Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sebastrd" data-source="post: 7326538" data-attributes="member: 21473">Sure it can. However, in my experience, a setting generated prior to play is much richer than one generated on the fly - whether it's the GM or the players doing the generating.Sure. If the player/PC wants to know what's down that road, they declare their action of walking down that road. The GM then describes what's at the end of the road - whether that's pregenerated or decided in the moment. If the player decides what's down that road, are they really discovering anything? I'd argue they're creating, not exploring. And, in that case, what is the role of the GM? Are they simply there to adjudicate dice roles?In the sense that villain failure is shorthand for the PCs achieving their goals, yes. Either the players messed up or the dice did not fall in their favor. It's up to the PCs, assuming they're still alive, to come up with a new plan and try again - keeping in mind that their failure likely altered the world in some way.The setting is a challenge to overcome in the sense that the setting, at start of play, possesses a status quo as determined by the GM. A well-written setting will progress beyond that status quo in a particular direction without input from the PCs. The challenge lies in the player's desire to alter that status quo based on the goals and aspirations of their PCs. The example you described is a long-term and potentially world-altering goal. The very first step would be to convince the rest of the players and the GM to a pursue a campaign with that theme. Let's assume that all of the players and I, as the GM, agree to play that campaign.I would work with the player to develop those religious organizations and the world in which they exist based on the player's assumptions. In some cases, I'd deliberately subvert the player's assumptions to keep things interesting and challenging. We'd play out the scenario, and I would use that predetermined setting information to inform my adjudication of the players' actions and the consequences thereof.It is a wrong question, Mr. Pemerton. You seem to have this black or white view of the situation: either the GM is telling the story or the players are. Neither are correct. The GM and the players are collaborating to tell the story as a team. The players declare actions and the GM determines how the world reacts.How is the GM to determine how the world reacts without first determining the nature of the world? Assuming we agree that determination must take place, why do you care whether it is done preemptively or in play?</blockquote>

Verification