Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 8233769" data-attributes="member: 48965">I think I've replied to more than one of your posts in this thread...Yes, let's.I've already expressed that I feel &quot;Play to discover what's in the GM's notes&quot; is both a mis-characterization and slightly insulting, akin to claiming pemerton or Manbearcat's style is &quot;Play to test the group's improv skills&quot;.&nbsp; Yes both relay something used during the average play session, either notes or improv... but IMO that's about all either identifies. The distinction between &quot;Play to discover what's in the GM's notes&quot; vs &quot;Play to explore and interact with the GM's world&quot; is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other.&nbsp; I have never ran a session purely off of notes, no matter how deeply detailed they were, where said notes encompassed and accounted for everything that happened. However everything that happened in the game session did become part of the exploration and interaction with the GM's world... whether that entailed seeking treasure, pursuing personal needs and goals or exploring some lost and forgotten tomb.&nbsp; That my friend is the distinction.&nbsp; One is a simplistic mis-characterization that tries to define the playstyle using a singular component (something I find missing with the more broad &quot;Play to see what happens&quot; of the other playstyle being discussed) to try and shoehorn the playstyle with an ill-fitting, slightly insulting descriptor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 8233769, member: 48965"] I think I've replied to more than one of your posts in this thread... Yes, let's. I've already expressed that I feel "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" is both a mis-characterization and slightly insulting, akin to claiming pemerton or Manbearcat's style is "Play to test the group's improv skills". Yes both relay something used during the average play session, either notes or improv... but IMO that's about all either identifies. The distinction between "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" vs "Play to explore and interact with the GM's world" is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other. I have never ran a session purely off of notes, no matter how deeply detailed they were, where said notes encompassed and accounted for everything that happened. However everything that happened in the game session did become part of the exploration and interaction with the GM's world... whether that entailed seeking treasure, pursuing personal needs and goals or exploring some lost and forgotten tomb. That my friend is the distinction. One is a simplistic mis-characterization that tries to define the playstyle using a singular component (something I find missing with the more broad "Play to see what happens" of the other playstyle being discussed) to try and shoehorn the playstyle with an ill-fitting, slightly insulting descriptor. [/QUOTE]

Verification