Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8997116" data-attributes="member: 42582">Who do you think would possibly say that? Vincent Baker? John Harper? Luke Crane? Me?If the PCs come back and a player asks about the giant attacks there are a million and one things that can be said. There are a million and one ways this place might be when the PCs return after two years, too. And so there are a million and one squared possibilities for how things are when the PCs come back might related to what happened to the giant attacks.All I'm saying is that, in a game that ostensibly centres the characters, I would expect whatever the GM chooses from those million and one squared possibilities might relate in some fashion to the characters.Sure. And thinking about this from the point of view of procedures of play, we can ask what principles should govern that decision? Different principles will produce different play experiences.Different principles might also, reasonably, be seen as bearing upon the nature or direction of GM control.An obvious one: a principle that says In such a situation, the first thing to do is ask the players what each of their PCs was expecting to see upon their return is likely to produce different sorts of decisions from a principle like Look to the timeline you built out when you first introduced the giants, and tick off all the events that the PCs haven't thwarted. And I think the way those two principles allocate control to the various participants is also different.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8997116, member: 42582"] Who do you think would possibly say that? Vincent Baker? John Harper? Luke Crane? Me? If the PCs come back and a player asks about the giant attacks there are a million and one things that can be said. There are a million and one ways [I]this place[/I] might be when the PCs return after two years, too. And so there are a million and one squared possibilities for [I]how things are when the PCs come back[/I] might related to [I]what happened to the giant attacks[/I]. All I'm saying is that, in a game that ostensibly centres the characters, I would expect whatever the GM chooses from those million and one squared possibilities might relate in some fashion to the characters. Sure. And thinking about this from the point of view of procedures of play, we can ask [I]what principles should govern that decision?[/I] Different principles will produce different play experiences. Different principles might also, reasonably, be seen as bearing upon the nature or direction of GM control. An obvious one: a principle that says [I]In such a situation, the first thing to do is ask the players what each of their PCs was expecting to see upon their return[/I] is likely to produce different sorts of decisions from a principle like [I]Look to the timeline you built out when you first introduced the giants, and tick off all the events that the PCs haven't thwarted[/I]. And I think the way those two principles allocate control to the various participants is also different. [/QUOTE]

Verification