Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5763306" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yes.&nbsp; You also need to distinguish between those who want developed backgrounds versus &quot;develop in play&quot;.&nbsp; And then you need to distinguish between those who want a mutable ruleset that will be deliberately mutated for each campaign, versus those that want to beat the ruleset into something they like, and use it for a long time.&nbsp; That doesn't even include preferences and abilities on improvisation, either.&nbsp;Say I start next month with nothing but p. 42, and run a highly &quot;develop in play&quot; game from scratch.&nbsp; Nothing is established at all, not even a character's name, until it arises in play.&nbsp; But once it arises, we record it--either as a detail or as at least a pattern that applies.&nbsp; So if Yzgote the Wizard manages something like &quot;fireball&quot;, and we decided at the time he can do that or something like it once per day, then that is established.&nbsp; &nbsp;There would be some groups doing that who would be interested in building up the details over time, and then playing not only with those details in the same system, but in the same campaign world.&nbsp; The more they add, the more interesting it gets.&nbsp; Over time, it might even turn into something that other people could pick up, play, and produce similar play experiences.&nbsp; &nbsp;Not me.&nbsp; I might have fun running that kind of game, but the last thing I'd want to do is use all that material as a starting point for a new game.&nbsp; In part, it would be a pain to organize and use productively.&nbsp; However, mainly my objection would be too many reference points have constrained future play.&nbsp; Isn't that the objection a lot of people have with Forgotten Realms?&nbsp; &nbsp;To cater to both audiences, you need reference points that are clearly optional and examples, but still evocative.&nbsp; That's a tall order. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5763306, member: 54877"] Yes. You also need to distinguish between those who want developed backgrounds versus "develop in play". And then you need to distinguish between those who want a mutable ruleset that will be deliberately mutated for each campaign, versus those that want to beat the ruleset into something they like, and use it for a long time. That doesn't even include preferences and abilities on improvisation, either. Say I start next month with nothing but p. 42, and run a highly "develop in play" game from scratch. Nothing is established at all, not even a character's name, until it arises in play. But once it arises, we record it--either as a detail or as at least a pattern that applies. So if Yzgote the Wizard manages something like "fireball", and we decided at the time he can do that or something like it once per day, then that is established. There would be some groups doing that who would be interested in building up the details over time, and then playing not only with those details in the same system, but in the same campaign world. The more they add, the more interesting it gets. Over time, it might even turn into something that other people could pick up, play, and produce similar play experiences. Not me. I might have fun running that kind of game, but the last thing I'd want to do is use all that material as a starting point for a new game. In part, it would be a pain to organize and use productively. However, mainly my objection would be too many reference points have constrained future play. Isn't that the objection a lot of people have with Forgotten Realms? To cater to both audiences, you need reference points that are clearly optional and examples, but still evocative. That's a tall order. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification