Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7598432" data-attributes="member: 42582">Your last paragraph is correct.Your second-last paragraph is nothing like how my game plays. That's why I made the comparison to playing a Keep on the Borderlands (B2) campaign. In a B2 campaign, a player would typically understand the difference between a soldier from the Keep and an orc from the Caves. The notion that this would be something that the GM would send the players to read &quot;links&quot; on is absurd.So in my 4e campaign, the epic mythology of the campaign is the heart of the campaign. The players haven't learned it by following links. It's come out in play, as a product of and focus for play.If a campaign was focused on locks, then I might set a lock puzzle of that sort - but I personally am not a technician, and that sort of thing has never been the focus of my play. But I have played a campaign in which the laws of karma and the fate of souls was a key element of play, and that campaign ended in a surprising way when the players came up with an unexpected way to manipulate those laws to imbue a simulacrum with a duplicate of one of the PCs' karmic legacy, thsu sparing that PC from what otherwise would have been a very unhappy destiny.I would not be intrested in GMing or playing a game in which knowledge and understanding of the shared fiction as it arises in the course of play does not bear upon action declarations. And this can manifest through riddles and puzzles, such as the ones I mentioned, as much as in other ways. (Eg yesterday I GMed a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?658931-Cthulhu-Dark-another-session" target="_blank">Cthuhlu Dark session</a>. The players were able to make progress in the session by keeping track of the emerging and unfolding fiction, and looking for connections between and resonances among various elements of it.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7598432, member: 42582"] Your last paragraph is correct. Your second-last paragraph is nothing like how my game plays. That's why I made the comparison to playing a Keep on the Borderlands (B2) campaign. In a B2 campaign, a player would typically understand the difference between a soldier from the Keep and an orc from the Caves. The notion that this would be something that the GM would send the players to read "links" on is absurd. So in my 4e campaign, the epic mythology of the campaign is the heart of the campaign. The players haven't learned it by following links. It's come out in play, as a product of and focus for play. If a campaign was focused on locks, then I might set a lock puzzle of that sort - but I personally am not a technician, and that sort of thing has never been the focus of my play. But I have played a campaign in which the laws of karma and the fate of souls was a key element of play, and that campaign ended in a surprising way when the players came up with an unexpected way to manipulate those laws to imbue a simulacrum with a duplicate of one of the PCs' karmic legacy, thsu sparing that PC from what otherwise would have been a very unhappy destiny. I would not be intrested in GMing or playing a game in which knowledge and understanding of the shared fiction as it arises in the course of play does not bear upon action declarations. And this can manifest through riddles and puzzles, such as the ones I mentioned, as much as in other ways. (Eg yesterday I GMed a [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?658931-Cthulhu-Dark-another-session]Cthuhlu Dark session[/url]. The players were able to make progress in the session by keeping track of the emerging and unfolding fiction, and looking for connections between and resonances among various elements of it.) [/QUOTE]

Verification