Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8253632" data-attributes="member: 6785785">This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?I've played plenty of AP games. I've run them, too. They absolutely can be fun. I don't take offense that you have criticisms of that play style, nor do I think your criticisms are without merit. I am able to look at that kind of game and see what is actually happening, and then approach the discussion accordingly. And if we're going to discuss that style, I can do so without you needing to tip toe around my feelings.I honestly think that a lot of the conflict in this discussion is that "learning what's in the GM's notes" is a pretty accurate description of any RPG that has the GM as the primary source of the fiction. I mean, how could it not be? It's kind of baked in, no?The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.You point out a lot how you do not like equivocation, and that's understandable, but then you prefer vague words over specific ones.Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.</blockquote>

Verification