Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8254761" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, using a suitable descriptive term is, though.  What's the alterative proposed to describe the play where players use action declarations or just straight out ask the GM questions to learn what the GM thinks about the fiction?  This is an important chunk of play in many styles -- vital, even -- and if you have a preferred term for it, I'd enjoy hearing it.Yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but if it were it fails because I do enjoy this kind of gaming.  And, if a question fails depending on who it's addressed to, then it's not about the issue asked, but about who's asked.I also talked about sandbox hexcrawls.  I feel the term applies well to both.  You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that don't support your claims and declare victory.What is incorrect about it?  Does the GM not have notes, or a picture of the fictional setting and events in their head?  Do they not express these to the players, usually in response to questions or action the PCs take, with what's revealed dependent on the specific question or action?I mean, that seems to describe an awful lot of things pretty clearly.  And it's differentiated from games where the players aren't finding out what the GM thinks the fictional setting or events are because the GM doesn't have one, yet.  These observations aren't demeaning to play, they describe it, or at least a part of it because there's so much more to explore.  Is the current phrasing unromantic?  Is it a bit blunt?  Yes, it is.  It reminds me of one of my favorite poems, by T. S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," which opens with:Let us go then, you and I, When the evening is spread against the skyLike a patient etherized on a table;Blunt, but quite evocative.</blockquote>

Verification