Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7353743" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I did consider these two genre, and I agree that they are on the 'not focused on exploration' end of the spectrum. Still, they have SOME exploration built into them (Toon is hard to categorize, its mostly slapstick, but it COULD involve exploring a novel environment now and then). Still, most games include, at least, some sort of 'investigation' as an element, and MANY, maybe even most, RPGs are quite heavy on exploratory activity of some sort. I mean, I'm thinking of games I've played in the last 10 years, it was pretty far up there as a part of the agenda of all but a couple.OK, I think its fair to say that most of the discussion here didn't involve multi-GM setups. Those, IME, are rare, though certainly not unheard of (I've done several myself, they're fun). Now, I can't say how much your gaming is of this type. I'm guessing [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others are not usually playing this way.I think I have said that there's a point here. It is basically what the Czege Principle is all about. You can't both author a challenge and be the one to resolve it. The reasons may not always have to do with hidden information exactly, but in spirit its the same kind of issue, you're playing both sides of the field. Of course it WOULD be possible to have different players know different things, so I think we can't exclude a 'Pemertonian' type of game from having puzzles in it. The players simply have to say "I want to solve puzzles" and the GM SHOULD supply some, but another player could also in some types of game.I agree. The issue then, IMHO, is "can the player's actually work out, plausibly, what the GM is thinking?" It runs into two issues. One is they're not really thinking about causality necessarily, but about how their GM thinks, which is a bit different. Secondly it is often not really very similar to the type of reasoning you'd do in the real world, where you can gather a lot more detailed observation and just be a lot more systematic (and where "its boring" is not a factor). Thus real-world police work is quite mundane and boring, and when it gets crazy there's usually 100 police and one bad guy. I think we get this, but then I think that its really just a matter of what the players are interested in. If they WANT to solve a puzzle, then they won't 'spoiler' it. Right? I mean, this is [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s drum that he likes to play, and I understand his point.Ah, I have a remedy for that, which is probably not perfect, but it works. Strong genre. So, for instance, myself and 4 other people did a CoC game like that. The premise we hit on was that the characters were reincarnated in each section of the game. The first piece we ran was set in the 1980's, then the next was set in the year 450 AD, and the one after that was in the 1920's, and then finally the last one was in the far future. It worked OK. Each GM introduced new elements to the story, and the players simply played. Being CoC there wasn't really 'player authoring of story' DURING the sessions when they weren't GMing, but that hardly mattered as we each simply framed things so that our character could do something in a later episode. It was, interesting! I was a bit disappointed with CoC as a system, but the genre is so well understood that it worked pretty well.</blockquote>

Verification