Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7350731" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is another, very clear way of putting the point I tried to make in the OP - the dungeon is a very (I woudl say artificially) constrained environment, which makes it possible (if the GM and players share the same basic conceits of play) for the GM to manage the connections that you talk about.But as soon as we start having adventurese take place in what is (notionally, at least) a &quot;real&quot; world it breaks down.It's not a surprise that so much fantasy RPGing involves characters who are more like Conan - strangers in the worlds they travel through, with few or no connections to the society in which they live (although this is true only for some Conan stories; in others he encounters characters - NPCs, in RPG terms - with whom he has had past dealings) - than like the Dragonlance or LotR heroes, who are already strongly embedded in rich social situations, which they draw upon to give themselves strength, knowledge, etc.If you've never read <a href="https://playsorcerer.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-interactive-toolkit-an-introduction/" target="_blank">Christopher Kubasik's &quot;interactive toolkit&quot;</a> you might find it interesting - among other things, he talks directly about this issue of disconnect between character as conceived by the player, and the actual events of play as dictated by the GMing techniques used, which seem to contracit that self-conception.This is also why when, upthread, I have said that as a player I want to play my character I have not just been saying &quot;I want to make my own action declarations.&quot; I mean what I take you to be getting at - if my character is all about family and loyalty to the order, then I want to play a game where family and loyalty to the order matter. Not a game where I'm going on some fetch quest to get a NPC wizard the mushroom he needs for his magic soup, fighting random myconids and bullywugs along the way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7350731, member: 42582"] This is another, very clear way of putting the point I tried to make in the OP - the dungeon is a very (I woudl say artificially) constrained environment, which makes it possible (if the GM and players share the same basic conceits of play) for the GM to manage the connections that you talk about. But as soon as we start having adventurese take place in what is (notionally, at least) a "real" world it breaks down. It's not a surprise that so much fantasy RPGing involves characters who are more like Conan - strangers in the worlds they travel through, with few or no connections to the society in which they live (although this is true only for some Conan stories; in others he encounters characters - NPCs, in RPG terms - with whom he has had past dealings) - than like the Dragonlance or LotR heroes, who are already strongly embedded in rich social situations, which they draw upon to give themselves strength, knowledge, etc. If you've never read [url=https://playsorcerer.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-interactive-toolkit-an-introduction/]Christopher Kubasik's "interactive toolkit"[/url] you might find it interesting - among other things, he talks directly about this issue of disconnect between character as conceived by the player, and the actual events of play as dictated by the GMing techniques used, which seem to contracit that self-conception. This is also why when, upthread, I have said that [I]as a player I want to play my character[/I] I have not just been saying "I want to make my own action declarations." I mean what I take you to be getting at - if my character is all about family and loyalty to the order, then I want to play a game where family and loyalty to the order matter. Not a game where I'm going on some fetch quest to get a NPC wizard the mushroom he needs for his magic soup, fighting random myconids and bullywugs along the way. [/QUOTE]

Verification