Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7353484" data-attributes="member: 23935">No, not really.  For example, superhero play is rarely exploratory in the sense of trying to understand and decode the environment.  It tends to be reactive in style (PCs react to prevent environmental changes threatened by the opposition) and focused more on the interpersonal (rivalries, relationships, mind set) when not tactical.  I do run such games with some exploratory components using relationships and attitudes in place of maps, but I wouldn't call them exploratory focused games.  A lot of comedic games also are not exploratory; either the setting can't be explored because it isn't stable (Macho Women with Guns), it isn't unknown (Teenagers from Outer Space), or it is just set dressing and doesn't count for advantage or disadvantage for PCs (Toon) .Did I say one person? [Goes back and checks] Nope.  I've run with multiple GMs cooperatively so it'd be pretty foolish of me to say so.  The vision needs to be kept separate form the players otherwise you have a situation where the group that needs to find a solution already knows all the information.  That pretty much negates puzzle solving.  Now there are playstyles where the players are playing to find out "what happens next" as opposed to "how it works and what do we do with it" where having all the (partial) available information in advance isn't a problem, but I find puzzle solving is the opposite if fun if I already know where every piece goes.Mileage, varying.  Causality should (a) follow genre convention and (b) remain plausible.  If both (a) and (b) are true then having a model that allows for all possible results is immaterial.Crap happens isn't pejorative; it's a grandma friendly version of a common saying about life.  It's particularly endemic to player-led games because you have a bunch of people introducing narrative elements that feel right at the time.  The problem with a bunch of people introducing such elements into a puzzle solving game is pretty straightforward.  The elements introduced will randomly support and undercut the puzzle framework.  Such element introduction works better in games where puzzle solving isn't a desired trait i.e. where behaviours and happenings can be explained post hoc.  It is a hard problem.  I think it could be done too, but it requires great care to not introduce contradictions and paradoxes (unless the game features those of course but I hate time travel games in general).  One of the cooperative GMing games I was involved with had a exploratory focus and an undefined world.  Each GM could take the world as currently defined and develop an adventure that offered further definition so long as nothing previously set was contradicted.  GMing duties passed back and forth.  The game fell apart mainly because the GMs ended up losing interest since we couldn't effectively lay groundwork.  It was like trying to build a house you lay the foundation and come back to find a shed where the living room was going to go so you start laying a new floor over the over guy's garden plot.  We agreed that the GMing experiment was better suited for other gaming types and probably for short runs rather than an open-ended campaign.</blockquote>

Verification