Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8253728" data-attributes="member: 7016699">I think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.I think there's a lot of range covered by &quot;how those may influence the GM's ideas.&quot; There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.I'm fine with &quot;fiction,&quot; though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prabe, post: 8253728, member: 7016699"] I think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't). I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters. How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting. I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc. I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs. [/QUOTE]

Verification