Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8244126" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Yes, very much this.I'm pretty sure the fact that I run games very much with a GM-authored setting, but still consider the players as co-creators (or co-authors) of the story that emerges in-game, and consider that story very much to be about the PCs, and to be very much about the PCs' goals and needs, is why I have in the past gotten very bristly when other posters have seemed to me to imply that the play in the games I run boiled down to the players finding out what I already knew. It seems reasonable that some posters who seem to run similarly to me might be feeling similarly provoked by similar language, here.That's a fair desire, and I suspect it's one that isn't met much in these threads.At the tables I DM, I construct the setting, because I find it easier for me to sustain the illusion in play that way. The players (best I can tell) engage: They ask questions, some of which I haven't previously considered, and I answer them. Their characters do stuff like cast legend lore on a thing that directly connects to a Great Old One, and I take a few minutes to write this:[SPOILER]gabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabba we accept you one of usgabbagabba you accept us into yourselfgabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabba coming soon to a world near yougabbagabba ending soon on a world with yougabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabbaheygabbagabba mountains won't stay green for longgabbagabba talking all of your words at the same timegabbagabbaheygabbagabbahey[/SPOILER]And the players decide what their characters do with that information.</blockquote>

Verification