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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7405112" data-attributes="member: 42582">As a reply to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I was alluding to discussions in the current "worldbuilding" threads - which he had alluded to in the post that I replied to.With less allusion and more literalness: the more precise/detailed the framing, then (everything else being equal) the less "creative"/"imaginative" the action declarations will be, and the more "tactical"/"wargaming". That's painting in very broad brushtrokes - but contrasts would be resolving a 4e skill challenge (which relies upon a capacity on the GM to narrate and re-frame in response to action declarations and resolutions, and thus upon a lack of detail in initial framing) vs playing through Tomb of Horrors.Here's <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361" target="_blank">a passage from Paul Czege</a> that expresses the same idea in a particular context (dealing with NPCs - I've boled the key sentence), and also suggests that it's not always about "saying 'yes'":[W]hen I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.</blockquote>

Verification