Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7324995" data-attributes="member: 59082">No, not really. Let's go back to my summation in the last post I wrote:So the point of world-building, in this context, is similar to the point of creating a setting for a novel: it provides a context for story, and a space for the reader (or player) to explore and enjoy."Providing context for story and a space for the (players) to explore and enjoy" is not the same as the GM "present(ing) the players with the product of his/her imagination." The main difference is the purpose (or point). In your phrasing, the purpose is centered on the GM and his or her presentation; it is about the GM, in other words, as--to use a Tolkienian term--sub-creator. And to be honest, our phrasing has a kind of pejorative implication to it, that is "GM as narcissist: <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.In my phrasing, the purpose is centered on the play itself--both GM and players--for the point of worldbuilding is to provide context for game play (or story) - and for enjoyment, which of course is the most important point of all, for if there is no enjoyment then there are no participants!OK, why? A hammer has strengths and weaknesses that depend upon context - that is, what you want to use it for. In the context of which we speak different approaches to world-building could have strengths and weaknesses depending upon the effect you want to manifest and the agreement of the gaming group. If everyone except the GM wants a more co-creative experience, but the GM mostly wants to present their brilliant creation, then there are weaknesses to his approach given the context. Of course maybe we don't need to frame this as strengths/weaknesses, and more as contextual appropriateness.Sure, but that's not what I'm saying the point of world-building is, so this is a moot point.Again, this is not at all what I'm saying and I'm a bit baffled by why you'd think this. It is not about "ensuring passivity." It is about enabling a certain kind of immersion into otherworldliness, mystery, and uncertainty that I find is better facilitated by the GM being the primary creator and authority on the world.This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to accomplish those things in a co-creative approach; it really depends upon the situation, game, and perhaps most of all, the individuals concerned.I think we're talking about two different approaches based upon different underlying assumptions about the roles and power of the GM and players. One approach assumes that the GM is omnipotent, and the player's relationship to the world is akin to our own relationship to our world; the players--through their avatars, the characters, have agency but not the capacity to alter reality (at least as far as we know!). The other approach, yours, is that the GM and PCs are all co-creators and are able to alter and form reality, although to what degree remains unclear, and I suppose there is variability depending upon the group.Would you agree with that?It also seems to me that you see one approach as inherently superior (the latter), or at least you don't see any positive benefits to the former, that the latter can do everything that the former can and more. To this I would disagree.But there's an underlying factor here that we're dancing around, and that is the matter of power, and related factors such as certainty, control, etc. I am reminded of how in video games, if you don't like the result you can always try again, or save the game at a certain point and keep going until you make it through. Or I think of the (quite good) film About Time in which the protagonist has the ability to go back in time, change his actions, and then go back to his present and thereby live in an altered reality.I see nothing wrong with this as a game experience. But it does radically change the overall feeling of the story environment for the players. Let's say my PC finds a chest, opens it, and then the DM says "pick any magic item from the DMG that is worth 50,000 GP or less." That's pretty fun but...something is lost. A sense of mystery, uncertainty, and I would say immersion.In other words, in this case at least, player co-creative empowerment comes at a cost. And for my preferred D&D experience, at least, it is not a cost worth paying. If I'm playing Diaspora or Universalis, then hell yes, let's do it.</blockquote>

Verification