Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7322276" data-attributes="member: 23935">I would say it is meant to provide potential resources and hindrances.&nbsp; Exploration play and thus world-building covers many dimensions.&nbsp; The most obvious set are three dimensional -- the walls and contents of an isolated environment like a dungeon.&nbsp; World-building best serves exploration play when the time investment is made across the same dimensions the PCs can perceive and affect.&nbsp; So the physical world surrounding them, the social and spiritual worlds they can interact with, etc.If the world is larger and less constrained then the world-building needs to be as well though it can set at a lower resolution the longer it will take information to reach the PCs or for PC action to affect that part of the world.&nbsp; In my view, exploration play works best when the players have the agency to set goals and act upon them, proactive in other words.&nbsp; It tends to be a difficult mode to develop when the PCs are expected to be highly reactive in play.&nbsp; The more reactive the PCs get, the smaller the world-building can be.&nbsp; If the PCs don't have the ability to take advantage of the world then it is at best foreshadowing and at worst a tool for the application of GM force when things aren't going as he expects.World-building for its own sake can serve two personal goals: (1) defined environments for later inspiration on campaign adventures and opening situations and (2) fulfilling a desire to write fiction.&nbsp; I don't do much of the second.Favouring one over the other doesn't refer to player enjoyment ratios.&nbsp; It's more about making certain any player is not favoured more than any other in taking advantage of in-game resources and being affected by in-game hindrances.&nbsp; In effect, it helps me limit player charisma and personal relationship from affecting the game world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7322276, member: 23935"] I would say it is meant to provide potential resources and hindrances. Exploration play and thus world-building covers many dimensions. The most obvious set are three dimensional -- the walls and contents of an isolated environment like a dungeon. World-building best serves exploration play when the time investment is made across the same dimensions the PCs can perceive and affect. So the physical world surrounding them, the social and spiritual worlds they can interact with, etc. If the world is larger and less constrained then the world-building needs to be as well though it can set at a lower resolution the longer it will take information to reach the PCs or for PC action to affect that part of the world. In my view, exploration play works best when the players have the agency to set goals and act upon them, proactive in other words. It tends to be a difficult mode to develop when the PCs are expected to be highly reactive in play. The more reactive the PCs get, the smaller the world-building can be. If the PCs don't have the ability to take advantage of the world then it is at best foreshadowing and at worst a tool for the application of GM force when things aren't going as he expects. World-building for its own sake can serve two personal goals: (1) defined environments for later inspiration on campaign adventures and opening situations and (2) fulfilling a desire to write fiction. I don't do much of the second. Favouring one over the other doesn't refer to player enjoyment ratios. It's more about making certain any player is not favoured more than any other in taking advantage of in-game resources and being affected by in-game hindrances. In effect, it helps me limit player charisma and personal relationship from affecting the game world. [/QUOTE]

Verification