Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8225605" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You're welcome.Sure.Going to make this pithy (time-limited and hopefully there is better explanatory power).A big published setting like FR has all of the following:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">High resolution NPCs, organizations, deities</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">High resolution geography/backstory/continuity</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Conflicts (deeply cosmological but plenty mundane) that intersects with all of that high resolution stuff</li>
</ul>A GM buys an Adventuring Path or they come up with their own.&nbsp; Almost invariably there will be the classic &quot;node-based design&quot; as the architecture for play.&nbsp; These nodes will be signposted via exposition dumps or not-so-gentle prodding. There will be an overarching (sometimes 2) metaplot as a byproduct of Conflicts above.&nbsp; This metaplot will have a track with a through-line related to some or all of those nodes, with participant NPCs playing their roles, with contingencies to &quot;re-rail&quot; if the track is perturbed, and a few inescapable endstates and their attendant fallout in mind.&nbsp; The players role is overwhelmingly passive.&nbsp; They take in the signposts.&nbsp; They take in the well-rendered exposition dumps.&nbsp; They willingly go along when prodded (or push back only marginally or superficially).&nbsp; They game progresses in such a way that (again), if you instantiated it 100 times with different groups, there would be extreme homogeneity.&nbsp; Yes, things might happen in different order.&nbsp; Some GMs may be better tour-guides (they signpost better, their exposition dumps are better rendered or more theatrical, their NPCs are more vigorously characterized) for the setting than others.&nbsp; Some GMs may deploy their Illusionism better than others.&nbsp; But broadly, the priority of play (to experience the setting and metaplot) and the execution of play yields recognizably homogenous results (in terms of the (a), (b), and (c) in my post above).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8225605, member: 6696971"] You're welcome. Sure. Going to make this pithy (time-limited and hopefully there is better explanatory power). A big published setting like FR has all of the following: [LIST] [*]High resolution NPCs, organizations, deities [*]High resolution geography/backstory/continuity [*]Conflicts (deeply cosmological but plenty mundane) that intersects with all of that high resolution stuff [/LIST] A GM buys an Adventuring Path or they come up with their own. Almost invariably there will be the classic "node-based design" as the architecture for play. These nodes will be signposted via exposition dumps or not-so-gentle prodding. There will be an overarching (sometimes 2) metaplot as a byproduct of Conflicts above. This metaplot will have a track with a through-line related to some or all of those nodes, with participant NPCs playing their roles, with contingencies to "re-rail" if the track is perturbed, and a few inescapable endstates and their attendant fallout in mind. The players role is overwhelmingly passive. They take in the signposts. They take in the well-rendered exposition dumps. They willingly go along when prodded (or push back only marginally or superficially). They game progresses in such a way that (again), if you instantiated it 100 times with different groups, there would be extreme homogeneity. Yes, things might happen in different order. Some GMs may be better tour-guides (they signpost better, their exposition dumps are better rendered or more theatrical, their NPCs are more vigorously characterized) for the setting than others. Some GMs may deploy their Illusionism better than others. But broadly, the priority of play (to experience the setting and metaplot) and the execution of play yields recognizably homogenous results (in terms of the (a), (b), and (c) in my post above). [/QUOTE]

Verification