Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="soviet" data-source="post: 9850230" data-attributes="member: 6925338">The emphasis is on 'play to find out' and who is doing the finding out - it should also include the GM. If you are a player in essentially any RPG then, yes, you play and you find out what happens. And if you didn't play, you wouldn't find out. But what is it you are finding out? How was it generated? What 'play to find out' implies is a causative relationship. The process of play itself created what happened. Not just in terms of, how did the situations that happened get resolved, but, what were the situations anyway? Could different player choices have created completely different situations, with different stakes, different participants, different knock-on effects? Could different dice rolls or mechanical outputs have created completely different situations, stakes etc too? Or were the situations that happened in play pre-determined by virtue of being in the GM's notes? Did the players' actions create those situations, or simply allow them to be revealed? Not how the situations will be resolved, of course, but probably the broad sequence of events. 'The PCs will be sent to explore the Impossible Tower, and there they will find the Secret of Great Soup, and then there will be a big battle with the Dark Chef. So, in this kind of game, the GM is not playing to find out anything other than the details of how those things are concluded and what lines people say when they complete a stage.</blockquote>

Verification