Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8258055" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I agree it's a goal not a playstyle. Which is why I think it's a poor term to describe a method or collection of processes. &nbsp;But if I'm understanding what you're saying, then it's really more about what method works for the GM....what makes them comfortable enough to then portray a world that is more likely to feel like a living world to the players, right?Well, this is where a specific game would play a big part. Many games don't really allow for &quot;types of GMs&quot;; many have a very specific role for the GM with very specific processes they should be using. Yes, the role always requires judgment, but exactly how the role is carried out is not always vaguely defined by a game, such as it is with many iterations of D&amp;D. But the idea of playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark and thinking of the use of improv as some kind of lesser GMing is just flawed thinking. It would be like a scriptwriter looking at an RPG session and saying &quot;Wait, where's the script? We can't have all these people ad-libbing!!&quot;So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?I'm struggling to have these last two sections jibe. Things should happen outside the PC bubble, but with the intention that they could become part of the PC bubble? Should we revise our list of traits like this?LIVING WORLD TRAITS<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8258055, member: 6785785"] I agree it's a goal not a playstyle. Which is why I think it's a poor term to describe a method or collection of processes. But if I'm understanding what you're saying, then it's really more about what method works for the GM....what makes them comfortable enough to then portray a world that is more likely to feel like a living world to the players, right? Well, this is where a specific game would play a big part. Many games don't really allow for "types of GMs"; many have a very specific role for the GM with very specific processes they should be using. Yes, the role always requires judgment, but exactly how the role is carried out is not always vaguely defined by a game, such as it is with many iterations of D&D. But the idea of playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark and thinking of the use of improv as some kind of lesser GMing is just flawed thinking. It would be like a scriptwriter looking at an RPG session and saying "Wait, where's the script? We can't have all these people ad-libbing!!" So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with? I'm struggling to have these last two sections jibe. Things should happen outside the PC bubble, but with the intention that they could become part of the PC bubble? Should we revise our list of traits like this? [B][U]LIVING WORLD TRAITS[/U][/B] [LIST] [*]GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point [*]These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere [*]Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification