Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7327093" data-attributes="member: 59082">Hey [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I have a question for you - that came to mind from a question you asked [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] above: &quot;can't the setting be generated in the course of the telling of the story?&quot;Let's turn that around. Can't the setting be modified and adapted from a starting template (created by the GM) through the course of the telling of the story? In a sense, a kind of &quot;world-building GM fiat?&quot; If it is all behind the GM's screen (proverbially speaking), what's the harm?In other words, let's say the players present ideas about the setting that the GM likes and thinks augment the campaign in some way, even though they might be different than what he or she has in his/her campaign notes (to use your phrasing). Do you see any issue with the GM doing this sort of thing?The setting, as I see it, is not set in stone until some aspect of it is revealed or experienced by the PCs, at which point that aspect (and only that aspect) *is* set in stone, at least for the most part. If the PCs encounter blue-skinned elves then there are blue-skinned elves and the GM can't really take it back without damaging verisimilitude and thus immersion, unless of course he or she comes up with some explanatory factor (their skin was died because they had a blueberry orgy). Thus the GM's role as &quot;illusionist&quot; - making the setting real and immersive. Isn't that the point of world-building, to go back to the OP? And whatever it takes to do so?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 7327093, member: 59082"] Hey [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I have a question for you - that came to mind from a question you asked [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] above: [I]"can't the setting be generated in the course of the telling of the story?"[/I] Let's turn that around. Can't the setting be modified and adapted from a starting template (created by the GM) through the course of the telling of the story? In a sense, a kind of "world-building GM fiat?" If it is all behind the GM's screen (proverbially speaking), what's the harm? In other words, let's say the players present ideas about the setting that the GM likes and thinks augment the campaign in some way, even though they might be different than what he or she has in his/her campaign notes (to use your phrasing). Do you see any issue with the GM doing this sort of thing? The setting, as I see it, is not set in stone until some aspect of it is revealed or experienced by the PCs, at which point [I]that[/I] aspect (and only that aspect) *is* set in stone, at least for the most part. If the PCs encounter blue-skinned elves then there are blue-skinned elves and the GM can't really take it back without damaging verisimilitude and thus immersion, unless of course he or she comes up with some explanatory factor (their skin was died because they had a blueberry orgy). Thus the GM's role as "illusionist" - making the setting real and immersive. Isn't that the point of world-building, to go back to the OP? And whatever it takes to do so? [/QUOTE]

Verification