Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8237620" data-attributes="member: 42582">Let's get down to brass tacks. How deep is your game? Where are the actual play posts that will let me assess that?I've been a player in the sort of game you describe. It was shallow and basically a vehicle for the GM to show of his half-a-dozen clever ideas. Everything that was deep about it was introduced by the players via intra-party roleplay - that is, in effect, in respect of fiction that the GM couldn't easily touch or control.The GM's response to this was to trigger some magical effect that teleported all the PCs 100 years into the gameworld's future. Which, in effect, invalidated or rendered moot all the ideas that we as a player group had built up about the campaign. This reinforced the shallowness and pointlessness and the game fizzled not long after.I've also been a GM in the sort of game that you describe. Over time I realised that the good bits were the ones that were player-facing and player-driven. And that the backstory that I had developed, which would have &quot;the world&quot; unfolding behind-the-scenes in accordance with pre-scripted defaults, was essentially pointless. So I stopped preparing that stuff.I am extremely satisfied with the depth of the gameworlds that emerge out of my current RPGing. They are not as deep as can be conceived of - I think RPGers like Paul Czege and Ron Edwards, for instance, are doing deeper things - but they're as deep or deeper than anything I've ever seen posted on ENworld.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8237620, member: 42582"] Let's get down to brass tacks. How deep is your game? Where are the actual play posts that will let me assess that? I've been a player in the sort of game you describe. It was shallow and basically a vehicle for the GM to show of his half-a-dozen clever ideas. Everything that was deep about it was introduced by the players via intra-party roleplay - that is, in effect, in respect of fiction that the GM couldn't easily touch or control. The GM's response to this was to trigger some magical effect that teleported all the PCs 100 years into the gameworld's future. Which, in effect, invalidated or rendered moot all the ideas that we as a player group had built up about the campaign. This reinforced the shallowness and pointlessness and the game fizzled not long after. I've also been a GM in the sort of game that you describe. Over time I realised that the good bits were the ones that were player-facing and player-driven. And that the backstory that I had developed, which would have "the world" unfolding behind-the-scenes in accordance with pre-scripted defaults, was essentially pointless. So I stopped preparing that stuff. I am extremely satisfied with the depth of the gameworlds that emerge out of my current RPGing. They are not as deep as can be conceived of - I think RPGers like Paul Czege and Ron Edwards, for instance, are doing deeper things - but they're as deep or deeper than anything I've ever seen posted on ENworld. [/QUOTE]

Verification