Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6168077" data-attributes="member: 27160">The book is written to be - I assume deliberately - flexible, and I think that's a good thing. But I note that seven out of ten example OUTs have explicit Icon links, and two of those that don't are specifically listed as "Seemingly Innocuous" uniques that might be chosen by those not yet comfortable with being ambitious with such attributes and letting their "unique flag fly free".No one, but if he were free to leave at any time it would seem to be potentially rather disruptive to the game. Especially if he could come back - with or without technological gear.Reading the RPG isn't going to tell the character anywhere near as much about the world as a character who has lived there all their life would know. Relatively speaking, he'll be ignorant, unless he arrived there as a child and grew up there.I don't think I'm assuming any more than follows logically, but I certainly agree that it's up for negotiation and discussion. And having it there for exploration is the point of it.Ah, OK - you are talking about sources of ideas and descriptions of game worlds. I view those as potential sources of inspiration, ideas and suggestions, and in the best cases they can be taken more-or-less whole cloth and used to communicate baseline proposals about the world. As such they can be very useful. But they are not the game world. That is the thing that gets generated when play happens.Hmm, kinda, but organised play makes a very strange "reality" for a campaign. A place where several people all interact with the same situation - not serially so that the later group encounter the results of the first group's interaction, but they actually interact with the exact same situation - is a very hard setting to make sense of in one's mind. Nevertheless, people do it.I was rather thinking of online exchanges where world building and character play are used interchangeably to explore (i.e. build) a version of a game world as an ongoing shared fiction.I definitely see those versions of Golarion as separate (but similar) worlds. They will almost certainly have different NPCs, different adventure sites and very likely a different history in the details. Take the example where a GM places a dungeon in a particular place. Immediately the worlds are different and, assuming the dungeon did not spring up overnight, they have a different history. They are similar worlds - you might call them "parallel worlds" - but they are not the same world, in my book.Again, these are, to me, different worlds. Unless you are going to strictly enforce that every detail in every book happens exactly as written, with no deviation, at the same time and in the same place as the players characters are living (which I can't see as being easily practical, never mind anything else), then the written material is just as I said above - easily communicated source material, nothing more. The real 'life' of the world will happen when you actually take those shared starting assumptions and play the game. At which point the world stops being a potentiality and becomes a new, living world. Until play stops.</blockquote>

Verification