But again, going back to the OP, if we treat those phrases more like "have an idea of what may happen, which you later modify based on what the players bring to the game", I don't see it being quite such a conflict. I think the OP is advocating for a playstyle that is less GM led (which I think is great).....but it didn't go as far as possible, and so it's being criticized.</blockquote>

Verification