Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8237845" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've not said anything about you world. I've asked you to post actual play - but you haven't pointed me to any. You have said that my game would be shallow for you. I've invited you to read my actual play posts but you've declined.When I talk about RPGing being deep (cf shallow) or meaningful (cf trite) I have in mind the same sorts of things that would inform my judgements of other media.Do the situations express and evoke human passions? Are the characters engaging and intriguing? Do the events of play surprise, amuse, even upset?Emerikol, I am very familiar with the approach to play that you describe. The last time that I used it was a couple of years ago running an AD&amp;D one-off of X2 Castle Amber.It is not the same as what [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] and [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] are describing, because they both do contemplate the GM engaging in fictional creation during the play session. Maxperson especially. (This is why I keep getting confused by their repeated use of &quot;we&quot; and &quot;our&quot;.)In the style you are describing, when the players move their PCs from square to square of the map, and ask questions about what they see and are told things by the GM, they are very much learning what is in the GM's notes. In X2, for instance, the players learn about the different members of the Amber family, they find the portal to Averoigne, they find the ingredients they need to recover Stephen Amber's tomb, etc. There can't be any &quot;exploration&quot; without the GM telling them about these things.When I GMed X2, I wasn't using notes that I authored myself. Tom Moldvay wrote them. I don't think that has a very big impact on the process of play.Also, you refer to the PCs interacting with the information that the GM relays. But people don't &quot;interact&quot; with information. They learn it. Or they convey it. Other salient verbs are listen, tell, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8237845, member: 42582"] I've not said anything about you world. I've asked you to post actual play - but you haven't pointed me to any. You have said that my game would be shallow for you. I've invited you to read my actual play posts but you've declined. When I talk about RPGing being deep (cf shallow) or meaningful (cf trite) I have in mind the same sorts of things that would inform my judgements of other media. Do the situations express and evoke human passions? Are the characters engaging and intriguing? Do the events of play surprise, amuse, even upset? Emerikol, I am very familiar with the approach to play that you describe. The last time that I used it was a couple of years ago running an AD&D one-off of X2 Castle Amber. It is not the same as what [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] and [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] are describing, because they both do contemplate the GM engaging in fictional creation during the play session. Maxperson especially. (This is why I keep getting confused by their repeated use of "we" and "our".) In the style you are describing, when the players move their PCs from square to square of the map, and ask questions about what they see and are told things by the GM, they are very much learning what is in the GM's notes. In X2, for instance, the players learn about the different members of the Amber family, they find the portal to Averoigne, they find the ingredients they need to recover Stephen Amber's tomb, etc. There can't be any "exploration" without the GM telling them about these things. When I GMed X2, I wasn't using notes that I authored myself. Tom Moldvay wrote them. I don't think that has a very big impact on the process of play. Also, you refer to the PCs [I]interacting[/I] with [I]the information that the GM relays[/I]. But people don't "interact" with information. They learn it. Or they convey it. Other salient verbs are [I]listen[/I], [I]tell[/I], etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification