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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9653228" data-attributes="member: 6785785">That's fine if that's your preference. Nothing wrong with it. My preference is simply different. Yes, most likely. Again, it depends on what the purpose of the scene is and what it's contributing to the game. If it involves conflict of some sort, I'd be more inclined to let it continue. If it's literally a couple of characters chatting over tea with nothing of consequence, then yes, I'd call for an end to the scene and move on to the next one. I don't find such compartmentalization particularly difficult... I mean, aren't you the one who talks about GM impartiality? How do you accomplish that? If GMs can do it, players can do it. But also, I don't find it all that necessary. That may be possible, yes, but I think it requires certain elements that many here are eschewing... so I'm not sure how common that may be. Well, you're kind of starting in media res, no? That the setting is already constructed and a hook is already presented to the players. What about prior to that? If we look at the game differently than many typically do.... like if we forget the geography and factions and NPCs and all that for a minute. Just think of all of that as information. Much of the game revolves around how this information is determined. I'm thinking of three methods. First, the GM determines this information, and then shares only what he wants with the players. Second, the GM determines this information, and the players can prompt the GM to share some of it based on actions they declare for their characters. Third, the GM determine some information on his own, and then some information based on player prompts, and then during play the players can prompt the GM to share some of it based on actions they declare for their characters. To me, the first two are GM driven. The first is probably flawed in some way (a railroad or similar) or otherwise intentionally limited (a con-game with a set time, etc.). The second is more of a mix of GM and player, but the players are still limited to learning only what the GM creates. The third involves a greater level of collaboration between GM and player.</blockquote>

Verification